How long will my hardware be decent?

The title of the thread asks my question, but here's my situation:

I'm starting college again next year as a Computer Science major and to help with that I'm going to start teaching myself C#. At least at this moment I don't really want to funnel a ton of money into getting a new super-fast machine to handle any work I'm going to be doing in class, but I need to know if the hardware I have right now will potentially be up to the task when I start school.

I have a Lenovo ThinkPad T500 with a C2D P8400, 4GB RAM, switchable graphics(Intel GMA X4500/ATI HD3650), and a 1680x1050 display. I'm debating on whether to keep this or my ultraportable X200(P8700, 4GB RAM, GMAX4500, and a 1280x800 12.1" display). Either machine I keep will have my 256GB SSD, so I have that factored in.

My DTR is my Asus G73JH which has a Core i7 740QM, 8GB RAM, ATI HD5870 GPU, and a 1920x1080 display. I also have a 160GB SSD for it as well as two large HDDs installed, but I don't particularly want to drag that along to classes for several factors(I can't stand touchpads and will have to use an external mouse, size and weight, low battery life, etc). It's good for a DTR and will likely stay at my house or be lugged along to some game nights.

I'm assuming that the G73 should be decent for my schoolwork and software development for a good while, but what about my ThinkPads? I've been struggling over which one to downsize for a while but I'm leaning towards the T500 as I can at least eventually upgrade the processor to get more life out of it; not to mention the more powerful discrete GPU and higher-res display. I'd be bringing either rig along to class practically every day and as such it would become my primary use machine. Any thoughts as to which one would be more practical, and how long I could potentially use these machines for before really needing an upgrade?

 

I think the C2D laptops will still work fine for several more years. On everything except gaming and CPU intensive programs, of course.

 

Unless you ask the salesperson at the local computer store, in which case you will need a replacement as soon as next week. JK as Joker said, you should be fine for a while. Good luck in school and study hard!

 

As long as you're running the same programs your computer won't go obsolete ever. Word 2010 and Visual Studio 2010 will run the same 10 years from now.

In terms of newer programs, a core 2 duo with dedicated graphics still can last up to I'd say 2 years before mainstream programs really start pushing it to the limit, likely more. Windows 8 is already confirmed to run about the same as Windows 7 on most machines, and that will be the standard for another few years.

 

It all depends on how much you wish to invest and what you want to achieve. People coded with Pentium 4, Pentium M for the longest time. A P8400 should be fine for most intents and purposes, and for most people they won't need anything higher really. Plus Penyrn is much better for battery than its Arrandale and Sandy Bridge batteries, and runs cooler.

Also another thing to consider is you don't get 16:10 anymore on new laptops, unless you wish to get a like a buisness class and get a full 1080p screen.

 

You really think penryn is better on battery life in comparison to sandybridge? I debating whether or not its worth it to buy a new battery for my T500.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the average battery life for a new laptop has risen probably 50% or more across the board over the last 3 years. I'm no expert, but I'd say even if your processor itself is more power efficient than modern architecture (and good luck with that!), your overall system will drain the battery faster than a modern system. If your experience with your current system is that its battery life with a new battery is sufficient for you and its performance covers your needs, then you can certainly just buy a new battery rather than replacing your entire platform, but I don't believe that upgrading to a Sandy Bridge platform, all other things being equal, would result in less battery life.

I'm confused by Tsunade_Hime's post in general, really. It could be that he/she isn't a native English speaker or is trying to communicate something different from what I'm expecting so I'm reading it wrong, but the quote below doesn't really make much sense to me:

The sentence doesn't seem to make any logical sense as it's written; it seems to say that Penryn is much better for battery (life?) than its (Penryn's) Arrandale and Sandy Bridge batteries (but he/she knows Arrandale and Sandy Bridge are CPU architectures, not batteries that somehow belong to Penryn's architecture) are good for batteries, and that it runs cooler (than Arrandale and Sandy Bridge presumably).

I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi or anything, but I suspect that the meaning might be different from what I expect, so my above comments might not be valid as such.

What I think is being said is this: Penryn is much better for battery life and runs cooler than either Arrandale or Sandy Bridge. That's what I'm responding to in my first paragraph. Either way, I don't know for certain whether I'm right or wrong, so if I'm wrong or if I'm misreading Tsunade_Hime's post, just ignore all of this.

