Frog-2009 is looking to stay

from JoeUser Forums

For years I got a new desktop machine annually.

I have a naming convention based on what their role is. And not only was there no N-2010 (no new work laptop, work desktop, home desktop or ultra portable) but there probably won’t be a 2011 one either (other than the recently acquired MacBook Pro).

A big part of the reason is that nothing is really making use of these latest/greatest desktop machines. As people have reported with the MacBook Air, even a relatively low end machine with a SSD can feel very snappy.  That’s what I’ve been doing with my X-2009 machines – adding SSD’s to them which gives them a new lease on life.

Sadly, I haven’t even upgraded their video cards. There hasn’t been anything released to compel me to. The last time I upgraded a video card for something specifically was for Half-Life 2. But this machine handles L4D 2, SC2 and other such games without a problem.

It’s no wonder the PC makers are increasingly flailing about making strange new quasi-PC or Android tablet type machines.

So what is happening? In my view, we’ve reached the part in the exponential growth curve of performance (Moore’s law) where it’s becoming increasingly difficult to recognize the performance differences between a brand new machine and one that is 18 months old.  This will only become more apparent as time goes on.

109,640 views 60 replies
Reply #2 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Well reasoned. I believe the tablets, netbooks etc. are there to answer mobility/usability/convenience needs. They're doing it well. Now, even a 3D Tablet. Soon they'll make it to the classroom as well.

The exponential growth is there, just not in desktops anymore.

@ reply 1: SSD means Solid State Drive. ;)

Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

I don't understand technology#:(

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

My home gaming machine still uses a nVidia 9800 GT card and it's been very happy with everything that I've thrown at it.  My wife has an ATI 4770.

I *may* update this year.  My wife's computer needs a dual core processor, but beyond that, performance has stayed good for much longer then I've expected.

 

 

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top

Oh duh...

I need a new graphics card, but I have gotten away with my 512Mb Radeon 1950x for a few years now and I am amazed it can still play new titles.

Does this mean that Desktop hardware will be cheaper, because there is no new research costs, or more expensive, because there is no new model decreasing the value of a given product and fewer annual sales?

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

Clotting at the bleeding edge of the software-hardware interface is only one factor in this sort of thing.

I have several friends who used to more or less make a small party out of getting a new rig up and running, starting way back in the 8086 days. We've all come to think of a new rig as a tiresome chore to put off as long as possible, nothing like the joy of splurging on a swell new toy. Maybe some brilliant person can come up with a corollary to Moore's Law that's about when hardware gets bogus enough that the mass market has no real need to stay in new-rig-crackhead mode?

Reply #7 from Elemental Forums Top

I need a new video card too.  I was thinking of getting an ATI 5850, but I just can't afford it, with my son Xia Jr. tail removal, the wife's terrible Cheetos addiction, and my own bought of ass cancer...maybe some day, some how, I will get one...:'(

Reply #8 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Does this mean that Desktop hardware will be cheaper, because there is no new research costs, or more expensive, because there is no new model decreasing the value of a given product and fewer annual sales?
End of quote

Probably will.... to a point. Prices have decreased a lot, and there are sites like newegg.com which sell a lot cheaper than the OEM's.

Reply #9 from Elemental Forums Top

I think a widening gap between "best" and "worst" is to blame partially, because game developers insist on covering a lot of their bases. When I bought my first 3d card, it was because I couldn't run some games without it. When I bought my 2nd 3d card, it was because I couldn't run some games without it. When I bought my third 3d card, it was because I wasn't satisfied with the performance that my second card was giving me.

Now I'm going to pick up a new GPU soon, but that's only because my old one got fried due to experimental drivers. I don't really NEED a new card to play the latest games. This card could probably last me a few more years.

Err... my point was... oh yeah! My point was that yes, it is of course getting harder to constantly push the envelope on 3d quality. But 3d games are also putting more of an effort into producing games that can be run on low-end as well as high-end machines, so the NEED to buy a 3d card isn't as great as before.

I also think it's possible we're reaching a point where higher resolution is no longer warranted. Where you can't tell the difference between 1 pixel and 2. This would also "slow down" the need to upgrade a 3d card.

Reply #10 from Elemental Forums Top

Just win the quest competion.

Reply #11 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 10
Just win the quest competion.
End of seanw3's quote

Hey yea!  Good thinking!  I'm sure Kael and Toby would agree to that reasoning too!

Reply #12 from Elemental Forums Top

Maybe a little bribe is in order. :grin:   Its too bad the mod community can't work on patronage. The problem is that we enjoy our mods too much to get paid for them.

Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top

      I built my quad 2.4 bfg 8800gtx four years ago, and due to the flat line of pc exculsive graphic intensive games it still has got leg room.  But to be honest, and I never owned any Apple device in my life, the Ipad has replaced 90 percent of my "sitting in front of the Pc" time. I can now ignore my wife while in the same room as her! lol

      Plus not to mention and I feel completely over-looked is it's ergo benefits. I am no longer hunched over my desk holding on to the mouse for dear life.


Frogboy...you teased someone on the other forums.....but XP still rocks!  


Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top

Programmers need to write sloppier code in order to utilize the vast hardware resources now at their disposal.  Performance testing?  Pfft.

Reply #15 from Elemental Forums Top

For the 90's it was sort of the same - Once we hit the 1GHZ mark though it shot off to 2-3ghz, then dual core, quad core, etc. I was running Windows 98 up until 2004 on my old machine. No reason not to. It played all the games I wanted and did everything I needed. I only upgraded to XP because I moved from 333mhz/128mb to 3.0 ghz/2gb. XD Bit of a step up.

Reply #16 from WinCustomize Forums Top

At least when the time comes and I can afford to build one they'll be cheap as dirt ... almost. But then again dirt isn't all that cheap either. Ya just can't win for losin'. :rolleyes:

Reply #17 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Uvah, reply 16
At least when the time comes and I can afford to build one they'll be cheap as dirt ... almost. But then again dirt isn't all that cheap either. Ya just can't win for losin'.
End of Uvah's quote

Here in Florida, we have lots of dirt with dropping prices. Weird 'correlation' between commodity prices for silicon tech and the bust end of the real estate boom-bust cycle that's shaped much of our state's history...

Reply #18 from WinCustomize Forums Top

A big part of the reason game companies are no longer "pushing the envelope" on hardware specs is that many are coding games (if they code them for the PC at all) to also run on an XBox and/or PS3. That sets the performance limit for a lot of game companies in order to keep the largest possible audience to make back the increasingly huge investment needed to develop a top flight game. The result is that PCs now need to be updated for gaming about as often as you would update a console. On the order of 3-5 years rather than 12-18 months.

So, like Frogboy, my 2008 desktop is still just fine for nearly anything out there. The only upgrades I've done were to replace a fried 6800 GT card with a GTS 250, add a cheap external hard drive and upgrade from 32 bit Windows Vista to 64 bit Windows 7. I don't see any reason to replace this machine in the near future:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 @ 2.66 GHz
4 GB RAM
250 GB internal disk
1 TB external disk
GeForce GTS 250 (1 GB)
DVD Burner
Windows Home Premium 64

Hardly state of the art, but more than adequate to run games like Fallout 3, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, and Civilization V in 1920x1200 resolution.

Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top

That phenomenon is why I'm hoping I can run Skyrim decently.  It's going to run on the same consoles as Oblivion.

Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top

The only reason I upgrade my computer now is because i like having faster stuff not because i need it. I was for a while there completely upgrading my computer every 2 years. But now I've had the same build since 2008 and all i've really done is replace the parts that werent adequate to my liking (Video card), or me experimenting with things (RAID 0 x 4). I want to upgrade this year to DDR3 and Hexacore processing with an SSD drive but its hard for me to find a good reason to do it.

Though i hope that Skyrim does push the envelope of my machine and make me justify a reason for the upgrade =).  BTW is Impulse getting Skyrim?

Reply #21 from Demigod Forums Top

The only reason I upgrade my computer now is because i like having faster stuff not because i need it.
End of quote

I'm pretty much the same.  But I still get the latest and greatest every year or two.  Its the fun, nerd enthusiast sort of thing to do.

Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top

I plan to upgrade to Windows 7 64 bit, and add 4 GB of ram (and thereby use all the slots).

Reply #23 from Demigod Forums Top

side note - windows home premium is generally fine.... I had to pick up the professional upgrade as I needed remote desktop... you... apparently need to pay more money for that..

Reply #24 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I'm playing with a 3D fractal graphics program. It can take 24 hours to make a 1920 X 1200 high quality render sometimes on a 2.6GHz quad-core, so a lot of horse power would come in handy if I could afford it. Other than that, I have no need (except for fast booting) for state of the art machinery.

Reply #25 from Elemental Forums Top

I'm fine with not pushing the envelope.  It's also getting to a point where it's just not profitable to do so.

 

Ironically, it's Stardock's games right now that are determining what I want in terms of horsepower.