Things have changed and a lot of bloat has been tacked on so one does need a half way modern rig to keep up outside of just browsing the web. That xeon is basically just a C2D and many of those don't keep up.

Upgraded my main rig to a xeon e5 v3 12 core and the cpu only cost me $105 shipped, the board wasn't much more new in box 😎

Has more L2 cache than some of these retro builds have in ram. 😏

Just run older software. You don't need the latest and greatest to accomplish many tasks. An old copy of office will do just fine 😀

An interesting topic on which I would also like to share my experiences with (and basically add onto what Phil has stated).

I think we all know that different users have different needs in terms of what they wish to use a computer for.
Most users use a desktop computer to browse the internet (which includes Facebook, Skype, etc.), check and compose e-mails and perhaps for some office related work.
For that, you do not require the latest and greatest PC to perform those tasks.

To provide some examples of where I installed a "modern" operating system (being anything post Windows XP) on an old PC:

About two years ago, I built up a PC for my aunt who required it for "normal" daily use.
This PC was an old Athlon XP 2000+ on a VIA based (I think it is a KT333 chipset) motherboard.
Surprisingly, older VIA chipsets are still fairly well supported (in the sense that there are at least drivers available) under Windows Vista & Windows 7.
I installed 1 GB DDR RAM and an old X800 ATI graphics card in the PC.
At that point, I decided to install Windows Vista on it, but if I had to do it now, I would just install Windows 7.
After installing all the other software (anti-virus, Office 2007), it still runs quite well.

Recently, I acquired another old Pentium 4 PC (Socket 478) with a Pentium 4 2.4 GHz (with Hyper-Threading Technology).
I plan on installing this PC for my uncle, since he currently has an old PC that still runs on Windows XP and needs a more up to date OS (his hardware still has an Nforce 2 chipset, which doesn't have drivers post Windows XP).
The motherboard is MSI based with a VIA P4M800 chipset.
This PC isn't actually "newer" that my uncle currently has and the onboard graphics card doesn't actually have drivers post Windows XP, but by installing an "external" graphics card (I plan on installing a GeForce 6800), this problem can be overcome.
I also installed 1 GB RAM on it.
This time I went straight with Windows 7 and it runs fine for normal use.

So, depending on your needs, and if your hardware still has drivers for a "post XP" operating system, then there is probably no need yet to go and fork out money for a new PC.

Yeah... 7$ CPU.
I think he screwed up drivers and/or additional software (Visual C++ or .NET, maybe didn't install some updates for Windows ?).
Why ?
Because I own Pentium Extreme Edition 840 (90nm) and 965 (65nm), and after OC they can run new games.
Some slower, some faster, BUT so far - all indeed work.

GTA V
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftB8jmBy4KQ

Doom (2016)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7BOQumPABg

Mirrors Edge : Catalyst (Retail)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDxWVlM2C0k

Overwatch (Beta)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwB9bYeN6Yk

Tom Clancy : The Division
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-exLr6rtLQ

PS. My Pentium XE 840 @ 4,32GHz Cinebench R15 score... is 121pkt (7$ Xeon got 99pkt - "rekt") : LINK

nforce4max wrote:

Things have changed and a lot of bloat has been tacked on so one does need a half way modern rig to keep up outside of just browsing the web. That xeon is basically just a C2D and many of those don't keep up.

Upgraded my main rig to a xeon e5 v3 12 core and the cpu only cost me $105 shipped, the board wasn't much more new in box 😎

Has more L2 cache than some of these retro builds have in ram. 😏

I agree with this somewhat and often wondered this. Funny old world...

IMO It used to be a case of you requiring decent hardware to run desktop applications and web surfing could be accomplished with an extremely low spec system for the time. At some point wed-developers decided to chase some form of improved user experience which off-loaded a lot of the workload from the server to the client. This pushed the requirement of the client-side (your computer) up and meant that an old computer was still required to access webpages and sometimes can't cut it (the code bloat associated with local client-side dll's that some sites push onto you is unbelievable these days). This with the increasing complexity of plugins used and the historical indecision on web standards meaning usage of stuff like flash is still about, all adding to quite a mish-mash of a browser with heavy requirements. HTML 5 mitigates a lot of this mish-mash thank god, but doesn't really help reduce client-side workload 🙁.

Ironically the same PC would probably run office and general desktop applications fine. Years ago it used to be the other way around imo?

We almost went full circle...

