[jqp]

I am a desktop person at home. I really like larger screens, full-size keyboards, real mice, full-powered video cards, and flexibility of drive storage. I am not a hard-core PC gamer, I do not overclock my processor or video cards, or even do the SLI etc, thing. I am more of a video/photo/music workstation kind of guy, but even on my "utilty" PC I want these workstation features. And I do not like the big laptops with 17+ inch screens - not very portable when remote, and too small for me at home.

My sister's family is a family of laptops. The technical leader of this family is my brother-in-law, who has a strong Unix background. Each parent and all 3 kids have a laptop with some version of windows. Each year one of them gets the newest laptop in the family. This year my neice has the laptop with the newest technology, and I saw her playing Bioforce as we all sat on couches with our latops at Christmas before dinner. But I have always bought used desktops, or built my own PCs, and used  them while sitting at a desk or table. I will use a laptop when I am remote from my office or home.

My utilty PC is the one on which I will go to the i7 processor first, with Windows 7. I will try to wait to upgrade my workstation later probably when the new 6-core processors are more affordable.

This utilty PC currently has an AMD Athlon X2 4800+ on an ASUS M2NPV-VM board, with 2GB DDR2 RAM at 800Mhz. It has been a pretty good solution, but I have always had intermittent problem with USB and Firewire on this thing. Time to replace the Motherboard, processor and RAM as I go to Windows 7. Windows 7 runs like a dream on this PC, but I want to get away from those intermittent headaches and increase my speed also. And unfortunately the Windows 7 free beta has expired, so now my PC reboots about every 2 hours. In fact it rebooted while writing this!

I will use a newer i7 processor that most feel is the "sweet-spot" of the new Intel processors, the i7-860. This one has the Turboboost feature so you can increase clockspeed automatically if you are not using all your 4 cores. It also does hyperthreading, and it gives the best all around performance for most applications that are not hard-core gaming (where you want multiple video cards with higher speed channels). Another nice feature of this processor is that it uses the LGA 1156 socket  and P55 chipset, so the motherboard is less expensive that for the original i7 processors that all required the LGA 1366 sockets.

Another thing that led me to this decision is that triple channel memory at this point does not seem to provide any real-world benefit for 99% of applications. The original i7s were built with 3 memory controller for 3 memory channels to provide more bandwidth (instead of 2 channels) The tests seem to show that triple-channel is just not needed or even useful yet, and Intel came out with the i3, i5, and a new batch of i7s that have dual chanel memory. Hence the LGA 1156 socket motherboards.

I will be using the Gigabyte P55A-UD4P motherboard, one of their second or third generation P55 chipset motherboards. It is hopefully about as future-proof as you can get now, with USB 3 and SATA 6, firewire, and dual gigabit networking.  From my
experience a motherboard tends to be useful for 2 to 3 years at best, due to the always rapid technological advances. Hopefully, this will work for me as we move into a new era of home networking. As an enthsiast, I just assume I will spend about $1000 per year on PC upgrades of one kind or another.

The good news for my wallet is that I will keep my existing 8800 GTS video card, Antec 300 case, and Antec 550W power supply, and will use my existing hard drives. I will reformat my current Windows 7 beta C-drive.

The new motherboard does get new DDR3 RAM, 8GB of PC3-10600, which means it runs at 1333MHz, and I chose a nice 7-7-7-24 latency/timing . This RAM cost me about $250, the motherboard is about $285, the processor $270 and Windows 7 Ultimate OEM version was $170. So for about $850 and some time, I will hopefully rebuild a really smooth machine this weekend!

My old parts with the XP system will probably go into an older case, and there is an nVidea 6100 video chip on that motherboard.

I will eventually donate it or sell is as is, since I do not want to do any support for the flaky USB.

Hopefully this post will answer some questions and give you some ideas.

What purchases or upgrades are you doing to go to newer processors and Windows 7?

[mgalusha]

I had put Win 7 on my old Dell desktop, which was a P4 3.2 ghz with 2gb of ram. It ran pretty well but the urge for something new finally won so I picked up the pieces for a new box. Because I had a Cooler Master mATX case I liked and didn't want to replace I looked for a mobo that would fit it and would last for a few years. I ended up with a Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 and dropped an i5 750 processor in it. 4 core but no HT, which is fine as most of the apps I use don't even see the extra cores or HT. A few do but most do not. I put in 8 GB of memory, can't remember the speed at the moment and it's at home. I used a Thermalright MUX-120 heatsink/fan and Radeon HD 4670 video card. I'm not a gamer at all and for the money it seemed a good card.

