Computer Related > CPU Performance Legal Questions
Thread Author: No FM2R Replies: 76

 CPU Performance - No FM2R
I'm trying to get my head around CPU performance and how the various factors interact;

There are i3, i5, i7, i9
Gen 1 - ?
Speed of CPU
No. of cores
No. of threads/strands

An i3 with 4 cores can be faster, or slower, than an i5 with 2 cores, for example.

Can anybody either easily explain it to me or point me at some reference I can read on the inter-thing?

Thank you.
 CPU Performance - Falkirk Bairn
www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_f-1PPkTmw

3 minutes covers the basics of cpu's
 CPU Performance - Crankcase
Or for a reading overview without going into Wikipedia depth of detail:

www.which.co.uk/reviews/laptops/article/intel-processors-explained-what-is-core-i3-i5-i7-and-pentium

 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>> Or for a reading overview without going into Wikipedia depth of detail:
>>
>> www.which.co.uk/reviews/laptops/article/intel-processors-explained-what-is-core-i3-i5-i7-and-pentium


That helped quite a bit, thanks. Though I still have fog in front of my eyes. Still, every step forward is a step closer.
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>>www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_f-1PPkTmw
>>
>>3 minutes covers the basics of cpu's

Thank you for that. Though it didn't help me understand cores it did move me along a bit.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 29 Aug 20 at 15:57
 CPU Performance - Zero
One needs to know Why? you are interested first.

If its because you are wanting to specify and build a PC, then CPU, within fairy broad broad boundaries, is not actually that important for overall performance. Other factors are. For gaming, Video card is the baby to concentrate on.

Currently I am going through specifying/pricing for someone who wants me to build an ultra small (ITX format) PC with as much performance as can be mustered in the restricted size.

I am using the ranking in www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php to explain the choices.

Usually

There are i3, i5, i7, i9.
Of Note because generally performance between them varies

Gen 1 - ?
OF Note, because of variances required in motherboard chip sets. Motherboard design becomes important. I never go with latest gen until its issues are known.

Speed of CPU
Generally unimportant,*
No. of cores
Generally unimportant*
Threads.
Unless your software is developed to use them properly (Windows isn't) unimportant, unless you have 300 spreadsheet tabs open at once.

*However, in this upcoming build some of this stuff matters, because of size of PC and getting rid of heat. CPU speed becomes an issue, higher is hotter, Overclocked is a real heat worry, Generation is important, latter gen is Usually cooler, (tho this has been cocked up in the past)

In this build, motherboard layout, and video card size is the important factors.


Oh and don't get fixated on Intel I numbers. They have hit a flat spot. This baby will be my first AMD build for 30 years. The AMD Ryzens are vastly superior in every respect as things stand.




 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>> One needs to know Why? you are interested first.

Partly because I want to finally get around to building my own, which I've always found vaguely intimidated so haven't done, and partly because it annoys me that I don't understand.

>> For gaming, Video card is the baby to concentrate on.

Got that. Also RAM.

>> I am using the ranking in www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php to explain the choices.

A good reference, but it doesn't really explain.

e.g.

Of the following two, apparently the i5 is better. Higher CPU mark and better rank. I am ignoring price.

Rank 1460 Intel Core i5-4200U @ 1.60GHz
Rang 1461 Intel Core i7-940XM @ 2.13GHz

So the older gen, lower i number, slower clock speed is 'better'??

I realise that the difference is probably not one that I'd ever notice, but I don't understand why.

>> There are i3, i5, i7, i9.
>> Of Note because generally performance between them varies

Right. But it seems that other factors can outweigh the i nymber.

>> Gen 1 - ?
>> OF Note, because of variances required in motherboard chip sets.

At least I understand this one and the choice is logical.

>> Speed of CPU
>> Generally unimportant,*

OK, faster is hotter. Got that. But a CPU doesn't have to run at full speed does it? Do would a faster CPU not run at a lower capacity? OR do CPUs always try to run as fast as they can?

And why isn't speed important? Bear in mind my CPU knowledge comes from 80s DEC kit, and that wasn't very complicated by comparison.

>> No. of cores
>> Generally unimportant*

If a CPU has 4 cores, does that mean that each core gets 1/4 of it's performance? Or is it that when the CPU is not running at full capacity overall it can use some of that spare capacity by doing mroe than one thing at once?

>> Threads.
>> Unless your software is developed to use them properly (Windows isn't) unimportant,

Are threads to cores as cores are to CPUs?

>> The AMD Ryzens are vastly superior in every respect as things stand.

And seemingly reasonably priced. Is there any issue from going non-Intel? There used to be potential issues a gazillion years ago.

I appreciate the effort.
 CPU Performance - Zero
Cores.

This is the best quick explanation of cores and threads. And it also makes it explicitly clear why they aint as good as they could be

www.lifewire.com/multiple-core-processors-832453

An example of that is my video editing suite. Video editing is probably the killer app for CPU's. If I work the socks off on mine rendering a 4k vid it maxes out CPU % and rapidly gets hot using one core

As per AMD, like you I have history from days long ago. And thats all it is - History.

Intel is really really in a hole right now, struggling to progress.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 29 Aug 20 at 16:26
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
So, to play it back, basically more cores is better and higher clock speed is better, but there's pay-off and compromise between the two and it depends on the software you're using as to which it takes better advantage of and depending by how much the parent core limits processing?
 CPU Performance - Zero
>> So, to play it back, basically more cores is better and higher clock speed is
>> better, but there's pay-off and compromise between the two and it depends on the software
>> you're using as to which it takes better advantage of and depending by how much
>> the parent core limits processing?

Guess that sums it up. Which of course means its all a lottery basically. Which is why I said, its really not that important, unless you go for extremes.
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
My current system has an i7-3770 @3.40GHz and 4 Cores, 8 logical processors (threads?) and I often max it out.

Is that because it is a Gen 3 (Ivy Bridge?) and that I need to move much further into the modern world?

Given that the Motherboard has an LGA1155 socket I assume that I need to change it to be able to select a newer Gen Intel, or indeed for an AMD?

The graphics card is a GTX 1650 so that ought to be ok.

The PC has 16GB RAM, though the RAM is DDR3 and probably running at some pitiful speed, so I'm thinking the Motherboard, CPU and RAM were quite good but now are just old-tech.

Is there a Gen you would recommend I move to, given that I'll be changing anyway and assuming that I go Intel? Or at least a minimum Gen?

Still, at least I understand considerably more about CPUs now, so thanks for that.

Now to go study Motherboards. Sigh.

I do appreciate your time. Thank you.
 CPU Performance - Zero
>> My current system has an i7-3770 @3.40GHz and 4 Cores, 8 logical processors (threads?) and
>> I often max it out.

How do you know you have maxed it out? are you running the intel drag prog?

>> Is that because it is a Gen 3 (Ivy Bridge?) and that I need to
>> move much further into the modern world?

yes that a long way back.

>> Given that the Motherboard has an LGA1155 socket I assume that I need to change
>> it to be able to select a newer Gen Intel, or indeed for an AMD?

I always change CPU & Motherboard together. Intel CPUS change their socket configuration more often than I change my socks. AMD ditto tho less often. So I always make sure the two are compatible.

>> The graphics card is a GTX 1650 so that ought to be ok.

