Im not technically gifted and would love a guide in simple as can be terms on how to check what kind of graphics card, processor, and ram (how much ram too) my computer could be upgraded to. Thanks in advance!
Well, I havn't used anythign but Win 7 for the past few years, so I only recall how to check this stuff in such. Anyway, right click on your computer in the menu and open properties and it should list what your CPU is, as well how much RAM you have. As far as what MB you have, thats hard to tell without opening your case and finding the brand/Model # unless this is some pre-built PoS you bought off the shelf.
For your GPU, right click your desktop and open the control panel for your video card to find out what it is or while you're case is open look on the card to find the name of it and or model #...etc.
If this is a pre-built PC from a shelf, just scrap it entirely and build a new PC...
search programs and files for dxdiag (using the search files and folders function in the start menu)
This should tell you the information you need to know regarding your components. Once you have this information post them here and somebody will advise you on any upgrades.
Go to Start>Accessories>System Tools>and click System Information. Your System Manufacturer and System Model is the Brand name and model of your Motherboard. Google that eg: "Gigabyte P35-DS4" and go to the website of the manufacturer and find your Model. Find the specifications there and it will tell you what the motherboard can support.
If you don't know what to do just post your Motherboard brand and model here.
The info you need most is: CPU -> Name, Package Mainboard -> Manufacturer, Model, Chipset Memory -> Type, Size Graphics -> GPU Name
Lastly under the SPD tab, look at the drop down box through Slot #1 - #4 and check the Module Size of the slots present and the number of blank/empty slots. This is the size of the RAM sticks and number of free physical memory slots.
Or you can open up the side of your case to read the make of motherboard and just count how many RAM slots are free
Take this info to the motherboard manufacturer's website and bring up the support page for the motherboard model. It will tell you what CPUs the motherboard supports.
Then locate your current CPU on this benchmark http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2 and see what you can upgrade to based off the list from your motherboard.
For RAM you just need to know what type (DDR2, DDR3) and how many slots you have free. If you already have 4 GB you're good. If you have less you should upgrade to 4 GB if you have slots free.
For graphics card, your motherboard will support any of them, but it needs to be balanced with your CPU. It's pointless to pair a $400 graphics card with a $80 CPU. Finding the right GPU for your CPU isn't straight forward but rule of thumb I use is, spend 50% more on GPU than CPU, so if you have a $100 CPU, a $150 GPU would work well with it, and a $200 CPU pairs up with $300 GPUs nicely.
All that said, if you want some advice instead of stumbling around benchmarks just post the info you get from CPU-Z here and someone will tell you what to upgrade. Unfortunately most people upgrading right now are coming from Socket 775 motherboards with DDR2 ram, which means complete system overhaul because that platform is outdated, so you might not have an upgrade path.
The only possible thing you might have to change is the PSU (power supply). You need to check it physically and see how many watts it is (hopefully 550W but can be more or less, more is good less is bad).
Spending $300 on a rather obsolete processor makes no sense. For that much money, you could buy a Phenom II X4 processor and a Socket AM3 motherboard and 4 GB of DDR3 memory.
-----
Find out what processor, video card, and power supply you have, and list them here. If your processor is already among the better LGA 775 ones, you'll be better off replacing the system. If it's considerably slower than that, and you'd be satisfied with a modest upgrade, then you could drop in a Wolfdale Pentium clocked around 3 GHz for $80 or so.
Video cards tend to be easy to upgrade independent of other parts.
It also depends on what your budget is. If you're willing to spend $1000, then you should replace the system outright, or rather, wait for Sandy Bridge to launch next week and then replace the system outright. If trying to squeeze some performance improvement out of a $100 budget, then an upgrade may be a viable option, depending on what you have.
Its only a 1.8ghz dual core, and I would prefer a new system for a bigger upgrade than a small upgrade. Not sure of the cost for a desktop but I would like a 4-6 gig of RAM a 1 gig memory ATI graphics card (Not completely sure what ATI card is best?) and an intel i7 quad core (sandy bridge in about 5 days i believe?) Any idea how much this would cost for a desktop system?
