No, while people are still playing them, they are mostly replace by SC2 and GO.
Most popular games like Lol, DoTA2, Minecraft, CS:GO, SC2, D3 etc are only about 3-5 years old, WOW is the only exception, might want to fact check before you post.
Yup just imagine your 8 year old Q9550 is still going strong on the latest games. And i am very certain based on current projections it will last another 7 years again before it becomes minimum.
And we have not yet even begun to talk about the fact that 90% of gamers are playing games that still run on single threads. Games designed each with a 10 to 15 year life span.
CS 1.6 and Starcraft 1, 15 and 17 years old respectively are 2 of the most active online games currently.
And just imagine, back then we didn't have all these options of having future proof hardware like core i7 etc. Back then was old single core CPU. And was the golden age of PC hardware.
I don't believe for a second that an i7 will last 20 years, but I believe 100% what the OP is talking about in that an i7 will last the 90% of PC Gamers 20 years simply because Valve, Blizzard and Riot are easy to predict. Incase many missed it, 90% of PC Gamers play the same game everyday because of its monetary online capability, the ability to earn ingame currency that translates into real world currency.
when you have as much invested in a League of Legends account it further cements you into the same game. Its incredibly infinite variables involved in its gameplay also keeps it fresh this is why MOBA players never get bored of the same game even after more than 10 years.
No, while people are still playing them, they are mostly replace by SC2 and GO.
Most popular games like Lol, DoTA2, Minecraft, CS:GO, SC2, D3 etc are only about 3-5 years old, WOW is the only exception, might want to fact check before you post.
I also find it highly unlikely that there won't be an additional extension of x86 within 20 years -- to take us to 128 bit CPU's.
I just thought of something. Think about the wear and tear your laptops take. It's not computational obsolescence, but mechanical obsolescence that gets 'em.
Desktop boxes, though, we can get at to upgrade. What held them back in the past was the lack of RAM. And when that advanced later, our XP boxen not only didn't have enough RAM for Win 7, but the old stuff was no longer for sale at reasonable prices. The advance of Windows forced us to larger RAM sizes.
But that's all in the past. Windows no longer requires ever-increasing RAM. I see no reason to scrap my wife's 2008 box, for example. So maybe a 20-year refreshment cycle is in the works, especially for business.
The only fly in the ointment is that we may figure out that we need EMP-resistant hardware. Think Carrington event.
Highly doubt it since the OP provided actual statistical evidence on everything while people like you spew nasty anal feces instead and expect us to believe you based on your "belief"
Many of you here on this thread have yet to actually read and understand what the OP wrote, you read the thread title and came to comment.
It can be used for more than basic use. Forget Pentium D, it was crap even on the day it was launched. I played lots of heavy games on my 64X2 4600 like Max Payne 3, Arkham City, Crysis 2, etc and i got smooth frame rates so I'm sure recent low spec games like Walking Dead, Wolf Among Us, Game of Thrones, various MMOrpgs shooters, etc will run well too. I would still be using it today if it were not for my Motherboard dying.2005 we are talking Pentium D and Athlon 64 X2 at best (and most people were running single core), those CPUs are seriously bad for current games, they are bad even for some games from 2007-2008, for a new game to perform OK on these it has to be very, very simple, so I don't see the point, yes, you can use these CPUs for basic usage kind of OK, but the difference to something newer is very obvious even for OS stuff and web browsing...
my main PC is far bellow the average from this place, but I don't see how 10 years old CPUs can be considered good or adequate at this point, certainly not for gaming, if you go to 2008-2009, then yes, you can find a lot of hardware that I would still consider good for newer software.
Someone should do a test comparing a Core 2 Duo from 2006 vs Skylake Pentium from this year testing various games from released in 2015 and I'm sure if Core2Duo is unplayable, Pentium would be too.
Good. This means all those games will also run smoothly on C2D from 2006 if it runs fine on Haswell Celeron as well.You can play any 2015 games on a haswell celleron,not with great speeds but unplayable they aint,but you do need a huge VGA if you want to play them at 1080 and high quality.
Core2duo at same Ghz would be around half the speed.
