Remember when there was a valid reason to upgrade your CPU every 2 years?

[bgt]

I buy new hardware each year just because its new hardware :biggrin:

:thumbsup:

 

[ArizonaSteve]

You and I are on the same upgrade schedule. It's been 6 years since a Core 2 Duo and I upgraded last fall to a Core 2 Quad. When / what is your next upgrade plan?

Also joining the club. PPro 180 -> PII 400 -> Athlon XP 2100+ -> Core II Q9450 -> Ivy Bridge 3570K.

 

[Piroko]

Remember when there was a valid reason to upgrade your CPU every 2 years?

There was?

P133 -> A500 -> A64 3200+ -> Ph2 x3 720, always bought cheaper and in hindsight always quadrupled performance. I might be stuck on the Ph2 for a long time :ninja:

 

[akugami]

Yup. We all have our poisons.

...I used to know people who spent all their discretionary income on alcohol.

You've visited our office I see.

We're currently deploying a system in a bar, huge place. I envision some of our guys will be doing on site tech support.


On a serious note, I used to upgrade my whole system every year. And by that I mean CPU, GPU, and mobo. That was until I got a C2Q Q9550. I recently dumped the Q9550 for an i7-3770k. That was a few months ago. I'm still using the Radeon 4870 GPU. I'll likely upgrade the GPU at the end of the year when the new cards come out. I've already got a Dell U2713HM coming in. After that I really don't see upgrading again for another 4-5 years.

 

[Zorander]

Considering my previous Athlon64 X2 rig lasted for 5 years, my Lynnfield system should still last quite a bit.

It does not help either that software (games, in my case) progression has not been outstripping current CPU capabilities, so there is little incentive for most people to upgrade.

 

[lakedude]

I definitely get more excited about upgrading the gpu than I do the cpu.

Historically speaking same here. It will be a while before the i7-3770s gets replaced.

Actually I'm not all that excited about either anymore. It will take a game or some other software that really stresses out my current system for me to get excited about an upgrade.

 

[gmaster456]

I upgrade my home machines when I have to. Usually that's every 3 years. So far it's been 3 1/2 years since my last upgrade. Mostly because what I was doing then was the same thing I'm doing now. 1080p hasn't gotten any heavier, web browsers have actually gotten faster, windows has gotten faster etc. I'll probably upgrade at the end of this year anyway. I kinda want to get on the haswell bandwagon. We just did an overhaul of the office machines and now everyone is on at least sandy bridge i3's. Most are on i5's. So long as Microsoft Office and quickbooks doesn't get any heavier those machines will be with us for a very long time.

 

[blastingcap]

Hopefully the new consoles will push the boundaries--in a good way, not just being poorly optimized--and this may give us a new reason to upgrade.

 

[RaistlinZ]

It was more fun when AMD and Intel were duking it out on the high end. Now it's just "upgrade to the next Intel chip when I feel ready". My i7-930 is still fast as heck. And I won't upgrade unless I'm getting 100% improvement.

My previous rig was an Athlon 64 3200+ with an 8800GT. My current rig should last me 2 more years.

 

[tonyfreak215]

I just upgraded from my Q9550 at 3.6 to a i7-3770K (stock).

I have to say, I'm a little underwhelmed at the performance difference. I always thought my Q9550 was holding back my video card (6970). Turns out I was wrong. Things are a little smoother due to the bump of minimums, but that's about it. If I didn't get such a great deal, I would be extremely disappointed.

 

[nitromullet]

I thought the upgrade from my 920 to the 3930 was extremely noticeable. I went from 4x3.6ghz to 6x4.6ghz. The MHz speed gain, coupled with the IPC improvements made a huge difference in both encoding and gaming for poorly-threaded applications. The extra cores also are a godsend with running VMs. Extra RAM slots was also a nice bonus with socket 2011.

I could see how it might make a significant difference with VMs, but I don't run a VM at home. As far as any games go, with a single GTX 670 at the resolutions we run we're both gpu limited on any game that will tax our systems.

Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge the 3930K is faster than a 920. I just wasn't really convinced the the upgrade was worth the ~$800 for the cpu and motherboard considering what I paid for the 920 almost four years ago.

 

[Riceninja]

only way im upgrading my i7 920 this year and the next will be because i need a new mobo for more sata/pcie slots

i have a mild 3.2ghz OC and it handles everything i throw at it and apparently only bottlenecks me in the most cpu intensive of games. not that there are many. ive replaced my gtx 275 that i bought at the same time as the 920 with a 7950 and can play all games at high settings smoothly. i can see the 920 outlasting another couple of gpu generations too.

for normal browsing/typing/media this thing can probably last another 5 years.

intel's biggest competitor is intel itself.

 

[colonelciller]

@ OP

I'm failing to see the relevance of AMD's lack of competitiveness with the rest of your statements.

does it really take a genius to understand that monopolies are bad for everyone except the corporation holding the monopoly ...and perhaps their partners?

lack of competition for Intel means that Intel can milk the market... dripping out improvements and lazily resting on old tech... if we had a 2nd top end CPU maker... or even a third,... you can bet your chonies that Intel would miraculously find it rather easy to release massive improvements in CPU processing power at much lower costs than today... only differrence would be that top management at Intel would have less profits to pad their salaries and bonuses with.

 

[colonelciller]

Desktops are officially boring old news. No major improvements coming for the high-end.

If you want excitement in this industry get into Mobile Devices.

get into "server class hardware" and start playing around with fun 3D apps like Vue from eON

 

[Jacky60]

I've had my 920 4 years -by far the longest I've owned any CPU (previously 2 years was max) so I hope Haswell does bring some significant gains.