You want a rough approximation on prices for a pretty nice new system?
Core i5 2500 processor: $220
Good brand LGA 1155/P67 motherboard: $130
Radeon HD 6870 video card: $240
WD Caviar Black hard drive > 500 GB: $70
Cheap SATA CD/DVD combo drive: $20
Good quality 500 W power supply: $70
Decently nice mid-tower case with ample case fans: $70
4 GB DDR3 SDRAM memory: $50
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit: $100
That comes to $970 and assumes you're keeping old peripherals. Obviously, those prices are rough approximations, and will depend on what happens to be on sale that day, so let's round it and call it $1000. In particular, we don't really know what the processor or motherboard will sell for just yet. There are a lot of ways to increase the budget and get something nicer (e.g., an SSD or a faster video card) or decrease the budget to save money and still get something that is a huge upgrade over what you have. If you need new peripherals, that adds to the cost. A new monitor (or just an extra monitor, since having two at once is very nice) can run around $200; a new mouse, keyboard, and speakers can be had for around $50 (total for all three).
Wikipedia is an extremely unreliable source for specs of unreleased products, as some editors aren't terribly scrupulous about distinguishing between credible rumors based on plausibly leaked information and rumors that were made up by some random person on a forum. For example, look here:
The GTX 570 and GTX 580 are already out, and real cards. There will probably be a lower bin of GF110 (e.g., GTX 565) but it isn't listed. The GTX 560 will probably exist, but won't be the only bin of GF114. For comparison, there are four desktop GeForce cards based on its predecessor, but Wikipedia only lists one bin of GF114. The GTX 595 is just wishful thinking from Nvidia fanboys, and is very unlikely to ever exist because. among other problems, it would pull about 500 W at heavy loads. The GTS 550 and GT 530 are ostensibly based on chips that likely don't even exist--and if they do, then they probably won't be the only bin of their respective chips. What's listed at that link today might not match what is there tomorrow, but it probably won't be more accurate tomorrow unless Nvidia makes an official announcement.
That site got a hold of a Sandy Bridge processor in August and benchmarked it. Whoever provided the engineering sample processor to the site must have gotten it from Intel, and probably had a lot of information from Intel on the bins of the chip. That information is what the site posted, and is thus a very credible rumor. There has been matching information from a number of other sources, too--such as stores actually breaking NDA and selling the processors early.
Cheers Quizzical, looking at the figures the best value to performance will indeed be a i5 2500, seeing as though on my 256mb 8600 gt, 2 gig of ram (ddr2) and a 1.8ghz dual core, I run wow around 30 fps with full settings beside shadows, cant imagine the difference a sandy brige quad i5 2500, 4/6 gig of ram (DDR3 being a side upgrade too) and a 1 gig ATi card and all the new components which make up these parts would make.
Cheers Quizzical, looking at the figures the best value to performance will indeed be a i5 2500, seeing as though on my 256mb 8600 gt, 2 gig of ram (ddr2) and a 1.8ghz dual core, I run wow around 30 fps with full settings beside shadows, cant imagine the difference a sandy brige quad i5 2500, 4/6 gig of ram (DDR3 being a side upgrade too) and a 1 gig ATi card and all the new components which make up these parts would make.
very little if referring to WOW you would get your shadows and massive frame jump tht you won;t even notice anyway as your eyes can't see it, if your only looking at upgrading for WOW forget about it.
Originally posted by thamighty213 Originally posted by jillbrown Cheers Quizzical, looking at the figures the best value to performance will indeed be a i5 2500, seeing as though on my 256mb 8600 gt, 2 gig of ram (ddr2) and a 1.8ghz dual core, I run wow around 30 fps with full settings beside shadows, cant imagine the difference a sandy brige quad i5 2500, 4/6 gig of ram (DDR3 being a side upgrade too) and a 1 gig ATi card and all the new components which make up these parts would make.
very little if referring to WOW you would get your shadows and massive frame jump tht you won;t even notice anyway as your eyes can't see it, if your only looking at upgrading for WOW forget about it. You can notice more than 30 fps easily. OP probably has no anti-aliasing turned on either which the 8600GT can't really handle, so there would be some more improvements to WoW than just the shadows.
