Is It Just Me...

[Woodchuck2000]

It occurred earlier today that my current PC is nearing its fourth birthday, and that this is the longest I've kept a PC by a wide margin. I feel like I'm due an upgrade but this system is still going nicely!

10 years ago, I had:
P166/32Mb RAM/4Gb HDD/VooDoo 1
8 years ago:
K6-2 333/64Mb RAM/10Gb HDD/VooDoo3 (ah, those were the days..)
6 years ago:
T-Bird 750/256Mb RAM/40Gb HDD/GeForce 2
4 years ago:
AXP 1900+/1Gb RAM/80Gb HDD/GeForce ti4200

Each of the old ones seemed <really> slow when I upgraded and I've roughly doubled the speed with each upgrade! The latest one, after 4 years, has had very little tweaking (Up to a 9600pro, more HDDs) and still blazes along in XP and runs modern games, albeit without all the eyecandy on.

Is it just me or has the hardware market really slowed down? Thoughts?

 

[w00t]

can your system run bf2? doubt it thing can barely run cs 1.6 with 100fps at 640x480 32bit. You cant run modern games even with eye candy off unless your gun looks like a stuffed animal. technology grows by the second you can never have the best. I like to think of it like this There is a guy who goes down to his local computer shop buys a brand new comp best one out as he is driving down the street he looks of at a billboard and it says a newer model than he just bought is in stores now.

 

[minofifa]

I would agree, especially for laptops. I'm lookin for a nw laptop, but most arent' that much more powerful than the one i bought 3 years ago. my old laptop was pretty much top of the line, but still, not much has improved in laptop performance, at least it seams. 512 RAM is pretty standard, a 100 gig harddrive, low battery life etc.

 

[Rike]

Overall?
When I upgraded to my current system (sig), I was coming from a rig much like what you're using now (well with the 4200Ti. I could run everything, but no DX9. I upgraded because I came into a chuck of "fun money," so I upgraded. I now run faster, at higher rez, with AA/AF on. I'd say there was a big jump, even more if I'd been able to get a better vid card.

For different types of hardware:
1. CPU's seem to be hitting a plateau on speed and AMD and Intel are clearly pushing features, not speed bumps. Dual core/multi-core is the future. Now we just need to train a whole generation of programmers to take advantage of those other cores.
2. Hard drives: YAWN! Drives are boring. Speed increases are measured in single digit percentages. That is unless you have very large wads of cash for marginal speed increases.
3. CD/DVD drives: Also hitting a speed plateau. Storage size is the only thing that's interesting. (Blu-Ray, DVD-HD).
4. Video: Next gen vid cards are still beating the previous gen by near 100% margins; I'd call that fairly existing.
5. Sound: Totally languishing! So much for "Creative."

So there are some bright spots, but they are not always the things we?ve been used to paying attention to in the past.

One possible reason for some of the slow down is rapidly increasing complexity of the products. Take vid cards for example. Nvidia puts out their next gen cards quickly and en mass. The ?new? core is not really that new. It is a refinement of the last gen and combines methods already proven on other chips in a new way. ATI, by most reports, has been having some difficulties with their next gen chip. It is very much a new design. I will expect the roles to be reversed when the next ?next gen? cards are coming out.

Another observation on hardware: I think it?s interesting that so many interfaces are moving from parallel to serial while in video and CPUs what are we doing to try to improve performance? Running two cores at the same time. It isn?t parallel in a strict sense, but the idea is there. I guess it just proves that some old tricks are still good tricks.

 

[kirbymixmasta]

Right now the only true improvement I see is dual core and vgas. Vga is obviously because ATI and Nvidia are throat to throat. I don't find dual-core as interested as everyone else does though >.> no offense.

 

[Rike]

Originally posted by: kirbymixmasta
Right now the only true improvement I see is dual core and vgas. Vga is obviously because ATI and Nvidia are throat to throat. I don't find dual-core as interested as everyone else does though >.> no offense.