The machine runs flawlessly, is quieter than the old one and of course much faster. I have VMWare workstation on it for the few things I have the won't run under a 64bit OS, hopefully those will eventually be updated but I'm not holding my breath and XP runs just fine in VMWare.

[jqp]

Yeah the i5 is becoming a very popular chip, and I might have used it if I wasn't so power hungry 

I forgot to say that I looked for a couple of weeks for a refurbished Dell but I couldn't get enough of the features that I wanted. I I could have waited a few months I might have gotten one of them. As far as the Radeon card, there are some great values out there if you are not looking for the highest powered gaming card. The 4500+ cards are very good for pretty low prices. I read an article about the new 5000 cards having 2D graphics issues on Windows 7, so I will avoid them until/if they fix the issues.

[jqp]

Now that I have had the machine running for a while I must say that it is really sweet!

I forgot to mention that this motherboard weighs a ton! It has 2oz of copper in the board, plus some pretty big heatsinks. It feels like it weighs about 1lb.

Tonight I am downloading the latest drivers for the mobo components, and checking on CPU temps. I downloaded PC Wizard to get some good readings of the 4 CPU cores - and it has so much more info. This is a really nice free Utility http://www.cpuid.com/pcwizard.php

Its amazing to see my CPU core temps (30-36 degrees C) lower than my HD and GPU temps, using the retail air cooler! The CPU itself is at 47 degrees C. It should be lower when I get the case back together with better airflow. This is a great CPU!

[mgalusha]

I love the 2oz Gigabyte board, at least the feel and construction. I laughed at the box with the "Japanese Solid Capacitor" but I have nothing but good to say about this one so far. PC Wizard is amazingly useful and that it's free is fabulous.

[mgalusha]

You made me curious about the core temps in mine as well. Had to install PC Wizard on this box.

The cores are 1/2 the temp of the disk drive. Amazing.

Hardware Monitoring :   ITE IT8720F
Voltage CPU :   0.85 V
+3.3V Voltage :   3.39 V
+5V Voltage :   5.02 V
+12V Voltage :   2.00 V
VTT :   1.52 V
VBAT :   3.12 V
Processor Fan :   1308 rpm
Chassis Fan :   617 rpm
Processor Temperature :   29 °C
Mainboard Temperature :   25 °C
Power/Aux Temperature :   10 °C
 :   
Processor :   Thermal Diode
Intel Core i5 (Core 1) :   20 °C
Intel Core i5 (Core 2) :   21 °C
Intel Core i5 (Core 3) :   20 °C
Intel Core i5 (Core 4) :   20 °C
 :   
Processor :   Current Power
Intel Core i5 :   95 W
 :   
Hard Disk Monitoring :   S.M.A.R.T
Hard Disk WDC WD5000KS-00MNB0         :   40 °C

[MaxCast]

Your guys scraps would be an upgrade for me. 

I followed most of it and it is an interesting read.  Being computer ignorant when does one need 4 cores vs. 2 cores. and it sounds like don't pay more for ddr3 vs. ddr2?

[ctviggen]

Chances are, you don't need four cores versus two cores, if want you're doing is surfing the internet, balancing your checkbook, etc.  You might be able to use four cores if you're using the machine as a HT processor, but even then, I have a dual core machine (Dell Zino) and it plays Blurays and the like perfectly fine.  Now, if you're going to compress Blurays, then quad core should make the compression process faster. 

In short, if you're doing mathematically intensive applications, you might see an improvement in going to four cores over two cores.  Other than that, the speed improvement probably isn't worth the cost.

What I'm more interested in is low power processors.  For instance, the Dell Zino I have is only 75 watts, running full bore, and that includes the graphics card.  My old AMD machine's processor alone uses more power than that.  When will we see more power saving processors and features (or are they out now)?

[Rob Babcock]

FWIW, I'm posting this from my newly "Sevened" PC.   My current home rig is a decent but not outrageous machine made from (what used to be a) stout dual core AMD, with a 1.5T drive for storage and a 680G "C" drive.  So are I'm loving it!  I've used Windows 7 at school but this is my first time "living with it", and I wish I'd have done it sooner.

Gonna build me an i5 eventually, though.

[turkey]

I love the 2oz Gigabyte board, at least the feel and construction. I laughed at the box with the "Japanese Solid Capacitor" but I have nothing but good to say about this one so far. PC Wizard is amazingly useful and that it's free is fabulous.

Gigabyte got really obnoxious about the capacitor thing and claimed that ASUS was using bad parts. ASUS responded, but I think they were more gentlemanly about it.

It knocked Gigabyte down a few notches in my estimation. I don't want to buy parts from a company that acts like they're in grade school.