Yup, its very similar to my RX470 in price/performance point.

>> The PC has 16GB RAM, though the RAM is DDR3 and probably running at some
>> pitiful speed, so I'm thinking the Motherboard, CPU and RAM were quite good but now
>> are just old-tech.

Newer gen cpus /mb will be DDR4. DDR3 is quite old tech now.

>> Is there a Gen you would recommend I move to, given that I'll be changing
>> anyway and assuming that I go Intel? Or at least a minimum Gen?

Looking at three points. that you want intel, price, and given your location, availability, I would go

Intel i7 I9700, Gen 9 Socket 1151, Coffee Lake Refresh, 8 Core, 8 Thread, 3.0GHz, with a
ASUS PRIME motherboard Socket 1151, DDR4, SATA3, USB 3.1

and I would be paying no more than 350 dollars total for those two.


Have we told you abut M2 hard drives yet???????????

 CPU Performance - No FM2R

>> How do you know you have maxed it out? are you running the intel drag
>> prog?

You may remember I had overheating problems some time ago, so I've been more aware. Aside from anything else back then it as the sudden loss of performance which made me look.

This time, we it seemed as iff the system was periodically pausing, I thought it might be the same despite the new fan, heatsink etc. I have OHM running which not only shows current state but also min/max history. That together with Speccy helped me narrow it down to the CPU hitting capacity, though not excessively overheating.

>> I always change CPU & Motherboard together.

Good advice I have taken note. We'll get back to motherboards. Sorry in advance.

>> Intel i7 I9700, Gen 9 Socket 1151, Coffee Lake Refresh, 8 Core, 8 Thread, 3.0GHz, with a
>> ASUS PRIME motherboard Socket 1151, DDR4, SATA3, USB 3.1 and I would be paying no
>> more than 350 dollars total for those two.

b***** hell, I'd bite your arm off for those prices here. I shall look and compare in a bit.

>> Have we told you abut M2 hard drives yet???????????

Mmmm.I was looking at the Samsung SSD 970 EVO

I really don´t need it though.
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>>I would be paying no more than 350 dollars total for those two.
>b***** hell, I'd bite your arm off for those prices here. I shall look and compare in a bit.

FFS. £667.80

$350 would be £262.00, so £400 more.

I need to think of alternatives procurement approaches.

Where do you buy such components?
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
$380USD (£280).

Now as it happens I have the very best of couriers which is also free, but it only works from the UK to Chile so the US shipping/taxes $140, a total of $520

Amazon UK wants £380 without shipping. So even though I could avoid shipping/taxes it's still quite a lot more.

I need to hunt about.
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
AMD Ryzen 5 2600 (similar benchmark score to that Intel 9700), and a decent Asus AM4 slot motherboard for under £230 UK prices? (Add £50 if you want the very latest B550 chipset).

You begin to see the AMD value proposition from that.

Frankly, I'd go mATX form factor (I have) and save some more money, but I think that would limit you to 4 SATA connections - possibly one too few - I don't find much practical constraint in the smaller/cheaper boards.

 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>> AMD Ryzen 5 2600 (similar benchmark score to that Intel 9700), and a decent Asus
>> AM4 slot motherboard for under £230 UK prices? (Add £50 if you want the very
>> latest B550 chipset).

Where would you buy such a thing in the UK? And what would the B550 chipset bring me, or not?

>> You begin to see the AMD value proposition from that.

I do.

>> Frankly, I'd go mATX form factor (I have) and save some more money, but I
>> think that would limit you to 4 SATA connections - possibly one too few -

Indeed, it is one too few. But if I'm looking at an m2 drive that may not matter. I'll look about.
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
>>
>> Where would you buy such a thing in the UK? And what would the B550
>> chipset bring me, or not?
>>

The AMD processor I quoted is not latest gen (it's -1) but that's no great issue. It is roughly the same vintage as the Intel one. It would work fine with a B450 board (which I have). B550 is new, and I've not got to grips with the difference, but I don't think there's anything very exciting. In fact (and I'm surprised), the ASUS B550 boards don't (yet?) support that CPU.

That Ryzen was simply selected as a benchmark equivalent of the Intel. You could splash (some of) the saving on something a bit newer or higher-powered.

My sources are generally:

cclonline.com (usually top of my list because they sorted issues not of their own making quickly)
scan.co.uk
ebuyer.com
box.co.uk

...and a few others.

>> >> You begin to see the AMD value proposition from that.
>>
>> I do.
>>
>> >> Frankly, I'd go mATX form factor (I have) and save some more money, but
>> I
>> >> think that would limit you to 4 SATA connections - possibly one too few
>> -
>>
>> Indeed, it is one too few. But if I'm looking at an m2 drive that
>> may not matter. I'll look about.
>>

mATX should fit a full-size case, but it is worthwhile just checking as you already have one. You lose some ports and expansion capability whilst saving money but, since the advent of fast USB that's never been a problem for me.

If you do pursue an M2 drive, make sure the motherboard slot is PCIe, not SATA (most recent m/bs will be ok) and the drive is also PCIe (they come in both flavours and SATA will gain you nothing over your existing SATA SSDs)
 CPU Performance - Zero

>> A good reference, but it doesn't really explain.
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>> Of the following two, apparently the i5 is better. Higher CPU mark and better rank.
>> I am ignoring price.
>>
>> Rank 1460 Intel Core i5-4200U @ 1.60GHz
>> Rang 1461 Intel Core i7-940XM @ 2.13GHz
>>
>> So the older gen, lower i number, slower clock speed is 'better'??

Nope the I7 is "older gen". In fact its a 10 year old generation - Generation is not the I number

Generations are names. Currently on intel something lake

Intel is making I5's and I7's today on new generation chip fabs. Using new generation motherboard chip sets. 10th generation. You an still buy 9th generation chips, but they use a different socket

And what you doing down in ranking 1460 anyway? its prehistoric down there.
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>>And what you doing down in ranking 1460 anyway? its prehistoric down there.

I wasn't really, it's just the first place an example caught my eye.

>>> Rank 1460 Intel Core i5-4200U @ 1.60GHz
>>> Rang 1461 Intel Core i7-940XM @ 2.13GHz
>>>
>> >So the older gen, lower i number, slower clock speed is 'better'??
>>
>Nope the I7 is "older gen". In fact its a 10 year old generation

Goddamit, just when I thought I was making progress.

Is the first number after the '-' Not the Gen? i.e. 4 vs 9?

 CPU Performance - Zero
No model numbers are not logical

You can get I3, I5, I7 generation 3's which are 10 years older tech than I3, I5, I7 (and now I9) generation 9. The I is just a "power band". Think new Audi engine numbers.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 29 Aug 20 at 17:40
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional

>>
>> Partly because I want to finally get around to building my own, which I've always
>> found vaguely intimidated so haven't done, and partly because it annoys me that I don't
>> understand.
>>

I've built a good few over the years. It isn't as intimidating as it used to be. Compatibility is much less of a problem than it used to be, though some care is still needed on selecting components. (QVLs - Qualified Vendor Lists - provide decent compatibility reference)

For anyone who wants a technical challenge, it can be quite rewarding (always assuming that it works from the off ;-) )

>>
>> A good reference, but it doesn't really explain.
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>> Of the following two, apparently the i5 is better. Higher CPU mark and better rank.
>> I am ignoring price.
>>
>> Rank 1460 Intel Core i5-4200U @ 1.60GHz
>> Rang 1461 Intel Core i7-940XM @ 2.13GHz
>>
>> So the older gen, lower i number, slower clock speed is 'better'??
>>

I think you've got that the wrong way round. The i5 is some three years or so newer, and on a much revised architecture and reduced fab size. There are far too many factors to cover in considering performance, but in general, it moves on (even though the nomenclature, presumably for marketing reasons, retains an element of commonality).