Dual core will become more interesting once programmers turn their methods to take advantage of the two cores. Until there is a large installed base of dual core machines, they have no reason to though. So for now, at the consumer level, only real multitaskers get any real benefit from dual core.

 

[Hacp]

Well it is slowing down for the AVERAGE user. The average user surfs the web, plays DVDs and sometimes plays a game or two (CS, WCIII). For these folks, the 2.0 GHZ P4 and intel integrated Graphics is more than enough. If they were to upgrade to the top of the line system right now, they will almost feel no difference because the programs the average user uses don't tax their computers that much.

 

[Sea Shadow]

I dunno what you are talking about, seems like it is speeding up if anything.

I do not understand what rike was talking about with points 3 and 5.

I guess you can say each generation of optical drives is reaching speed limits 56x was the highest speed CD rom I have seen (I'm sure there are faster but there is a limit). DVD drives running at 16x. But with each of the new mediums comes new transfer rates. A 1x CD-Rom can transfer data at ~0.15 MB/s. A 1x DVD drive can transfer data at ~ 1.321 MB/s. And Blu-Ray has a 1x Data transfer rate of ~4.562 MB/s.

And just in case you havent been keeping up, Creative is developing a 51.1 million transistor monster (a 3000+ Barton has 54.4 million). Creative might be onto something, or it may be another flop like the first audigy series. I have no complaints about my audigy 2 ZS plat though, it works like a charm (minus the AOL spam that came with the software). Then there is Azalia HD audio, the small clip I heard sounded great.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: kirbymixmasta
Right now the only true improvement I see is dual core and vgas. Vga is obviously because ATI and Nvidia are throat to throat. I don't find dual-core as interested as everyone else does though >.> no offense.

Dual core will become more interesting once programmers turn their methods to take advantage of the two cores. Until there is a large installed base of dual core machines, they have no reason to though. So for now, at the consumer level, only real multitaskers get any real benefit from dual core.

duallies have been around for years and with the p4 w/ HT the os sees 2 cpus and the developers still haven't embraced smt/smp software, what makes you think they will now? i would assume that only the small portion of programs that utilize smp now will for at least a couple of years. for a small percentage of users like video editors/3d modelers it is good because they are just getting faster duallies which cuts down on render times, but for everybody else there is really no advantage.

 

[d2arcturus]

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
There are only 10 types of people in the world - Those who understand binary and those who don't.

HA! I just got it! That's pretty good.

Anyway, to keep on topic, with widely available 64bit and multithreaded software around the corner, you will definately see an improvement from your current PC to an Athlon X2 once the software becomes mainstream.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: d2arcturus

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
There are only 10 types of people in the world - Those who understand binary and those who don't.

HA! I just got it! That's pretty good.

Anyway, to keep on topic, with widely available 64bit and multithreaded software around the corner, you will definately see an improvement from your current PC to an Athlon X2 once the software becomes mainstream.

which will be when? what will be the advantage of a 64bit app for a home user or even an enthusiast?

everybody think dual core is so new, which it is but dual cpus is not new. does anybody have a timeline when even most people on this board will actually benefit from 64bit?

what does a 64bit os give us that a 32bit doesn't offer that even the enthusiasts here need? please educate me....

 

[suicidalpigeon]

the source of the binary quote is somewhere in bash.org.

 

[d2arcturus]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: d2arcturus

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
There are only 10 types of people in the world - Those who understand binary and those who don't.

HA! I just got it! That's pretty good.

Anyway, to keep on topic, with widely available 64bit and multithreaded software around the corner, you will definately see an improvement from your current PC to an Athlon X2 once the software becomes mainstream.

which will be when? what will be the advantage of a 64bit app for a home user or even an enthusiast?

everybody think dual core is so new, which it is but dual cpus is not new. does anybody have a timeline when even most people on this board will actually benefit from 64bit?

what does a 64bit os give us that a 32bit doesn't offer that even the enthusiasts here need? please educate me....