People also tend to really underestimate how intensive WoW is as a title. No, it isn't Metro 2033, but it's also not the same six+ year old game that could run on mostly high settings at 50fps on a Radeon 9800 that it was at launch.
Back when I stopped playing a year and a half to two years ago my Core 2 Duo E8400 and 512mb Radeon HD 4870 were stretched to about their max to keep fluent framerates in just in Sholazar Basin with everything turned up to the highest settings (especially shadows, which looked fairly nice, but created a HUGE framerate hit). In fact, running around in that jungle with the shadows maxed out basically managed to give me about the same framerates as the first Crysis at higher IQ settings. This was at 1680x1050.
Really populated or busy zones (big huge CFs in Wintergrasp or in raids) would also really put the computer to the test. Now, a Radeon HD 4870 is very slightly faster than a Radeon HD 5770, so that system may not be high-end anymore, but even by today's standards it was no pushover. Thus far, every expansion ever made has also made the game more intensive. The Outlands took more horsepower to render than Kalimdor and the Eastern Kingdoms, and Northrend took more still. Blizzard has consistently sucked up the greater amounts of available computer horsepower to make a somewhat prettier game. This is done partly with new IQ settings (usually with horrendous tradeoffs, because of what seems like often-poor graphical coding, but always with the option to revert, such that even old/integrated cards could still play it), and partly by simply making more complex scenery to render.
I haven't played Cataclysm, and almost certainly won't, but I can't imagine that it will break the trend of having a more computer-intensive client than its predecessors.
People also tend to really underestimate how intensive WoW is as a title. No, it isn't Metro 2033, but it's also not the same six+ year old game that could run on mostly high settings at 50fps on a Radeon 9800 that it was at launch.
Back when I stopped playing a year and a half to two years ago my Core 2 Duo E8400 and 512mb Radeon HD 4870 were stretched to about their max to keep fluent framerates in just in Sholazar Basin with everything turned up to the highest settings (especially shadows, which looked fairly nice, but created a HUGE framerate hit). In fact, running around in that jungle with the shadows maxed out basically managed to give me about the same framerates as the first Crysis at higher IQ settings. This was at 1680x1050.
Really populated or busy zones (big huge CFs in Wintergrasp or in raids) would also really put the computer to the test. Now, a Radeon HD 4870 is very slightly faster than a Radeon HD 5770, so that system may not be high-end anymore, but even by today's standards it was no pushover. Thus far, every expansion ever made has also made the game more intensive. The Outlands took more horsepower to render than Kalimdor and the Eastern Kingdoms, and Northrend took more still. Blizzard has consistently sucked up the greater amounts of available computer horsepower to make a somewhat prettier game. This is done partly with new IQ settings (usually with horrendous tradeoffs, because of what seems like often-poor graphical coding, but always with the option to revert, such that even old/integrated cards could still play it), and partly by simply making more complex scenery to render.
I haven't played Cataclysm, and almost certainly won't, but I can't imagine that it will break the trend of having a more computer-intensive client than its predecessors.
Agreed. with the new water effect system in place and generally more advanced coloring and texturing throughout all of the reworked zones, my system is far from able to run full graphics perfectly. Just waiting for the i5 2500 to come out now :'(
speaking of new computers i just found a site selling one with a Intel Core i7 870, 8 gb ddr3 RAM, windows 7,a coolermaster hyper TX3 cooling system, Asus P7P55 LX motherboard, ATI Radeon HD 6870 1GB, a 700W EZCool Tornado PSU
and a 1 TB hard drive for £832, seems pretty brilliant value compared with other systems?
speaking of new computers i just found a site selling one with a Intel Core i7 870, 8 gb ddr3 RAM, windows 7,a coolermaster hyper TX3 cooling system, Asus P7P55 LX motherboard, ATI Radeon HD 6870 1GB, a 700W EZCool Tornado PSU
and a 1 TB hard drive for £832, seems pretty brilliant value compared with other systems?
