8 ms·

The good thing about buying a slightly higher-end CPU is that it will last you for quite a few years. I got my CPU close to its release (2009) and don't feel li

The good thing about buying a slightly higher-end CPU is that it will last you for quite a few years. I got my CPU close to its release (2009) and don't feel like I am missing out on anything. Furhtermore turns out that the Ryzen 5 matches the price that my current CPU is selling for at the moment. I have an Intel i7 860 (1st gen). I still don't think that I would benefit from upgrading at this point. Of course, I use my system mostly just for writing code. Friends of me who are into computer animation and design follow changes in the hardware world more closely than I do. (And gamers as well).

simias 10y ago
Well yeah, for writing code you might as well use decade old CPU and it wouldn't really matter. Only compile times would suffer. If you use more performance-critical applications I think the best way to future-proof would be to buy an "unlocked" CPU that you'll be able to overclock when you want to juice out a bit more power (maybe at the cost of a better cooling system). At least that's what I do.
- user5994461 10y ago
  > Well yeah, for writing code you might as well use decade old CPU and it wouldn't really matter. Only compile times would suffer. 2007 is the era of the Core 2 Duo, which really are dated and slow compared to today processors. 5 years is reasonable, the evolution has been kinda slow lately.
  - and0 10y ago
    I'll be going on 5 years this fall, which is my planned update period. Aside from some newer games, though, everything is great. Compilation times okay, heavy web browsing feels fine.
    - user5994461 10y ago
      It's been a few years since games can't run on core 2 duo. I had to processor because of that. (running at 10fps isn't running fine).
  - simias 10y ago
    Does it matter for writing code though? I have an old crappy 32bit celeron laptop with 1GB of RAM that's about 10 years old and runs Debian. I still use it from time to time when I want to code on the go, it runs Emacs and Firefox just fine. If I were to change something I'd probably replace the crappy HDD with an SSD before I touch the CPU. And the screen resolution is pretty poor too. But performance-wise it just works. I guess the key element for me is that I basically use the same software stack now that I did 10 years ago. Same shell, same window manager, same OS, same editor, same compiler. Only the web browser has significantly evolved in this time span.
    - user5994461 10y ago
      1GB of ram won't run eclipse or visual studio smoothly. It's definitely not gonna run any test VM.
      - hedora 10y ago
        It should be ok for light docker usage. Builds might become memory bound. C++ compilers use lots of ram, and you might not be able to run one per core in parallel (assuming this machine has 2+ cores). I suspect some other languages are similar.
        lultimouomo 10y ago
        It's only the linking stage that uses a lot of RAM and if you're building a single binary that's single threaded anyway. But if you need swap to link, it's going to take forever, and nowadays plenty of things need more than 1G to link (especially if you enable LTO)
      - flukus 10y ago
        I remember when I first got Visual Studio, it used so much memory that it was the justification i used to get dad to spring for an extra 128MB of RAM, bringing the total to 256. I can't think of much it does now but couldn't then.
- Insanity 10y ago
  Well, of course when writing code you do want to run your tools that you are using without any issues. (IntelliJ, Visual Studio, profilers, ..) So it's not just the "pushing text into a file" which you could of course just do from the terminal as well if you were so inclined to do. The idea of buying an overclockable CPU does sound like a pretty good strategy. ;-)
- _e 10y ago
  I have built computers with the intention of overclocking down the road but never got around to it. If you are going to overclock then do it with the intention of doing from the get go. Historically, are unlocked CPU's more expensive than locked CPU's?
SippinLean 10y ago
Yeah but all the other components on your motherboard will become outdated. Every few years you'd probably want a mobo with the latest memory and storage support.
bryanlarsen 10y ago
Your CPU is slower than the $50 G4560, and current high end CPU's are about 2 - 2.5X as fast as yours.
- dagw 10y ago
  Sure, but whether or not you'll actually notice any difference is very workload dependent.
  - Insanity 10y ago
    Completely agree. I am aware that my CPU is not a blazing fast machine. But I do not really notice the difference all that much (if at all) for the work that I am doing on it. Which mainly consists of running : IntelliJ, Spotify, and maybe a few tabs in chromium on Ubuntu.
    - copperx 10y ago
      What if you were running a few virtual machines to develop (very common workload)?
  - jxi 10y ago
    I don't see how you could not notice a difference for any workload between a pentium class CPU and an i5 class CPU. You'll notice a difference by just opening Chrome.
- pantalaimon 10y ago
  According to [1], the i7-860 still has better multi-core performance and is pretty close overall. [1] http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-G4560-vs-Intel-Core-i7-860/3892vsm841 http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-G4560-vs-...
neogodless 10y ago
I agree. Still running a Phenom XII 940. Of course I've been upgrading the HDD all along (went through a Raptor, a VelociRaptor, an early 80GB SSD and finally a 256GB Samsung), and put in a new video card about four years ago (don't play latest games, anyway.) The Phenom cost me... $220. So the Ryzen 5 1600 has my name written all over it. But really, it would just make some things I do on my computer a little quicker. It would not have the profound effect that switching to an SSD did, in my opinion. I'll let the idea bake for a while.
