Desktop PCs - Do You Still Have Them?

**minicarph** · January 7th, 2016 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto

My wife does the same with her 2011 Mac Mini in our bedroom. I have an older 2006 Intel Mac Mini hooked up to the living room TV.

This is good setup right? TV entertainment + desktop in one. I like browsing at 55" screen size. I even read ebooks with big screen with my recliner

**mda** · January 7th, 2016 01:47 PM

Still use a desktop at home. Nothing mobile can beat it when it comes to responsiveness AND a big screen to better do work/general tasks on.

i7 4770K mildly overclocked
16GB RAM
GTX970
SSD and a couple of hard disks.
24" 1080p IPS monitor

Been going since 2013. Will probably keep this until 2020...

**jut703** · January 7th, 2016 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by oj88

I am looking at upgrading it to at least a 3rd gen i7 3770 with a Z77 board, as they're cheaper now, used, especially with Skylake (6th gen) out.

Where do you buy? So far, pahirapan na makahanap ng i7-3xxx, and if ever meron man, halos same price as the newer 4xxx and 6xxx. Then there's the LGA1155 and DDR3 dead-end.

It's cheap when buying a used set complete with mobo and RAM, but as a bnew purchase I think it's most cost efficient to go for the latest gen.

Originally Posted by ninjababez

last desktop ko was Q6600. nung makita ko CC receipts ko in 2 years amounting to 180k (di pa kasama yung cash paid items

), bumili ako laptop tapos benta desktop

sarap lang kasi mag OC kaya medyo na-addict ako.
minimum of 50% at 60% stable q6600, e6600, e6300, a64 3000+ venice and more
a few motherboards in the process ..
max ko yata nasa 80% E6300 kaso tipong 2 minutes lang sa prime95

What was your stable OC and voltage with your Q6600? I remember we talked about this during the EB but I forget...

Originally Posted by badkuk

Currently using a desktop PC as Hypervisor; specs are pathetic so it's used mainly for playing around with new OSes. am planning to set up a beefier rig for my experiments. Mahal pa rin ng i5 :p

I noticed that the i5 K is now more expensive than it was a few years back. The i5-750 and i5-2500K sold for about 9.8k before, now the equivalent 4690K/6600K is 11.5k. Crazy.

Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto

The eldest kid has a DIY PC: i5 4670k, R9 290x, 8 GB RAM, Windows 7 plus her laptop

The youngest kid has a DIY PC: AMD A10-7850k, DDR5 GT 730, 8 GB RAM, Win 7

Doesn't the youngest kid feel shortchanged? [emoji12]

Originally Posted by jaggerx3

How to know if DDR2 lang pwede sa PC ko?

On the BIOS boot screen, check what frequency your RAM is running:

667/800/1066 MHz - DDR2
1333/1600/1866 - DDR3

You can also just download CPU-Z and click the Memory tab.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**mda** · January 7th, 2016 02:38 PM

^ You can get a i7 3770/K sa tipidpc. Siguro 6-8K yung bentahan dun.

Got a used processor before by a seller who shipped with JRS, worked naman.

A new Z77 on the other hand, good luck with that. I'm more willing to go with 2nd hand CPUs (which almost never die) than motherboards (which fail more often).

Too bad my Q6600 only went up to 3.4GHz. Eventually OCing may have killed my X38 board, and the Q6600 now running stock as a standard desktop computer in a G31.

**jut703** · January 7th, 2016 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by mda

^ You can get a i7 3770/K sa tipidpc. Siguro 6-8K yung bentahan dun.

Got a used processor before by a seller who shipped with JRS, worked naman.

A new Z77 on the other hand, good luck with that. I'm more willing to go with 2nd hand CPUs (which almost never die) than motherboards (which fail more often).

Too bad my Q6600 only went up to 3.4GHz. Eventually OCing may have killed my X38 board, and the Q6600 now running stock as a standard desktop computer in a G31.

Oops my bad, I missed the line where he said he was going used. I thought he was going for a brand new 4770. [emoji28]

Highest I've tried is 3.6 GHz for my Q6600 but I wouldn't dare use it as my daily setting since voltages were too high, and I have a generic case so cooling is awful. Right now with stock voltage (1.20V), I'm running 3 GHz. I might try 3.2 GHz but I doubt if it'll be stable. And at 3.2 GHz I'll have to OC my RAM which probably won't be good for longevity (just Kingston ValueRAM w/o heat spreaders).

