Decided this is going to be my last PC

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zorander

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2010
1,143
1
81
I told myself the same thing when I got my first P4 Willamette, then again when I upgraded to the A64 X2. Increasing computing demands (games & videos mostly) humbled those statements.

With my current Lynnfield rig, I'm wiser now. It's still capable but it definitely won't be my last PC.
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
Wait until the day that Intel no longer puts PCI-E ports on their chips, all to cut off Nvidia's marketshare and source of funding for R&D.

Then you'll be stuck with a "PC" with a soldered on CPU, RAM, and no possibility of adding discrete video.

Then you'll wonder why you supported Intel all these years.

Is this posted in the wrong thread? It seems to fit your Intel (rant) thread about pricing.
 

nenforcer

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2008
1,767
1
76
Did you hear the Battlefield 4 Multiplayer beta access is included with your purchase of Medal of Honor: Warfighter?

I will necro this thread in one year to see if you purchased BF4 to play.
 

tuffluck

Member
Mar 20, 2010
115
1
81
yeah, i think my current PC is sometimes the force that makes me play games even when i don't want to. i just remember them being so much more fun in college! probably because i got in on the new fresh wave of next generation PC games like diablo, starcraft, and counter strike. nothing will ever be those games again, just copies with better graphics. it's cool to see the graphics get better over time, but even that is peaking.

i'm not a twitter, facebook type whore. i don't even do much browsing. i have a tablet i strictly use for a video player on flights/trips. my smart phone is pretty much my primary source for access to the online world. though i feel like with a powerful and expensive computer, i need to play these games sometimes to get my money's worth. now that i've realized that, i guess is also when i realized i don't want to build another computer and remind myself of all this. but hey, i have a few years before then :D
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,566
10,181
126
Is this posted in the wrong thread? It seems to fit your Intel (rant) thread about pricing.

Not really. That comment of mine has nothing to do with price, but only with Intel's monopolization of the desktop computing industry, leading to further anti-consumer measures, culminating in a future in which, literally, that may be the last gaming PC that the OP can even purchase. There may be no other options in the future. (Edit: Besides the mundane, daily-driver sort of PC that the OEMs produce.)

The only real hope for the x86/x64 desktop CPU industry, is a strong AMD comeback, that causes Intel to rethink their cost-cutting and consumer market segmentation ideas, and forces them into actual competition.
 

Piroko

Senior member
Jan 10, 2013
905
79
91
I've stopped building gaming systems as well but I still game quite often. I simply changed my upgrade cycle:
New components have to be noticeable faster, but at the same time cheaper than what I bought the last time and less power hungry. I've been doing this for 3 years now and can't say that I've been missing out on something. But I did save quite a bit of money which will go into a new notebook eventually.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,184
13,686
136
I've stopped building gaming systems as well but I still game quite often. I simply changed my upgrade cycle:
New components have to be noticeable faster, but at the same time cheaper than what I bought the last time and less power hungry. I've been doing this for 3 years now and can't say that I've been missing out on something. But I did save quite a bit of money which will go into a new notebook eventually.

- My heuristics is something like; at least a factor 2 increase, that being size and/or speed. works out good, current rig is 4+ years old, with upgrades to gfx and harddrives->ssd. Good value, still good perf.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,566
10,181
126
- My heuristics is something like; at least a factor 2 increase, that being size and/or speed. works out good, current rig is 4+ years old, with upgrades to gfx and harddrives->ssd. Good value, still good perf.

In theory, I use a similar heuristic, but I get bitten by the upgrade bug way too often. I like to build computers just for the fun of it. So I end up upgrading/downgrading/sidegrading various rigs.

For example, I went from an E2140 @ 2.8, then I bought some E5200 CPUs, but I never got around to actually bothering to upgrade, so then I bought some Q9300 CPUs, and I did upgrade those. Then I got some 1045T CPUs, and a new all-singing, all-dancing, 990FX mobo (ASRock Extreme4), and then I decided that power consumption was too high, so I switched to a pre-built G630 SB dual-core. Basically, I "rightsized" my machine to something that was "just good enough" for what I generally do. I like to do distributed-computing, so that's why I had the quad-cores and hex-cores. I pretend I do PC gaming a little too, but really I do like 99% DC, and perhaps 1% gaming. I still do DC on my G630, it's very power-efficient, but it just doesn't have the DC output that a true quad-core has.
 

bgt

Senior member
Oct 6, 2007
573
3
81
I just love fast pc's, thats why I cannot get used to laptops. AMD or Intel, I like them both. I thought my FX8350 is fast but after changing the multiplier on my i7 to 44 I am just stunned how fast it is. A game now and then is OK too.
 

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,926
2,724
136
Wait until the day that Intel no longer puts PCI-E ports on their chips, all to cut off Nvidia's marketshare and source of funding for R&D.

Then you'll be stuck with a "PC" with a soldered on CPU, RAM, and no possibility of adding discrete video.

Then you'll wonder why you supported Intel all these years.