>>
>> >> Speed of CPU
>> >> Generally unimportant,*
>>
>> OK, faster is hotter. Got that. But a CPU doesn't have to run at full
>> speed does it? Do would a faster CPU not run at a lower capacity? OR
>> do CPUs always try to run as fast as they can?
>>
>> And why isn't speed important? Bear in mind my CPU knowledge comes from 80s DEC
>> kit, and that wasn't very complicated by comparison.
>>

Faster is generally hotter (though heat depends a lot on architecture). A CPU will run at a level required to process the work that is thrown at it, and nowadays, it is common to quote a base speed and a further (turbo) speed to which it can rise for some time if the workload demands it (constant turbo might result in thermal throttling). the processing speed is certainly not constant.

>>
>> If a CPU has 4 cores, does that mean that each core gets 1/4 of
>> it's performance? Or is it that when the CPU is not running at full capacity
>> overall it can use some of that spare capacity by doing mroe than one thing
>> at once?
>>
>> >> Threads.
>> >> Unless your software is developed to use them properly (Windows isn't) unimportant,
>>
>> Are threads to cores as cores are to CPUs?
>>

Cores are physical cpus within the unit. AIUI, these are all rated at the quoted clock speed and the OS and hardware divis up workload between them.

Threads are logical cpus within each core (i.e. the OS sees a two core four thread cpu as four logical cpus, and again the work is divi'd up between them).

The action of utilising multiple cores and threads adds overhead. Ultimate performance depends on how the workload (and OS) lends itself to distributing workload both physically and logically, and multiple cores are considerably more efficient than multiple threads (workload allowing).

Multiple cores and threads can (in the correct circumstances) compensate for clock speed.

>> >> The AMD Ryzens are vastly superior in every respect as things stand.
>>
>> And seemingly reasonably priced. Is there any issue from going non-Intel? There used to be
>> potential issues a gazillion years ago.
>>

I wouldn't say that the Ryzens are superior in every respect, but they do have the advantage of providing more bangs for the buck, and the AMD motherboard chipsets support some nice things that Intel are just catching up with.

My last two builds have been AMD - I don't need gaming so a Ryzen APU (with considerably more competent integrated graphics than the Intel stuff) provides a good, solid hardworking base - graphics are as good as a spare older machine that was built with a good-quality discrete card (to support gaming) at the time.

Do your research as to suitability of AMD kit for your desired purposes, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't a good choice.
 CPU Performance - No FM2R

>> For anyone who wants a technical challenge, it can be quite rewarding (always assuming
>> that it works from the off ;-) )

Hence my interest. Stupid to be intimidated by it really, perhaps daunted would be a better word.

>> >> Rank 1460 Intel Core i5-4200U @ 1.60GHz
>> >> Rang 1461 Intel Core i7-940XM @ 2.13GHz
>> >>
>> >> So the older gen, lower i number, slower clock speed is 'better'??
>> >>
>>
>> I think you've got that the wrong way round. The i5 is some three years
>> or so newer,

I am confused. I thought the first number was the generation. i.e. in this example the i5 is a generation´4´and the i7 is a generation´9´?

>> reduced fab size.

"fab size"?


>> Cores are.................

Thank you, that helped.

>> I wouldn't say that the Ryzens are superior in every respect, but they do have
>> the advantage of providing more bangs for the buck, and the AMD motherboard chipsets
>> support some nice things that Intel are just catching up with.

For example?

>> Do your research as to suitability of AMD kit for your desired purposes, but I'd
>> be surprised if it wasn't a good choice.

There goes Saturday.
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
>>
>> I am confused. I thought the first number was the generation. i.e. in this example
>> the i5 is a generation´4´and the i7 is a generation´9´?
>>

I think Z answered that above. The i"n" ratings are simply marketing positions within the range. The nomenclature has been retained, but newer generations of the "n" range have overtaken the performance of older generations of a higher "n".

>> >> reduced fab size.
>>
>> "fab size"?
>>

Essentially relates to the silicon wafer thickness on which the cpu is based. It has been steadily reducing, with more electronics crammed into a smaller space making them thermally, electrically and performance-wise more efficient. AMD have really stolen a march here, and Intel are struggling to keep up (in fact they've recently had to announce a delay to their plans for the next "shrink".

>> >> I wouldn't say that the Ryzens are superior in every respect, but they do
>> have
>> >> the advantage of providing more bangs for the buck, and the AMD motherboard chipsets
>>
>> >> support some nice things that Intel are just catching up with.
>>
>> For example?
>>

AMD have always been rather better at supporting overclocking (which may or may not be of interest) but recently they have been quicker at implementing new standards, such as PCIe V4, which (theoretically, and I think practically) speeds up communication with the latest versions of hardware such as SSD and Video Cards. It's another thing Intel are trailing on.

>> >> Do your research as to suitability of AMD kit for your desired purposes, but
>> I'd
>> >> be surprised if it wasn't a good choice.
>>
>> There goes Saturday.

Looking at what you've posted, I think you should be starting just about from scratch. You're going to "need" a new Motherboard, newer memory, a new CPU, a (recommended) NVMe PCIe SSD, etc. - might as well have a clean sheet ;-)
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>> I am confused. I thought the first number was the generation. i.e. in this example
>> the i5 is a generation´4´and the i7 is a generation´9´?
>>
>
>I think Z answered that above. The i"n" ratings are simply marketing positions within the range. >The nomenclature has been retained, but newer generations of the "n" range have overtaken the >performance of older generations of a higher "n".

I am not being clearer, I didn't mean to refer to the in; The two CPUs I quoted were..

i5-4200U @ 1.60GHz [so, Gen 4, no?] &
i7-940XM @ 2.13GHz [Gen 9?]

Yet it says that the i5 is better.

Sorry to harp on, but I do want to get this straight in my head.

 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
No, you're inferring a generation from the number in a way that you can't.

i5-4200U is a 4th generation cpu from Q3/2013

i7-940XM is a 1st generation cpu from 3 years earlier, with an older architecture and "fab" dimension. (note 3-digit numbering).

The first digit relates (roughly) to the generation, but not in the case of the three-digit number.
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>>The first digit relates (roughly) to the generation, but not in the case of the three-digit number.

Got it. Thanks. Will look into 3 & 4 digit numbering.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 29 Aug 20 at 18:47
 CPU Performance - Zero
.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 29 Aug 20 at 19:44
 CPU Performance - Zero

>> i5-4200U
>> i7-940XM

Overtime has become meaningless. its of no consequence. do not use it as a reference.

You will be buying new stuff. You buy it on description.

For example.