[Kevin Haskins]

Chances are, you don't need four cores versus two cores, if want you're doing is surfing the internet, balancing your checkbook, etc.  You might be able to use four cores if you're using the machine as a HT processor, but even then, I have a dual core machine (Dell Zino) and it plays Blurays and the like perfectly fine.  Now, if you're going to compress Blurays, then quad core should make the compression process faster. 

In short, if you're doing mathematically intensive applications, you might see an improvement in going to four cores over two cores.  Other than that, the speed improvement probably isn't worth the cost.

What I'm more interested in is low power processors.  For instance, the Dell Zino I have is only 75 watts, running full bore, and that includes the graphics card.  My old AMD machine's processor alone uses more power than that.  When will we see more power saving processors and features (or are they out now)?

I just built a single core AMD system for cheap to upgrade the wife and kids and it flies.   It is a simple Sempron 2.7Ghz single core and it is faster than my dual-core E7300 at work.     The home system sips electricity too..... I think my idle draw is around 55W and under normal use the system draw is 65-75W.     They have made very good strides with efficiency. 

[jqp]

FWIW, I'm posting this from my newly "Sevened" PC.   My current home rig is a decent but not outrageous machine made from (what used to be a) stout dual core AMD, with a 1.5T drive for storage and a 680G "C" drive.  So are I'm loving it!  I've used Windows 7 at school but this is my first time "living with it", and I wish I'd have done it sooner.

Gonna build me an i5 eventually, though.

Yeah I love Windows 7. I got one copy as a gift from a Microsoft employee and shelled out $170 for an OEM version. I will likely buy another copy for my future HT PC, and oh yeah I also got the free upgrade to it on my laptop.

XP was good but after 10 years it will not work with the new DirectX or IE9 (which is supposed to be really nice) But I will use it until I can't I guess.

I can't imagine what happened internally at Microsoft that the Vista fiasco happened, instead of Windows 7. By the time I used Vista Home Premium SP1 it was pretty problem free, but they really took a beating.

Something just feels right about Windows 7, it is a positive experience over XP.

Definitely get one of the newer core i5 or core i7 chips on a nice P55 motherboard and 4-8GB of RAM when you can.

[flintstone]

Good post, I'm sold on Windows 7 also...it's the best MS operating system ever (XP feels so old, and outdated now). I have Windows 7 on three computers now. I did the beta/RC thing, so I've had Windows 7 for around a year now...I went ahead and bought it when the two hour shut down thing started a few weeks back.

Mostly I've used some form of Linux for the last few years, along with Windows...Linux on it's own hard drive so I could play around a bit without trashing Windows.

Foobar>>>WASAPI>>>S/PDIF>>>Monarchy tube DAC sounds outstanding on Windows 7


Dave

[Jon L]

Good post, I'm sold on Windows 7 also...it's the best MS operating system ever (XP feels so old, and outdated now).

I have XP, Vista, Win7 running in the same house and recently upgraded one of my Vista machine to Win7.  Threw in Ubuntu along the way as well.

For all those who are saying Win7 are so much better than Vista or XP (especially XP), what EXACTLY is improved and how much? 

Sure, Win7 has less processes running than Vista and has nicer looking presentation than XP, etc, but for modern machines with good processors, I really haven't noticed such large differences in speed or performance. 

[flintstone]

I have XP, Vista, Win7 running in the same house and recently upgraded one of my Vista machine to Win7.  Threw in Ubuntu along the way as well.

For all those who are saying Win7 are so much better than Vista or XP (especially XP), what EXACTLY is improved and how much? 

Sure, Win7 has less processes running than Vista and has nicer looking presentation than XP, etc, but for modern machines with good processors, I really haven't noticed such large differences in speed or performance.

Haven't used Vista, I went to Windows 7 from XP. I've found Windows 7 more stable than my experience with XP, it installs quicker (install is as fast as Linux)...and it finds drivers better (XP could take hours looking for drivers, if you don't have the reinstall dvd's).

I bought a de-branded HP media PC last year from Geeks.com...nothing on it, not even the HP logo. It was however loaded with nice hardware, and included a TV tuner card, hi-def video card, S/pdif in/out....and hooked it to my 24" hi-def monitor.

Windows 7 loaded or found as an update, every single driver, and software for these devices to work...1/2 hour, and everything ready to rock  Xp is not smart enough to do this, I've installed countless times for people over the years...always a pain unless they had all the driver/software cd's that came with the system.

Is it faster than XP?....I don't know?....both are fast enough for me. (it does boot faster)


Dave

[jqp]

I compare only XP and Win7 Beta on the same hardware. Went to Win 7 Ultimate on new hardware.

