Actually buying a new computer this timeFollow

Tit-head.

In case you haven't been keeping up, I work in IT, and I build PCs for myself and friends. I have (at work and at home) changed several hundred CPUs, all of which needed sealing, lining up, pressing down and locking.

Right now, at work, I have people who do the operational stuff, but from the early '90s I was building PCs most days.

Another "gbaji is wrong but will hide behind a wall of words to evade it" thread.

Stupid CUnt.

What's amazing is that people who dont do it for a living think it's easy and, apparently, somebody who does do it for a living thinks it's hard.

And it's more of a pain to do that than to replace a video card, right?

Geez folks! I didn't say it was freaking impossible. Just that of the things you could replace inside a computer, the CPU is the biggest pain in the ***.

How many times have you *ever* upgraded the CPU on your home computer (not a work task) in place on the same board? Ever? If you have, was it in the last 10 years? How many times have you upgraded the video card?


What I'm saying isn't some crazy thing from left field. This is how people manage their computers. Most people simply buy fully built systems. Of those who assemble them, most buy board/CPU (and often memory) as a set and then install in a case, connect power, and add cards. And once they do that they may upgrade the cards (video being by far the most likely component to be upgraded in an existing system), but they very very very very very very very rarely will ever upgrade a CPU without replacing the board as well.

There are a host of reason for this. Part of it is the relative difficulty of replacing a CPU (yes, even the bga types). Another part is board chipset compatibility. A third is feature and peripheral connector improvements. Pretty much anytime in the last decade I've considered upgrading the CPU in a home system, upon doing even a tiny bit of research it becomes apparent that even if I purchased an upgrade in the same line which would work in the same board I have, for a small difference in price, I can buy a CPU in a new line, which requires a different socket type and/or chipset and comes on boards which support some newer external components which my old board doesn't, and by doing this, I'll gain a hell of a lot more bang for my buck.


You *can* replace one without the other, but I'm saying that unless you're spending a lot of money tinkering and building high end systems, there's pretty much never a good reason to do so.

I get where gbaji is coming from when he says that it's the hardest thing to replace, but he's really blowing it out of proportion. To say that it's harder to replace a CPU than a graphics card is like saying it's harder lift five pounds than it is to lift four pounds. Sure, it's true, but it's nothing to get all upset over.

How about you not misquote me?

Once. Yes. Yes. Twice.

This was for my old computer.

So I've decided to buy a used Tandy from eBay, and take up playing Number Munchers. Thanks for the advice, all.

Not really. The question is in how much of a CPU is needed to last the person a reasonable amount of time before needing an upgrade.

Sure. And that's also going to tend to be the lifetime of the system itself in most cases. In the specific example Kao provided, he listed a board/CPU combo which will almost certainly allow for 5+ years of good performance, at a reasonable price, and with a PCIExpress slot which will support not only the incredibly good price/performance nvidia card he recommended, but will continue to support that line for a good time to come (including all the upgraded versions currently available from that company right now).

ATI does some interesting things at their top end, requiring specific slots and chipsets on the mainboards to support their highest end cards. There's some question from a future upgrade perspective as to whether the hot ATI card in 2-3 years will be fully compatible with any reasonably priced board you might purchase today. Probably will, but there's no guarantee.

That's all possibly moot from a bargain buyers perspective, but it's not a bad idea to think a little bit ahead when considering these things, and Kao did that thinking when making his recommendations. I don't disagree at all that one could choose to put a cheaper CPU onto that board if they want. In my experience though, most people who buy a slower CPU with the intent to upgrade it later rarely ever do, while it's quite common to buy an upgraded video card in a couple years to boost the lifespan of your computer. Smash is correct that you'll get more bang for your buck with a faster/better video card, however it makes the most sense to plan that out for the last half of the lifespan of your computer instead of right from the beginning.


Usually the reason people buy a whole new computer is precisely because the board they have no longer supports the latest video cards and/or ram. Given this reality, it makes a hell of a lot of sense to make sure that the board you get is going to last as long as you can reasonably predict. And having done that, it makes sense to put a CPU on it that'll give you good performance over that hoped for lifespan. As I said earlier, the CPU/Board is the heart of your computer. When you replace them you're usually replacing pretty much the whole thing. This isn't 1985 anymore (or even 1995!). People don't buy one piece at a time and slowly upgrade their computers. They upgrade and replace video cards and other peripherals, but tend to keep the board/CPU until it no longer runs well and/or supports the latest hardware. Then they replace the whole thing.


Makes sense to buy the best you can of the piece you're going to keep the whole time IMO.

Edited, May 5th 2010 5:16pm by gbaji

Where did I say I couldn't? I simply said it was more difficult to replace the CPU than any other single component inside a computer. I also have provided a whole set of additional reasons on top of relative difficulty why it makes sense to simply buy a board/CPU combo that will last and not change them until you're ready to buy a whole new system, but apparently all anyone wants to focus on is this bizarre strawman about how it's impossibly hard to replace a CPU.


It's not hard to change a tire either, but despite that, I still don't make a habit of driving on them until they blow. Get it?

Ok, I didn't realize that I was replying to the last post of the previous page and there was a whole other page of gbaji displaying his gross inadequacies in computer hardware. But my initial reply still stands: if you're a ham-fisted moron, then yes, swapping out computer hardware is hard. In any case, the video processor is still far more important than the CPU (provided you're not putting up a dumb-assed argument, like trying to run Crysis on a Radeon 5800 with a Pentium D chip).

"People" who?

No one here is agreeing with you. Maybe you think this is just because everyone wants to argue with Gbaji or something but really it's just because you're using an exceptionally wide brush that's ignoring a lot of other experiences.