TR Forums

I can't afford to upgrade my PC every year, but after upgrading I still keep informed for my future purchases.
It is easy to get excited about the new performance and features that new architectures have to offer (Tock).
However, if I have no immediate need for an upgrade I feel it may be wiser to wait for the die shrink (Tick).

Doing this feels less risky as the architecture has had time to mature and lower power requirements is a plus.
There are other benefits such as more third parties making use of the newer technology after about a year.
It's proven technology, so I already know if I'll be impressed when it first launches, better than speculation.

Unfortunately I often feel envious after, such as last time buying an i7-875K months before the release of SB.
I mean I'm definitely glad I didn't have to deal with the chipset issues or feeling shortchanged with the P67.
I dunno though, what do you guys think? Is it a better time to upgrade your CPU+Mobo on a Tick or a Tock?

Wow - first to vote! My last two computers were a tock (e6400) and a tick (e7300). Not sure if it matters terribly, but I'm always impressed with the ticks: a refined architecture, power and speed improvements...

Personally, i'd upgrade on a Tock.

While I got stung with the chipset issue the last time, these bugs are rare enough that i dont really mind.

The performance increases on the Tock cycle are normally large enough that it wouldnt make sense not to upgrade!

Depends. Are you more interested in getting the best performance right away, or in lower power consumption and less chance of exciting bugs?

My last two (C2D E6300 and i5-2500K) have been a few months after a new architecture.

Personally, I have my sights on Haswell as the next desktop CPU upgrade and Ivy Bridge for the next laptop.

I'm going with the "It doesn't matter" option. You're looking at 6-months between each phase (on average). So you're always just a few months away from the next better thing. Their ticks and tocks have also been inconsistent as to which gets the high-end processor, and which gets the mainstreams.

So my rule has always been use my current CPU until it's no longer performance worthy. Then, if <2 months from the next gen CPU, wait and buy early, otherwise buy whatever is the current gen now.

emorgoch wrote:

I'm going with the "It doesn't matter" option. You're looking at 6-months between each phase (on average). So you're always just a few months away from the next better thing. Their ticks and tocks have also been inconsistent as to which gets the high-end processor, and which gets the mainstreams.

So my rule has always been use my current CPU until it's no longer performance worthy. Then, if <2 months from the next gen CPU, wait and buy early, otherwise buy whatever is the current gen now.

6 Months? IB is due a year after SB, and Haswell is due out a year after that.
I'm not talking about Sandy Bridge vs waiting for Sandy Bridge Extreme chips.
After the Lynnfield/Gulftown split Intel has changed their strategy.

Right now is a good time to upgrade, sandy bridge is mature and the prices are good. I've always had a soft spot for AMD, but frankly intel has had a superior product since core2. It's just not worth the effort trying to save a few bucks going with AMD platform when you can get a smoking fast intel rig for a similar price. I think TR system guides have reflected this situation for some time now.

Its not necessarily bad to jump onto the bleeding edge new stuff, but I find it's good to wait at least a couple of months for either a price dip or to avoid any bugs.

Neither, for me.

For home desktop and server builds, I get whatever's got a decent price/performance in the AMD low- to mid-range when the need for a new system arises. Typically this means an AMD CPU in the $75-$150 price range, on an Asus mATX mobo.

When I do desktop/laptop systems at work (assuming we're not just getting whatever our corporate IT dept. is dishing out this month), it is either: A) whatever we can get from HP that fits the stated budget; or B) whatever we can buy locally *today* (preferably still HP), if it is an emergency. This results in a pretty random mix of Intel and AMD, of random generations.

Servers and high-end workstations at work are whatever Xeon system HP is pushing these days (for Windows), or whatever Opteron AMD is pushing these days (for Linux servers).

Corporate surprised me a little bit on the last few workstations, shipping us HP Xeons with 12 GB of RAM -- whoa, how times have changed! Probably blew our IT budget for the year, but that's not my problem. Or at least, only indirectly my problem...

just brew it! wrote:

Neither, for me.

For home desktop and server builds, I get whatever's got a decent price/performance in the AMD low- to mid-range when the need for a new system arises. Typically this means an AMD CPU in the $75-$150 price range, on an Asus mATX mobo.

AMD always seem to be one step behind Intel with thermals and performance. What is it about them you prefer for your home systems? I can count one biggie and that is their continued support of ECC memory in their consumer grade CPUs. If I ever upgrade this 'good enough' Intel box, I will probably choose AMD for that reason.

What was the Q6600?

This will have to last me until I die, so I'll choose whatever it was

Rakhmaninov3 wrote:

What was the Q6600?

This will have to last me until I die, so I'll choose whatever it was

That was a 'tock', new architecture (Core 2 Duo/Quad) and known process (65nm, P4 and Core Duo).

I voted for "Doesn't matter", even though my purchases and recommendations have mostly been 'tocks'. I just depends on when you want/need to buy. I have to admit that the new architecture always piques my interest though, which can trigger the upgrade-itch if it has been a while.

Dirge wrote:

AMD always seem to be one step behind Intel with thermals and performance. What is it about them you prefer for your home systems? I can count one biggie and that is their continued support of ECC memory in their consumer grade CPUs. If I ever upgrade this 'good enough' Intel box, I will probably choose AMD for that reason.

Value, really. While some people are always upgrading from yesterday's hotness to today's hotness, other people are always upgrading from yesterday's value to today's value, and AMD was very competitive in the $200 and under realm until recently when their competitive domain seems to have shrunk to the $125 and under realm. And the AMD platform has been pretty excellent as well, my perpetual complaints about SATA performance not withstanding. AMD's never castrates it's CPUs the way Intel does either - you don't usually have to check the features list with an AMD CPU - all the features (ECC support, virtualization support, blah, blah...) are all there.

As for the poll, it's hard to say - new architectures are certainly exciting, but the refresh is pretty exciting in its own right as that is when the new architecture is what I will call fully mature, and so is the platform and motherboard selection. Since my upgrades usually happen in the three-year range, I'll get my money's worth out of it regardless, so I vote "tick".

The die shrink allows the chips to use less power and run faster. It also allows more of them to be produced per wafer, reducing manufacturing costs. Those three things make it possible for Intel to offer the consumer a much better value... if AMD is putting competitive pressure on them. If AMD isn't around, we're back to the days of Intel charging $1000+ for CPUs.

However, the best time to buy is whenever you need a new processor.

Dirge wrote:

AMD always seem to be one step behind Intel with thermals and performance. What is it about them you prefer for your home systems? I can count one biggie and that is their continued support of ECC memory in their consumer grade CPUs. If I ever upgrade this 'good enough' Intel box, I will probably choose AMD for that reason.

Yeah, ECC support is one of the reasons. I don't do anything that requires bleeding edge performance, so the fact that AMD doesn't have anything that matches Intel's top performing CPUs isn't an issue for me. I also like to support the underdog; if AMD pulls out of the CPU market prices will be higher across the board.

(And just a FYI: The Fusion CPUs apparently do *not* support ECC...)

I just buy whatever's out when I need to buy. Tick vs Tock seems largely academic to me, since apart from gaming (which seems more GPU dependent) I don't do intensive task on my PC.

I guess you could look at it over the longer term and say 'today's tick is yesterdays tock'. There always seems to be something better on the horizon.