Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No
Signin with

Time To Upgrade: Should You Dump Your 2007 PC?

by

Intel agressively promotes its Core i3/i5/i7 series, but we wonder: Does it make sense to replace a three-year old high-end PC? In the end, quad-core processors were already pretty powerful in 2007. We created a brand new system and a 2007 PC to compare.

Is my system still good enough?

An increasing number of enthusiasts are likely wondering whether their systems are still fast enough, or if it makes sense to invest in an upgrade heading into the holiday season. Many people jumped on the Athlon 64 or Athlon 64 X2 because of great performance and strong overall value in the first half of the last decade.

In 2006, however, Intel’s Core 2 generation made its debut and dethroned AMD with better performance and much improved efficiency. As a result, there’s now quite an impressive installed base of Core 2 systems. How would such a system compare to today’s upper mainstream? We grabbed a few components from 2007 and assembled an LGA 775-based system to pit against an upscale LGA 1156-based machine to find answers.

Should you upgrade now? We compared powerful systems from 2007 and 2010.

Just how much better is today’s hardware?

Processors have remained in the 65 W to 130 W range for quite a while, introducing more performance and additional features, while keeping the thermal envelope flat or even declining slightly. Desktop CPUs have moved from one or two cores up to as many as six cores, rather than increasing clock speeds. This has been possible through fab process shrinks that took AMD and Intel processors from 65 nm CMOS to 45 and now 32 nm. Intel has been quicker in these transitions, allowing the firm to pack transistors more densely and hence place more cache onto its microprocessors. In short, over the last three years, performance per clock went up quite a bit, overall performance multiplied, and power consumption has been steady to slightly down.

Similar transitions have been sweeping graphics hardware. Although video cards are still typically based on single GPUs, these employ extremely parallel architectures, resulting in better scaling. In addition, both vendors support performance-enhancing multi-GPU modes enabling two, three, or four graphics cards per system. Also, both firms turned their number crunching capabilities into general-purpose computing for assisting with floating point acceleration (ATI Stream, Nvidia CUDA). Power consumption hasn't decreased much on the graphics side, but performance per watt has definitely multiplied.

Most PC memory is now DDR3. There are faster speeds today then there were a few years ago, but the overall impact of high-speed memory is limited, and DDR3-1333 is fine for mainstream users. With that said, having 4 GB RAM or more is imperative for avoiding bottlenecks with modern applications and 64-bit operating systems. Hardcore enthusiasts have replaced their hard drives with flash SSDs, realizing better reliability, lower power consumption, silent operation, eliminated access time, and great I/O performance. On read operations, SSDs are unbeatable. However, write performance can still vary quite a bit, and cost per gigabyte remains comparatively poor.

Let’s not forget about platform features. In 2007, we got SATA 3Gb/s with command queuing support, advanced RAID was typically implemented on enthusiast solutions, and systems carried many USB 2.0 ports, occasionally accompanied by eSATA. HD audio, gigabit Ethernet, and PCI Express have also stayed constant. Still, you didn’t see PCI Express 2.0 in the mainstream until Intel's P45 chipset. Today’s platforms come with more advanced power saving functions, impressive overclocking features, and sometimes even USB 3.0 or SATA 6Gb/s support. The feature we consider most important is USB 3.0, as it removes a noticeable bottleneck. The others are definitely worthwhile but not as urgent today.

Getting Going

We grabbed a three-year-old P35 motherboard with an Intel Core 2 QX6700 quad-core CPU, a Western Digital WD1500 Raptor drive, and an Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTS from Zotac that we put up against a new MSI P55A Fuzion running a Core i7-870, G.Skill’s 100 GB Phoenix SSD, and an enthusiast MSI R5870 Lightning with AMD’s state of the art GPU. What did three years of progress do to the overall results?

