Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Happy Sunday everyone. I am at a bit of a loss with how to go about potentially upgrading my desktop PC.
There is a well-established culture & system around upgrading phones every 2-3 years. Companies make it enticingly easy with trade-ins that reduce cost and waste. Same system exists for cars.
But not for PCs.
I have an HP Omen desktop that I bought for $1700 before tax in Nov 2020. It was on sale and had/s excellent specs: i7-10700K, RTX 3080, 32gb ram, 500gb SSD. I'm pretty sure it still sells for $1700+ today, at least in nominal dollars, which is bonkers for what should be fast depreciating. Aside from a few random blue screen of deaths maybe once a month, which I feel like is a feature at this point with any brand of PC, no complaints.
I don't game much, maybe a little bit of StarCraft 2 and RimWorld every now and then. So the graphics card was an overkill from the start and meant to be future-proof. The 3080 will easily suffice for at least another 2-3 years, I'm sure.
But I'm tempted by a new CPU. UserBenchmark suggests that a 13900K outperforms the 10700K by 33% on "effective speed", or 61% on single core speed. By the time the 14000 series comes out next year, perhaps it'll get to +50% effective speed and +80% single core. At some point, the $600 or however much the next-gen costs will be is worth it to me if my computer runs 50-80% faster depending on the application (for example, RimWorld is mainly CPU limited and has no multithreading.
But it seems cumbersome to upgrade the CPU. I could watch a bunch of YT to learn how to swap out the CPU myself, but I'd rather not, in case I mess something up. I have no passion for tinkering, so the time I spend learning and failing would be stressful and a waste of time. I also understand that not all motherboards support newer CPUs, and the 13900K also draws double the power than the 10700K, so I may need to get both a new MOBO and a new PSU. All that feels like a tremendous headache to me if I were to DIY.
Alternatively, I could wait until the desktop is dying after 2-3 years, and then I toss/recycle it for a new one. But this seems suboptimal too, given I value and am willing to pay for a faster processor, but that's all that I care about. I don't want or need a brand new PC.
The third option is to find a pro to upgrade the CPU (and possibly the MOBO and PSU). Microcenter seems to have a CPU installation service for $80 (plus a $40 "recommended diagnostic"). I could also take it into a local repair shop, which I tend to think of as somewhat seedy and serving computer illiterate people at a premium, but that's probably just undue prejudice.
What would you do if you were me? Suggestions and recommendations appreciated.
This isn't normal. Or rather, perhaps it's normal in the statistical sense that the average person's computer is an unreliable heap of junk, but it's not nominal, and you shouldn't put up with it. "It just does that sometimes," is a piss-poor way to relate to computers, and if a hardware problem is causing your machine to crash that hard, it might also be corrupting your data.
You can use a couple passes of memtest86+ to identify some problems with your memory. It's not great for overclocking-related instability, but if your memory chips are going bad it should be able to detect it. You can run prime95's blend test overnight to ferret out CPU/memory/motherboard problems.
In my experience, poor electrical connections are the cause of a significant fraction of weird computer problems, although this may depend on the humidity in your climate. You can try re-seating your RAM and graphics card, as long as you are careful to avoid ESD. (Touch your computer's metal chassis immediately before touching any components, and do not remove from the confines of the chassis. Pop it out of the slot and right back in again.)
If none of that fixes it or finds anything, your computer is probably still under warranty if you bought it new. BSoDs are not supposed to happen, and you should make them somebody else's problem. The ability to do that is the whole point of buying from an OEM.
First off, don't. In my opinion, your current machine will be fine for at least 5 years.
The newest CPUs that might be compatible with your motherboard are Intel 11th-gen, and those were widely panned for being an insignificant improvement over 10th gen. There are some workloads where they win, but some where they lose because the 11th gen i9 has only 8 cores compared to the 10th gen's 10 cores, and the power consumption is very high. That could be a problem for upgrading, because OEM (HP/Dell/Lenovo) motherboards are typically not designed to be capable of supplying significantly more power than needed by the CPU the PC comes with.
Furthermore, even if you replace your motherboard, published benchmark results for the 13th gen CPUs are usually using the newer DDR5 memory standard unless they say otherwise, so you'd have to replace your RAM too or else have slightly (only very slightly) less performance than the internet says.
Userbenchmark is notoriously terrible. The operator has a strong anti-AMD bias. That wasn't too much of a problem back when Intel had a solid lead in single-thread performance and he could just weight low-thread-count benchmarks heavily, but since they've caught up he has to put a heavier and heavier thumb on the scales. At this point it's practically an entire arm.
The 13900K has as many P-cores as the 10700K, and 16 extra E-cores on top. Therefore, it makes no sense for the "effective speed" difference to be less than the single core speed.