 

[Idontcare]

does it really take a genius to understand that monopolies are bad for everyone except the corporation holding the monopoly ...and perhaps their partners?

lack of competition for Intel means that Intel can milk the market... dripping out improvements and lazily resting on old tech... if we had a 2nd top end CPU maker... or even a third,... you can bet your chonies that Intel would miraculously find it rather easy to release massive improvements in CPU processing power at much lower costs than today... only differrence would be that top management at Intel would have less profits to pad their salaries and bonuses with.

Considering Intel's recent drop in revenue and profits...do you really think that Intel's "top management" are intentionally sitting on their hands holding back from releasing cpu's with massive improvements in CPU processing power that would spur a huge upgrade cycle and have prevented the decline in revenue and profits?



Really?

And Microsoft too I suppose. Win8 is the result of a meticulously planned effort to milk the consumers while the "real" Windows 7 successor is being held back, locked away in a vault, to only be released when Ballmer feels the shareholders deserve some good news. :|

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

[Kippa]

I upgraded from a 2.6ghz i7 920 to a 3.2ghz i7 970 and haven't needed to upgrade since. I know that there have been increases in performance, but not big enough to warrant an upgrade. I might consider an 8+ core upgrade if one comes along.

 

[A5]

I've had my 920 4 years -by far the longest I've owned any CPU (previously 2 years was max) so I hope Haswell does bring some significant gains.

I'm sitting on a 920 as well. My typical upgrade cycle has been 3-4 years, though, so I'm definitely ready to see what Haswell is going to offer.

 

[Zap]

Damn man! I have this rule of thumb, I wont upgrade to anything less than a 100% performance increase.. Guess your number is closer to 5%

5% = whim :whiste:

do you really...

Voice of reason? Say it isn't so!

 

[Shephard]

sounds like people in this topic want more than 15% improvement over last generation just so they can brag. they don't actually need the power...

 

[Josh123]

I just recently upgraded from an E8400 to an i5-2500K I got off of the FS/T forums for $140. It's been a great upgrade and I got the parts at a great price. I rarely buy anything brand new or from retail stores anymore when it comes to PC components.

 

[colonelciller]

Considering Intel's recent drop in revenue and profits...do you really think that Intel's "top management" are intentionally sitting on their hands holding back from releasing cpu's with massive improvements in CPU processing power that would spur a huge upgrade cycle and have prevented the decline in revenue and profits?



Really?

And Microsoft too I suppose. Win8 is the result of a meticulously planned effort to milk the consumers while the "real" Windows 7 successor is being held back, locked away in a vault, to only be released when Ballmer feels the shareholders deserve some good news. :|

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

yes, absolutely. Perhaps the magnitude of top management salaries is escaping you. Your scenario... an Intel management team that has the option put out a vastly improved CPU onto the market vs spend 8-10 years dripping out improvements that will finally match the CPU that could have been released nearly a decade sooner.

Do you really think that Intel's "top management" would intentionally release a massive CPU upgrade when they could drip out mediocre improvements for more than a decade... trading a single huge income splurge that would cannibalize their own potential to make a vastly larger sum over 8-10 years... all the while looking like corporate heroes and having full license to proclaim "we're the best" (which is true because they have no competition).



Really?

sorry i'm not buying it. top management that would do as you suggest in an Intel monopoly market would be fools... which they are not... which is why we are seeing such lackluster CPU improvements from generation to generation. Have a look at the salaries and bonuses for that top management for the past decade. you think any management would trade 8-10 years of that sure thing for 1 big year?

again... I'm not buying it.

as to the windows 8 straw-man, let's just ignore that distraction

 

[gipper53]

Thing is probably 98% of people buying PCs don't need anymore power than what an i3 offers. The overwhelming majority of computer users only use it to surf the net, send emails, basic office tasks, look at pics and videos and maybe play a game on occassion.

The days of needing the fastest chip on the market to do average tasks is long over, and there are very few "new things to do on a PC" that require more power.

Devoting billions to R&D of high end desktop chips probably doesn't benefit Intel's bottom dollar very well. The mass market has told them they want faster and more efficient mobile devices. Only a small percentage of professional applications and enthusiasts are clamouring for faster high end CPUs.

Some find this disappointing we are not getting 50-100% gains every 3 years. Personally I'm happy I can buy a decent PC and have it still be very capable after 4+ years instead of itching for an upgrade because something 3 times faster is available.

 

[Idontcare]

yes, absolutely. Perhaps the magnitude of top management salaries is escaping you. Your scenario... an Intel management team that has the option put out a vastly improved CPU onto the market vs spend 8-10 years dripping out improvements that will finally match the CPU that could have been released nearly a decade sooner.

Do you really think that Intel's "top management" would intentionally release a massive CPU upgrade when they could drip out mediocre improvements for more than a decade... trading a single huge income splurge that would cannibalize their own potential to make a vastly larger sum over 8-10 years... all the while looking like corporate heroes and having full license to proclaim "we're the best" (which is true because they have no competition).



Really?

sorry i'm not buying it. top management that would do as you suggest in an Intel monopoly market would be fools... which they are not... which is why we are seeing such lackluster CPU improvements from generation to generation. Have a look at the salaries and bonuses for that top management for the past decade. you think any management would trade 8-10 years of that sure thing for 1 big year?

again... I'm not buying it.

as to the windows 8 straw-man, let's just ignore that distraction

It is your own story that is lacking self-consistency, don't know what to tell you.

You claim Intel's legions of management are masters of manipulating the markets in addition to deftly managing to stifle their own R&D pipeline, and yet you accept that they managed to stuff it up and get it wrong because they walked themselves into some rather not-so-great revenue and profit snafus.

They are either the evil geniuses you wish to make them out to be, or they aren't.

I'm opting for "they aren't".

 

[Anubis]

I've had my i7 920 for 4 years :O

i just replaced mine 2 weeks ago

3770k