Not really.
For starters, it's almost certainly a cheap junk power supply As best as I can tell, the company that makes the power supply ("Best Value") doesn't actually have a web page. Or at the very least, Google can't find it. I can't find specs on the power supply, either. If you're selling a good product, you don't try to keep its quality a secret. At minimum, you'd need to replace the power supply once you get it.
Next, the processor is basically obsolete. A Core i5 2500 is a lot faster than a Core i7 870. It's cheaper, too. Sandy Bridge would take a different processor socket as well.
You don't particularly need 8 GB of memory; you'll probably never notice the difference between that and 4 GB.
And if it doesn't say what hard drive, then it's probably a cheap, slow one. Most people would be better off getting a faster hard drive, and if necessary to save money, of smaller capacity.
Comments
Would have to know what you are trying to upgrade. You want to keep the same motherboard?
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
''how to check what kind of graphics card, processor, and ram (how much ram too) my computer could be upgraded to.''
Well, I havn't used anythign but Win 7 for the past few years, so I only recall how to check this stuff in such. Anyway, right click on your computer in the menu and open properties and it should list what your CPU is, as well how much RAM you have. As far as what MB you have, thats hard to tell without opening your case and finding the brand/Model # unless this is some pre-built PoS you bought off the shelf.
For your GPU, right click your desktop and open the control panel for your video card to find out what it is or while you're case is open look on the card to find the name of it and or model #...etc.
If this is a pre-built PC from a shelf, just scrap it entirely and build a new PC...
search programs and files for dxdiag (using the search files and folders function in the start menu)
This should tell you the information you need to know regarding your components. Once you have this information post them here and somebody will advise you on any upgrades.
Go to Start>Accessories>System Tools>and click System Information. Your System Manufacturer and System Model is the Brand name and model of your Motherboard. Google that eg: "Gigabyte P35-DS4" and go to the website of the manufacturer and find your Model. Find the specifications there and it will tell you what the motherboard can support.
If you don't know what to do just post your Motherboard brand and model here.
I would run CPU-Z http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html (download link on right hand side of page)
The info you need most is:
CPU -> Name, Package
Mainboard -> Manufacturer, Model, Chipset
Memory -> Type, Size
Graphics -> GPU Name
Lastly under the SPD tab, look at the drop down box through Slot #1 - #4 and check the Module Size of the slots present and the number of blank/empty slots. This is the size of the RAM sticks and number of free physical memory slots.
Or you can open up the side of your case to read the make of motherboard and just count how many RAM slots are free
Take this info to the motherboard manufacturer's website and bring up the support page for the motherboard model. It will tell you what CPUs the motherboard supports.
Then locate your current CPU on this benchmark http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/2 and see what you can upgrade to based off the list from your motherboard.
For RAM you just need to know what type (DDR2, DDR3) and how many slots you have free. If you already have 4 GB you're good. If you have less you should upgrade to 4 GB if you have slots free.
For graphics card, your motherboard will support any of them, but it needs to be balanced with your CPU. It's pointless to pair a $400 graphics card with a $80 CPU. Finding the right GPU for your CPU isn't straight forward but rule of thumb I use is, spend 50% more on GPU than CPU, so if you have a $100 CPU, a $150 GPU would work well with it, and a $200 CPU pairs up with $300 GPUs nicely.
All that said, if you want some advice instead of stumbling around benchmarks just post the info you get from CPU-Z here and someone will tell you what to upgrade. Unfortunately most people upgrading right now are coming from Socket 775 motherboards with DDR2 ram, which means complete system overhaul because that platform is outdated, so you might not have an upgrade path.