Terminal (on your desk) [Minimal workload] + Mainframe (in a room down the corridor) [Most of the workload]

Personal Computer (on your desk) [All of the workload]

Tablet/Thin-Client (on your desk/lap) [Quite a lot of workload imo] + The Cloud (a load of servers somewhere else) [some of the workload, depending on the context and task]

I would prefer to go back to something like we had (with the server doing 99-100% of the workload), it would be nice when the bandwidth allows entire rendering to be performed server-side streaming the output at 120 FPS 4K (or something else redonkulous) back to a client allowing real-time interaction with entire workloads running on mahoosive distributed systems on the other side of the planet allowing multi-user access on an unprecedented scale. I can only dream... 😉

Not 2 core, but 4 core CPU >=3 GHz of Core2 family, combined with good video should be still playable (>20 fps) for today games, some maybe after tweaking. That dude could take Q6600 (released in Jan 2007), overclock it to 3 GHz and get much better results. People still are using Sandy Bridge without issues, while they are not much better than Core2 (+10-20% on same clock).
I suspect it's possible to get Q9500 or Xeon E5450, overclock them to ~ 3.5, combine with low end GTX960/GTX680 and get 30 fps in Witcher 3 and far better in "modern" GTA 5, on not max settings certainly.

spiroyster wrote:

I agree with this somewhat and often wondered this. Funny old world... […]
Show full quote

nforce4max wrote:

Things have changed and a lot of bloat has been tacked on so one does need a half way modern rig to keep up outside of just browsing the web. That xeon is basically just a C2D and many of those don't keep up.

Upgraded my main rig to a xeon e5 v3 12 core and the cpu only cost me $105 shipped, the board wasn't much more new in box 😎

Has more L2 cache than some of these retro builds have in ram. 😏

I agree with this somewhat and often wondered this. Funny old world...

IMO It used to be a case of you requiring decent hardware to run desktop applications and web surfing could be accomplished with an extremely low spec system for the time. At some point wed-developers decided to chase some form of improved user experience which off-loaded a lot of the workload from the server to the client. This pushed the requirement of the client-side (your computer) up and meant that an old computer was still required to access webpages and sometimes can't cut it (the code bloat associated with local client-side dll's that some sites push onto you is unbelievable these days). This with the increasing complexity of plugins used and the historical indecision on web standards meaning usage of stuff like flash is still about, all adding to quite a mish-mash of a browser with heavy requirements. HTML 5 mitigates a lot of this mish-mash thank god, but doesn't really help reduce client-side workload 🙁.

Ironically the same PC would probably run office and general desktop applications fine. Years ago it used to be the other way around imo?

We almost went full circle...

Terminal (on your desk) [Minimal workload] + Mainframe (in a room down the corridor) [Most of the workload]

Personal Computer (on your desk) [All of the workload]

Tablet/Thin-Client (on your desk/lap) [Quite a lot of workload imo] + The Cloud (a load of servers somewhere else) [some of the workload, depending on the context and task]

I would prefer to go back to something like we had (with the server doing 99-100% of the workload), it would be nice when the bandwidth allows entire rendering to be performed server-side streaming the output at 120 FPS 4K (or something else redonkulous) back to a client allowing real-time interaction with entire workloads running on mahoosive distributed systems on the other side of the planet allowing multi-user access on an unprecedented scale. I can only dream... 😉

I honestly don't like the cloud as one really doesn't own or control the data once it is out there and the same for the applications once the publisher thinks that it can turn things off at will. Stuff like that makes big government happy as they get to see what everyone is doing from one place rather than having to gather data from as many sources as possible. Just thinking of what is around the corner and how cringe worthy a cashless society will be when eventually everything gets replaced by a single chip that everyone will be required to have just to live a "normal" life. Just turn that chip off and it will be like that person doesn't exist anymore, no money, no id, nothing anymore.

My conclusion from the experiement done by Science Studio would be that Windows 10 is no good and not the central processor. People not willing to play any games still have to experience the operating system's poor performance (two-three hours installation time). I immediately found it rather odd that old hardware was paired with modern software.

If someone is willing to part with a cpu in working condition for $7 or no money, that's awesome. It is good for many tasks. I doubt Science Studio's "phones" would fit all roles of a PC.

Aside from games, "apps" designed to be run inside web browsers, which are getting increasingly popular, are a major peformance hog, either Flash or browser-native. Actually, I've found Flash games and applets to be slightly more responsive overall. And the apps aren't that impressive graphically even, especially with the currently trendy flat design. With browser apps we don't often have the choice of using an older version that have less bloat. We have to run the current build that is automatically downloaded, and use a browser that is no more than a few versions behind.

Science Studio got 4 dislikes from me. Now the videos will haunt me in the recommended section. I don't even recognize "humour" in this video. I'd still hate it if I did though.

nforce4max wrote:

Things have changed and a lot of bloat has been tacked on so one does need a half way modern rig to keep up outside of just browsing the web. That xeon is basically just a C2D and many of those don't keep up.

Upgraded my main rig to a xeon e5 v3 12 core and the cpu only cost me $105 shipped, the board wasn't much more new in box 😎

Has more L2 cache than some of these retro builds have in ram. 😏

I'm terribly tempted to buy a cheap LGA 2011 v3 micro ATX board and one of these bastards. Seriously only $105 for a real 12 core? That's like $1500-$2000 new. Why so cheap? Someone have it in their ass???

There were two offers on ebay for E5 V3 2670 (8-core) for $60 last time I checked. I don't feel ready to part with my C2Q though :\

That thing's basically a C2D E6550. Of course it's gonna suck at modern stuff!