G1820,windowed mode with monitoring tools and while recording with OBS (no huge VGA )
tomb raider
GTA V
Witcher 3
BF4 64player shanghai
GTA IV plus video converting
It can be used for more than basic use. Forget Pentium D, it was crap even on the day it was launched. I played lots of heavy games on my 64X2 4600 like Max Payne 3, Arkham City, Crysis 2, etc and i got smooth frame rates so I'm sure recent low spec games like Walking Dead, Wolf Among Us, Game of Thrones, various MMOrpgs shooters, etc will run well too. I would still be using it today if it were not for my Motherboard dying.
So 10 years is pretty doable as long as you're not trying to play the high spec games from 10 years in the future.
Someone should do a test comparing a Core 2 Duo from 2006 vs Skylake Pentium from this year testing various games from released in 2015 and I'm sure if Core2Duo is unplayable, Pentium would be too.
Or if someone here has Q6600/6300/6400 etc please do a comparison with i5-6600k testing games from 2015 and let's see how much difference does 8 years make not in synthetic benchmarks but actual real time games from 2015.
Good. This means all those games will also run smoothly on C2D from 2006 if it runs fine on Haswell Celeron as well.
As for needing huge gpu, nobody said running them at 1080p high is mandatory. Even 720p medium can look decent. All that's needed is playable average fps which means around 25fps avg is good. So the 10 year CPU life cycle is proven to be true which is not really a surprise.
I retired my A64 X2 from gaming back in 2009, it was very slow on Dragon Age origins (around 15FPS in one place I remember), it was slow for TF2 (a lot of slowdowns, even with 24p) and so on... if you try to play bad company 2 with it for example it's a disaster, GTA4 would go easily to 15FPS and bellow (that's a game from 2008), as I said I tested F1 2014 with int recently and it was horrible, min was 12FPS even on the lowest settings... Dirt (2007) had some bad stutters and slowdowns on the events with more than 1 car, which I solved when upgraded the CPU and so on... it's bad...
g1820 will beat an e6600 at 3.6GHz easily for gaming, it's not representative of 2006 at all,
Yeah that's exactly the point. That is precisely the reason why CPU upgrade has moved to 10 year upgrade cycle.Skylake i5 is 25% clock/clock compared to sandy bridge i5 in games. took 4.5 years. So about 5% per year.
At this pace we'll be at 2x sandy bridge in another 9.5 years.
So you mean Intel was catering to the 1% crowd till 2011 and then suddenly they started catering to the 99% crowd? Or Is it because AMD fell out of the competition and Intel no longer needed to keep increasing performance but instead now started focusing on perf/watt? Or is it because Intel felt cpu performance was now enough and time to focus on efficiency? Could be a lot of reasons but one thing is for sure, Intel has become a boring company for enthusiasts. You cannot expect enthusiasts to be happy and eat up 5% more performance every year. The Intel that we loved is gone even though they still make great products but there's nothing to get excited about anymore.Its only the 1% crowd that talks about absolute performance.
Everyone else talks about performance watt.
Accept you are the dying dinosaur and move on.
Personally I am replacing a 87W i5 661 from 2010 with a 15W Skylake that offers better performance and some 600%+ better performance/watt.
So you mean Intel was catering to the 1% crowd till 2011 and then suddenly they started catering to the 99% crowd? Or Is it because AMD fell out of the competition and Intel no longer needed to keep increasing performance but instead now started focusing on perf/watt? Or is it because Intel felt cpu performance was now enough and time to focus on efficiency? Could be a lot of reasons but one thing is for sure, Intel has become a boring company for enthusiasts. You cannot expect enthusiasts to be happy and eat up 5% more performance every year. The Intel that we loved is gone even though they still make great products but there's nothing to get excited about anymore.
Its only the 1% crowd that talks about absolute performance.
Everyone else talks about performance watt.
Accept you are the dying dinosaur and move on.
Personally I am replacing a 87W i5 661 from 2010 with a 15W Skylake that offers better performance and some 600%+ performance/watt.
You can do that? didn't know.And the only reason it lost its 60,000 daily players is because many play CS GO for its skins because you can sell it back and get cash in your steam wallet to buy games and stuff.
this has just been on my mind since i first saw this thread and not sure if it's already been mentioned. but does the slowdown in cpu performance development have anything to do with the not-so fierce competition from AMD's side for the past couple of years?