Yeah i have an asus p5b motherboard with a 775 socket. So it would be more effective to just buy a new computer?
You could just change CPU and GFX card, your computer would still rock with a good CPU and GFX card.
Here are some fast processors that fits:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115130
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115054
A nice GFX card as well and you're good for 3 years.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133326
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102873
The only possible thing you might have to change is the PSU (power supply). You need to check it physically and see how many watts it is (hopefully 550W but can be more or less, more is good less is bad).
Spending $300 on a rather obsolete processor makes no sense. For that much money, you could buy a Phenom II X4 processor and a Socket AM3 motherboard and 4 GB of DDR3 memory.
-----
Find out what processor, video card, and power supply you have, and list them here. If your processor is already among the better LGA 775 ones, you'll be better off replacing the system. If it's considerably slower than that, and you'd be satisfied with a modest upgrade, then you could drop in a Wolfdale Pentium clocked around 3 GHz for $80 or so.
Video cards tend to be easy to upgrade independent of other parts.
It also depends on what your budget is. If you're willing to spend $1000, then you should replace the system outright, or rather, wait for Sandy Bridge to launch next week and then replace the system outright. If trying to squeeze some performance improvement out of a $100 budget, then an upgrade may be a viable option, depending on what you have.
Its only a 1.8ghz dual core, and I would prefer a new system for a bigger upgrade than a small upgrade. Not sure of the cost for a desktop but I would like a 4-6 gig of RAM a 1 gig memory ATI graphics card (Not completely sure what ATI card is best?) and an intel i7 quad core (sandy bridge in about 5 days i believe?) Any idea how much this would cost for a desktop system?
You want a rough approximation on prices for a pretty nice new system?
Core i5 2500 processor: $220
Good brand LGA 1155/P67 motherboard: $130
Radeon HD 6870 video card: $240
WD Caviar Black hard drive > 500 GB: $70
Cheap SATA CD/DVD combo drive: $20
Good quality 500 W power supply: $70
Decently nice mid-tower case with ample case fans: $70
4 GB DDR3 SDRAM memory: $50
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit: $100
That comes to $970 and assumes you're keeping old peripherals. Obviously, those prices are rough approximations, and will depend on what happens to be on sale that day, so let's round it and call it $1000. In particular, we don't really know what the processor or motherboard will sell for just yet. There are a lot of ways to increase the budget and get something nicer (e.g., an SSD or a faster video card) or decrease the budget to save money and still get something that is a huge upgrade over what you have. If you need new peripherals, that adds to the cost. A new monitor (or just an extra monitor, since having two at once is very nice) can run around $200; a new mouse, keyboard, and speakers can be had for around $50 (total for all three).
How many cores /ghz is a Core i5 2500 sandy bridge?
The i5 2500 is a quad core @ 3.3ghz. Though there appears to be 4 different models of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge_%28microarchitecture%29
A Core i5 2500 is four cores.
Wikipedia is an extremely unreliable source for specs of unreleased products, as some editors aren't terribly scrupulous about distinguishing between credible rumors based on plausibly leaked information and rumors that were made up by some random person on a forum. For example, look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_500_Series
The GTX 570 and GTX 580 are already out, and real cards. There will probably be a lower bin of GF110 (e.g., GTX 565) but it isn't listed. The GTX 560 will probably exist, but won't be the only bin of GF114. For comparison, there are four desktop GeForce cards based on its predecessor, but Wikipedia only lists one bin of GF114. The GTX 595 is just wishful thinking from Nvidia fanboys, and is very unlikely to ever exist because. among other problems, it would pull about 500 W at heavy loads. The GTS 550 and GT 530 are ostensibly based on chips that likely don't even exist--and if they do, then they probably won't be the only bin of their respective chips. What's listed at that link today might not match what is there tomorrow, but it probably won't be more accurate tomorrow unless Nvidia makes an official announcement.