Tertz wrote:

People still are using Sandy Bridge without issues, while they are not much better than Core2 (+10-20% on same clock).

There are very few apps where Sandy Bridge is only 10-20% faster per clock than Core 2. They're usually ancient programs that don't make use of modern instruction sets or multi-threading. Like SuperPi. 🤣
In most programs--heck even for basic Web browsing--a Sandy Bridge based system will feel loads faster than Core 2. Some benchmarks show the latest microarchitectures being over 100% faster per clock than Core 2 in single-threaded mode! Cinebench R10 single-threaded comes pretty close:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skyl … h-generation/11

With V3 2011's falling in price, I'm wanting this motherboard: http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboar … 00/x10drg-q.cfm 4x ati 480's and I will be set for the next 4-5 years

Why is he trying to run the latest games on that setup???

luckybob wrote:

4x ati 480's and I will be set for the next 4-5 years

Going for more than 2 cards is a bad idea. Even a dual card setup will sometimes cause problems.

Munx wrote:

luckybob wrote:

4x ati 480's and I will be set for the next 4-5 years

Going for more than 2 cards is a bad idea. Even a dual card setup will sometimes cause problems.

With a name like 'luckybob', I'd take the risk 😉

snorg wrote:

nforce4max wrote:

Things have changed and a lot of bloat has been tacked on so one does need a half way modern rig to keep up outside of just browsing the web. That xeon is basically just a C2D and many of those don't keep up.

Upgraded my main rig to a xeon e5 v3 12 core and the cpu only cost me $105 shipped, the board wasn't much more new in box 😎

Has more L2 cache than some of these retro builds have in ram. 😏

I'm terribly tempted to buy a cheap LGA 2011 v3 micro ATX board and one of these bastards. Seriously only $105 for a real 12 core? That's like $1500-$2000 new. Why so cheap? Someone have it in their ass???

There are some Good boards out there, just be ready for returns if you are buying on amazon. Took three attempts before I got a working board (ik wtf). As for the cpu don't just look at the price, core count, and clocks first but what model it is let alone if it is a ES or a QS. Boards can get very very picky about ES samples but QS usually work, QS samples often have extra stuff turned on but their clocks usually don't match any of the retail models.

Those Asrock boards are Nice boards but sadly the one I had gotten was practically destroyed by the seller so I had to ship it back. Some idiots out their need to keep their fingers out of the socket!

BTW I have seen some 22 core v4 xeons for as little as $600 but it wasn't long before that went up, someone even listed a rare unreleased 24 core v4 xeon e5 earlier this month. Yes that is 60mb of L3 😲

Tertz wrote:

Not 2 core, but 4 core CPU >=3 GHz of Core2 family, combined with good video should be still playable (>20 fps) for today games, some maybe after tweaking. That dude could take Q6600 (released in Jan 2007), overclock it to 3 GHz and get much better results. People still are using Sandy Bridge without issues, while they are not much better than Core2 (+10-20% on same clock).
I suspect it's possible to get Q9500 or Xeon E5450, overclock them to ~ 3.5, combine with low end GTX960/GTX680 and get 30 fps in Witcher 3 and far better in "modern" GTA 5, on not max settings certainly.

E5450 @ 3.6GHz (1.19v) user here: This CPU is awesome!
I have not run into any problems yet. I am still trying to get as much clock for as little current as possible.
But I also don't own The Witcher 3 and GTA 5 (yet) 😀

I was also wondering, why GTA 5?
Why The Witcher 3? The most demanding games for a cpu with that value? Come on!

It's like expecting a 1500 pound used car
to get to pole in a race against regular racing cars!

It's a silly comparison. 11 years is a long time in computerland. Imagine comparing a Pentium 4 (2000) to a 486 (1989). What confuses people is that CPU speeds have hardly increased for decades. (My 2003 rig had a 'faster' CPU than my current one).

On a tangent, on another forum (Emuxtras), a programmer (called 'hcf') who has ported various emulators and games to the original XBox, said in a post:

"As I suspected (and I have defended it lots of times in different forums) an Xbox [the first XBox console, introduced in 2001] has a 733 MHz processor... but the fact that it is totally dedicated to run one application (without operating system, other applications and so on) gives it a critical advantage over a similar PC. And this is the astonishing result: I have seen that my 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 can BARELY beat my Xbox in emulators like Yabause or Desmume! So, it is not crazy to say that the processing power of an Xbox can be compared to a Pentium 4 PC with Windows. At the same time, if we compare the performance of some emulator ports like Desmume in Xbox and Wii, we see that the Xbox version runs faster.

So... my conclusion is that if we have a Pentium 4 with Windows and it can run an application or emulator at full speed, then our Xbox could probably do it too"

Source: http://www.emuxtras.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f … 7&t=5369#p68119

Granted this is just one person's assessment, but it's an interesting view on how much CPU power is used by a modern version of Windows and other concurrent software, as compared to another system that's not running multi-tasking software.