Intel Core i7 9700 9th Gen Desktop Processor/CPU Retail

Intel Core i7 9700, S 1151, Coffee Lake Refresh, 8 Core, 8 Thread, 3.0GHz, 4.7GHz Turbo, 12MB, 1200MHz GPU, 65W, CPU,Box

And buy stuff descried as "retail box" it comes with cooling fan and heatsink pad. S = is socket, the S on motherboard needs to match.






 CPU Performance - No FM2R
Ok, got it.

Though that then throws up another question;

Why do I care about the graphics capabilities of the CPU if I have a separate GPU?. I see that sme come without graphics capabilities. Dos that matter?
 CPU Performance - Zero
>> Ok, got it.
>>
>> Though that then throws up another question;
>>
>> Why do I care about the graphics capabilities of the CPU if I have a
>> separate GPU?. I see that sme come without graphics capabilities. Dos that matter?
>
You dont. The motherboard will come with a display port built on the back, to use the CPU's graphics capabilities.

The CPU's graphic capabilities will never ever be as good as a PCIe graphics card with its own dedicated GPU and dedicated memory, and plugging one in disables the on board graphics. In in so doing release and memory it would steal from your dimms back to the OS.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 29 Aug 20 at 18:46
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
If you're planning on (re-)using the Graphics card, you'll most likely to get the best value from not buying an APU (CPU with integrated graphics).
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>>Looking at what you've posted, I think you should be starting just about from scratch. You're
>>going to "need" a new Motherboard, newer memory, a new CPU, a (recommended) NVMe PCIe
>>SSD, etc. - might as well have a clean sheet ;-)

Perhaps. But if I was going to throw money at it then I'd simply go buy the biggest baddest I could find. You know, with the computer equivalent of a volume that goes up to 11.

This year I have replaced both girls' PCs, the wife's and 2x S-i-L´s and I've simply thrown money at them. But for me the interest is upgrading or reusing what I have.

The graphics board is good enough [GTX 1650] and not old. Due to previous issues the power supply is both oversized [800w] and new. The disks are new and good [3x SSD and 3x 2TB HDD. And the cabinet is fine. The fan/heatsink is also newish and more than capable. The monitors are both new and 32". The PC is on the wired LAN and I have no need for it to be on WiFi. The printer is an ancient pile of cack, but who cares. The audio is separate, is 5.1 and certainly good enough for me.

I think simply changing the CPU won't get me much within the constraints of the existing Motherboard, so I´ll need a new motherboard also. And therefore RAM.

But just the three things, I think.

By all means tell me if you disagree, this really is not an area of expertise of mine and I am appreciating the thoughts, advice and help.

Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 29 Aug 20 at 18:33
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
CPU, Motherboard and RAM would probably work, but if you aren't using an NVMe SSD (but SATA) then I would suggest (subject to the new motherboard having a compatible M2 slot - it should do) then adding an M2/PCIe SSD for the OS and frequently used stuff should/will speed things quite a bit. (transfer is at PCIe speed, not SATA). Less than £70 UK price for the well-rated 512GB one I have (you could probably get by with 256GB).

Not critical, but it does make a noticeable difference.

(and, given the background, I still think I'd research AMD in preference to Intel - it is likely to be cheaper for equal or better results).
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sat 29 Aug 20 at 18:41
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>>adding an M2/PCIe SSD for the OS and frequently used stuff should/will speed things quite a bi

Ok, I put it on the list. Thank you.
 CPU Performance - Zero
>> The graphics board is good enough [GTX 1650] and not old.
It will do
Due to previous issues
>> the power supply is both oversized [800w] and new.
It wil do (tho you may need to buy converter pugs or cables)

The disks are new and good
>> [3x SSD and 3x 2TB HDD.

Errr maybe not. Disks have changed, a lot, and quickly. Are your drives SATA 6 compatible? the motherboard will come with a faster M2 drive motherboard slot.


And the cabinet is fine. The fan/heatsink is also
>> newish and more than capable.

Heatsink/fan probably not, the mounting may have changed with the motherboard.

If you buy retail boxed Intel CPU's they come with fans/heatsinks that fit the appropriate motherboard.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 29 Aug 20 at 18:41
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
>>
>> The disks are new and good
>> >> [3x SSD and 3x 2TB HDD.
>>
>> Errr maybe not. Disks have changed, a lot, and quickly. Are your drives SATA 6
>> compatible? the motherboard will come with a faster M2 drive motherboard slot.
>>

As above ; I would add an M2 PCIe SSD as an OS drive, but then not worry about the connection speed of the existing disks (at least, not for now).

>>
>> Heatsink/fan probably not, the mounting may have changed with the motherboard.
>>
>> If you buy retail boxed Intel CPU's they come with fans/heatsinks that fit the appropriate
>> motherboard.
>>
...and most AMD Ryzen do as well.
 CPU Performance - Zero
Fab size.
Fabrication size, in effect the wafer thickness in microns of the CPU silicon. Thinner usually means less heat and higher density of transistor gates. Intel is having problems getting thinner fabs.
 CPU Performance - Zero
>>
>> >> For anyone who wants a technical challenge, it can be quite rewarding (always assuming
>>
>> >> that it works from the off ;-) )
>>
>> Hence my interest. Stupid to be intimidated by it really, perhaps daunted would be a
>> better word.

I think its the not unreasonable fear that you are spending considerable chunks of dosh on stuff you think a: might not work together b: could well explode when you turn it on and c: has no comeback if you screw it it all up.

I have those dark thoughts every time I embark on a build.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 29 Aug 20 at 18:13
 CPU Performance - No FM2R

>> I think its the not unreasonable fear that you are spending considerable chunks of dosh
>> on stuff you think a: might not work together b: could well explode when you
>> turn it on and c: has no comeback if you screw it it all up.

You'd think. Unfortunately I am sadder than that.

The worst thing for me would be if it worked just fine but it would have been better if I had been smarter (not just spent more). That would permanently spoil my enjoyment even if I changed whatever I hadn't done well.

It's a way of life for me, and a right PITA it is too.
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
All, but particularly T&E and Zero, thank you so much.

Brilliant information and I do appreciate your efforts.
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
T&E,

These two, for example?

www.cclonline.com/product/250246/YD2600BBAFBOX/CPU-Processors/AMD-2nd-Gen-Ryzen-5-2600-3-4GHz-Processor-16MB-L3-Cache-with-Wraith-Stealth/CPU0537/

www.cclonline.com/product/258499/90MB0YS0-M0EAY0/Motherboards/Asus-ROG-Strix-B450-F-Gaming-AMD-AM4-ATX-Motherboard-RAID-LAN-AMD-Radeon-Graphics-/MBD2490/
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
That's where I priced the Ryzen.

Remember, I'm not privy to your intended usage, so anything will only be suggestion rather than recommendation.

As far as the motherboard is concerned, I'm not sure that going up the ranges will offer you much practical advantage, unless there is something extra in the specs you want/need.

I quite like ASUS m/bs, but (along with Z's recommendation of the "Prime" series for Intel), I'd compare the specs of the one above with :

www.cclonline.com/product/258497/90MB0YN0-M0EAY0/Motherboards/Asus-Prime-B450-Plus-AMD-AM4-B450-Motherboard-ATX-RAID-LAN-AMD-Radeon-Graphics-/MBD2488/

...which is £25 cheaper.

