I'm starting to realize how pointless, upgrading your computer is. (gaming too)

[iamchel]

I've realized this as well recently. If I had unlimited funds I wouldn't care but the fun in it for me is honestly just tinkering with them. That's why I don't plan on upgrading my i7 920 for little while longer, but I am building cheaper (and smaller) budget minded machines. Overall I like the way prices are going and I think its going to only become more affordable.

 

[Arzachel]

I love when people jump in and display zero knowlegde og the topic.
If you had borther to spend any time with ARMA you woud know that the real CPU "killer" in ARMA II is the A.I.

That also is way better and way more tatical than most other FPS...wanna be mil-sims.

Come back when you understand the engine..and not just parrot some random FUD form the internet and I'll take your "arguments" seriously.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,687620/ArmA-2-tested-Benchmarks-with-18-CPUs/Practice/

Blamning poor code for "the sandbox" is so way of target that it hurts.

For a long while the common suggestion to fix stuttering in more populated areas was to buy a SSD or put the game on a RAMdisk. I have no idea if that texture streaming issue was fixed, but if you call that optimized, then I don't know what to tell you. Still, even with all the bugs I agree that ARMA 2 is an amazing game, especially if you can get some friends into it.

 

[Maximilian]

I wouldn't say DDR3 is the beanchmark. I still own a Phenom I 9850 with 667 MHz DDR2 RAM and it can play any modern game, provided a good graphics card, which is all what game performace comes down to, really.
You'll never spot a difference between a FX-4100 and a 3570K in gaming if they both are paired with a 7970 or GTX 680.

Ahh i knew i didnt imagine those chips existed! Some people do own a phenom I!

 

[KingFatty]

Same thing with cars, nobody needs a car that can drive 200 MPH unless they visit a racetrack or dragstrip. Nobody needs a turbocharger. Nobody needs to work on their own car or spin wrenches etc.

Unless you want a hobby.

 

[Axon]

While I agree that most modern CPUs will run even today's games nicely, there is no doubt that my 2008 GPU (4890) pales in comparison to my current GPU (GTX 680) for those games. And I still play a lot of games. If I wasn't gaming at all, there would be no difference between an e6600 and my i7 2600k@ 4.6 for word processing and the like.

 

[Topweasel]

I agree with others that software has struggled to keep up somewhat, but for those that need the horsepower, more advances will always be welcome.

Sure they are welcome for the most part, and for every VL leaving (in the sense often upgrading) there is a new person asking for help specing out a new PC he/she is going to build. Those guys will read the reviews see a 10% difference there, a 15% difference there, and think it worth it. Till eventually they don't. Much like the Car tuners of old, there used to be value in eaking out a couple extra horse power and a hobby was birthed out of some form of necessity. As a hobby there comes the day that you realize that throwing another 3k at the exhaust when all you do is ride the cruise control at 74MPH, just doesn't make sense.

Things like Eyefinity, NV Surround, benchmarks at 5k 1k, are not about applying a real use case to test a card. Its about creating a use case for the card.

That doesn't mean that you can't love computers. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy putting a new computer together. Just means that coming to the conclusion that just because a faster CPU exists, or a new vid card with twice as many shader units come out, you don't need to feel compelled to upgrade it, realizing that you don't even push the machine you have.

 

[pauldun170]

Games heavyweight titles on 4 year old quad core paired with 1 1/2 year old GPU
also
Games moderate to yesterdays heavy weight titles on 15 month old HT dual core with 4 year old GPU

I got a pair of upgrades that will need to get done...eventually...one of these days...

 

[Arzachel]

Same thing with cars, nobody needs a car that can drive 200 MPH unless they visit a racetrack or dragstrip. Nobody needs a turbocharger. Nobody needs to work on their own car or spin wrenches etc.

Unless you want a hobby.

Turbo'ed small displacement engines are more efficient, so that metaphor breaks down

 

[Udgnim]

as an owner of an E8500 @ 4.05 GHz and a 4870 512, upgrading isn't so pointless for me

although I don't have a great reason to upgrade atm since I don't play games often or run any resource heavy or rendering software

 

[TidusZ]

i see a lot of people upgrade often even though they don't play games, and they certainly aren't doing any sort of high processing power stuff either. For people who play games I think its warranted, although unlike in the past where upgrading meant going from <10 fps to 40 - 60 fps now its like going from 45 fps to 60 fps with faster load times, so its not the huge deal it used to be. I used to play CS at <20 fps and black and white < 10 fps, supreme commander at like -7 game speed, etc etc. All the upgrades I got made those games playable which was great cus I played them a lot.