I would say Win 7 seemed more responsive, smoother. It was an overall experience, including some of the new features.

[GHM]

It depends on what you use the OS for. Vista is quite clunky in comparison the Win7, XP is even worse. I get so frustrated at work sometimes. The company hasn't upgraded to Win7 yet and I constantly try to perform task as I would at home.. Doing those task is much less fluid. I'm accustom to dragging windows and resizing them with a double tap or a click and pull.You can't do that with Vista or XP.

Win7 has just about all the codecs needed to run different formats of video, neither Vista nor XP has this. Flintstone nailed the differences on the install. I despise installing XP or Vista these days. There's so much time wasted installing drivers. XP doesn't have the advanced hardware acceleration found in Vista or Win7. It takes more CPU power to render the same video on XP in comparison to Win7. The way Win7 off loads the video processing to hardware is more efficient.

I'm running XP on two of my 6 PCs. I'm only running it on one of them because of older software requirements for my girlfriend's classes. The other because I was too cheap to buy more ram. 

I picked up a little emachine with a 1.8 ghz AMD Athlon™ Processor 2850e. This thing just cruises along on very little power.It's also a very quiet little PC. I'm testing it as a server to the other PCs in the place at the moment. The processor draws around 7 watts according to CPUID . 15 watts is the max this CPU will draw. I've been running it pretty hard testing how well it can handle streaming video. 33C is the hottest it gets. I'll eventual move it to a TV or monitor and drop one of my more powerful machines in as the server. It's been interesting to see how hard it can be pushed.

[boead]

I just replaced our main data server in my office with this:
Supermicro mainboard, LGA 1366, intel X58, ICH10R (Intel and Adaptec raid), Matrox Video with dedicated RAM, Intel Giga-lan.
Intel Xeon E5506
6GB Crucial PC3 10600 triple channel memory
Corsair PSU
ANtec P180 case.
(2) 1TB WDC Black drives (raid-1)
(2) 2TB WDC Green drives (raid-1)
Wndows 2003 Server

I can’t even begin to tell you how fast this machine is. Its only clocks at 2.1GHz and runs circles around anything I've built to date.
Cost for the hardware was just about $2,000 from Newegg (not including the OS).


My home Media PC is
Asus P5B mainboard
Core2 Duo
4GB Muskin RAM
Radeon HD5570, 1GB DDR3, PCie
LG BluRay
1TB WDC Green
Windows 7Pro 64-bit
Devil Sound DAC
Scott Nixon USBTD
50” Panasonic Pro Plasma

This media PC is going to replace CD’s in my world. Its fast and quiet. I have an AIFF library of more than 1,500 albums so far (800GB). JR Media Player sounds best.

Linksys NAS200 with (2) 2TB WDC Green (raid-1) on network.
Excellent network storage and media server. I can easily stream AIFF’s and Video via Ethernet to any PC in home.

But regardless, newest fastest or not so new PC’s have gotten fast enough. My Home workstation and office machine are both Core2Quads in the 3GHz range, running Win7 and the real-world difference in performance for everyday tasks (database management, graphic arts, video editing, network administration) between the two machines above is of no consequence.
I work on all sorts of machines; its usually not the hardware that’s an issue, it’s the multiple toolbars the handful of instant messenger and multitude of slob-ware that’s installed. You know, 4 different Anti-spy ware apps, a few AV apps, file sharing apps and so on. LOL!!! Seriously, overall people are just stupid and gullible.

[ctviggen]

It definitely depends on what you're using the machine for.  If you're surfing the 'Net and balancing your checkbook, you don't really need that fast of a machine for that.  On the other hand, I was ripping a DVD on my Dell Zino (new, cute computer with all upgrades, including 4GB of RAM) and then ripped the same thing on my home-built AMD machine (several years old, dual core, 6GB RAM, both machines have win 7) and the old AMD took about 1/3 the time to rip the same DVD.  But, the time isn't critical, because I usually start the process and leave. 

[boead]

It definitely depends on what you're using the machine for.  If you're surfing the 'Net and balancing your checkbook, you don't really need that fast of a machine for that.  On the other hand, I was ripping a DVD on my Dell Zino (new, cute computer with all upgrades, including 4GB of RAM) and then ripped the same thing on my home-built AMD machine (several years old, dual core, 6GB RAM, both machines have win 7) and the old AMD took about 1/3 the time to rip the same DVD.  But, the time isn't critical, because I usually start the process and leave.

That mostly depends on the DVD ROM drive and its data extraction ability/speed.

I have an old(er) Sony CDRW that can do audio extraction twice as fast as nearly any newer CD/DVD/BlueRay ROM drive today.