Hi I generally build a computer about every 5 years and this

>>56337395
I can't speak for your issue, but I know for my usage (likely different then yours) RAM has been the common bottle neck.

One thing you could do is do some stress testing. So if you concern is gaming, go play a game on the highest settings you got then look at you system usage. If the GPU or CPU is maxing out or getting too hot, then that likely your bottle neck (better cooler could also help, but better chips run cooler anyway). If the RAM is maxed and you got a lot of swapping/paging, then RAM is a limitation.

Just to make things complicated
>[And likely part of a huge conspiracy to get people to buy more computers]
newer games and software are often optimized for the newer architecture. So despite having a powerful older computer, the newer software may not be taking full advantage of it like it would for a newer one with lower specs.

At this point I am tempted to just buy a cheap computer that meets my needs at trash it every few years as the gant of software and hardware is so messed up now. I really just want a nice net book with 16GB of RAM, I'll look at getting a real computer once I have a real need again. I invested big in a 2010 model and it no longer does what I like, although it is far from broken.

That doesn't answer your question but I hope is helps, Also next time put this under a /sqt/ thread.

>>56337576
Cheers for the reply irrespective.
I can price the 2700k which will fit the same board and cooler as I'm currently running for about 130. 36% increase in processing power. Doesn't seem like a great deal to be honest and sounds in your experience to not really extend the lifespan of this machine.

I can get an i7 3970X which has a CPUmark of 12,660 for about 180, but I'd need a new board and cooling. This would be a 96% increase in processing power. As an 'upgrade' half the cost of the whole system and I'm bringing in 2012 era technology. I can see your point entirely and again, the future will likely not be optimised.

Of course the top of the line 6700k current generation i7 chip puts up a rating of only 10,992 and costs over 300. I'd need a new board as well. Doesn't make any sense except for maybe 20-30W of TDP.

Development is clearly stagnant and they are trying to find alternate ways to push consumer demand. Thanks race to the bottom.

My 5820k when OC'd hits like 14.5-15,000 in passmark

I paid $290 for it about 8-10 months ago.


I upgraded from a Q6600 though, well worth it for me, I skipped over the DDR3 generation entirely.

>>56337813
I've taken to buying one generation behind so the bugs are worked out (typically on the shrink as I am of the opinion that new architecture bug are more annoying), and get some clearance pricing. Given my future use model it saves me a few hundred, if I actually use my computer for stuff then it may be worth it as ~$300 is not that much in the large scheme. But with the shorter and shorter life cycles, I am not betting on anyone.

It really depends on what you do with it. Which is why personal stress testing and relevant market projections are important. You seem to assume it is the CPU is the limiter, it could be but it worth looking at all the parts. As removing the bottle neck can add a year or two assuming nothing major changes.

Like if you are running a sever, the newer low power modes could be worth it depending on how you see the cost of electricity changing over the next decade. But when things start to get that far out it anyones guess.

I am secretly hoping Texas Instruments or Sony or someone recognizes the ignored commodities market angle and decides to throw a bomb in there like a new instruction set. Not sure if it would make much money, but it would sure as heck flip the market tables and make everyone scrabble. The after the dust settles the market would be much better for us all.

>>56338110
>throw a bomb in there like a new instruction set. Not sure if it would make much money, but it would sure as heck flip the market tables and make everyone scrabble. The after the dust settles the market would be much better for us all.

There would be no dust to settle because there is literally no possible way for this to happen, you'd have nothing that uses the new instruction set, no one would bother developing for it unless you just throw money at them to do it. Which isn't sustainable, even if you funded development for 5-10 years without even thinking about profits, you'd still have no market share by the end.

x86 is consumer desktops. The only thing that could even attempt to break into the consumer market is PowerPC, but the Power architecture is really optimized for different workloads than what you'd normally see on a home system, that it would require a totally different CPU design from their current Power8 and Power9 chips.

Not to mention you still have the problem of no consumer applications run on Power so you're paying for development of applications internally, or you're giving out money to attempt to spur development, but no matter what you'll be losing money for many many many years and there is no real assurance you'd make that back,you'd likely never see a profit.

>>56338281
Actually, you start with simple single use toys and costume manufacturing solutions. If it makes a billion dollar factory a fraction more effective I know companies who would pay well for it. So you cap off the two extremes of the market, by effectively becoming cheap embedded systems for countless application.

