(Poll) How Old Do You Think You Should Keep Your PC Before Building A New One From Scratch?

[Jellyfish]

Up until recently I was running a i7-2600k on my main machine and never had any issues with it, just had it with a 1050 ti and it ran most things smoothly. I did recently upgrade to an i7-7700 and a gtx 1080 however and haven't noticed much of a boost in things that weren't gaming

Edited December 18, 2017 by Jellyfish
wrong cpu

[ProjectBox153]

17 minutes ago, RotoCoreOne said:

Wish there was a "Until you need to upgrade" option...

For me that’d be like 14-16 years lol. 

[kelvinhall05]

As long as it serves me well. I used a laptop with a Celeron 1007U for 5 years and only upgraded because the battery life was poor, and it wasn't the thinnest and lightest thing, so it would've been an issue for school.

[PianoPlayer88Key]

8 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

keep it until you need something else / upgrading becomes impractical.  

I voted 20 years. Also, to me, changing the motherboard may as well mean doing a "new build", even if I reuse a lot of parts.  This is because there's often so much you have to unplug from the old board and reinstall on the new one.  I think the only part that's more labor-intensive to replace is the case.  The PSU could range from similar effort (a non-modular PSU requiring redoing cable management) to much easier (a fully modular PSU compatible with your existing cables).

 

(The previous paragraph should go above the quote; for some reason I'm unable on mobile to insert space above the quote to type there.)

 

 

Yeah, I'd like to be able to upgrade to a CPU that can encode HEVC 4K lossless at 30fps for $300 or so, but it doesn't exist yet, and it's too soon for me to replace my board.  (I'm waiting until DDR5 / PCIe 5.0 probably.)

 

 

8 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Well I get a general feeling from this forum that every generation makes the last obsolete  or at least a very vocal minority act that way. 

Lol  Yeah I think my opinion conflicts a bit with them.

I'm not the kind of person who would've been like "OMG the 4790K just came out, gotta sell my 4770K & upgrade!"  I like it when there's significant per-generation progress.  (For example Kaby Lake -> Coffee Lake for multi-threaded performance, or 8086 -> 286 or 486 -> Pentium for IPC - I think each of those had like 2x jumps.)

 

Wake me up when a new single-thread from a 2W Atom/Celeron is faster than multi-threaded 8x Haswell-EX flagship Xeons, mmkay?

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Enderman said:

Even after 6 years you can replace half the components and keep using the other half.

There is no need to replace the entire PC unless one or two decades pass and stuff like the PSU, storage, or case are obsolete standards.

Well, for me, replacing the motherboard is a significant undertaking.  (I explained a bit more above.)

 

 

 

8 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

I wouldn't consider upgrading until something better comes along by at least a good 50% in my use case, otherwise the cost negates whatever benefit I could have achieved. 

I prefer at least 5-10x improvement or more.

I went from using my dad's Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM to my desktop's i7-4790K with 32GB RAM.  And, my laptop supports 64GB RAM, Although it only has 40GB now.  (Damn you, RAM prices. Punishing me for getting 32GB for $127+tax in Oct 2016 I see...)

 

I want my next desktop to be as big of a jump over my current desktop or laptop in RAM support/capacity as those were over my dad's laptop.  For example, 64÷2=32*64=2048, so 2 TB RAM support.  That would be on a mainstream platform, thank you very much.  If I went with HEDT / server I'd want even more support for RAM, maybe 16-32+TB cause of things like registered ECC.

 

 

Also, my dad went from a 286-10 in January 1989 to a 486DX4-120 in October 1995.  With IPC improvements included (like about 2x per generation or so), that was probably close to like a 50x boost in performance.  (Fifty TIMES, not percent.)  And, he paid $940 for the 286 board+cpu+case+psu+1MB RAM+keyboard bundle, then $102 for the 486 CPU.  (I think adding the other parts to the 486, purchased separately, was around $300-350.)

 

I wish we were still seeing progress like that - 50 or so times performance increase for 1/3 the price every 6-7 years.   I'd love for Intel & AMD to catch up to where we would be had that pace not slowed down. 

 

 

7 hours ago, KyberKylo77 said:

Upgrading the cpu is just a pain in the ass especially if your mobo doesnt support it and if you still have ddr3

This!  Replacing mobos is a pain in the , compared to, for example, replacing a DIMM when you're not using a giant heatsink on the CPU.

 

 

I just wish motherboards had a longer upgrade path.  For example, had I been building my own computers since the late 1970s (impossible cause I wasn't born until 1981) AND had my way, I might have upgraded something like:

• 1978: new XT/AT mobo+psu+case, CPU = 8086-6
• 1982: CPU = 286-16
• 1986: CPU = 386-33
• 1991: CPU = 486-100
• 1996: new ATX mobo+psu+case w/PCI & USB, CPU = Pentium 166
• 2000: CPU = Pentium III 800
• 2003: CPU = Athlon 64 (x2?) 2-3 GHz
• 2006: new board w/PCIe & SATA, ATX12V PSU, possibly same case; CPU = Core 2 Duo E8xxx
• 2009: CPU = Q9xxx (not extreme)
• 2012: CPU = i7-2600K
• 2017: CPU = Ryzen 7 1700X
• 2021: ?? (new board if things mentioned in this thread end up being true, or when PCIe 5 or 6 is out, for example.) 