Share:
82
Comments
X
Submit

Comments
ern88 08/23/2010 7:53 PM
Hide
-7+

I hope to get another year out of my E8400 O/C 3.6. Want to wait for the next offering from AMD and Intel. Should be interesting.

anonymous 08/23/2010 8:12 PM
Hide
-13+

sorry, this comparison is near useless as you guys fail to break down what affected the performance more. perhaps it is the CPU. or was that SSD? your article does not answer that question. to bad...

anonymous 08/23/2010 8:30 PM
Hide
-13+

The question for those who are making a "gradual upgrade/switch" is:
What component to buy next? Will the new HD5870 give me a bigger boost than an SSD? These components can be used in both systems and don't require full mobo/cpu/ram upgrade... Kind of like that power supply you guys used for both systems.

tomasz 08/23/2010 8:30 PM
Hide
-3+

q9650 on p35 board + gtx280, gaming @1680x1050, dont see any reason for upgrade. Not even upcomming radeon 6xxx... maybe someting after that. Pcie 1.1 does not seem to be a bottleneck either.
All that becaue of current console generation I guess...

jasperjones 08/23/2010 8:53 PM
Hide
-4+

We see Moore's Law fails to hold in the comparison. 774 mil transistors in the i7-870 vs. 582 mil in the QX6700. CPU performance also clearly less than doubled over those 3 years...

warhammerkid 08/23/2010 9:21 PM
Hide
-7+

I had a Core 2 Duo E6750 OC 3.2 and an Nvidia 8800 GTX that I built back in early August 2007. This year I finally started having performance issues with Mass Effect 2 (I'm just going to ignore Crysis), and decided to upgrade the GPU for a GTX 460. Maybe next year I'll upgrade my CPU, but with the cost of a new motherboard, 4-6GB of memory, and an i7, it just isn't worth it yet.

anonymous 08/23/2010 9:34 PM
Hide
-10+

Who upgrades an entire computer anymore? At least give a comparison benchmark using the same video card.

asus x48 08/23/2010 10:11 PM
Show
anonymous 08/23/2010 11:18 PM
Show
sulsa76 08/24/2010 12:38 AM
Hide
-5+

corequad273987239832 :
You're comparing quad to dual core CPUs? Seems a bit unfair...


Both the CPU's in the article are Quad Core.

anonymous 08/24/2010 2:34 AM
Hide
-3+

Thanks for the article, this question has been on my mind a lot lately. I have a Q6600/8GB RAM workstation that I've been debating upgrading for a while. I've done the video card and ssd thing and am now debating leaving it at that for a while or taking the plunge for an i7 platform (expensive with new MB/CPU/RAM).

Lutfij 08/24/2010 2:41 AM
Hide
-4+

I've been running my rig *E4300,DG965RY,2GB DDR2 800+ Mhz,xfx 7600GT* for just a lil' more than 3 years...upgrading to a maximus III formula w/ an i5... i made a dual core run for this long...i think its time for an upgrade plus CAD has become sluggish with the newer release. Its an upgrade ALRIGHT, just not trying to burn a hole in my wallet :)

Fetal 08/24/2010 6:31 AM
Hide
-0+

lol, and i am making a new system around 2007 era. gts250, quad or c2d e7500 oc'd of course. xms rams. and i know for what i want, it will give me that, plus i can upgrade to gtx460 anytime. and i think this setup will last me 1 to 2 years easily and it costs near 500$ with lcd (300$=mobo,proc & gpu). So i am not moved by this article or the technology in forums. i don't need to game on 1080p resolutions.

anonymous 08/24/2010 8:49 AM
Hide
-4+

Why 8800GTS 320M?8800GTX 768M in a 2007's top gig makes more sense...
And of course u can overclock the qx6700 to great clocks and narrow the performance diference ;)

perzy 08/24/2010 11:42 AM
Hide
--1+

Great article, this is really what I appriciate with Tom's Hardware :-)

yannigr 08/24/2010 12:13 PM
Hide
-5+

The 320MB 8800 GTS is a joke. I lost almost all interest in this article when I first saw that "320MB". Really bad choice. I am expecting much more from professional reviewers.

pschmid 08/24/2010 1:45 PM
Hide
--1+

@grass, Gradual Upgrade: This will be answered in a separate article.

@yannigr: We didn't have too many suitable cards from 2007 available for this review. The 8800GTS isn't perfect, but representative.

Thanks for your feedback!
Patrick

lee3821 08/24/2010 2:13 PM
Hide
-2+

I would have liked to see it broken down a bit more in the conclusion, as far as CPU/GPU balance, but what I pulled from it is that there's still no reason to upgrade my core2Quad Q9550 until I get more graphics horsepower than a single non-overclocked HD5850. Especially if I use ATI, which seems to be a little less dependent upon CPU.

anonymous 08/24/2010 5:09 PM
Show
All about Build Your Own

Newsletters


OK