- Insanity 10y ago
  Yeah I upgraded other parts of my machine as well - just did not feel the need to touch the CPU. And actually, I had 8GB of RAM when it started out and I did not change that either. 8GB still runs fine for me. I should switch to a 256GB SSD as well though, that is on my list of things I want to upgrade.
- dbancajas 10y ago
  You mean Phenom II right? I have Phenom II X4 925 from 6 years ago. On the same boat. To think that I worked on Ryzen performance while it was being developed/brought up. I'm a bit emotional but still not pulling the trigger.
  - neogodless 10y ago
    Yes, Phenom II X4 940. (I called it a Phenom II 940 in my previous post.)
- dlevine 10y ago
  I'm running a Phenom II 1055T (x6). It actually seems to be ok for pretty much everything, including gaming at 1440p (I've upgraded the GPU 3 times and am currently running a GTX 1070, 16GB of RAM, and an SSD). Not bad for a system that's almost 7 years old. The only issue is that I tried using the Oculus, and it won't work. Apparently the CPU doesn't have some instructions required for VR. I tried using a hacked version of the Oculus setup program that bypasses the CPU check, but it still won't work. Which is why I've been thinking about a Ryzen 5...
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
The performance is lasting just fine for me as well. I've kept up with a couple SSD upgrades and stupid-cheap DDR3 RAM. But my performance bottleneck has always been storage, and the current champion (and next upgrade for me) is a PCIe SSD using NVMe. And old processors just don't support that.
tertius 10y ago
I have an i7 860 as well. I've added 32GB RAM, a new 1050 (cheap, but very fast for what I do with it, panoramic stitching.) The 860 is feeling a little sluggish these days for me. My laptop is about as fast... I'm excited about the jump once I decide to upgrade though and I've pretty decided that if it isn't a 2x improvement it's not worth jumping.
CoolGuySteve 10y ago
If you really want bang for your buck, the non-X variants of the Ryzen chips are completely unlocked. So you can overclock/overvolt the chip to get within 3-5% performance of the high end model. Right now, I think the Ryzen 1700 with some overclocking is the best deal in the market. The R5 1600 and 1400 might be similar. This video has a quite interesting comparison of the price/performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RRt5WkVxuk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RRt5WkVxuk
- utternerd 10y ago
  Agreed. I went with a 1700, and clocked it the same as an 1800X, saved $170 for effectively the same performance. The thing is a beast, for really cheap.
quaffapint 10y ago
That's always the trick - whats the best bang for a buck while still future proofing. I'm still using my Q6600 doing development and playing the occasional game. Maybe the 1600 now to keep it at the 65W level.
scholia 10y ago
It's closer than I thought to my 2011 vintage Core i5-2500. I don't see any point in upgrading either.... http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-860-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2500 http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-860-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2...
chx 10y ago
This is true in a different way as well: the $135 off lease Dell T1600 workstation I bought on eBay with an E3 1245 (v1 / Sandy Bridge) CPU still decently compares to a Kaby Lake i5 and so the price/value is sky high. I didn't just get the CPU but also motherboard, RAM, PSU, chassis. Truth is, IPC growth has almost completely stalled, only 20% since Sandy Bridge https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/13/kaby_lake_7700k_vs_sandy_bridge_2600k_ipc_review/4 https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/13/kaby_lake_7700k_v... and so these ancient machines still serve us very well. And the E3 1245 had HT on which the i5 doesn't...
- beezle 10y ago
  Mid 2013 I built my current workstation with the E3-1245 v3 ($290) that had just come out, maxed the ram out at 32GB. Been rock solid, great performer and expect to be using it for quite a few years more. The prior system was an again maxed out at the time dual pentium-pro that I kept kicking for 10 years. Everyone has different values, but for me maximizing the time a system is viable and my work environment is stable is most important; I'll pass on the latest shiny until absolutely needed.
- chx 10y ago
  Now I can't edit but to clarify: this machine I bought less than a month ago.
nol13 10y ago
Same, still going strong on my i5 750 here. That gen was perfect time to buy. My year old (cheap) laptop is actually significantly slower.
3princip 10y ago
Just to mirror your point, my desktop and main work computer has an i5 750 (2009). There hasn't been a single reason for me to replace it, unless it dies. It's an excellent processor and does everything I need it to do. I also have an i7 7th gen in my laptop, to be honest there is no noticable difference between the two for my use cases.
- voltagex_ 10y ago
  FWIW a Skylake laptop chip still felt "slower" to me than an i7 2600k, which is several generations behind. In my case I know the Skylake chip is being throttled (XPS 9350 runs hot)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- shouldbworking 10y ago
  I too have a 750 from 2009, overclocked to 3.5 GHz since the day I bought it. Still benches about half the score as brand new ~$200 CPUs. I'll probably get one of these new fangled AMD raisens so I can have USB 3.0 and onboard LAN.