 

Then going forward, replace CPU every 3-4 years with one ~7-10x faster at the same price, and replace the motherboard after the third or fourth SeaSonic Prime Titanium Ultra (or equivalent) has died of old age.

 

 

 

Some dates and parts are approximate.  (Make adjustments where necessary to accommodate what was actually available when.)

Also, new features (like upgraded/new like SATA, USB, M.2, etc.) would be added via expansion cards to older boards still in service.

[Guest]

It usually ends up being 4 years before I re-purpose my main PC. Though it's usually just when I upgrade software and it no longer runs well enough for my use case.

[Dylanc1500]

I'll echo others.

 

Till it longer does the tasks you require of it. If it can continue to do the tasks you need, then there isn't much need upgrade. Sometimes keeping older hardware can actually allow you to do things you can't on newer hardware, so that is something to consider as well. This is why some people (businesses more so) will keep old hardware.

[Wano97]

Depends on what you need I guess. My PC is about 4 or 5 years old and I'll start upgrading it once I need to. I mostly play lightweight games anyway these days, so I'm good. Don't wanna waste any money on unnecessary shit for my PC.

[michaelocarroll007]

Currently based off the past a 5 year old CPU with 8GB DDR3 and Just a upgraded GPU will still Kick ass gaming wise. Desktop use is probably pretty good too.

 

Streaming and playing games, Muti monitor Gaming on one and other stuff on the others , Rendering videos / productivity work. ECT is the stuff that would benefit the most from an upgrade more often. and a 5 year old CPU might not be cutting it. 

 

Going foward who knows if a Ryzen 8 core 1800X will be outdated feeling. 

[Norseman4]

10 hours ago, KyberKylo77 said:

Topic (Poll)^

I typically get the itch for a major upgrade every few years, hence I marked 3 years. To make it 'worth it' to me I try and change the themes.

 

Before my current machine, that was silence. Everything was passively cooled except for the PSU. Worked pretty good for a while, at least for me then I switched to larger monitors (2 x 1440p instead of 2x 1920x1200) and the GPU could no longer keep up, but the CPU was still passively cooled.

 

My current machine was my first mITX and while I could have gone with a smaller case I still want at least one optical drive so I built it in a Corsair 250D ... That was 3 years ago.

[Eduard the weeb]

I think 4 but if it serves it purpose like you want it to I don't see a problem with keeping it for like 20 years 

[TacoSenpai]

I would say 5 years.  At least thats my plan with my current rig.

[NelizMastr]

In practice, I tend to upgrade in about two years, simply because of the itch of doing so. Not because I need to.

[Sa1tama]

6 months max ?

[NinJake]

Somewhere between 4-6 years for a new build. Anywhere from 2-4 years for potential upgrades if necessary depending on the technology advancements.

[Okjoek]

I chose the 6 year. I would have went longer to about a decade, but I understand PSU and SSD aren't immortal and that's just the common cause-of-death.

[MEC-777]

It's situation-dependent. There is no definitive time frame. 

[KyberKylo77]

14 hours ago, RotoCoreOne said:

Wish there was a "Until you need to upgrade" option...

Oops, my bad

[KyberKylo77]

13 hours ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

I voted 20 years. Also, to me, changing the motherboard may as well mean doing a "new build", even if I reuse a lot of parts.  This is because there's often so much you have to unplug from the old board and reinstall on the new one.  I think the only part that's more labor-intensive to replace is the case.  The PSU could range from similar effort (a non-modular PSU requiring redoing cable management) to much easier (a fully modular PSU compatible with your existing cables).

 

(The previous paragraph should go above the quote; for some reason I'm unable on mobile to insert space above the quote to type there.)

 

 

Yeah, I'd like to be able to upgrade to a CPU that can encode HEVC 4K lossless at 30fps for $300 or so, but it doesn't exist yet, and it's too soon for me to replace my board.  (I'm waiting until DDR5 / PCIe 5.0 probably.)

 

 

Lol  Yeah I think my opinion conflicts a bit with them.

I'm not the kind of person who would've been like "OMG the 4790K just came out, gotta sell my 4770K & upgrade!"  I like it when there's significant per-generation progress.  (For example Kaby Lake -> Coffee Lake for multi-threaded performance, or 8086 -> 286 or 486 -> Pentium for IPC - I think each of those had like 2x jumps.)

 

Wake me up when a new single-thread from a 2W Atom/Celeron is faster than multi-threaded 8x Haswell-EX flagship Xeons, mmkay?

 

 

 

Well, for me, replacing the motherboard is a significant undertaking.  (I explained a bit more above.)

