For those who always look to future proofing: Do you actually follow through?

[LoneNinja]

Anand's benchmarks show the E6750 (slightly overclocked E6600) as being slightly faster than the Athlon 620 in most tests.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/60?vs=106
E6600 = 23 wins
Athlon 620 = 6 wins

You do realize many of those benchmarks low score wins right?

I count
Athlon 620 = 22Wins
E6750 = 07Wins

 

[frostedflakes]

It's something I keep in mind when buying, but don't necessarily worry a lot about. It's pretty hard to plan more than a year or two ahead.

 

[RussianSensation]

I find that if 'future proofing' is defined as buying the best available parts today and keeping the system for 5+ years without upgrades, then it is a waste of $ and time.

Personally, instead of buying a $500 cpu + $200 mobo + $500 gpu, I'd rather get a $200 cpu + $100 mobo + $200 graphics card, sell that 2 years later and buy new faster mid-range parts again. I keep using this strategy while ensuring that my total out of pocket upgrade costs do not exceed more than $250-300 every 2 years or so. In the end, I end up with a faster and a cheaper system for the majority of the 5 year period compared to that futureproof system which in 5 years is worth $150 at most. I equate future proofing to buying a console at launch date and letting it age for 5+ years, while my system continues to evolve every 2-3 upgrade cycles in the same period.

 

[mv2devnull]

I find that if 'future proofing' is defined as buying the best available parts today and keeping the system for 5+ years without upgrades, then it is a waste of $ and time.

If. However, if 'future proofing' means buying a system that one can upgrade during those 5+ years, then the difference between 'futureproof' and "replace (cheap but decent) often" is less significant.

 

[edplayer]

You do realize many of those benchmarks low score wins right?

ahhh, too funny

:awe:

 

[taltamir]

If. However, if 'future proofing' means buying a system that one can upgrade during those 5+ years, then the difference between 'futureproof' and "replace (cheap but decent) often" is less significant.

the problem is that a system designed to be able to accept future hardware easier in 2 years:
1. Costs a lot more today
2. Leaves you using a mix of older and newer hardware, usually with inferior results compared to equivalent newer hardware
3. Oftentimes is not really compatible or not worth the upgrade, meaning you wasted said money.

If, on the other hand, you buy non future proof (not compatible with future upgrades) hardware, you can simply sell it when the future arrive, and use the money from selling it + the money you saved on not buying future proof in the first place to buy superior future hardware.

 

[edplayer]

If. However, if 'future proofing' means buying a system that one can upgrade during those 5+ years, then the difference between 'futureproof' and "replace (cheap but decent) often" is less significant.

you know what kind of cpu you can buy in 5 years that will work in a current motherboard? A cpu that has been sitting on the shelf for 3 years or more...