You might even look at

www.cclonline.com/product/257790/90-MXB8B0-A0UAYZ/Motherboards/ASRock-B450-Pro4-AMD-Socket-AM4-B450-Chipset-ATX-Motherboard/MBD2470/

....which saves a further £15 and is the ATX version of my current mATX board.

AMD kit tends to be choosy about memory, so I would only buy off the motherboard QVL list, or an item recommended by a memory manufacturer on their "memory chooser" pages for the specific motherboard. (You only need the memory code, then search the online retailers).

I happen to know that 16GB of (2x8, non-overclocked) memory compatible with the ASRock/Asus boards above can be had for less than £65.

Just for completeness, the following is the M2/PCIe SSD I have. It was (and is still) well rated, but there are others. It is an example at £68 for 512GB, there are other decent options around.

www.cclonline.com/product/264398/ASX8200PNP-512GT-C/Solid-State-Drives-SSDs-/ADATA-XPG-SX8200-Pro-512GB-M-2-2280-PCIe-Gen3-x4-NVMe-Internal-Solid-State-Drive-SSD-/SSD0896/

If you do finally jump for something, I'm sure that if you post on here Z, myself or someone else can comment on the overall compatibility.

I've also had a ponder on your question about the newer B550 chipset. I think the only practical change you woud see is a limited amount of support for PCIe v4. In theory, this offers faster transfer between certain components, but those that support v4 are very new, and your Graphics card (planned for re-use) is v3 anyway, so I think I would exclude it as a choice. Whilst the new B550 boards won't support that (-1 Gen) Ryzen 5 2600, I think conversely that the older B450 boards will support the newer generation of Ryzens. There can be problems with this, though, since the support relies on BIOS upgrades, and if you get a board "off-the shelf" without a recent BIOS, then you need an older CPU to update the BIOS - Catch22 if you've bought a processor newer than the BIOS on the board as supplied will support!

So, putting the thing in perspective. If you go for the cheaper motherboard you could have CPU/Motherboard/16GB Memory and a fast 512GB SSD for around £350. None of it is quite leading-edge, but it is all of a decent spec.
 CPU Performance - Zero

>> I quite like ASUS m/bs, but (along with Z's recommendation of the "Prime" series for
>> Intel), I'd compare the specs of the one above with :

So do I. I like the fact I can download the manual, the certified vendors list, AND the details of the BIOS updates, before I chose or buy. Its a great help.
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
I don't think I've found any M/B manufacturers that I've considered where that isn't possible....

I have a 10-year plus old m/c with an Asus motherboard which is still functioning pretty well.
 CPU Performance - smokie
My main desktop is a 350GHz i5-4690 processor (which is old!) on a Gigabyte mb with 16Gb RAM and an old Samsung Evo PRO 400Gb SSD C drive which has pretty much nothing on it except 86Gb of OS and programs. Graphics is an nVidia GTX750.

I have a small old SSD which is used for the swapfile and temp files. I am sure I've not bought any bits for it in the 5+ years since I stopped work, except a larger SSD for much of my data! It is on for 18 hours a day, every day, and sadly is in (mostly light) use for at least 6 hours most days.

I rarely get it warm let alone max it out, but I have been converting videos from avi to mp4 using Handbrake over the past few days and it sits at 100% when doing it (though something handles load balancing quite nicely as you see no real impact on other programs). But I am quite happy using 100% of the processor from time to time, It's what it's there for!! I think if I had a processor twice as fast it would still run at 100%, albeit getting the job done quicker...

I like having decent performance and response times and for sure, if it started to decline and I couldn't resolve it quickly, I'd replace it like a flash. I suppose the 200mb hard wired internet connection is a bonus too. I am told the fan is a but noisy but as I'm a bit mutton I'm not so bothered :-)

tbh unless you are using something really processor hungryl (e.g. some games or databases) I think it can be as much about tuning and/or fast peripherals as the actual CPU hardware you are running (so long as it isn't too old!!)
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
Me again, sorry.

Looking at the motherboards then it seems to me that I could save £40 and not cause myself any difficulty today. However, I would lose some expansion possibilities which I may or may not need in the future. It seems to me that's perhaps a false economy.

The case I shall use is perfectly adequate and will take either mATX or ATX. It seems that the ATX again gives me more flexibility, such as 6 or 4 SATA.

So, it seems that this ATX at £117 is probably wisest for me. Thoughts?
www.cclonline.com/product/258499/90MB0YS0-M0EAY0/Motherboards/Asus-ROG-Strix-B450-F-Gaming-AMD-AM4-ATX-Motherboard-RAID-LAN-AMD-Radeon-Graphics-/MBD2490/

On the subject of the CPU, whilst I do now understand what I am looking at and what is involved, [thank you] I don´t really know enough to be clever.

The recommendation given has good reports, seems pretty good performance and going to do all I want. So probably smartest just to listen.
www.cclonline.com/product/250246/YD2600BBAFBOX/CPU-Processors/AMD-2nd-Gen-Ryzen-5-2600-3-4GHz-Processor-16MB-L3-Cache-with-Wraith-Stealth/CPU0537/

The motherboard allows for 4 x DIMM. At this time I'm comfortable that I need 16GB. I certainly don't need 32GB but 8GB might be restricting. Is 2x8 the best distribution? As opposed to 4x4 or 1x16? Assuming that it is, though I'd be interested to understand why, then the following seems pretty good to me. Comments?
www.cclonline.com/product/293046/CMK16GX4M2Z3200C16/Desktop-Memory/Corsair-Vengeance-LPX-16GB-2-x-8GB-Memory-Kit-PC4-25600-3200MHz-DDR4-DIMM-C16/RAM4168/

I hadn't considered the question of storage. However, since the subject came up I checked and indeed my current storage is slow by today's standards. However, the vast majority of it is bulk storage of photos, videos, music, various device backups and documents. And when I say 'bulk' I mean around 6TB. I don't think it needs 'fast'. There is a 500GB SSD which is the current system disk, and until I started looking at the m.2 stuff I was pleased with it.

So I think buying a single m.2 for the OS and some stuff, leaving most of the programmes on the other SSD and all the storage on the SATAs should be ok.

1TB at £125 seems excessive and 256GB at £45 doesn't seem much of a saving.

So I'd go with your recommendation of;
www.cclonline.com/product/264398/ASX8200PNP-512GT-C/Solid-State-Drives-SSDs-/ADATA-XPG-SX8200-Pro-512GB-M-2-2280-PCIe-Gen3-x4-NVMe-Internal-Solid-State-Drive-SSD-/SSD0896/

The power supply, cooling and GPU will all work with that motherboard - I am sure. They're all pretty new and capable. I don't need monitors or audio.

All in all, £340 or £380 depending on which way I fall with the motherboard.

For your interest if I tried to buy it here then I couldn't. Going for as close as possible with substitutes where necessary then a probably less capable machine would cost me around £640

So, assuming that I'm on the right tracks all I've got to do is get it here. Which I can do though it'll take a bit of long distance dicking around.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 31 Aug 20 at 07:41
 CPU Performance - Zero

>> The case I shall use is perfectly adequate and will take either mATX or ATX.
>> It seems that the ATX again gives me more flexibility, such as 6 or 4
>> SATA.

I always go for the largest form factor board thats fits your case. Its easier to work on and the larger the board the better the heat dissipation, and as you say, you end up with more interfaces.

