Worth upgrading and if so what?

EveryWhere

googler wrote: »

Start with the RAM to 8Gb.

That's the easiest upgrade, and doesn't require faffing with software. Just a plug-in.

See how that goes before stepping into deeper water

Check the Recycle Bin. I looked at someone's PC a month or so ago with similar symptoms to you, a Win 8.1 machine with 4Gb, and they hadn't emptied the Recycle Bin since 2011 ..... emptied that, doubled the RAM to 8Gb, and it's flying along now.

Upgrading the RAM has a much lesser effect than changing to an SSD.
The only people who would advocate RAM first, are likely those who have never fitted an SSD or simply cannot be bothered with either cloning the drive or running a clean install and moving data over if necessary.

But if RAM is cheap it might be worth the doing. But absolutely, SSD first and RAM perhaps afterwards.
You don't necessarily want mismatched RAM either. So then you have the can of worms over which to purchase.
It has 4 slots, so you'll want matched RAM; https://www.dell.com/community/Desktops-General-Read-Only/Studio-XPS-8100-DDR3-Memory-Best-Buy-Version/m-p/3462611/highlight/true#M812007 also taking note of the clock speeds.

In addition to this, new RAM can be even more expensive than an SSD, so used RAM is the only viable option; https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Memory-Ram-Desktop-PC-DDR3-PC3-10600-U-1333-MHz-240-P-Non-ECC-Lot-2x2GB-4GB-8GB/222631057894

You can obtain the odd stick from CEX for less; https://uk.webuy.com/product-detail/?id=smem9qah

googler

Neil_Jones wrote: »

Shouldn't make any difference whatsoever. More likely AV software was going through the bin.

(in response to; "Clearing [Recycle Bin] provided a noticeable increase in speed")

Why tell me that it "shouldn't make a difference" when I've just stated that it DID actually do this?

googler

EveryWhere wrote: »

The only people who would advocate RAM first, are likely those who have never fitted an SSD or simply cannot be bothered with either cloning the drive or running a clean install and moving data over if necessary.

... and the OP may well be in this group, which is why I said;

"That's the easiest upgrade, and doesn't require faffing with software. Just a plug-in. See how that goes before stepping into deeper water"

I can advocate this for someone else without necessarily being in that group myself, and I can advocate this for the OP from personal experience of speed increase from RAM upgrade only (from 4Gb to 8Gb, which coincidentally is the same starting point as the OP).

Whitefiver

Whilst the comments regarding SSDs are definitely valid, it might be worth trying to investigate what is causing the HD to thrash. My wife has a Dell desktop and it was exhibiting the same symptoms. For whatever reason Dell's own Backup and Restore program was the problem and as we didn't use it, removing the program largely cured the problem. YMMV, but might be worth investigating the task manager?


We do take backups - before anyone asks!

EveryWhere

googler wrote: »

... and the OP may well be in this group, which is why I said;

"That's the easiest upgrade, and doesn't require faffing with software. Just a plug-in. See how that goes before stepping into deeper water"

I can advocate this for someone else without necessarily being in that group myself, and I can advocate this for the OP from personal experience of speed increase from RAM upgrade only (from 4Gb to 8Gb, which coincidentally is the same starting point as the OP).

We can agree to disagree. Your opinion is subjective.
Whilst adding RAM can make a small difference, fitting an SSD can make a huge difference.
Let's look at objective testing;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn6zxoh3oK4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn6zxoh3oK4

Note the relatively small difference in adding a large amount of RAM to a device with HDD and note how the machine with a large amount of RAM and HDD, is comprehensively beaten by the device with a small amount of RAM though with an SSD.

The OP hasn't suggested that he is in any way afraid to fit RAM and/or an SSD.
So no need to take the lazy path of fitting RAM and hoping for the best.
Just do the job properly in the first place, therefore no need to return to it later when it becomes sluggish again.

SSD, perhaps more RAM and a clean install of the OS. Better than new.

itwasntme001

Thanks for the replies so far. I am not afraid to install a new hard drive and do a fresh install (of course after doing backups!).


Given it appears the base PC is fine (i assume from the posts?), i will look to add an SSD (keep the HDD as secondary drive) and also add another 4GB RAM.


Do you think it is worth getting a card so i can add a SATA3 SSD drive instead?

googler

EveryWhere wrote: »

We can agree to disagree. Your opinion is subjective.

So is yours.

Thank You for (trying) to put me in my place.

EveryWhere

itwasntme001 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies so far. I am not afraid to install a new hard drive and do a fresh install (of course after doing backups!).


Given it appears the base PC is fine (i assume from the posts?), i will look to add an SSD (keep the HDD as secondary drive) and also add another 4GB RAM.


Do you think it is worth getting a card so i can add a SATA3 SSD drive instead?

For his intended usage, probably not. It will just add another level of difficulty for you.
On the other hand, if you like tinkering and the card is cheap, then why not?

that

itwasntme001 wrote: »

Do you think it is worth getting a card so i can add a SATA3 SSD drive instead?

Although you have no ahcim (a small gain, but raid option in the bios often fixes this) if you are pushing large amounts of data through like video rendering, or databases, or running benchmarks, big data stuff etc often, then I would definitely take the gamble, otherwise general use you probably wont notice it. Sata 3 has double the rate of sata 2, but for small stuff - meh

The link said his boot time went from 28 to 8 seconds. Without testing would guess the sata 3 card cut down the time by an extra few seconds, but probably less than 5 second gain. Get your stopwatch out and time yours, similar system

The issue is finding and loading a heap of small files takes far much more time and effort compared to one file of the same size, especially noticeable on rust spinners. Fast startup was the solution for them as the best of those disk would not even saturate sata 1

EveryWhere

googler wrote: »

So is yours.

Thank You for (trying) to put me in my place.

No, mine is not subjective, since I backed it up with actual evidence and not hearsay.
The video is objective evidence. Your post is simply hearsay, since it is only an opinion and not measurable in any way, shape or form.
Don't take it personally. These are just facts.