Back to Sandy Bridge. Check here:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871
That site got a hold of a Sandy Bridge processor in August and benchmarked it. Whoever provided the engineering sample processor to the site must have gotten it from Intel, and probably had a lot of information from Intel on the bins of the chip. That information is what the site posted, and is thus a very credible rumor. There has been matching information from a number of other sources, too--such as stores actually breaking NDA and selling the processors early.
Cheers Quizzical, looking at the figures the best value to performance will indeed be a i5 2500, seeing as though on my 256mb 8600 gt, 2 gig of ram (ddr2) and a 1.8ghz dual core, I run wow around 30 fps with full settings beside shadows, cant imagine the difference a sandy brige quad i5 2500, 4/6 gig of ram (DDR3 being a side upgrade too) and a 1 gig ATi card and all the new components which make up these parts would make.
very little if referring to WOW you would get your shadows and massive frame jump tht you won;t even notice anyway as your eyes can't see it, if your only looking at upgrading for WOW forget about it.
Nah WoW is a time filler for rift /SWTOR
You can notice more than 30 fps easily. OP probably has no anti-aliasing turned on either which the 8600GT can't really handle, so there would be some more improvements to WoW than just the shadows.
People also tend to really underestimate how intensive WoW is as a title. No, it isn't Metro 2033, but it's also not the same six+ year old game that could run on mostly high settings at 50fps on a Radeon 9800 that it was at launch.
Back when I stopped playing a year and a half to two years ago my Core 2 Duo E8400 and 512mb Radeon HD 4870 were stretched to about their max to keep fluent framerates in just in Sholazar Basin with everything turned up to the highest settings (especially shadows, which looked fairly nice, but created a HUGE framerate hit). In fact, running around in that jungle with the shadows maxed out basically managed to give me about the same framerates as the first Crysis at higher IQ settings. This was at 1680x1050.
Really populated or busy zones (big huge CFs in Wintergrasp or in raids) would also really put the computer to the test. Now, a Radeon HD 4870 is very slightly faster than a Radeon HD 5770, so that system may not be high-end anymore, but even by today's standards it was no pushover. Thus far, every expansion ever made has also made the game more intensive. The Outlands took more horsepower to render than Kalimdor and the Eastern Kingdoms, and Northrend took more still. Blizzard has consistently sucked up the greater amounts of available computer horsepower to make a somewhat prettier game. This is done partly with new IQ settings (usually with horrendous tradeoffs, because of what seems like often-poor graphical coding, but always with the option to revert, such that even old/integrated cards could still play it), and partly by simply making more complex scenery to render.
I haven't played Cataclysm, and almost certainly won't, but I can't imagine that it will break the trend of having a more computer-intensive client than its predecessors.
Agreed. with the new water effect system in place and generally more advanced coloring and texturing throughout all of the reworked zones, my system is far from able to run full graphics perfectly. Just waiting for the i5 2500 to come out now :'(
speaking of new computers i just found a site selling one with a Intel Core i7 870, 8 gb ddr3 RAM, windows 7,a coolermaster hyper TX3 cooling system, Asus P7P55 LX motherboard, ATI Radeon HD 6870 1GB, a 700W EZCool Tornado PSU
and a 1 TB hard drive for £832, seems pretty brilliant value compared with other systems?
Not really.
For starters, it's almost certainly a cheap junk power supply As best as I can tell, the company that makes the power supply ("Best Value") doesn't actually have a web page. Or at the very least, Google can't find it. I can't find specs on the power supply, either. If you're selling a good product, you don't try to keep its quality a secret. At minimum, you'd need to replace the power supply once you get it.
Next, the processor is basically obsolete. A Core i5 2500 is a lot faster than a Core i7 870. It's cheaper, too. Sandy Bridge would take a different processor socket as well.
You don't particularly need 8 GB of memory; you'll probably never notice the difference between that and 4 GB.
And if it doesn't say what hard drive, then it's probably a cheap, slow one. Most people would be better off getting a faster hard drive, and if necessary to save money, of smaller capacity.