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

[Hubb1e]

I only upgrade when something I am running is no longer performing to expectations. In my last upgrade, My Q6600 wasn't playing BF3 well enough so I upgraded. I also support my family and I upgrade them when their machines no longer meet their needs. It does seem that their machines are lasting longer than they used to and as long as an internet surfer has a dual core CPU with h.264 acceleration, windows vista or 7 and 2-4GB of memory there is no reason to upgrade them. Even Athlon 64 single core machines are still viable with enough ram and an upgraded video card with h.264 acceleration. Drop an SSD in one of those and they will think they are flying. Web browsing and word processing just doesn't need many CPU cycles.

I totally understand the need to experiment with the hardware that we read about, but upgrading from a Sandy to an Ivy is only for those who view this as a hobby only rather than a fun means to an end.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Virtual larry: Sounds like the computer doldrums have hit you. Been there done that. My suggestion? Snag a SB I2500k and MB or Ivy bridge instead of your AMD and tell me if you don't notice a difference.

My suggestion is "Get laid. A lot."

Spending all your time socializing with your computer is... often unfulfilling.

 

[Termie]

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.

...

I should add, that Intel is also now suffering from "Atom syndrome". Trying to improve power-consumption, at the expense of raw performance.

As an example of this, note how IB quad-cores are now 77W TDP, rather than 95W.

Still, Intel did manage to eek out some performance and IPC improvements, even within the lower TDP envelope.

But what kind of performance improvement could we have seen, had the IB quads been 95W TDP or even 125/130W?

This "Atom syndrome" reduces the incentive to upgrade for pure performance reasons, rather than power-consumption reasons.

Then again, they are running out of pure performance tricks to implement in their processors, while power-consumption improvements are still quite possible.

Will Haswell quads be 65W?

You do realize that you've contradicted your opening post, which in essence suggested that additional computing power is not necessary. Now you've said Intel is focusing too much on reducing power use at the same performance level. Isn't that the ideal outcome based on your initial observation?

I only upgrade when something I am running is no longer performing to expectations. In my last upgrade, My Q6600 wasn't playing BF3 well enough so I upgraded. I also support my family and I upgrade them when their machines no longer meet their needs. It does seem that their machines are lasting longer than they used to and as long as an internet surfer has a dual core CPU with h.264 acceleration, windows vista or 7 and 2-4GB of memory there is no reason to upgrade them. Even Athlon 64 single core machines are still viable with enough ram and an upgraded video card with h.264 acceleration. Drop an SSD in one of those and they will think they are flying. Web browsing and word processing just doesn't need many CPU cycles.

I totally understand the need to experiment with the hardware that we read about, but upgrading from a Sandy to an Ivy is only for those who view this as a hobby only rather than a fun means to an end.

And this.

At a certain point, we reached the tipping point, where the applications that the average user (i.e., anyone who isn't ever going to end up on this forum) regularly interacts with were more than adequately powered by existing CPUs. The next threshold is I/O, and this is where we have a long way to go in getting SSDs in every computer. If processing power stayed the same and every computer sold over the next 10 years had an SSD, the returns in user experience would probably be greater than a 10-fold increase in CPU performance and no SSD.

Is my mom's experience on a hot-running, power-guzzling i7-920 system that I built for her in 2008 any different than her experience was previously on an e6400 system built in 2006? Well, but for the SSD I added in 2010, the answer would be no.

 

[blckgrffn]

@ Termie - SSDs are now the standard boot drive for any family builds and are recommended to everyone else. Laptops, desktops, whatever. I totally agree with you there.

Unless you are buying a PC just for gaming, it's actually worth compromising other components, IMHO. I'll take an i3 with a M4 vs an i5 with a spinner.

SRT is pretty awesome for those that can't be bothered to change where they are installing an application from the default

 

[lowrider69]

That's a thought, maybe I should drop in a SSD for my system drive. I've been wanting to do that anyway. I'm a bit out of the loop. What's the most reliable brand for SSDs? I read the horror stories about OCZ.

 

[blckgrffn]

That's a thought, maybe I should drop in a SSD for my system drive. I've been wanting to do that anyway.

With VMs, that is the smart choice

Unless you are just seeing your CPU pegged continuously? But even then, that can be more about I/O wait times than actual CPU performance.

M4 128GB is ~$110 at Buy.com right now Go!

 

[lowrider69]

With VMs, that is the smart choice

Unless you are just seeing your CPU pegged continuously? But even then, that can be more about I/O wait times than actual CPU performance.

M4 128GB is ~$110 at Buy.com right now Go!