 

[pelov]

I'd have to agree with the OP. I've felt this way since I built my newer rig last year. I've found I rarely use my PC for any intensive tasks other than occasionally playing a game a couple of hours a week. I too am looking forward to comparing the Trinity laptops with some i3 IB's and selling off my rig entirely, minus some DVI/HDMI cable(s) to hook up a pretty new laptop to my monitor(s) I've long ago realized that pouring money into this hobby is akin to flushing Benjamins down the toilet. Reading and studying the way hardware works is far more interesting than buying the stuff and it costs much much less.

 

[lowrider69]

Well, unless you do it for power-consumption reasons. Newer chips do draw less power, at least at idle.

But in terms of performance, unless you play games at hardcore settings, you really don't need a new computer. Even a Core2Quad is plenty of horsepower for basic things.

Granted, I think that having at least a basic quad-core, or a SB/IB dual-core w/HT is useful for desktop tasks. But anything beyond that is pure overkill.

Maybe I'll get rid of my desktops, for a nice lightweight Trinity or IB laptop. Still considering.

I've been giving away more computers lately. Mostly single-core older machines, but I donated a couple of AMD low-power dual-cores recently too.

Perhaps I'm just learning that I've been spending way too much on computers over the last few years, chasing something that I'm still not sure what, with my upgrades.

Thinking of selling my X6 @ 3.51, 16GB DDR3-1600, 240GB SATA 6G SSD, dual GTX460 1GB OC cards, etc., to a friend. It would cost $1500 to put this rig together today from Newegg (approx.).

What a waste of money. I've played Skyrim about once or twice on this rig, total. Not into PC gaming as much as I though.

I built a nice little mini-ITX box around an Asrock E-350 board (now I wish I had picked up the USB 3.0 version). Perfect little low-power (low-heat!) NEFbox. Fine for forums, even with a HD and not an SSD, and it can watch 1080P video too. Built-in HDMI output, DVI, VGA. eSATA too. Thinking of making that box my full-time rig, at least during the summertime.

I have been big into Distributed Computing, but as the summer gets closer, I have to stop doing that on my computer due to primarily heat reasons (and running the AC at full load isn't cheap on the power bill either).

I have the itch to upgrade my rig. The last major upgrade was 4 years ago and I'm still running the same hardware except I added newer drives and more ram since. e6420@2.66GHz, 8gigs or DDR3 PC10600 ram(my board takes both DDR2 and DDR3), two WD 320gig drives, 9600GT, blah, blah, blah. I wasn't going to do a full blown upgrade but just maybe plop in a older Q series quad if I could get one cheap enough. Like maybe a Q8400, Q9400 or Q9450 and call it a day. I don't play games much at all and the ones I do play run well on what I have. I do some basic video/audio work and I run VMs. I just wanted a quad, doesn't have to be the fastest. But finding a Q9450 or even a Q9400 used or OEM for under $150 is a pain in the ass. And I don't like buying used hardware, it's one of my golden rules I like to not break.

After reading up on the new stuff I started to lean towards a i5 Ivy Bridge and a new board. I want the ivy because of the lower power consumption, I don't feel like swapping my PSU right now and the i5 prices are reasonable. My current PSU, ram, video card, drives, etc.. will work so it's a easy upgrade. I just have to decide if I need it or just want it. It's more like I want it. lol. I'll see.

 

[jacktesterson]

I think the point is Valid.


Truth is I spend 80% of my day on my i5-580m with a SSD. For daily use (music, movies, online use, old games like Half Life 2, etc) my laptop works 100%

90% of the population would be quite happy using a G530.

Its the truth.

We represent a small portion of the pie.

I work in IT for a Fortune 100 company and I still can't believe how many people who live on computers still know nothing about the hardware they are using.

 

[magomago]

troll thread is troll


try playing SC2 on a Q6600 and tell me how pleasurable that experience is every time a big battle happens...or try playing Nexus wars in SC2 and watch everyone yell at you.