 

LegendaryKA8,

With both ThinkPAD's running non-turbo capable processors, I would choose the T500 with the 1680x1050 display, hands down. An 11% cpu difference is easily made up with a 72% increase in resolution - your productivity will simply be much less (I'm guessing 2x...) with the 1280x800 X200's display in a school/learning setting.

I have the same P8400 cpu/chipset/platform and for 'snap' it is easily above my U30Jc i3 350M's processor - although the i3 is at least a generation newer, the new platform at the same 2.26GHz clock speed isn't faster, imo). The i3 though, is worlds ahead of the old platform when battery life is taken into account.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/7766632-post2079.html

Tsunade Hime is not giving you accurate information in his post regarding battery life and the newer platforms.

As for upgrading the cpu eventually in the T500 - I wouldn't. it will simply be the same old platform that will be shredded by any future $300 netbook you can buy in a few years time.

Save your money, use the T500 with the SSD as-is, and upgrade to the Ivy Bridge or Haswell (or next gen platform at that time...) when you have the $$$$ in your hands and also have the need to make that purchase/jump.

The ThinkPAD's are a special breed of notebooks - use the T500 and get your money's worth.

Hope this helps and good luck!

 

TLDR;

If you have a good internet connection at school keep whichever gets better battery life (or whatever set of features you can't live without) and just use remote desktop to work on your G73 at home for the really intense stuff; it's what I plan on doing when I pick up the Asus Transformer Prime when it comes out.

 

Excellent advice, everyone, and some really good suggestions. I might just save my mod money and drop something like a 920/940XM into the G73 since I'll have to open it up anyway in the coming months for a repaste and fan cleaning.

Both ThinkPads are fine systems, but the reasons I'm leaning towards the T500 are the higher-res display, better port selection(especially the integrated DisplayPort), and the Ultrabay drive. The discrete GPU will handle some of my older games just fine which gives me some entertainment options when I'm out and about. If I can keep this one churning for a couple more years I'll be happy; it's served me pretty well so far.

 

Second that. Even on fairly CPU intensive programs too.

My sister recently got a Sony Vaio S series machine with Core i5-2410M CPU and it gives me the exact same user experience with my 3 yr old T9900 CPU.


--

 

Yeah, a 920xm will last quite a while, especially if you overclock it. You could also get a faster C2D (or Quad if it supports them) for the T500 if you need the power...

By the way, use MX-4 for repasting - it's easy to apply and easy to remove (i just tried ICD7 and it's pretty damn hard to use!) and has the same performance as the best TIMs out there.

 

if you're just learning C# and VS 2010, then those C2D's would be fine, but as soon as you start developing a large enough project with custom UI controls then you may want a faster machine.

sad thing is VS 2010 is just bloated and buggy that sometimes on really large projects 4gig of ram is just not enough.

 

Your system is quite similar to mine.
I find that for my use it is more than enough. The one area I wish I can improve significantly is 3d graphic performance which is not possible. I will be looking to purchase an egpu solution so I can play the latest 3d games. Just incase you are wondering, your machine can support a max. of 8gb ram so don't consider 16gb because it will not work. I will make the jump to 8gb probably boxing day when the sales are best. Otherwise, my laptop is pretty much maxed out with an exception of a true ssd which I don't plan to upgrade.

TO answer your initial question, I'd keep the T500. Obviously my recommendation is biased.

 

It's like buying a brand new car, only worse! A car drops 25% of it's value the moment you drive it off the dealers forecourt. A PC is more like 30-50%. It will be outdated the moment you buy it, as the churn rate on new CPU's, chipsets and graphics is getting crazy.

Disclosure - I'm running a Dell D630 (4 years old, gasp!) as my main machine, ok so it does have a T9300, 8GB of RAM, a 120GB SSD OS drive and a 750GB drive in the optical bay. It does just great with everything I throw at it. I'm not a gamer so integrated graphics is fine by me.

I don't find the need to upgrade ever year, in fact I really like getting as much mileage out of my machines as possible. I still have a Dell C640 in the family that's doing great. And my daughter has an IBM T43 (single core) that runs W7 and Angry birds just fine!

Buy what you need now and think hard about what you really need as opposed to what you want. If you are a gamer I'd say you'd be better off with a decent desktop and a small, light notebook with great battery life for class....

 

Hardware has completely outstripped software. The fact that they are selling Atoms for desktops gives credence to this. A C2D runs rings around an Atom. Core2's really hit the ball out of the park, so don't be in a big hurry to be rid of it.