Just sizing up my options, I might just throw the SSD into the upgrade as well. Or just start with that and see if I likey. lol. I like Crucial anyway so I was leaning towards their SSD.

 

[Termie]

Just sizing up my options, I might just throw the SSD into the upgrade as well. Or just start with that and see if I likey. lol. I like Crucial anyway so I was leaning towards their SSD.

The $110 deal is dead but keep an eye out for new deals every day on the Crucial.

 

[nonameo]

I'm humming along just fine with an E4500 and 2gb of ram.

 

[blckgrffn]

The $110 deal is dead but keep an eye out for new deals every day on the Crucial.

Darn it. Sorry. Termie is on top of these things!

 

[Red Squirrel]

It depends what you use it for. I have an AMD Athlon X2, and mid end hardware of that generation. I decided to get a bit more into gaming, and realized it does not cut it for that, so I ended up ordering new parts to build a new i7 based computer.

Also Operating systems become more and more demanding over time. Windows 3.11 ran as well on a 486 than Vista on a Core2Quad, for example. So if you upgrade your software you need to upgrade your hardware too. Developers have become more and more lazy and use shortcuts that produce less efficient code because they can get away with it.

Same with games. I remember playing Serious Sam on a 32MB video card and it was awesome graphics. A game today with those same graphics now requires a 512MB or more video card with phyx and whole 9 yards.

 

[Termie]

It depends what you use it for. I have an AMD Athlon X2, and mid end hardware of that generation. I decided to get a bit more into gaming, and realized it does not cut it for that, so I ended up ordering new parts to build a new i7 based computer.

Also Operating systems become more and more demanding over time. Windows 3.11 ran as well on a 486 than Vista on a Core2Quad, for example. So if you upgrade your software you need to upgrade your hardware too. Developers have become more and more lazy and use shortcuts that produce less efficient code because they can get away with it.

Same with games. I remember playing Serious Sam on a 32MB video card and it was awesome graphics. A game today with those same graphics now requires a 512MB or more video card with phyx and whole 9 yards.

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with this. Windows 8 is already proving to be easier on hardware than anything in recent history, and possibly even WinXP. I'm running a single-core Pentium M at 1.73 using W8CP, and it's so much better than WinXP that it's practically like a new computer.

The argument for upgrading hardware for a new OS ended with Vista.

 

[RobertR1]

I'm with OP on this. Built the rig in my sig last fall for Skyrim and BF3.

BF3 on the PC is a fuckin disaster.

Skyrim was fun but now I have a super PC that plays Dota 2. The headaches of PC gaming pushed me back to the 360 which has been a blessing.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Actually, I'm not sure I agree with this. Windows 8 is already proving to be easier on hardware than anything in recent history, and possibly even WinXP. I'm running a single-core Pentium M at 1.73 using W8CP, and it's so much better than WinXP that it's practically like a new computer.

The argument for upgrading hardware for a new OS ended with Vista.

There are exceptions of course. Vista was a massive whale, 7 is better. I can't speak for 8 personally but glad to hear it's good as well. Maybe Ms is finally learning to make their OS more efficient. So that's good.

 

[anikhtos]

There are exceptions of course. Vista was a massive whale, 7 is better. I can't speak for 8 personally but glad to hear it's good as well. Maybe Ms is finally learning to make their OS more efficient. So that's good.

well maybe the atom syndrome is good after all
ms at last instead of making heavier oses
actually has to make lighter to run on atom
then we can only wish new atom will be worse in perfomanse lol
after all who wants for the os to take 15-30% of the cpu??
win95 p75mhz era
if some here are old enought to recall
when palying a music cd turned cpu usage to 90% lol

 

[VirtualLarry]

well maybe the atom syndrome is good after all
ms at last instead of making heavier oses
actually has to make lighter to run on atom
then we can only wish new atom will be worse in perfomanse lol
after all who wants for the os to take 15-30% of the cpu??
win95 p75mhz era
if some here are old enought to recall
when palying a music cd turned cpu usage to 90% lol

Only if you were using the digital reading through the IDE bus, rather than the analog audio connection to your discrete sound card's mixer, AND you were stuck in PIO mode.

I used the analog audio, so I never had that issue.

Edit: Makes me wonder too, I'm no fan of Atom, but I wonder if a quad-core Atom would make sense, and if Intel could build one within a reasonable power envelope? And if it would finally be good enough to decode 1080P in software, if it were a quad-core? That might be a competitor to Brazos.