 

[jacktesterson]

troll thread is troll


try playing SC2 on a Q6600 and tell me how pleasurable that experience is every time a big battle happens...or try playing Nexus wars in SC2 and watch everyone yell at you.

Yeah, and 1 out of 100 people actually plays these type of games on there PC.

Small piece of the pie my friend.

 

[DaveSimmons]

But in terms of performance, unless you play games at hardcore settings, you really don't need a new computer. Even a Core2Quad is plenty of horsepower for basic things.

Not really true, an upgrade is useful to play recent games at moderate settings.

My E8400 Core 2 at 3 GHz stock struggled a little with recent games running at just 16 x 10 on my 19 x 12 monitor.

My upgrade last month to an i5-2500 lets me play games more smoothly and now at 19 x 12.

Will I be upgrading from SB to IVB? No, that would just be upgrading to tinker and I'm too lazy to do that.

90% of the population would be quite happy using a G530.

True for those who limit their gaming to Farmville, but the OP claims only "hardcore" gaming requires a good CPU.

 

[LoneNinja]

Ahh i knew i didnt imagine those chips existed! Some people do own a phenom I!

I still have a Phenom I 9850, it just isn't in a computer anymore, had too many computers and cut back.

 

[exar333]

Yeah, and 1 out of 100 people actually plays these type of games on there PC.

Small piece of the pie my friend.

Too bad the OP posted where the 1% hang out....

Fail.

 

[cytg111]

Not really true, an upgrade is useful to play recent games at moderate settings.

My E8400 Core 2 at 3 GHz stock struggled a little with recent games running at just 16 x 10 on my 19 x 12 monitor.

My upgrade last month to an i5-2500 lets me play games more smoothly and now at 19 x 12.

Will I be upgrading from SB to IVB? No, that would just be upgrading to tinker and I'm too lazy to do that.



True for those who limit their gaming to Farmville, but the OP claims only "hardcore" gaming requires a good CPU.

Rig in sig, currently stock clocked till i get the 320 patched, I play BF3 on this beast, kicking ass and taking names at 1920x1200 res and high settings. And that IS the most demanding thing I am putting it through.. I have NO incentive to upgrade.. Im with op.

 

[VirtualLarry]

For the record, this wasn't a troll thread.

It was more a way of pointing out, that software complexity doesn't seem to be increasing quite as fast as hardware developments.

It used to be, if you kept the same computer for 3 years, by the end of those 3 years, every program was bogging down on your computer.

Hence the need to upgrade your P4-era rig to something C2D. The move from single-core to dual-core helped a lot too.

But once we got to quad-cores, the software stack (aside from things like video encoding), really never caught up to fully utilizing the hardware. Heck, there are still new games coming out that don't take advantage of quad-cores. Things like emulators, probably never will.

So once you get a quad-core, it's kind of a hardware plateau, that you can rest on, waiting for the software side to catch up.

I suppose this is why Intel's mainstream platforms are still quad-cores to this day (with a little HyperThreading thrown in for good measure, for an extra $100 or so). And if there was a compelling software use-case for 8 cores, then BullDozer might be selling a bit better.

 

[blckgrffn]

This is (one of the reasons) why most of the computers I build now are for other people.

All the homer-simpson spinning, none of the credit card bill remorse (never paid a cent of interest, mind you... just some big f'ing bills...)

I also really get into helping other people picking out components and assembling their new computer. Especially younger folks. They order all the stuff/swing by MicroCenter, and then come over where I have the table, monitors, spare parts if we think somethings bad, etc. Then they assemble it. The palpable excitement when it comes to pushing the power button for the first time is priceless.

And free, but for my time.

With any luck, they'll be a computer hardware enthusiast for the foreseeable future. Restock the ranks!

Opening a laptop or tablet or phone box is sorta exciting too, but with much less of the sense of accomplishment, IMHO.

(Don't think it is a troll thread, FWIW. Then again, I am running a Core 2 Quad in my main box...)

Resist the urge to leave the "fold", VL!

 

[exar333]

For the record, this wasn't a troll thread.

It was more a way of pointing out, that software complexity doesn't seem to be increasing quite as fast as hardware developments.

It used to be, if you kept the same computer for 3 years, by the end of those 3 years, every program was bogging down on your computer.

Hence the need to upgrade your P4-era rig to something C2D. The move from single-core to dual-core helped a lot too.