I'll be wondering why all them little bitches bought all of those those smartphones and tablets and forced Intel to start focusing and competing in mobile(hint: mobile reduces "computing latency". ;)
 

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
so i've finally done it. i've built my last PC i think. i've had this one for about a year now, built it primarily it to play BF3. i've wholeheartedly enjoyed the hell out of that game and even the free copy of dirt 3 that came with my video card. but honestly i think i would have been okay keeping my old OC'd e6750 and continued playing BFBC instead and saved the money and would be just as happy.

and what's next? i don't get into these role playing games, and for the most part games like BF3 are copied over and over multiple times a year (read: latest COD, which i bought, played 10 minutes, and haven't touched since). only one BF3-like game with impressive graphics and enticing multiplayer come along every now and then. most recently that game was BF3, and before that it was BFBC. and my favorite computer game of all time was starcraft, but i just didn't have the patience for starcraft 2 (in fact i also bought it and played it once, and it is still sitting in my drawer).

anyone else agree with me? sometimes i force myself to sit down and play BF3 or dirt 3 to get my money's worth, but i can't help but think spending $1,000 in another few years to repeat this process won't seem so entertaining. i'm actually looking forward to just having a badass laptop and a smart phone as my only sources of web access. then again maybe my age (30) is starting to show.

Cool story bro?
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
Wait until the day that Intel no longer puts PCI-E ports on their chips, all to cut off Nvidia's marketshare and source of funding for R&D.

Then you'll be stuck with a "PC" with a soldered on CPU, RAM, and no possibility of adding discrete video.

Then you'll wonder why you supported Intel all these years.

I'm sorry, but you sound like someone with a complete inability to grasp the basic economic realities of the PC business. Or maybe like someone who reads too much "Semiaccurate" (Charlie Demerjian is mostly a fiction writer who likes to play "mole" for the guys on Wall Street).

If Intel stops putting PCIe lanes on their CPUs, then what will people who need PCIe slots use? Oh, that's right, they'll go to AMD, which would hurt Intel in a time when the PC is seeing its growth slow to a crawl.

Intel isn't stupid, and there is NO economic benefit to cutting out PCIe lanes.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,300
679
126
You know what's funny.. When I've got an iPad (Gen 1). I am pretty sure I had one of the hottest GPUs on the PC market of the day. Ended up wasting a month conquering Angry Birds on iPad. I didn't even bother to test the video card. That game was so infuriating and violence-inducing that I had to contain myself from the urge to throw the iPad against the wall.

I eventually ended up beating the damn thing with all 3 stars and every single golden egg found. Then I finally calmed myself.

I can't get that month of my life back, but that experience did ring a bell in my head. I think it's got to do something with what the OP is trying to say.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,566
10,181
126
I'm sorry, but you sound like someone with a complete inability to grasp the basic economic realities of the PC business. Or maybe like someone who reads too much "Semiaccurate" (Charlie Demerjian is mostly a fiction writer who likes to play "mole" for the guys on Wall Street).

If Intel stops putting PCIe lanes on their CPUs, then what will people who need PCIe slots use? Oh, that's right, they'll go to AMD, which would hurt Intel in a time when the PC is seeing its growth slow to a crawl.

Intel isn't stupid, and there is NO economic benefit to cutting out PCIe lanes.

Oh really. So it was just coincidence that Intel came out with the NUC, a computer that doesn't have a proper PCI-E slot for a GPU? Those little things are the future, that's what everyone's computer will be like in 5 years. The days of mainstream gaming rigs are over. All of the few hardcore gamers left, will be forced onto Intel's Enthusiast platform, Socket 2011 today, and future sucessors, if they want a PCI-E slot.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
This is an interesting thread. I got into computer gaming in the late 90s with the Command and Conquer series. Back then, I had a very underpowered computer but it ran those games fine. Then as I started to get more powerful computers, the fun of playing games dropped a bit, compared to the earlier times. Maybe it is because we are comparing our experiences rather than playing the actual game, I'm not sure. I just believe that what those old games had is not there today. I have yet to find an RTS game that matched the level of fun the Command and Conquer games had. The new C&C are not it, based on reviews.

I have a mid-level computer today that is about 2 years old, so I don't really need to upgrade at all. In fact, since all I play are old games, such as Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Rise of Nations, I don't even have a graphics card in my system. The integrated graphics runs them just fine.

I think when I stopped my subscription to the PC Gamer magazine is about the time I stopped caring for the newest games - that must have been about 4 years ago or so. Sometimes I have the desire to renew my subscription to PC Gamer but that would mean I would have to get a graphics card and buy those new games, LOL. I've been out of the gaming arena for so long that I don't know any of the modern games. Also, it is a time thing as well. As we do other things, the time we have available to game is reduced. Plus what used to entertain us isn't as entertaining anymore. All of these factors play a role in why we quit some activities.
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
Oh really. So it was just coincidence that Intel came out with the NUC, a computer that doesn't have a proper PCI-E slot for a GPU? Those little things are the future, that's what everyone's computer will be like in 5 years. The days of mainstream gaming rigs are over. All of the few hardcore gamers left, will be forced onto Intel's Enthusiast platform, Socket 2011 today, and future sucessors, if they want a PCI-E slot.