>
>> The motherboard allows for 4 x DIMM. At this time I'm comfortable that I need
>> 16GB. I certainly don't need 32GB but 8GB might be restricting. Is 2x8 the best
>> distribution? As opposed to 4x4 or 1x16?

Channels

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-channel_memory_architecture#Quad-channel_architecture

Split your memory across the channels the CPU supports. The Ryzen you have chosen supports two, so memory split in two dimms is good. 1 per channel.
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
>>
>> So, it seems that this ATX at £117 is probably wisest for me. Thoughts?
>> www.cclonline.com/product/258499/90MB0YS0-M0EAY0/Motherboards/Asus-ROG-Strix-B450-F-Gaming-AMD-AM4-ATX-Motherboard-RAID-LAN-AMD-Radeon-Graphics-/MBD2490/
>>

I can understand the ATX/mATX argument. I'm not sure what this gets you above the ASUS "Prime" M/B above (which is cheaper, or even the even cheaper ASRock).

>> The recommendation given has good reports, seems pretty good performance and going to do all
>> I want. So probably smartest just to listen.
>> www.cclonline.com/product/250246/YD2600BBAFBOX/CPU-Processors/AMD-2nd-Gen-Ryzen-5-2600-3-4GHz-Processor-16MB-L3-Cache-with-Wraith-Stealth/CPU0537/
>>

Not leading edge, or latest gen, but good performance for the money. (and heatsink and fan incl.)

>> The motherboard allows for 4 x DIMM. At this time I'm comfortable that I need
>> 16GB. I certainly don't need 32GB but 8GB might be restricting. Is 2x8 the best
>> distribution? As opposed to 4x4 or 1x16? Assuming that it is, though I'd be interested
>> to understand why, then the following seems pretty good to me. Comments?
>> www.cclonline.com/product/293046/CMK16GX4M2Z3200C16/Desktop-Memory/Corsair-Vengeance-LPX-16GB-2-x-8GB-Memory-Kit-PC4-25600-3200MHz-DDR4-DIMM-C16/RAM4168/
>>

2x8GB is your best choice. Bought as a kit it will run "dual channel" (each stick will be controlled separately, giving performance benefits - needs to go in the correct memory slot combination, but the manual will advise).

You need to be careful about memory and buy off the QVL list. In addition, the native speed of the chipset and CPU is 2666, running at 3200 will require overclocking, not something I'd recommend for a first build and guaranteed stability. Non-Overclocked at 2666, this should be compatible:

www.cclonline.com/product/295229/HX426C16FB3K2/16/Desktop-Memory/HyperX-FURY-16-GB-2-x-8GB-PC4-21300-2666MHz-1-2V-CL16-DDR4-Desktop-Memory-Dual-Channel-DIMM-Kit/RAM4218/

For 2666 corsair memory, you could check here:

www.corsair.com/uk/en/memoryfinder?type=motherboard

>>
>> So I think buying a single m.2 for the OS and some stuff, leaving most
>> of the programmes on the other SSD and all the storage on the SATAs should
>> be ok.
>>
>> 1TB at £125 seems excessive and 256GB at £45 doesn't seem much of a saving.
>>
>> So I'd go with your recommendation of;
>> www.cclonline.com/product/264398/ASX8200PNP-512GT-C/Solid-State-Drives-SSDs-/ADATA-XPG-SX8200-Pro-512GB-M-2-2280-PCIe-Gen3-x4-NVMe-Internal-Solid-State-Drive-SSD-/SSD0896/

There may now be other choices out there, but this was top-rated when I bought and is still highly recommended. I think 512 GB is a decent "sweet spot".

Even if the current disks are 'slow' (SATAII?), you aren't boxing yourself in. You can replace with faster interface disks (SATAIII) if/as and when required. The SSD will probably be SATAIII anyway, and if your current board is SATAII, then that will improve in the new kit.

>>
>> The power supply, cooling and GPU will all work with that motherboard - I am
>> sure. They're all pretty new and capable. I don't need monitors or audio.
>>

If it's standard ATX format, the psu should be fine. The CPU comes with a stock heatsink/fan, which will be fine if not overclocking. The GPU should be compatible (at least there's a compatible slot). That CPU runs relatively cool, so case cooling shouldn't be an issue.

>> All in all, £340 or £380 depending on which way I fall with the motherboard.
>>
>>

One extra thing occurs to me - the case. If it's not proprietary (Dell or such which might require a custom motherboard) then the kit should fit, BUT, you may be constraining yourself a bit. Current m/bs support USB3 in one or other formats, and it is useful to have fast USB3 ports on the case front. If yours has ports, they are likely to be USB2, and won't allow use as USB3. (I'm pretty sure all of those boards have USB2 headers as well, so the front ports will be usable, just considerably slower. All the boards have rear USB3 ports anyway, just rather more awkward to use).
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
Good point on the USB ports. But I can always replace the case in the future if it becomes an issue or an irritation. Access to my PC is pretty open because my desk is in the middle of a large room, so it is easy to access all 4 sides of the case so putting USB connectors into the back is slightly more difficult then simply leaning down, but not prohibitively so I don't think..

I went through the specs of the three boards and the boring detail is below (just the material differences).

As an aside, I wonder why they still put PS/2 ports, are they commonly used?

It seemed to me that the ROG is better equipped with connection and for the sake of 40 quid was worth the difference. Though I guess it is also 50%.

Do you consider any of the differences material?

The ASUS Rog (£116.99) has;
Rear ports
2 x USB 3.1
4 x USB 3.0
2 x USB 2.0

PCI Express slots
2 x PCI Express 3.0 x16 (@ x16 or x8/x4)
1 x PCI Express 2.0 x16 (@ x4)
3 x PCI Express 2.0 x1

Other connectors
1 x M.2, Socket 3, M Key (Type 2242/2260/2280)
1 x M.2, Socket 3, M Key (Type 2242/2260/2280/22110) - Non G-Series Processors Only
2 x AURA RGB strip headers
1 x Thermal Sensor connector

ASUS PRIME B450-PLUS (£91.70)
Rear ports
2 x USB 3.1
1 x USB 3.0 Type-C
2 x USB 3.0 Type-A
2 x USB 2.0

PCI Express slots
1 x PCI Express 3.0 x16 (@ x16 or x8 with G Processors)
1 x PCI Express 2.0 x16 (@ x4)
1 x PCI Express 2.0 x1

Other connectors
1 x M.2, Socket 3, M Key (Type 2242/2260/2280/22110)
1 x AURA RGB strip header

ASRock B450 Pro4 (£75.99)

Rear ports
1 x USB 3.1 Type-C
1 x USB 3.1 Type-A
4 x USB 3.0
2 x USB 2.0

PCI Express slots
2 x PCI Express 3.0 x16
4 x PCI Express 2.0 x1

Other connectors
1 x M.2, M Key (Type 2242/2260/2280)
1 x M.2, M Key (Type 2242/2260/2280/22110)
1 x RGB LED header
1 x Addressable LED header
1 x AMD Fan LED header

 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
First of all, the G processors are the ones with on-CPU graphics which the one selected doesn't have (mine has). When these are present some of the PCIe "lanes" on the board are hobbled, because the onboard graphics have got some of the resources (whether they are in use or not).