But once we got to quad-cores, the software stack (aside from things like video encoding), really never caught up to fully utilizing the hardware. Heck, there are still new games coming out that don't take advantage of quad-cores. Things like emulators, probably never will.

So once you get a quad-core, it's kind of a hardware plateau, that you can rest on, waiting for the software side to catch up.

I suppose this is why Intel's mainstream platforms are still quad-cores to this day (with a little HyperThreading thrown in for good measure, for an extra $100 or so). And if there was a compelling software use-case for 8 cores, then BullDozer might be selling a bit better.

That BS, sorry. My 166 Pentium worked fine for most tasks up and through when the P3 was out. The same with my P3. I used that and it worked great for many years as long as you didn't want to game on it.

The 'upgrade path' will always be there for a majority of people because they upgrade due to (1) abuse (2) hardware dies (3) system is so bogged-down with spyware/virus/etc (4) actually need a faster system. I would argue that the 1-3 are the VAST majority here, and always have been.

Better OS virus protection and more integrated protection probably helps deter folks from 'upgrading' as often. I have saved countless people a new computer just by a simple reformat over the years. Albeit a modern quad might last longer with lots of spyware installed until it becomes 'slow'.

 

[Revolution 11]

The growing reluctance to upgrade is probably heavily associated with the failure to continue scaling in most CPU metrics. First it was the failure to contain power usage with ever-increasing clockspeeds, accompanied by a slowing rate of IPC improvements. Multi-core scaling is also slowing or stopped, the response of which is AMD’s HSA and other products by competitors.

Two articles by ExtremeTech summarize the problems with scaling much better than I can.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/116561-the-death-of-cpu-scaling-from-one-core-to-many-and-why-were-still-stuck
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/120353-the-future-of-cpu-scaling-exploring-options-on-the-cutting-edge

There are two professional papers I discovered, neither which are that new so some of you may have read them. But both offer a good bird’s eye view of the technical problems the semiconductor industry is facing.

2011 Study on Failure of Multi-Core Scaling
ftp://ftp.cs.utexas.edu/pub/dburger/papers/ISCA11.pdf

2007 IEEE Paper on End of 30 Years of Dennard Scaling
http://www.ieee.org/portal/cms_docs_societies/sscs/PrintEditions/200701.pdf

And unfortunately, none of the alternative methods for CMOS are actually better than CMOS currently, so there is no short-term material solution for this problem.

Fix this problem with scaling and I am sure that upgrading will become more attractive, even if computers are “good enough” to do most tasks today*.

* = Only enthusiasts will complain about uncompelling upgrades anyway, normal users continue to upgrade unchanged due to reasons given by exarkun333. No disrespect on you guys, xD.

 

[Termie]

You know, one of the reasons the OP feels the way he does is probably BECAUSE of this forum. I mean, we read about everyone's latest upgrade, and we think it sounds cool, so we want it too. If there weren't an AT forum, or any other forum, and we just read about computers in magazines like the old days, we'd still be interested in this stuff, but it wouldn't make us quite as emotional (disappointed, maybe even jealous) at times.

But that would take away some of the fun, and almost all of the learning we do here. I've certainly learned a huge amount from the forum, and given my fair share of advice. And I couldn't do that if I hadn't tried out all this stuff. Just last night I worked my way out of a stupid software install problem (Batman Arkham City, for the record), based on my knowledge of how to reassign drive letters - others on the 'net had had the same problem but no one had come up with a solution (using Gamestop Impulse, it won't install on an "E:" drive, for what it's worth). How could I have figured out what to do if I didn't build computers?

I guess we should just look at the upgrade-itis as a reasonable side effect of being hardware enthusiasts. Just put the darn CPU/MB/GPU/SSD/RAM in the "cart", think about how warm and fuzzy you'd feel as you opened up all the boxes, and then close the browser.

I think I do that practically every day...and yes, every once in a while, I fail to close the browser...

 

[Revolution 11]

I guess we should just look at the upgrade-itis as a reasonable side effect of being hardware enthusiasts. Just put the darn CPU/MB/GPU/SSD/RAM in the "cart", think about how warm and fuzzy you'd feel as you opened up all the boxes, and then close the browser.

I think I do that practically every day...and yes, every once in a while, I fail to close the browser...

Termie, you know which crowd you are preaching to here? I would go bankrupt if I did that every day.