In any case, still much much better than my E6550. That had a good stock clock speed before (2.33 GHz vs the equivalently priced E6300 which was only 1.86 GHz), but awful at overclocking due to the low 7x multiplier and high 1333 FSB.

It's quite surprising that even with a lowly GTX 460, the Q6600 gets better framerates than the E6550, which means that extra cores help in gaming even with a low-end setup like mine.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**viper888** · January 7th, 2016 04:11 PM

I still need a desktop pc for my work softwares such as revit and autocad. Laptops, even the top end one, struggle with the constant loads. Another bonus is that theyre great for gaming.

**mda** · January 7th, 2016 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by jut703

Oops my bad, I missed the line where he said he was going used. I thought he was going for a brand new 4770. [emoji28]

Highest I've tried is 3.6 GHz for my Q6600 but I wouldn't dare use it as my daily setting since voltages were too high, and I have a generic case so cooling is awful. Right now with stock voltage (1.20V), I'm running 3 GHz. I might try 3.2 GHz but I doubt if it'll be stable. And at 3.2 GHz I'll have to OC my RAM which probably won't be good for longevity (just Kingston ValueRAM w/o heat spreaders).

In any case, still much much better than my E6550. That had a good stock clock speed before (2.33 GHz vs the equivalently priced E6300 which was only 1.86 GHz), but awful at overclocking due to the low 7x multiplier and high 1333 FSB.

It's quite surprising that even with a lowly GTX 460, the Q6600 gets better framerates than the E6550, which means that extra cores help in gaming even with a low-end setup like mine.

Buti tumagal yung board mo.

My X38 gave out doing mostly 333x9 * 1.325V

Yeah I was really happy with that Q6600 before the board gave out.

It was beating out overclocked 4-4.2GHz E8500s when the newer games were released.

**jut703** · January 7th, 2016 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by mda

Buti tumagal yung board mo.

My X38 gave out doing mostly 333x9 * 1.325V

Yeah I was really happy with that Q6600 before the board gave out.

It was beating out overclocked 4-4.2GHz E8500s when the newer games were released.

I've changed boards thrice since I first built the PC. I started with an Asrock 945G-Conroe paired with the E6550. Eventually, that stopped booting so I bought an Asus P5Q-SE (P43 chipset).

Eventually upgraded the E6550 to a Q6600, and the Asus board died on me, and that was on mostly stock clocks (I only OC'ed when I needed to).

Now, got a used Foxconn P45A-S. I have been running stock clocks for over a year, but now I've decided to run 3 GHz daily. If the board dies, then it's a sign to get an i5 hehehe.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**viper888** · January 7th, 2016 06:01 PM

The great thing today though is that performance increases has been marginal unlike before. Once upon a time computer speed doubled every 18 months. Now a 3 year old i7 is barely slower than a current i7.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

**jut703** · January 7th, 2016 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by viper888

The great thing today though is that performance increases has been marginal unlike before. Once upon a time computer speed doubled every 18 months. Now a 3 year old i7 is barely slower than a current i7.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

AMD's fault IMO.

When AMD was breathing down Intel's neck when their Athlon was vastly superior to the Pentium 4 and Pentium D, Intel had to bring out all their guns and come up with something to regain the CPU supremacy.

True enough, Intel released the Core 2 line, and never looked back. AMD's Phenom X4 was a valiant effort, but it couldn't really beat Intel clock for clock as they did in previous generations. Rather, they offered their CPUs at notably lower price points, turning the landscape into a value-for-money fight.

However, Intel asserted its dominance once more when they released the i3/i5/i7, and AMD hasn't come up with anything that can keep up with Intel clock-for-clock, core-for-core. AMD then shifted strategy by focusing on APUs, and this worked well for budget users who didn't want to spend on a dedicated GPU but still wanted a bit of light gaming. Coupled with strategy of more-cores-for-the-same-price, they were able to survive by targeting the low-end/mainstream market.

Eventually though, Intel improved leaps and bounds with their IGP, and casual users soon found that Intel's graphics was already good enough for light gaming. This, coupled with the fact that an i3 is usually more powerful than a similarly priced A8 in all but the most multithreaded tasks, meant that even AMD's hold of the low-end market was slipping away. And of course let's not forget that AMD still doesn't have anything to match the i5, much less the i7. As with the lower end of the spectrum, the 8-core FX struggles to keep up with the i5 in gaming and other CPU-intensive tasks that only use 4 cores.

So naturally, Intel is now just coasting and AMD struggles to stay competitive. AMD needs another Athlon to make the fight more interesting once again.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk