Processor version

[Wodrick]

Finally I can afford a new pc. I have no need for portability so I want a desktop.
In earlier times I would purchase the fastest processor I could for future proofing.
So should I go for I3, I5 orI7?
I surf, download TV virtually nightly (which I know is governed by my connection) mail, play games notably Flight Sim, and do some video editing.
I am leaning to I5 being adequate but value opinions please.

[FlightDetent]

Most likely i3. ARK | Compare Intel® Products (http://ark.intel.com/compare/88188,90731) What's your current unit and which task is it too slow for?

[Bushfiva]

Since you mention the "video" word, if you're using integrated graphics, perhaps the biggest consideration would be to choose a CPU that has 530 graphics rather than 4600/4000/2500 series and older. So 6th-gen of either series.

Personally, I'd go with I5 simply because the pricing in a desktop can be very similar but you get 4 cores instead of 2 and the same power consumption. But i3 processors also get the job done.

[Wodrick]

Needs must at the time I bought I had no funds so all I have is a 250€ Acer lappy with a celeronT3500 full of memory at 4Gb as that is all the board will take. It is not keen on Video or photo processing.
I lean towards I5 and probably a graphics card as opposed to integrated graphics. My provider consistently talks me out of I7. He has worries about cooling.

[FlightDetent]

Your provider sounds like an honest man. Stick to his advice. Do you really need four thereads to four cores, or would four threads to two cores suffice?

Of course, there's the difference between "need" <> "could put to a good use" <> "want". E.g. sinners like me often WANT things ;)

PM if you wish.

PS: What's the need for dedicated graphics card? Bear in mind, that anything less than GTX 750 Ti provides little benefit over what's already on the chip.

[Bushfiva]

Cooling an i7: I dunno. The TDP for almost-the-best i3, i5 and i7 CPUs is the same at 65W.

[FlightDetent]

Bushfiva's correct. ARK | Compare Intel® Products (http://ark.intel.com/compare/88196,88188,90731)

Still, with 150 USD more per CPU there's less performance per single-core compared to i3. I'd use those extra $$ for an SSD and a better monitor.

[Capn Bloggs]

For encoding video, there is only one component that counts: that's the CPU. Get as fast as you can afford to reduce encoding times. A dedicated graphics card will help a lot with decoding video files while you are editing. Also, heaps of RAM: 8gb at least.

[Bushfiva]

Ah, I thought I'd stop before going into too much detail, but the above is wrong re the CPU. For example, with Adobe products, you need a GPU that is supported by Adobe (most are), and you need to make sure the VRAM is comfortably larger than a frame plus lots of overheads that the Adobe site can tell you about. At that point, the software will offload video transforms to the GPU. I don't know about recent versions, but until about a year ago, if the GPU failed to cope with any frame, the load would be dropped back to the CPU for the rest of the job: it couldn't go back to the GPU..

When we're rendering, doing it in the GPU is about 50-200 times faster than the CPU: there's absolutely no comparison. But we're suddenly getting so far away from the original question.

Blender has something similar. ON NVidia you would look for CUDA support (everything from GTX 4xx onwards) and on AMD you would check for OpenCL support on GCN (which is HD, er, 7000 and above, with exceptions.)

But anyway, for the home user with home video, everything works, it may just take time. But for much video work, an extra $150 on a GPU does more than $150 on a CPU.

[Saab Dastard]

I think that for mixed home PC use the i5 is hard to beat for price / performance.

I recently upgraded one of my (self-built) desktops to an i5 6500 (socket 1151) on an Asus Z-170K mobo, with 8GB of DDR4 RAM, a 250GB Samsung SSD and a Geforce GTX750ti graphics card with 2GB of GDDR5 RAM.

Goes like stink, Win 7 experience index is 7.9 (max) for all bar the graphics (7.6) - there are better cards out there, but for price / performance it seems pretty good - and it does very well in various benchmark applications that I've run. I get no problems in running HD video full screen, and with the mild game play that it's used for it doesn't break sweat.

Including replacing IDE DVD RW drives with SATA ones (and a USB 3.0 front panel adapter), it cost just under £430 - but then I was re-using the case, PSU (newish anyway) and storage HDDs.

SD

[terrain safe]

About 5 years ago I built an i7 2600K system with 8GB ram a 6870 video card and all the rest including a 1TB HDD for about £800. I have only added a 240GB SSD and changed the video card for a newer one about 18 months ago. Still very fast with no problems after over 5 years. Guess you pays your money.....

[FlightDetent]

Smart choice. And 5 years later? You can get 15% more performance for 15% less money. UserBenchmark: Intel Core i7-2600K vs i7-6700K (http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2600K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6700K/621vs3502)

Viva la marketing!

[flash8]

Depends.

Heavy graphics/gaming best an i5/i7 with a decent video card, with light gaming I would lean towards an i5 with integrated HD graphics that can play most games and provide decent graphics performance.

You can always use an i5 with integrated graphics and later add a Video card of course.

Performance difference between i5/i7 not huge for much of the line until you get into megabucks.

That said I use a Quad Core 8-thread 4th Gen i7 at work and much of the time all threads are at 100% (heavy Java VM execution) and fan is active ))

[Wodrick]

Well I have decided on I5 with integrated graphics, an SSD for the system and to bump the 8gb ram up to 16gb initially. the board will take 32gb but I will see. I expect that after 10 years when all I have had is a celeron powered lap top I am going to be impressed - but not too much, there are rules.

[Bushfiva]

It will be a huge difference, and you've probably found yourself a sweet spot.

[MG23]

the board will take 32gb but I will see.

I have 32GB in my gaming/video editing PC, and it's total overkill right now. The only real benefit is that the second time I load a game in the same session it's at least twice as fast because all the files are cached in RAM.

I only loaded it up to the max because RAM was cheap at the time.

My i7 is also total overkill, as I rarely see games use more than 30% of it. Only video and 3D graphics rendering can really get close to maxing it out.

[RCV212]

I5 will be fine for your needs ideally with the OS on an SSD, and maybe a 2nd HDD for your data.

[Wodrick]

What I have ordered is an I5 @3.3, 1Tb HDD, 250Gb SSD initially with 8gb RAM, which I plan todouble.
Question how much space does W10 take on the SSD ?

[terrain safe]

My Windows directory takes up 18.4GB.

[Saab Dastard]

Question how much space does W10 take on the SSD

Allow plenty of room for expansion - I would suggest 40-50GB for the Windows directory itself, because there will be vast amounts of updates, etc. that will fill it up over time.

SD

[RCV212]

Do yourself a favour and fit a 2nd drive. An encryted 3TB drive will give you plenty of redundancy and it would be good to have an external encrypted back up for the must never loose files! It will be slower to access than the SSD, but means space is never an issue.

Toshiba P300 3TB 3.5'' SATA High-Performance Hard Drive (OEM) - Ebuyer (http://www.ebuyer.com/726224-toshiba-p300-3tb-3-5-sata-high-performance-hard-drive-oem-hdwd130uzsva)

PS. Windows should automatically run trim (Windows 7 up) on your SSD, make sure though that de-fragmentation is turned off.

[FlightDetent]

No need to panic. 64 bit edition Home (latest release) takes 14,2 GB. That's with swapfile on a 4 GB machine. Over time they grow just below 20 and can be maintained around 17. Anything more than that and something is seriously wrong.

You'll do great to avoid these "old wife's tales":
- using any form of 3rd party windows "optimizer" software
- using any form of driver "watchdog" and updater
- moving swapfile out of SSD
- moving your documents out of SSD
- disabling internal WIN drive maintenance to protect the SSD
- moving your local copy of cloud storage out of the SSD
- using hibernate on a desktop machine with SSD (Win 10)
- buying Samsung EVO

Unless you are using some sort of specialized SW, there will be no difference after obtaining more RAM than you already have.

What sort of monitor did you treat yourself with?

[Wodrick]

My thought process about Win size was if there was significant room remaining to plonk some of the stuff that I use regularly that's all.
I haven't had a tower for more than ten years now so much is new.
Monitor has to be the one I have with the Laptop a LG 21.5" 22M47VQ-P LED HDMI which is ok, perhaps the ageing eyes could do with a bit larger.

[Saab Dastard]

Over time they grow just below 20 and can be maintained around 17. Anything more than that and something is seriously wrong.

Over time, the C:\Windows\Installer and C:\Windows\WINSXS folders will grow and grow as new patches are deployed and the old ones left in situ. MS is terrible about leaving the detritus of superseded and orphaned patches in place. It is not uncommon for these folders to reach 12GB and 20GB respectively*. That's 32GB of patches just in these folders alone, of which less than half can be safely removed - assuming that you have the knowledge and the will to do anything about it.

And that's before all the other parts of Windows itself, such as system restore points, that consume space.

OK, I'm talking about Windows 7 / 8 or Server 2008 / 2012, and it's going to take 5 or 6 years before it grows to that size, but Windows 10 is promised to be "longer lived", and that means more patches - which you will NOT be able to refuse - over a longer period.

As I've said, budget for 40-50GB for the Windows folder over a 5 year period.

Alternatively, you can do a completely fresh install of Windows and all your applications every few years, but with disk space so cheap, you would be mad to do that as opposed to just shelling out the cost of 30GB or so.

SD

* I have one Win 7 PC where these folders are 10 and 17GB respectively, after 6 years. Another PC that I have just rebuilt with a clean install of Win 7 has already reached 4.6 and 12.7 GB respectively.

[Mac the Knife]

I put in a smallish but fast (500GB) VelociRaptor HDD (E:) for installing programs that are bulky but that I use rarely and are not speed-critical. Created two directories, Program Files and Program Files (x86). Anything occasional goes there - neither Windows or the apps seem to care and it keeps the boot SDD (C:\) clearer.

All my data files (Documents, Pictures, etc.) data goes to 2 separate mirrored HDDs - [D: for Data]

(You can also use a second SDD for additional app installs if you like - I did that on my son's machine, but he's a gamer....)

Mac

:-)

PS: Some older apps are hardcoded to go into C:\Program Files and won't install anywhere else.

[FlightDetent]

Saab, my recent W10 is 14,3 altogether (12GB RAM machine). Typical for mainstream SoHo, and that is with hardlinks included. A fresh W7 over 20 - and I too repeat myself - something is seriously wrong.

Some explanation and a way how to find out how much WINSXS really takes: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn251566.aspxIn practice, nearly every file in the WinSxS directory is a “hard link” to the physical files elsewhere on the system—meaning that the files are not actually in this directory. For instance in the WinSxS there might be a file called advapi32.dll that takes up >700K however what’s being reported is a hard link to the actual file that lives in the Windows\System32, and it will be counted twice (or more) when simply looking at the individual directories from Windows Explorer.https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/e7/2008/11/19/disk-space/

In reality, WIN OS is 10 GB. For OS disk, a simple advice is to keep 1/2 of the RAM size free and that's all. I prefer to actually use the SSD I paid for to get the speed I wanted. Opinions may vary though.

To end optimistically: I just updated my NTB with SSDnow V300 [corrected(!) 2016 vintage]: 240 GB for 47 GBP, sweet deal!

[Capn Bloggs]

- using hibernate on a desktop machine with SSD

FD, I'm curious about this one. Hibernate means, for me, a faster startup and all my files I had open stay open. I'd be interested in your thoughts against hibernation? I have an SSD with Win 7 (folder currently 36.2gb, or so Treesize says after a "complete" disk cleanup...I do have a lot on this machine).

[FlightDetent]

That comment was Win 10 (possibly 8/8.1 too) specific, I edited my post above, apologies for the confusion. With 7 I did the same as you. Some people suggest moving the hiberfil.sys out of the SSD of which I disagree.

By default W10 have fast-startup enabled: during shutdown the user session is closed but thereafter the system core is only suspended to disk. This is without the hibernate function enabled at all.

Hence the shutdown times are somewhat longer. In return the power up is much speedier as the OS simply re-activates and only the user environment is initialized. The restart function is the one that does full shutdown (fast) and new system load (slower).

Fast Startup - Turn On or Off in Windows 10 - Windows 10 Forums (http://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/4189-fast-startup-turn-off-windows-10-a.html)

------
RE: Win7 size Windows folder 36 GB
That does sounds excessive. But unless disk space is critical, "if it ain't broke" works the best! Dism.exe /Online /Cleanup-Image /AnalyzeComponentStore (run as admin in CMD) would show how much is really taken.

What normally grows much is Program Data folder on "C" and the App Data folder under user profile. This disk space analysing tool is to cool to miss: SpaceSniffer (http://www.uderzo.it/main_products/space_sniffer/index.html)
http://s32.postimg.org/dlh6m8zch/spacesniff.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/dlh6m8zch/)

I was never successful with actual use of system restore points, so prefer to delete all but the last one How to delete old restore points to save disk space? - Microsoft Community (http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/how-to-delete-old-restore-points-to-save-disk/28648a45-ac7a-4f14-95b6-cb91021566f8?auth=1)

[Saab Dastard]

Dism.exe /Online /Cleanup-Image /AnalyzeComponentStore
That is not available to Win 7 or 8, only 8.1, but of course you know that.

There was a feature built into 8 that was supposed to cut down the space consumed by WinSxS, but that only ran once a month, and was not particularly effective, from what I've read. MS introduced those tools as a response to growing concerns around the very real problem of the amount of space that WinSxS was taking up, both in Win 7 and 2008 R2.

So I agree that any installation of Win 7 that grows to a very large size is indicative of a problem, but not in the sense you mean.

The problem is that Windows with its "component store" model basically keeps a copy of every version of every dll, exe etc. since the original installation, in case it is required by an application or to roll back a patch or update, and there's very little you can do about it. You can run Windows Cleanup (in admin mode) to look for superseded updates and look for orphaned updates, but these will barely put a dent in the problem. And the problem is purely down to MS's implementation. The OS runs just fine, but it is going to grow, inexorably, over time.

Bear in mind also that these Windows repositories also contain components from other MS applications (mainly Office) and 3rd party applications, so the more applications you have, the bigger the problem will become.

I'm talking here about Win 7 - I know that the OP asked about Win 10 - and this also applies to Win 8, and the equivalent Server OSs also. But this is, IMHO (based on almost 25 years of working with MS products), unlikely to become less of a problem as we go forward. MS have always been profligate with other people's resources, and what I've seen of 10, and the efforts to push it out, do nothing to make me change my mind. I would be pleasantly surprised to be wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

I would happily place a significant wager that the average Win 10 installation from 2016 that is updated regularly will be at least 40GB in size in 5 years time, assuming it has not been re-installed in the interval.

SD

[FlightDetent]

My angle was initally W10, but response to Captn Bloggs had been intended for W7 and thank you for pointing out that omission in my logic.

The dism tool was implemented in 8.1 and I should have known better because that's what it says in the first article I linked.

SoHo recent W10 install Home edition 64bit WinSXS folder takes 0,930 GB of disk space (several machines in the same ballpark). If somebody's WinSXS of a fresh W7 is 12,7 - well - maybe things just do grow bigger on that side of the fence. The difference between indicated and consumed disk space due to hardlinks could explain some of it.

Agreed, there is much more than WinSXS. The Installer folder, shadow copies, system restore points, poor cleaning of TEMP folders, swap file and hiberfil.sys, log files and especially memory dumps after the odd crash. I think its both necessary and fair to add essential SW to what "system" comprises of: office suite, pdf reader, 3rd party web browser to name a few well known for being inconsiderate with disk real estate.

The budget choice Saab mentioned early is very clear. 64 GB for a 5 year plan is bloody border line. Since proper entry level 120 SSD's are available from 33 pounds, nobody actually considers less than that. Whether or not c:-windows is 15 or 25 GB over 5 years thus becomes irrelevant. Smart buy will get you 250 GB below 55 GBP too.

[FlightDetent]

Capn Bloggs this article https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2795190 suggests the DISM tool is available for W7 too. Windows 7 Service Pack 1 or Windows Server 2008 R2 Service Pack 1 installed: DISM /online /Cleanup-Image /SpSuperseded

If that is the case but I have no means to check,
Dism.exe /online /Cleanup-Image /StartComponentCleanup /ResetBase (in administrator CMD prompt) will do a thorough job compared to simple use of Disc Cleanup Wizard (https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askpfeplat/2013/10/08/breaking-news-reduce-the-size-of-the-winsxs-directory-and-free-up-disk-space-with-a-new-update-for-windows-7-sp1-clients/)

reference: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn251565.aspx

[Capn Bloggs]

Thanks FD, ResetBase didn't work: "StartComponentCleanup option not recgnised in this context"

and "the SpSuperseded" didn't work either "no service pack backup files found" (I think my install disk was Win 7 SP 1).

My winsxs is 10gb. Now that SSD prices are coming down, I'd definitely go for a 256gb one for my C drive.

I reclaimed a bit more space by locking down the swap file to 8gb-8gb. It was "automatically" using 14gb (even with 12gb of RAM).

[FlightDetent]

Most puzzling. I have 12 RAM too and swap is 1,5g all set to auto, picture embedded above. On a laptop (W10 Pro 64b) I just tried /ResetBase and it did shave 2 GBs away. Instead of 3GB taken now down to 960 MB (that's 10 indicated to 7.8 indicated)

Good luck with the upgrade!

[Saab Dastard]

FD,

Thanks for the link with DISM /online /Cleanup-Image /SpSuperseded - that does work in Win 7 and reduced the Windows footprint by 1GB. :ok:

However, it's a one shot deal, as it is only able to remove the service pack files, and since there was only one SP for Win 7, that's your lot. :(

It's interesting to look at the system partition sizes on Windows NT over time - starting with NT3.5.1 and NT4 there was a hard limit of 7.8GB and an effective limit of 4GB - more than adequate, ISTR! The typical sizes for deployed servers that I saw in a large number of companies for the various versions of Windows since then were along the lines of:

Server 2000 10-15GB system partition (= Win2K), often less
Server 2003 20-30GB system partition (= Win XP) - I recently saw one with only 10GB that had been a major pain for several years
Server 2008 40-60GB system partition (= Vista) - once bitten...
Server 2008R2 60-80GB system partition (= Win 7) - ...twice shy!
Server 2012 & R2 80-100GB system partition (= Win 8 & 8.1) - to prevent the problems seen with 2008!

This is what I mean about the inexorable rise in the size of Windows OS, although of course a lot is also due to the size of application software as well.

I'm not expecting that trend to stop rising, although it would be good to think that it is flattening off somewhat!

SD

[MG23]

Hibernate means, for me, a faster startup and all my files I had open stay open.

My Windows 7 PC takes less than fifteen seconds to boot from the SSD, and much of that is just getting through the BIOS to the point where it starts reading from the disk. All Hibernate would do is waste about 15% of the SSD for the hibernate file, and prevent Windows from shutting down and clearing out the crud it accumulates as it runs.

[Loose rivets]

My Sony laptop is finally under control and about 25 secs to load to usable. Really no point in doing anything but a shut down.

The i7 is only an old 'un (Q740 @ 1.73GHz) yet I've always been concerned about the core temps being on the verge of red. Heat sink is clean. This was not the case on my Asus i5, though I should mention the guy that sold it to me had put a very high spec heatsink compound in it and swore blind it made a difference. He was a phone techie so I suppose he got the goo free. I know it to be horrendously expensive and wonder if it's worth the added cost.

I prepared my Scandisk SSD by way of an adaptor on my PC's USB. It would not reduce below 127Gb in the first partition without using utilities. I was thinking of setting C to circa 80Gb and putting Office in there, but 127 is a bit disappointing at 125 and 97 Gb's


Just signed up with ebuyer and picked the middle drive with FREE DELIVERY loud and clear. They added delivery charge. I'll phone them Tusesday, but I guess they'll say there had to be a minimum order. Fine, just as long as they tell me first.