It's called spawning new market segments. Why on earth would I put a GTX 680 in a NUC?

If gamers are "forced" to LGA 2011, I expect Intel to significantly expand the lineup of chips there. Did you know there are very cheap 2- and 4-core Xeon E5's? Wouldn't it be great if gamers could buy an LGA 2011 board with all the nice upgrade paths and features, and not have to whine and moan about integrated graphics, "only" 2 channel memory controllers, etc.

It makes no sense for the LGA 1155/LGA 2011 bifurcation that we have today to exist.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
This is an interesting thread. I got into computer gaming in the late 90s with the Command and Conquer series. Back then, I had a very underpowered computer but it ran those games fine. Then as I started to get more powerful computers, the fun of playing games dropped a bit, compared to the earlier times. Maybe it is because we are comparing our experiences rather than playing the actual game, I'm not sure. I just believe that what those old games had is not there today. I have yet to find an RTS game that matched the level of fun the Command and Conquer games had. The new C&C are not it, based on reviews.

I have a mid-level computer today that is about 2 years old, so I don't really need to upgrade at all. In fact, since all I play are old games, such as Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Rise of Nations, I don't even have a graphics card in my system. The integrated graphics runs them just fine.

I think when I stopped my subscription to the PC Gamer magazine is about the time I stopped caring for the newest games - that must have been about 4 years ago or so. Sometimes I have the desire to renew my subscription to PC Gamer but that would mean I would have to get a graphics card and buy those new games, LOL. I've been out of the gaming arena for so long that I don't know any of the modern games. Also, it is a time thing as well. As we do other things, the time we have available to game is reduced. Plus what used to entertain us isn't as entertaining anymore. All of these factors play a role in why we quit some activities.

I mentioned this in another post, but there are only so many types of games you can play, and eventually it is impossible to capture that same feeling that you had playing an rpg or RTS, or whatever, like you had the first time you played a good one.

I said earlier this could be my last computer too, meaning desktop. I just got an i5 2320, and while not really high end, I see nothing on the horizon that will make a major improvement over that, unless everything becomes highly threaded and intel comes out with a mainstream six core, neither of which seems on the immediate horizon. My last computer lasted 6 years, and progress is slower now that it was then, so barring mechanical failure, the comp I recently got should last at least that long. By then I will be in the home anyway!!

I might buy a convertible/tablet after everything is sorted out in a few years and the prices come down though, but it would be just for surfing, e-mail, etc. I hate social networking and casual games, and my experience with the tablet I have is less than stellar.

I used to subscribe to PC gamer as well, but let it lapse after they gave Dragon Age II a 90+ score and a good review to ME3.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Well, I broke down and got a graphics card. The weird thing is that now I cannot find any game that interests me with the exception of Sim City 5. I cannot get interested in these new games. I still love the old CnC games, Rise of Nations, RTCW, etc. Oh well, maybe I'll put that graphics card to use someday.

I think the main reason behind building very powerful computers for many people is to play games. Other than that, a mid-range system from 2007 onwards would be more than sufficient for the majority of tasks. But some feel that since modern games require modern hardware, they must keep up. It depends if you're interested in the modern games, though.
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,337
5,397
136
Well, I broke down and got a graphics card. The weird thing is that now I cannot find any game that interests me with the exception of Sim City 5. I cannot get interested in these new games. I still love the old CnC games, Rise of Nations, RTCW, etc. Oh well, maybe I'll put that graphics card to use someday.

I think the main reason behind building very powerful computers for many people is to play games. Other than that, a mid-range system from 2007 onwards would be more than sufficient for the majority of tasks. But some feel that since modern games require modern hardware, they must keep up. It depends if you're interested in the modern games, though.

Are you not excited about Rome Total War II? That game looks pretty epic.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Been without a PC for 3-4 years now and I'm starting to miss it. Been without even a laptop for like 5 months and that's kinda weird too.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
It is really tough to call at this point. I number my PC builds by generation number, and I am currently on G7 (built in 2011; G1 was built in 1995 to give a reference). The last couple of generations, I've said that it would probably be my last gaming PC build but yet, I built another.

I'll be honest though -- I probably could've stuck with my sixth generation machine (E8400 OCed to 4 Ghz) and even today it would do everything I want. I just don't game the way I used to and I am not seeing any must have games coming out although admittedly, ArmA III looks sweet. In light of all of this, the machine in my sig (G7) will probably last a minimum of 4 years and I may even push it to 5 years and maybe do a video card upgrade to buy more time. I care more about my home server builds than my home PC builds at this stage.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
I should add to my post, I'm most likely building a gaming machine in the next few months. I'll most likely never build a top end system again though.