The RGB stuff is only of any interest if you have a see-through case, and want to make everything look like Blackpool illuminations when it's on.

The USB count (and type) is your call. Given that they are pluggable, I've never exhausted the number of ports available (or got near).

PCIe expansion slots - again, your call. Whilst expansion used to be mainly via PCI(e) cards, it is much more rare nowadays (e.g. most wireless networking is undertaken USB, and wired networking tends to be built into the board). You'll need at least one 3.0 x16 for your graphics card, and two of the same in the unlikely event you eventually want to run with dual graphics cards - hardball gaming only so unlikely. If you haven't any expansion cards in your existing PC, I can see no reason why this should affect your selection.

Be aware that M2 sockets aren't all equal. All the above have at least one PCIe one, the ROG has 2 (the ASRock second one is SATA). It could be useful if you ever want to replace the M2 PCIe drive with a bigger one (or the original one wears out), as it would make cloning easier, but there are other ways round that issue that aren't over-difficult).

Do note that the various boards lose certain SATA ports when an M2 socket is occupied. (see the product footnotes). That looks to be more restrictive on the ASUS boards to me - though you would still probably retain enough SATA ports for your use (do you have an optical drive, 'cos we haven't counted one)?

I suspect the main difference will be that the ROG series, being more oriented to gaming and particularly overclocking will be built with slightly better power regulation, components, and also more chunky heatsinks. I've only ever had one board go belly-up in my time building PCs, and that was a mini-Shuttle box which burnt out its fan-header (a known issue). I'm sure that not overclocking contributes to that longevity.

Again, your call - don't forget to be careful with the memory.
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
Just about to order this. Any last minute comments?

Asus ROG Strix B450-F Gaming AMD AM4 (ATX) Motherboard RAID LAN (AMD Radeon Graphics)

AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen 5 2600 3.4GHz Processor 16MB L3 Cache with Wraith Stealth

HyperX FURY 16 GB (2 x 8GB) PC4-21300 2666MHz 1.2V CL16 DDR4 Desktop Memory Dual Channel DIMM Kit

ADATA XPG SX8200 Pro 512GB M.2 2280 PCIe Gen3 x4 NVMe Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

I really do appreciate all the help. I've learned a lot and I'd not have been able to get this right without your help.

I owe you, thank you.
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
Just as long as you realise you're buying something that is not leading-edge, but is (looking at the specs of your current kit) going to give you a significant uplift in performance (subject, of course, to the profile of usage) for not a great expenditure.

I've picked up vibes that you want more performance, and you want to "play" with building it, but there is a budget involved, and that makes quite a bit of sense for a first build before you have experience.

There's usually an "elbow" in the price/performance line where the line steepens considerably based on increasing power and newness. For a new build I generally try to buy just before that elbow. This kit is slightly further away from the elbow, but firmly on the good value for decent performance slope.

It shouldn't be the most difficult of builds, and there is quite a lot of extra bang for your buck there.

I've re-checked the compatibility of that board, and the memory (if, as I suspect, it's off the link I posted) is shown as compatible here (the specific manufacturer's part number checks out on the HypoerX section of this page):

www.kingston.com/unitedkingdom/en/memory/search?model=98639&devicetype=7&mfr=asu&line=rog&totalcapacity_5=16&capacity_5=8

The only thing to note here is that you could buy faster memory (with a 2666 setting), not overclock it for the time being (i.e. run at 2666), and then play with it later. Frankly, I've dabbled a bit with overclocking in the past, but for a main machine which requires longevity and stability, it's not something I'd do any more. (stock 2666 memory, which is what I'm using, will be fast enough, and the manufacturer underwritten compatibility is key).

The CPU is also compatible with the board as shown here:

www.asus.com/uk/Motherboards/ROG-STRIX-B450-F-GAMING/HelpDesk_CPU/

(and is supported on all versions of the board, and from an early BIOS - you'll be very, very unlucky to receive a board at a level that won't support that CPU - as I said above, that's a real Catch22 situation, and realistically isn't going to happen).

The SSD won't be a problem, but do note that you will have certain restrictions (not uncommon) arising from its use. I haven't read the manual yet, so the following is conjecture, but from the headline specs it appears there are two M2 slots, both supporting PCIe. Using one will reduce SATA (disk) ports to 4 (the specific inoperable ports will be defined in the manual), using the other will hobble one of the PCIe expansion slots mainly designed for Graphics cards. If you use that one, you'll want to put the card in the other slot (assuming either slot is supported for a single Graphics card). If the conjecture is correct, I think I'd take the second option.(I doubt you'll want dual Graphics cards in the future).

I don't think your GTX1650 will be a problem either; plenty of examples of custom-built PCs for sale with the B450 chipset and that specific Graphics card.

Good Luck!.

If/when you go ahead, happy to respond with further support.





 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>>I've picked up vibes that you want more performance, and you want to "play" with building it,
>>but there is a budget involved, and that makes quite a bit of sense for a first build before you
>>have experience.

A good assessment. I do want to learn, indeed have already learned a lot. Actually building will teach me more, no doubt.

There is a budget involved or building my own makes no sense. I could just buy something excessive. In fact, that's what I've typically done. The problem with that approach though is that the only real way of keeping the performance up is to periodically buy another entire machine. Best not to think about how many computers I have bought over the years.

Also, when buying a machine from a retailer it appears to me that they assemble it with the goal of getting the best price/performance aimed at a specific user profile at that moment in time. They use almost end of life products, inflexible configurations and products with limited comparability or upgrade-ability.

If I know more, then I should be able to buy smarter and buy individual components as and when. Seems like it ought to be loads more interesting.
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
p.s. "overclocking" seems a subject best left for now. But don't worry, you'll be my first port of call for dumb-a*** questions when I get there. I bet you can't wait.
 CPU Performance - Zero
>> Just about to order this. Any last minute comments?

Yeah, you just know you could have done it smarter for less..................
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>Yeah, you just know you could have done it smarter for less..

If I was as smart as you I'd have had a Capri and three girlfriends rather than a dodgy Singer Chamois and a hippy.
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
>>
>> If I was as smart as you I'd have had a Capri and three girlfriends.....
>>

...you'd need to know about overclocking to have coped with that..... ;-)
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
As euphemisms go, that one produces quite the most awful mental images.
 CPU Performance - Zero
I can only say one thing about overclocking and three girlfriends.

Dont


It never produces what you think it will, and its a source of constant agro.
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
Made me smile.
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
Mark,

another thing occurs to me, and you may be aware, but if not, best to preempt any surprise.

If you're planning to install Windows, you'll need a valid licence key. Microsoft will consider the new build as being an entirely new machine.

If you have a full retail version of Windows on the existing machine, then this licence will transfer and activate on the new one (it will work on any machine, but only one at a given time).

If, however, the licence on the current m/c is an OEM one (quite likely as you didn't build it), then it is tied to that m/c, won't transfer, and you'll need a new version (at cost).

This isn't specific to the components you've bought; anything more than a change of drive(s) etc. will bring that, and a change of m/b (which you can't really avoid) is definitely a new m/c.

You can buy full retail or OEM on DVD or USB, (OEM is usually cheaper but has the restrictions outlined above) but logistically easier is to buy a licence key from a reputable source (Amazon?), and download the latest installation media from Microsoft and install from USB using the purchased (emailed) key. It also has the advantage that the Microsoft download is kept pretty well up to date, so avoids downloading endless patches during installation. (Frankly, if I had the DVD/USB, I'd probably use the key from that with a Microsoft download).