 

 

 

I prefer at least 5-10x improvement or more.

I went from using my dad's Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM to my desktop's i7-4790K with 32GB RAM.  And, my laptop supports 64GB RAM, Although it only has 40GB now.  (Damn you, RAM prices. Punishing me for getting 32GB for $127+tax in Oct 2016 I see...)

 

I want my next desktop to be as big of a jump over my current desktop or laptop in RAM support/capacity as those were over my dad's laptop.  For example, 64÷2=32*64=2048, so 2 TB RAM support.  That would be on a mainstream platform, thank you very much.  If I went with HEDT / server I'd want even more support for RAM, maybe 16-32+TB cause of things like registered ECC.

 

 

Also, my dad went from a 286-10 in January 1989 to a 486DX4-120 in October 1995.  With IPC improvements included (like about 2x per generation or so), that was probably close to like a 50x boost in performance.  (Fifty TIMES, not percent.)  And, he paid $940 for the 286 board+cpu+case+psu+1MB RAM+keyboard bundle, then $102 for the 486 CPU.  (I think adding the other parts to the 486, purchased separately, was around $300-350.)

 

I wish we were still seeing progress like that - 50 or so times performance increase for 1/3 the price every 6-7 years.   I'd love for Intel & AMD to catch up to where we would be had that pace not slowed down. 

 

 

This!  Replacing mobos is a pain in the , compared to, for example, replacing a DIMM when you're not using a giant heatsink on the CPU.

 

 

I just wish motherboards had a longer upgrade path.  For example, had I been building my own computers since the late 1970s (impossible cause I wasn't born until 1981) AND had my way, I might have upgraded something like:

• 1978: new XT/AT mobo+psu+case, CPU = 8086-6
• 1982: CPU = 286-16
• 1986: CPU = 386-33
• 1991: CPU = 486-100
• 1996: new ATX mobo+psu+case w/PCI & USB, CPU = Pentium 166
• 2000: CPU = Pentium III 800
• 2003: CPU = Athlon 64 (x2?) 2-3 GHz
• 2006: new board w/PCIe & SATA, ATX12V PSU, possibly same case; CPU = Core 2 Duo E8xxx
• 2009: CPU = Q9xxx (not extreme)
• 2012: CPU = i7-2600K
• 2017: CPU = Ryzen 7 1700X
• 2021: ?? (new board if things mentioned in this thread end up being true, or when PCIe 5 or 6 is out, for example.) 

 

Then going forward, replace CPU every 3-4 years with one ~7-10x faster at the same price, and replace the motherboard after the third or fourth SeaSonic Prime Titanium Ultra (or equivalent) has died of old age.

 

 

 

Some dates and parts are approximate.  (Make adjustments where necessary to accommodate what was actually available when.)

Also, new features (like upgraded/new like SATA, USB, M.2, etc.) would be added via expansion cards to older boards still in service.

I like your way of writing, was fun to read (didn't get bored reading the whole thing)

[PlayStation 2]

This is all subjective. Practically, I'd be fine with my current setup if my GPU could output 3840x2160 at 60fps in Team Fortress 2.

[mitchpman13]

I feel like even if you buy the best specs at the time, you start to feel some sluggishness about 3 or so years after. Mainly the GPU and eventually the CPU maybe 5 years on.

[Watashi]

22 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Well I get a general feeling from this forum that every generation makes the last obsolete  or at least a very vocal minority act that way. 

Maybe some people tend to act that way, but I highly doubt that many people actually believe this. Not that it matters which majority believes in what.

Do what YOU think you should do <3 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

22 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

If you're looking to build a new rig there's usually not a good reason to buy last gen's product

i would dare to say there's usually not a good reason to buy a current gen product

It all comes down to what happens with pricing, and whether a substantial and relevant "leap" has been made between generations, I guess. In recent years, I don't think there was much reason to focus on the latest; at the very least everything post USB3 and PCIe 3 was as valid and up to pricing. I mean, yes, the people who will only settle for 5.0 GHz quad-core hyper-threaded Intel-IPC didn't have that many options, but anyone who could consider less than top of the line Kaby Lake could find as good a value in older platforms without missing out on anything.

On the GPU side is even stronger: you can ignore gens altogether, just rank available products according to performance, price, or price/perf, choose your target point and pull the trigger  

 

As for a current example, as X99 prices go down, there's no good reason to ignore it vis-à-vis Coffee Lake and Ryzen when planning a new build. The only obstacle could be that you will still find original MSRP-like prices from time to time, so it does require more search time.

[Drak3]

With my current pattern: 5 months.

[davrosG5]

I voted 5 years but realistically my answer is until it can't do what you need it to do any more or it breaks

[Arkery]

To be honest I like to build new computers often,  so I tend to give away old computers to family as a reason to build a new pc haha. If I didn't I'd say at least every 3 years personally I feel like the hardware is dated and you'd feel actual improvement then.