simias 10y ago

Well yeah, for writing code you might as well use decade old CPU and it wouldn't really matter. Only compile times would suffer. If you use more performance-critical applications I think the best way to future-proof would be to buy an "unlocked" CPU that you'll be able to overclock when you want to juice out a bit more power (maybe at the cost of a better cooling system). At least that's what I do.

user5994461 10y ago
> Well yeah, for writing code you might as well use decade old CPU and it wouldn't really matter. Only compile times would suffer. 2007 is the era of the Core 2 Duo, which really are dated and slow compared to today processors. 5 years is reasonable, the evolution has been kinda slow lately.
- and0 10y ago
  I'll be going on 5 years this fall, which is my planned update period. Aside from some newer games, though, everything is great. Compilation times okay, heavy web browsing feels fine.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    It's been a few years since games can't run on core 2 duo. I had to processor because of that. (running at 10fps isn't running fine).
- simias 10y ago
  Does it matter for writing code though? I have an old crappy 32bit celeron laptop with 1GB of RAM that's about 10 years old and runs Debian. I still use it from time to time when I want to code on the go, it runs Emacs and Firefox just fine. If I were to change something I'd probably replace the crappy HDD with an SSD before I touch the CPU. And the screen resolution is pretty poor too. But performance-wise it just works. I guess the key element for me is that I basically use the same software stack now that I did 10 years ago. Same shell, same window manager, same OS, same editor, same compiler. Only the web browser has significantly evolved in this time span.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    1GB of ram won't run eclipse or visual studio smoothly. It's definitely not gonna run any test VM.
    - hedora 10y ago
      It should be ok for light docker usage. Builds might become memory bound. C++ compilers use lots of ram, and you might not be able to run one per core in parallel (assuming this machine has 2+ cores). I suspect some other languages are similar.
      - lultimouomo 10y ago
        It's only the linking stage that uses a lot of RAM and if you're building a single binary that's single threaded anyway. But if you need swap to link, it's going to take forever, and nowadays plenty of things need more than 1G to link (especially if you enable LTO)
    - flukus 10y ago
      I remember when I first got Visual Studio, it used so much memory that it was the justification i used to get dad to spring for an extra 128MB of RAM, bringing the total to 256. I can't think of much it does now but couldn't then.
Insanity 10y ago
Well, of course when writing code you do want to run your tools that you are using without any issues. (IntelliJ, Visual Studio, profilers, ..) So it's not just the "pushing text into a file" which you could of course just do from the terminal as well if you were so inclined to do. The idea of buying an overclockable CPU does sound like a pretty good strategy. ;-)
_e 10y ago
I have built computers with the intention of overclocking down the road but never got around to it. If you are going to overclock then do it with the intention of doing from the get go. Historically, are unlocked CPU's more expensive than locked CPU's?

SippinLean 10y ago

Yeah but all the other components on your motherboard will become outdated. Every few years you'd probably want a mobo with the latest memory and storage support.

bryanlarsen 10y ago

Your CPU is slower than the $50 G4560, and current high end CPU's are about 2 - 2.5X as fast as yours.

dagw 10y ago
Sure, but whether or not you'll actually notice any difference is very workload dependent.
- Insanity 10y ago
  Completely agree. I am aware that my CPU is not a blazing fast machine. But I do not really notice the difference all that much (if at all) for the work that I am doing on it. Which mainly consists of running : IntelliJ, Spotify, and maybe a few tabs in chromium on Ubuntu.
  - copperx 10y ago
    What if you were running a few virtual machines to develop (very common workload)?
- jxi 10y ago
  I don't see how you could not notice a difference for any workload between a pentium class CPU and an i5 class CPU. You'll notice a difference by just opening Chrome.
pantalaimon 10y ago
According to [1], the i7-860 still has better multi-core performance and is pretty close overall. [1] http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-G4560-vs-Intel-Core-i7-860/3892vsm841 http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Pentium-G4560-vs-...

neogodless 10y ago

I agree. Still running a Phenom XII 940. Of course I've been upgrading the HDD all along (went through a Raptor, a VelociRaptor, an early 80GB SSD and finally a 256GB Samsung), and put in a new video card about four years ago (don't play latest games, anyway.) The Phenom cost me... $220. So the Ryzen 5 1600 has my name written all over it. But really, it would just make some things I do on my computer a little quicker. It would not have the profound effect that switching to an SSD did, in my opinion. I'll let the idea bake for a while.