What would the desktop (or even laptop) computing landscape look like, if there were both quad IB, and quad Atom, rigs, both with comparable GPUs embedded in the CPUs. (Thinking of recent reports that future Atom chips will have IB's GPU in them.)

 

[nyker96]

to OP, personally I arrived at the same exact conclusion via a different route. In the beginning I was addicted to the OC bug, just had to get my hands on the new gen cpu, always the lower end model, then OC it into a monster that rivals the big boys. I loved that, so kept upgrade like once a year or 1.5 years.

But now I feel that Intel has set a steep entry into the OC market you need about $400 for new Kseries+board+mem instead of just $160-200 then. On top of that Amd is no show at the higher end, you pretty much just end up w/ Intel trying to beat itself, a situation that just no longer feel interesting to me. Lost interest in upgrading completely now.

I also have found that it's much more gratifying to play w/ writing software. I started doing my own software projects one after another, I think that's a great substitute for my computer upgrade addiction. On top of everything I don't play too much games any more, so a regular cheap x4 620 rig is more than enough for me. Maybe D3 I will dive into but that's it.

 

[jvroig]

I am with the same boat as the OP right now.

But I do understand being addicted to hardware upgrades and "the cool new thing", as I have been on that route myself for the past several years.

I also have found that it's much more gratifying to play w/ writing software. I started doing my own software projects one after another, I think that's a great substitute for my computer upgrade addiction.

I agree. During times when I am too busy with actually writing software (not just thinking about it), I "forget" my hardware/upgrade addiction.

Still, there is something enjoyable about coming home with new hardware, installing it, testing, overclocking, underclocking/undervolting, experimenting, etc. Not sure I actually want to completely remove that from my life, even if it serves no higher purpose other than being more familiar with the hardware itself.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

While I certainly appreciate the extra compute power of my 920 in certain situations (vid encoding, etc.), the X3 740 @ 3.6GHz at the office is perfectly fine. Hell, it handles software decoding of 1080p (via ffdshow) just fine.

 

[X98]

useless to upgrade every year/few months

not useless to upgrade in 5 - 10 years

 

[OCGuy]

The most worthwhile upgrades I have done are GPUs and an SSD. The SSD has impressed me more than my dual core E8400---->i7 ever did.

Anyone using a Mech drive as a boot disk really makes me questions thier sanity

 

[Blades]

I really liked getting my first intel desktop cpu in over 10 years.. hell.. 15 years.. When it came to the usual case and etc etc.. i said screw it.. and just put the mobo on the counter with 32gb of ram, H80, and a PS.. I was pleased with the outcome..

Getting a great 2500K that yawns at 5.2GHz was all the better.. Now I just gotta figure out how to better integrate my components so that everything is accessible yet neat.. Its a nice challenge and there hasn't yet been a challenging problem that hasn't yielded benefits.

as to why I now have a new i7-3770K still in the box? I wanna say.. market research? heh.. Curiosity mostly..

edit: just noticed how every other person seems like they're complaining about the power of their computers.. like ahh its way more than I need. Damn, what a problem!

 

[2is]

The most worthwhile upgrades I have done are GPUs and an SSD. The SSD has impressed me more than my dual core E8400---->i7 ever did.

Anyone using a Mech drive as a boot disk really makes me questions thier sanity

SSDs are a must. My previous system had a SSD boot drive and some commonly used apps and a mechanical drive for my games and lesser used programs. With my IB build I went all SSD. I still have a mechanical drive in there for videos but everything else is on SSD. The thing just screams, even compared to my previous computer. SATA3 + IB to process all that data made a nice improvement over SATA2 + Q6600.

 

[tweakboy]

Im @ 60fps vsync on capped on all games, except BF3 on ultra high. But BF3 default or all high motion blurr off.. ,, with 8xCSAA FXAA on, AF 16x high quality 1080p.

I get 60fps no matter what I do.

Once I get a SSD , this system will POWN ,,, as it was born long ago in summer 2007.

and my only bottleneck is the HD. I get on avg 60 percent CPU usage when I play games. Sonar X1d avg CPU usage 50 percent.

TELL ME someone why should I upgrade ? lol,

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Im @ 60fps vsync on capped on all games, except BF3 on ultra high. But BF3 default or all high motion blurr off.. ,, with 8xCSAA FXAA on, AF 16x high quality 1080p.

I get 60fps no matter what I do.

Once I get a SSD , this system will POWN ,,, as it was born long ago in summer 2007.

and my only bottleneck is the HD. I get on avg 60 percent CPU usage when I play games. Sonar X1d avg CPU usage 50 percent.

TELL ME someone why should I upgrade ? lol,

To lower your AC bill