I have the URL for the official M/S repository (just not on this tablet) and installed all my Win10 devices using it. Can pass it on if you need it.
 CPU Performance - Zero
>> Mark,
>>
>> another thing occurs to me, and you may be aware, but if not, best to
>> preempt any surprise.
>>
>> If you're planning to install Windows, you'll need a valid licence key. Microsoft will consider
>> the new build as being an entirely new machine.
>>
>> If you have a full retail version of Windows on the existing machine, then this
>> licence will transfer and activate on the new one (it will work on any machine,
>> but only one at a given time).
>>
>> If, however, the licence on the current m/c is an OEM one (quite likely as
>> you didn't build it), then it is tied to that m/c, won't transfer, and you'll
>> need a new version (at cost).
>>
>> This isn't specific to the components you've bought; anything more than a change of drive(s)
>> etc. will bring that, and a change of m/b (which you can't really avoid) is
>> definitely a new m/c.

I have transferred a hard drive from one machine to another, with a different motherboard, and CPU, and it - windows 10 OEM - worked (and updated fine) and then transferred to to another machine with yet another motherboard and CPU (so thats a third) and it updated and runs fine. So the copy of OEM I got wasnt restricted.

Marks build will be with a new primary hard drive type, but similar size, so I guess he might have been planning to clone the existing drive. With such a leap in technology involved, I would suggest cloning (or a restore) is unwise. A clean install is the way to go. With the license issues you highlighted.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 3 Sep 20 at 21:43
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>I guess he might have been planning to clone the existing drive.

To be honest I hadn't really thought it through. It is a retail copy of W10 Pro.

I'd sort of casually thought about simply moving the existing hard drive across to get everything working, and then, when I was comfortable, doing a clean install on the new disk.

Is that not a good idea?

Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 3 Sep 20 at 22:14
 CPU Performance - Runfer D'Hills
At one level, I am truly in awe of the technical knowledge being shared on this thread. On another, I am genuinely amazed that some of you ever managed to stay awake when you were doing this for a living. ;-)
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
>>On another, I am genuinely amazed that some of you ever managed to
>> stay awake when you were doing this for a living. ;-)
>>

It was the money that ensured that, Guv......
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
The last time I was paid to do anything technical myself was in 1985 on a DEC MicroVAX II. Anything I've done since then has been in my private time or to help others.

What that means is, sadly, that I don't and didn't do it for money, I did it because it interested and interests me.

I find it a brilliant hobby; though as you can see T&E and Zero know considerably more than I do about it, hence my questions.
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
My answer was rather tongue in cheek. I enjoyed a technical career. I started as a big-iron (mainframe) man but over my career took on different assignments and responsibilities, until I was responsible for all infrastructure.

Comms was always a challenge, but I conquered the PC world through initially hobbying, and was ultimately responsible for all aspects of 40,000+ of the b***** things (a mere subset of the full gamut off technology).

I don't know whether it was myself or my teams that were most surprised that I knew more about the things than many of them did ;-)

Licencing could fill several volumes by itself.

Shall we start a thread about shoes?
 CPU Performance - No FM2R
>>I enjoyed a technical career. I started as a big-iron (mainframe) man but over my career took
>>on different assignments and responsibilities, until I was responsible for all infrastructure.

I would have enjoyed a technical career, I think. But very early on it became apparent that I was far more proficient at managing people than machines.

Which is a pity, because I like machines more. Machines, children and animals.
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
>>
>> I would have enjoyed a technical career, I think. But very early on it became
>> apparent that I was far more proficient at managing people than machines.
>>

In my own mind, at least, I was quite the opposite, but from fairly early on (all but the first 6 years when I really enjoyed programming) I gained various man-management responsibilities alongside the technical. At times, I was running geographically dispersed teams of hundreds of people, which was the most difficult of times. Smaller, tighter teams I could (over time) be comfortable with.

Most of the time, it wasn't really of my own volition; My career was marked by a small number of conscious personal decisions for change, and a continual stream of "opportunities" being offered (some of which I wouldn't have selected myself for, but were not at the time easy to refuse. I learnt an awful lot from these ones, both personally and career-wise).

I always, however, found the man-management aspects rather challenging (but successes were concomitantly very satisfying).

Whatever; the mix was obviously OK. Just making statistics up, I actively enjoyed about 85% of my career ("challenges" and all), around 10% of it was "OK", and 5% was rather less than enjoyable. I think it would be difficult to better that as a lifetime mix.
 CPU Performance - Zero
>> . On another, I am genuinely amazed that some of you ever managed to
>> stay awake when you were doing this for a living. ;-)

Back in the day, sometimes you could do both. Stuff back then took so long to complete, you could start off a test or procedure, and then kip down for an hour or three, wake up and see what the result was.

Every large machine room had its sleeping bag stashed away somewhere.
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
...when I worked for the Railway, one of my assignments was in converting all the historic systems that ran on the ICL1900 series to the newer ICL2900 series. Though they were written in what was ostensibly a "portable" language, the architectures of the machines were completely different, and the conversion was a far from trivial job (particularly the data).

We contracted a San Fran firm who had automated tools to help with the job, but these ran on IBM machines. At the time, the only IBM mainframes BR had were in Blandford House, near Euston, and ran TOPS, the on-line, operational wagon (and loco) control system.

There were two machines (for fail-over) and the off-line/standby machine was largely idle overnight. We used to travel up from Reading for the night shift to use it to convert data. On shift change, the two night operators would do a quick health-check of the on-line machine, look at us and say "the other one's all yours", pull their sleeping bags and mats out, and curl up under the console and off to sleep.

We largely taught ourselves IBM operations! ;-)

 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
Something related which might help to keep you awake for just a few minutes, Runfer......

www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/big-navi-big-wheels-amd-sells-mountain-bikes-now
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
If it is retail, and you still have the product key, then a clean install (to the new M2 SSD) using that key would be by far the best way forward.

Whilst Windows has got progressively better at adjusting for different configurations from a previous boot drive, I think it might be a step too far, and I wouldn't do it.

Download the installation software from here (on your current m/c before you do anything to it, and go through the process to create USB installation media for a different PC). (whatever you do, do that and the USB and product key will provide you an escape route).

www.microsoft.com/en-gb/software-download/home

Then I'd recommend you use this to clean install to the OS to the new, M2 SSD once you've built the new m/c. (you can get some interesting issues if you create/clone multiple boot drives under a UEFI Bios, so this is the safest, and probably easiest, solution).

You can add the other drives afterwards, though it will require re-installation of other programs/software, you will get a much quicker/better result.

 CPU Performance - No FM2R
So clean install of Windows & stuff on the M.2, then add the other SSD and complete the installation of all programs. The SATA drives are almost entirely data.
 CPU Performance - tyrednemotional
I would say so. The data will transfer as is (programs won't, as you will know).

If you build and install with only the new M2 sad, then add the other disks later, then you will have a fall-back if it all goes t*ts-up.
 CPU Performance - Zero
Here you go, your step by step guide to your new PC build

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Perqf0dOGLk
Latest Forum Posts