Insanity 10y ago
Yeah I upgraded other parts of my machine as well - just did not feel the need to touch the CPU. And actually, I had 8GB of RAM when it started out and I did not change that either. 8GB still runs fine for me. I should switch to a 256GB SSD as well though, that is on my list of things I want to upgrade.
dbancajas 10y ago
You mean Phenom II right? I have Phenom II X4 925 from 6 years ago. On the same boat. To think that I worked on Ryzen performance while it was being developed/brought up. I'm a bit emotional but still not pulling the trigger.
- neogodless 10y ago
  Yes, Phenom II X4 940. (I called it a Phenom II 940 in my previous post.)
dlevine 10y ago
I'm running a Phenom II 1055T (x6). It actually seems to be ok for pretty much everything, including gaming at 1440p (I've upgraded the GPU 3 times and am currently running a GTX 1070, 16GB of RAM, and an SSD). Not bad for a system that's almost 7 years old. The only issue is that I tried using the Oculus, and it won't work. Apparently the CPU doesn't have some instructions required for VR. I tried using a hacked version of the Oculus setup program that bypasses the CPU check, but it still won't work. Which is why I've been thinking about a Ryzen 5...

LeifCarrotson 10y ago

The performance is lasting just fine for me as well. I've kept up with a couple SSD upgrades and stupid-cheap DDR3 RAM. But my performance bottleneck has always been storage, and the current champion (and next upgrade for me) is a PCIe SSD using NVMe. And old processors just don't support that.

tertius 10y ago

I have an i7 860 as well. I've added 32GB RAM, a new 1050 (cheap, but very fast for what I do with it, panoramic stitching.) The 860 is feeling a little sluggish these days for me. My laptop is about as fast... I'm excited about the jump once I decide to upgrade though and I've pretty decided that if it isn't a 2x improvement it's not worth jumping.

CoolGuySteve 10y ago

If you really want bang for your buck, the non-X variants of the Ryzen chips are completely unlocked. So you can overclock/overvolt the chip to get within 3-5% performance of the high end model. Right now, I think the Ryzen 1700 with some overclocking is the best deal in the market. The R5 1600 and 1400 might be similar. This video has a quite interesting comparison of the price/performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RRt5WkVxuk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RRt5WkVxuk

utternerd 10y ago
Agreed. I went with a 1700, and clocked it the same as an 1800X, saved $170 for effectively the same performance. The thing is a beast, for really cheap.

quaffapint 10y ago

That's always the trick - whats the best bang for a buck while still future proofing. I'm still using my Q6600 doing development and playing the occasional game. Maybe the 1600 now to keep it at the 65W level.

scholia 10y ago

It's closer than I thought to my 2011 vintage Core i5-2500. I don't see any point in upgrading either.... http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-860-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2500 http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-860-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2...

chx 10y ago

This is true in a different way as well: the $135 off lease Dell T1600 workstation I bought on eBay with an E3 1245 (v1 / Sandy Bridge) CPU still decently compares to a Kaby Lake i5 and so the price/value is sky high. I didn't just get the CPU but also motherboard, RAM, PSU, chassis. Truth is, IPC growth has almost completely stalled, only 20% since Sandy Bridge https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/13/kaby_lake_7700k_vs_sandy_bridge_2600k_ipc_review/4 https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/13/kaby_lake_7700k_v... and so these ancient machines still serve us very well. And the E3 1245 had HT on which the i5 doesn't...

beezle 10y ago
Mid 2013 I built my current workstation with the E3-1245 v3 ($290) that had just come out, maxed the ram out at 32GB. Been rock solid, great performer and expect to be using it for quite a few years more. The prior system was an again maxed out at the time dual pentium-pro that I kept kicking for 10 years. Everyone has different values, but for me maximizing the time a system is viable and my work environment is stable is most important; I'll pass on the latest shiny until absolutely needed.
chx 10y ago
Now I can't edit but to clarify: this machine I bought less than a month ago.

nol13 10y ago

Same, still going strong on my i5 750 here. That gen was perfect time to buy. My year old (cheap) laptop is actually significantly slower.

3princip 10y ago

Just to mirror your point, my desktop and main work computer has an i5 750 (2009). There hasn't been a single reason for me to replace it, unless it dies. It's an excellent processor and does everything I need it to do. I also have an i7 7th gen in my laptop, to be honest there is no noticable difference between the two for my use cases.

voltagex_ 10y ago
FWIW a Skylake laptop chip still felt "slower" to me than an i7 2600k, which is several generations behind. In my case I know the Skylake chip is being throttled (XPS 9350 runs hot)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
shouldbworking 10y ago
I too have a 750 from 2009, overclocked to 3.5 GHz since the day I bought it. Still benches about half the score as brand new ~$200 CPUs. I'll probably get one of these new fangled AMD raisens so I can have USB 3.0 and onboard LAN.