Later Core2's are not far behind early i5 processors. Early ones are relatively comparable to early I3's. Not to mention how far they were ahead of AMD (even today). Companies are still clearing out C2D systems for decent rates and many support memory capacities that are still being shipped with today.

It somewhat depends on your purpose, but for the most part, any C2d will run Win7 perfectly fine, especially with max memory. Remember, Win7 is more efficient than Vista, and with more memory and loaded down with heavy programs, Win7 will beat or match Xp, no problem. Win8 is even less resource intensive.


Max the memory, maybe add Win7 and an SSD, put in a good video card on your desktop and you will be good for quite a few years on notebooks and desktops so long as you aren't gaming on an older laptop.


As for me, you can see my notebooks specs below. The notebook handles anything I need except gaming, though it handles light gaming. Would I like a Sony Z? Oh yes! but really, this computer outruns most notebooks under $1k still and most are heavier and less capable. So do I spend $2k for something only slightly faster or just keep this? It's not a hard choice.

My desktop, most of which is several years old, is a Core2Quad 9550, 8gigs ram, AMD 6870, and an SSD. As much as I would like to upgrade, I would gain very little. Not many processors beat the Q9550 even today.

 

Only in the psychological sense, not a practical one. Regardless of the market value of that car just driven off the lot, it's still new! So in terms productivity, it being "outdated" it is a misleading one.

As for the evolution from one generation of CPU to the next. The creation of an overwhelming desire to immediately purchase the latest greatest new gadget is nothing more than a needless marketing ploy. Fine if you needed to buy anyway, marginally significant in the grand scheme of computing otherwise. Desirable only if money was not a factor.

That said, there are products that do offer significant improvements in computing right away. For example, a 64 bit OS. The difference between 32 bit and 64 bit system is revolutionary; and that improvement alone can open up a whole new world of useful applications with speedier processes for virtually any user at any level.

Coming in at a distant second, is the SSD. Although relocated there only due to it's significantly inflated price. Bringing up the rear (and again at a distance) is the screen quality and resolution. Everything else commands no more than a yawnable experience at best. If anyone feels differently, I'd like to hear why.

 

You might study different things in CS than I did, but in my experience, having graduated this year...

Either laptop (T500 or X200) ought to be adequate for the work you'll do for class. If your algorithm is so slow that these laptops can't handle it, you'll probably lose points for inefficiency. The exception might be in a graphics class, where the X200 might be noticeably worse. Even then, though, unless you plan to specialize in graphics, it might well be adequate. You probably aren't going to be developing Crysis in class. And if you do, you'd probably want the G73 anyways.

The only project I did that your laptops wouldn't handle was programming in CUDA, and that's only because it requires an nVIDIA card. If you do that, I'm sure your university will also provide GeForce or Quadro machines to work on.

A few things I'd consider in the T500/X200 debate:

*The graphics probably won't matter for class or studying. If you're writing code or a paper in the library, you're just as well off not being able to play many games as if you could. So I'd only consider the 3650 to be an asset if you plan to take the laptop to friends' places to play games, or use it as a gaming laptop while on breaks, or something of that sort. But the G73 will probably be your choice for that.

*The lighter, smaller X200 will be easier to cart around every day. Don't get me wrong, I love my 15.4-inch, 6.75-pound laptop (Core 2 2.2 GHz, 7200 RPM HDD), but when I had a ThinkPad X41 with a Pentium M 1.6 GHz and a 4200 RPM HDD, it went with me to class a decent amount of the time, and probably would have more if I hadn't had everything set up to my liking on my Core 2. If you've got a lot of books, you'll appreciate the X200. The tradeoff is, yes, it's screen is smaller, but you'll have the G73 for out-of-class work, and you can probably borrow an external monitor from the labs during lab-based classes fairly often. You've already mentioned size and weight as a reason for not wanting to cart the G73 around; the X200 is the counterweight (pun not intended) to that problem.

As for the DisplayPort: Unless you know that's the connection your university uses, I wouldn't consider it an important factor. Chances are your university uses VGA, since it's compatible with almost anything. The only people who ever had connection-to-external-monitor-or-projector problems as my university were those who had a Mac with no VGA port.

tl;dr: I'd go with the X200 as a pairing with the G73 so you can enjoy the stengths of each. The T500 might be a better choice with no G73 factored in, but with the G73, I'd go X200.