The tricks, in this case, are:
The "effective speed" does not account for workloads using >8 threads at all.
The "effective speed" includes memory latency in the average. Memory latency contributes to the performance of a computer, but it isn't independently observable outside of its effect on any particular benchmark. It's an implementation detail. Picking a CPU based on memory latency makes about as much sense as picking them them by clock frequency or die size (i.e., none, unless you are designing a chip).
Unfortunately, unless the application you care about (Rimworld) is directly benchmarked, reading benchmarks properly is very difficult without a decent understanding of the characteristics of your application -- how threaded it is, how big its memory working set is (this is not the memory usage task manager shows you), etc.
Also, a lot of the published benchmarks really suck. Examples include single-thread cinebench (completely fits in cache on modern CPUs, and real users don't use Cinema 4D that way), Factorio benchmarks with small factories that run way over 200 UPS (broken by large L3 cache, which won't happen for factories that struggle to maintain 60), benchmarking Civilization games for frame rate instead of turn time, benchmarking frame rate in games that aren't CPU-limited in typical play (400 FPS 720p is benchmarking the graphics driver, not the game), etc.
What I would suggest is to find the openbenchmarking.org link from a recent CPU comparison article on phoronix.com, and filter the results to show only benchmarks that have similar characteristics to your application. For example,
Web browser tests: lightly threaded with small-ish cache footprint (based on 5800X vs 5800X3D.
Compiler benchmarks: heavily threaded with moderate cache footprint.
Google Draco: lightly threaded with large cache footprint. Most CPU-bound games are likely to fall in this category.
First, I respect your expertise and appreciate your willingness to educate the noobs.
About the lifetime of BSOD, I think I've mentally resigned to suffering from monthly strokes because basically every PC I've ever owned has suffered from it. They ranged in manufacturers: Dell, Lenovo, HP, Asus, they're laptops and desktops, they ran various versions of Windows. I am a very respectable average user, I swear. I don't subject my machines to harsh physical conditions, never spill anything on them, don't live in filth where dust covers everything, don't live with electrical surges, don't have little cousins borrowing it, don't mine crypto, don't pirate or visit sketchy sites with viruses, don't open phishing emails, don't leave it on 24/7, don't unplug USBs until I'm told it's safe to do so, I update fairly frequently, etc. The machines I buy new directly from manufacturers or Amazon/Best Buy. Anyways, you get the point. And yet I've literally never owned a single fully stable machine. Whenever I feel frustrated by a sudden crash, I remind myself that engineering is already a marvel, that these extremely complex machines can handle so much abuse and still have 99.99% uptime. The occasional hiccups do make me perpetually a little paranoid about losing data, though thankfully most applications are very good with real-time saves.
I will share one suspicion I've had about the cause of the BSODs, in case it provides any obvious clues to you as to what's the main culprit. I use a browser plugin called video speed controller to speed up all kinds of media that are too slowly paced. I think my freezes have semi-frequently coincided with when playing a video at higher speeds (say, maybe 2.5x or even 3x). Do you suspect that to be a RAM-related issue?
At any rate, you provide interesting resources that I will be sure to check out. I guess it'll take a couple of months to know for sure if anything changed, and it'd be a shock to me if it does (but I look forward to that)!
I love your optimism. I can tell you that none of the machines I've owned lasted 7+ years. It's not that they always become inoperable at that point, but that they seem obsolete by the 5 year mark at the latest. I don't mean to sound like a snob. It's just that a computer is what I interact with the most both professionally and leisurely, so I think it's worthwhile to invest good money in it. Like, if I drove 8 hours a day for work and for fun, you bet I wouldn't be trying to extract every last bit of value until it qualifies for cash for clunkers. Plus, I really don't think it's that wasteful; people replace their thousand dollar smart phones every 2-3 years, so going all the way to 7 years for a $1700 computer seems comparatively overly conservative.
Hard agre with the other posters, BSOD is not normal, and shouldn't really ever happen during normal use, much less a couple of times a month. For comparison, i have not BSOD'd for years outside of deliberate overclocking-to-failure tests.
This is your problem. All "manufacturers" (they arent the ones actually building your system) are going to ship your PC with reams of shitty, unstable bloatware. Bloatware and its associated background processes is probably the #1 source of BSOD for normal users. Even doing a "fresh install" of windows is not usually sufficient to get rid of it, as the bloatware is now being hidden on separate partitions of the hard drives (you can thank Dell for starting this practice). So unless you installed your own freshly downloaded copy of windows (from MS only, not the computer seller), on a freshly wiped and single-paritioned hard drive, you probably have bloatware.
So either go with a PC building service that is just compiling parts and lets you do the windows install, or build a PC yourself, its really quite easy these days.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link