Well, I'm actually comparing his current system's performance on 64bit multithreaded software, to say, an X2 or Pentium D system. But as for the speed increase from his system running XP and current software, opposed to next-gen hardware running Longhorn and 64bit multithreaded software, you're right, there probably will be no significant increase, if any, and that's assuming Longhorn doesn't screw everything over... damn M$.

 

[Rike]

Originally posted by: bob4432

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: kirbymixmasta
Right now the only true improvement I see is dual core and vgas. Vga is obviously because ATI and Nvidia are throat to throat. I don't find dual-core as interested as everyone else does though >.> no offense.

Dual core will become more interesting once programmers turn their methods to take advantage of the two cores. Until there is a large installed base of dual core machines, they have no reason to though. So for now, at the consumer level, only real multitaskers get any real benefit from dual core.

duallies have been around for years and with the p4 w/ HT the os sees 2 cpus and the developers still haven't embraced smt/smp software, what makes you think they will now? i would assume that only the small portion of programs that utilize smp now will for at least a couple of years. for a small percentage of users like video editors/3d modelers it is good because they are just getting faster duallies which cuts down on render times, but for everybody else there is really no advantage.

Disclaimer: This is just my reasoning. I have no ?facts? to back me up. But see if this follows:

1. ?Two? CPU?s in one have been around for a while in the form of HT, however
2. Developers could rely on CPU speed increases and optimizing single thread programming for better performance of their programs rather than learning a very different type of programming that not all of their installed base of users would benefit from.
3. Now, CPU speed increases are smaller and smaller on a percentage basis, thus single thread optimizing is reaching a point of diminishing returns.
4. Both major CPU manufactures are starting to push true dual cores with marketing (which may or may not be valid.) The potential user base for multi-threaded apps increases. (How fast remains to be seen.)
5. As the installed dual core user base expands, developers now find it worthwhile to write programs that take advantage of dual cores since older single threaded optimizations can?t take their programs any further.
6. Dual/multi-core programs slowly become more common place.

Feel free to poke holes in my logic.

Now clearly, I?m thinking of this as a process, years (2-3 at least) down the road. Speed increases will continue to be important, but not in the way they had been in the past.

Now, me personally, will I buy a dual core CPU? Oh, yes. But one of three things must happen first:
1. There must be a game I really want that is really boosted by dual core.
2. The price difference between single and dual core is minor.
3. I have a great deal more money than I have now so I can buy any hardware I want just for the fun of it even if it has no real benefit. (This will not happen.)

 

[Cerb]

No, development has not slowed.
However, the low-end hasn't gone up much.

I'm still running a 1800+. I'll need to upgrade before next year if I can manage the $ for a PCI-E A64 setup, as it is a bit sluggish, but it's nothing terrible, and I can do about everything I need.

But, I got a 1800+ right when the KT333 came out (02?), and I can still buy one, it's just called a Sempron 2200+, now. My old K7 Master was current back then, and I can still get the same chip (about 30MHz difference).

OTOH, we have the 4800+, and FX-57.

Dual-core is a major thing. The P4's HT is hardly the same. With HT, there are many scenarios in which it could hurt performance, where a true dually will perform better, discounting counting poor programming or a poor OS scheduler (check out some BSDs for that one--they're getting better, though). Dual-core allows for multitasking like we have not been able to do before, without large pocket books. Not saying they're cheap, but cheaper than getting a dual Xeon, or dual Athlon MP (while the MPs were current, anyway).

--

But, grandma doesn't need a FX-57 (a dually Celeron might be nice on our end, though ). In fact, she only needs better than a Northwood Celeron & i845 so that her <insert acquaintence of family member> will work on it, and not threaten to throw it away for being a PoS.

Monitor? 15" is nice. 17" analog flat panel? Godsend.

 

[lambchops3344]

computer development hasnt slowed down... our expectations have just gotten bigger