Built on/Last upgrade on
2016
Estimated Price ($)
900
Type
Desktop
Brand & Model
PowerSpec B740 Desktop
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
CPU (Processor)
Intel® Core™ i7 -7700K Processor
Memory (RAM)
64GB composed of 2- 32,678MB DDR4/3000 DIMMS
GPU (Graphics Card)
Intel Graphics 630
Motherboard
MSI Z270 PC Mate
Storage
  • 480GB SSD M2.2280 SATAIII
  • 2TB 7200 RPM
  • 4TB 7200 RPM
  • (5) 2TB 7200RPM Toshiba cloned system
  • ASUS CD\DVD
Case
PowerSpec
Power Supply
PowerSpec 600 Watts
Monitor (Display)
Dell SE2417HGR
Keyboard and Mouse
Standard Keyboard
Optical Scroll Wheel Mouse
Computer protection
Windows 10 Security Center
9

93803123

Relative to $1,500 to $2,000 systems that gain the average user - perhaps - a noticeable, day-to-day 10 % increase in performance. The real-world, practical use difference is likely to be something like 5 %, which provides no meaningful gain while draining your pocketbook more than necessary. $600 to $1400 greater cost, for some little gains. It makes no sense for my use cases.

As a side note, my i7 4720HQ 2 core system was faster than my i7 7700HQ 4 core system, even though that older system had lower specs across the board. The 4720HQ was faster to the extent that it was my favorite. It can come down to how fast the BIOS is as well as how well the various memory and data transfer components work together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

notabot

Level 11
Relative to $1,500 to $2,000 systems that gain the average user - perhaps - a noticeable, day-to-day 10 % increase in performance. The real-world, practical use difference is likely to be something like 5 %, which provides no meaningful gain while draining your pocketbook more than necessary. $600 to $1400 greater cost, for some little gains. It makes no sense for my use cases.

As a side note, my i7 4720HQ 2 core system was faster than my i7 7700HQ 4 core system, even though that older system had lower specs across the board. The 4720HQ was faster to the extent that it was my favorite. It can come down to how fast the BIOS is as well as how well the various memory and data transfer components work together.
Out of curiosity, how did you do the attribution for the loss of speed ?
 
9

93803123

Out of curiosity, how did you do the attribution for the loss of speed ?
Simple tests, plus you can tell under certain circumstances just by common sense observation. More simple, more better.
  • WinRaR extract a known archive with established baseline
  • 7zip extract a known archive with established baseline
  • Time from reboot until active desktop
You could also get an Excel spreadsheet with a large data set and manipulate it. I'm sure one is available online for benchmarking.
 

Handsome Recluse

Level 21
Verified
Wowie. 64 GB RAM. What, do you like multiply large matrices with each other?

Relative to $1,500 to $2,000 systems that gain the average user - perhaps - a noticeable, day-to-day 10 % increase in performance. The real-world, practical use difference is likely to be something like 5 %, which provides no meaningful gain while draining your pocketbook more than necessary. $600 to $1400 greater cost, for some little gains. It makes no sense for my use cases.
Wouldn't more bang-for-your-buck be more accurate?
As a side note, my i7 4720HQ 2 core system was faster than my i7 7700HQ 4 core system, even though that older system had lower specs across the board. The 4720HQ was faster to the extent that it was my favorite. It can come down to how fast the BIOS is as well as how well the various memory and data transfer components work together.
Curious. Any chance you know why this is the case?
 
9

93803123

My cheap secondary PC is $150 LOL
I had one I paid $50 for. Then had to replace the screen. Then had to replace the keyboard. Then had to replace the HDD with an SDD. Then it crapped the bed within 12 months. That's how $50 turns into a $200 paper weight.

Wowie. 64 GB RAM. What, do you like multiply large matrices with each other?
Virtual machines. Very resource hungry. The bottleneck is running the virtual machines from HDD. I don't have a choice as I don't have enough room on the SSD.

Wouldn't more bang-for-your-buck be more accurate?
You could say that.

Curious. Any chance you know why this is the case?
I got no idea. And neither do the OEMs.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: Handsome Recluse