It sounds silly to start the ground work for the next super computer with some thing that would lose to a Raspberry Pi, but you aren't selling the chip you are selling that one new feature that the new instruction set does better then anyone else. The hardware manufacturing could be spread to the lowest bidder. Simple cheap saturation is what you want

Once it reaches a critical mass, the secondary features that were predefined are publicly reviled. Basic scalability and cross integration with other version of itself allows for connectivity in ways we never really messed with. I hate to use the term "Internet of things", but the idea is similar in some ways

Then it is scaled up to desktops and other things. The enhanced connectivity the instruction set brings is what makes the market mushroom. Saturation eta 15~20 years after first release. Competitors would be clamoring for their segment. By that point the system stops offering advantages as newer things are in the works to kill it. But the owners would have known that was coming and change play books to a commodities market, dropping prices and just reprinting heck out to it. Novel licensing then allows for small but continued revues for many more years, while a change to open source ideas moves to bring in more customers and open new markets

At that point you have spiked, monopolized and commodity crashed the whole industry and tech development will basically stop for a decade as nobody can get out of the trap. Kind of like now, but more extreme. It sound grim, but honestly I doubt any breakthrough is coming soon so we may as well standardized and optimize the heck out of what we can make now

>>56338606
This is a bit like the argument I keep having with people here who want to see the country return to some golden era of manufacturing where everybody will have a highly paid and highly skilled job where the world desires our goods instead of services without acknowledging the systemic issues.

Modern manufacturing isn't very labour intensive, the labour intensive aspects of it aren't very highly skilled and the product design, development and technical innovation have already been done to the point we are simply manufacturing things we already know how to make.

We've got a world economy already gouged by cheap imports from outsourced labour. We've a retail sector which has been in constant decline and supply outstrips demand without gimmicky marketing and artificial demand stimulated by the creation of cheap debt.

If the labour intensive manufacturing of 'quality' goods is what is going to save the world first off what are we going to invent, how are we going to manufacture it so it is the best without acknowledging the price factor which is hugely dependent on labour and how are consumers going to pay for it in a sustainable manner?

Kind of hilarious that some of the most staunch old school conservatives I know seemly support communist ideas such as deliberately inefficient centralised production and artificial demand due to state intervention in suboptimal markets.

>>56338788
I agree there are similarity, but a big difference is I include the fallout, lack of new development for a decade or two is not typically a selling point. But I argue this is offset by other gains. I love thinking about different models, and some are far more viable then people first think, but they all have a trade off.

You notice a very important thing, the stuff we are doing now has mostly been done before. I have seen tech revolutions and the stuff we call as such is little more then re-branding. However the application impact can be huge, that is what make these old things new, not the tech itself, but how we use it.

Thus the Gimmicky stuff to artificially inflate demand. I got a cheap computer from 2000, that does 99% of what I need it to do and it's current retail value is ~$40. But the market values fairly accurate, as many of the cheap ~$60 computers can do most of the same things.

As for the stagging labor costs of some new quality system to support workers. There are ways to make it work, but most involve an apparent inefficiency like a trade a barrier to create duplicate markets which can not support the higher standards we demand now.

That is one reason crazy ideas like giving everyone a Pentium III computer is such a thought provoking idea as it is laugh at as obsolete, yet if flooded on that scale it would smoother most of the i7 market. Many would say it was worse to do so, but those that got a free computer might think otherwise. Complex social forces would start to over come other aspects at that point, much like Elvis or Pokemon did back in their glory days. Markets move on value, not money that small distinction is critical to many such changes.

It is better now better to look at such tech as an infrastructure cost, then a profitable market as it is near impossible to justify the stagging cost any other way. But nobody actually want to know a cheap desktops cost is easily over $100,000 when all aspects are included are included.

>>56337395
5 year old i3 with 8 gigs with 6TB junk
NOW --> i5 6500 with 32 gigs ram and 256g M.2 drive and 256 SSD

>>56337576
>RAM has been the common bottle neck.
me too, not anymore

>>56338110
>I've taken to buying one generation behind
I couldn't find anything worthwhile at a significant savings. If you did then you win.

Know yourself and let that guide what is best for you.

>>56337395
>i5-2500k
If it's overclocked then it's still a gayming-tier CPU today.

>>56337395
if the 2500k isnt cutting it for you look up some 6500k bundles.

you can replace your entire setup for the cost of a i7