Do you feel a compulsion to constant hardware upgrade?

[oddech_wymarlych_swiatow]

Back in the day, when I had 386SX 16Mhz / 8 MB RAM bored with it after a while and craved to gain a powerful gaming machine so bought P200 MMX / 32 MB RAM but it was not enough coz there were the times of 3dfx madness began so go go go let's buy Voodoo 2. Desire was fulfilled but no for too long coz arms race's speed was delivering more demanding gamez too fast and my PC became outdated too quickly, you could barely play titles from 2000. Then I thought - wtf? Found constant upgrade just stupid and started to utilize actual hardware and done mircales with it, dig with past PC library, gathering emulated stuff (mainly NES & SNES but even some of PSX on Bleem! were... call it 'playable'), collecting mods etc.

I've been doing this for 8 fucking years till 2006 and NEVER run out of games.

Then I was gifted Celeron 400 MHz / 64 MB RAM / Voodoo 3 and felt like my gaming catalogue just rocketjumped and use it till 2008 when got a mid-to-low tier machine, still using it even this day. And guess what, after 5 years I can run anything besides Crysis 3 (lack of DX11 card) and rarely go below medium level of details. Even with next-gen's arrival, I doubt I'll need to upgrade stuff, even thought I'd like to try Witcher 3, Cyberpunk or Warhorse - I've already had a machine powerful enough to run 99,99999 of PC library (fuck C3 for preveting this stat to be 100%) + any soft for NES, SNES, SMS, Megadrive, Jaguar, 3DO, Saturn, Neo-Geo, PSX, N64, Dreamcast, Gamecube, Lynx, Amiga, Gameboy (+ Color, Advance), DS, PSP etc. and most of PS2 and Wii titles... Life is not enough to even lick it with the edge of my tongue so the only thing that would force me to buy betters specs is a recent hrdwr's death.

How about U?

 

[Excidium]

This is my processor: http://ark.intel.com/products/30784/ , need I say more? I just replaced the parts that broke on my PC since I bought it but it's all old shit

 

[Kane]

first PC i build myself from spare parts my dad had lying around (he had a lot of computers) in the first half of the 90s. it ran OS/2 warp, but I later upgraded to linux. i bought a pc 2001 or 02. then another one 2009. and that one just got a recent cpu last month. i bought a gameboy (not color, we didnt have color back then) on the flea market. a couple of years later i wanted to play pokemon in color, so i bought myself a gameboy color. that's it pretty much.

 

[taxalot]

I'm pretty sure a Core 2 DUO is enough to play most games if you have a good enough graphics card.

To answer the OP's question,
I have too many computers. 2 Netbooks, 1 laptop, 1 tablet. Those are never ever getting upgraded ; they all work like charms although they are all starting to show their relative age. The laptop, for instance, is five years old. Linux on it and every thing I throw at it runs without problems. Same goes for the netbooks. When they are so obsolete they cannot be used anymore, I will consider replacement on a "need basis".

The desktop computer is another issue, for which I have another strategy ; I like to spend a lot on the basis that it will last a long while without an upgrade. When things are getting unplayable, I consider changing or upgrading a component that will fix things. Maybe a new videocard, or a ram increase. If that does, well I keep the computer as long as I can.

When a game I want to play comes out that is absolutely unplayable even on low details and on the lowest resolution (I am no graphic whore), then I do buy a new computer. But not before. I do not then "upgrade", because by that time the configuration is so out of date it's better to buy a good tower.

My current config is a I7-960, ATI 6870, 6 GB RAM and SSD. Everything works flawlessly and I expect it to be so for a few years. Maybe I will need to change the video card when next generation games arrive, and buy 4 GB extra ram, but it's actually fairly possible this configuration gets me through the entire next generation too.

 

[baturinsky]

I'm like Excidium here, too lazy/conservative to replace anything until it works somehow. My CPU and HDD are over five years old.

 

[Kane]

I'm like Excidium here, too lazy/conservative to replace anything until it works somehow. My CPU and HDD are over five years old.

recent games are immensively CPU intensive, upgrading from my old c2d to that i5-3570k was miles.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

My most recent major desktop upgrade was in 2012.

Ivy Bridge i7 3770/16GB RAM/GTX 660Ti

Usually I do major upgrades every 5 years or so, with GFX card replacements every ~2-2.5 years. This time though I get the feeling my rig will last me longer due to the slow-down in CPU innovations/importance and the shift towards GPGPU. Also: AMD trash consoles already being outdated before they're even released makes upgrading in the near to medium-term future unnecessary.

 

[DalekFlay]

Only when I have to. When I have to go down to medium settings on most new games I usually start shopping. Right now I'm waiting for the new consoles to see what specs to use.

 

[Dexter]

My first PC (after C64, Atari and the likes) was a Pentium 66Mhz, then an additional AMD K6-2 200Mhz with MMX! (which turned out slower than the Pentium), then an AMD Athlon XP 1800+ (there might've been something I forgot before that) and a AMD Athlon XP 2800+

After that it was back to Intel with a Core2Duo E6600 and I still got the Core i7-950 Bloomfield CPU I bought some time in 2009.
My first graphics card was a GeForce256 I believe, I remember upgrading that to a GeForce 4 Ti for Doom 3 and a GeForce 6600GT for Neverwinter Nights 2, a GeForce 8800 GTX for Crysis.

When that went kaputt out of warranty I replaced it with a GeForce GTX 460 and recently because some games like Sleeping Dogs, Metro 2033 and similar ran shit on higher settings and because of the Oculus Rift I got a GeForce GTX 770.
Another recent acquisition was a Samsung SSD 840 Pro.

I kind of miss *having* to replace stuff to play some of the newest games every 2-3 years but I'm thinking another upgrade of CPU/GPU isn't that far away (1-2 years) for a 4K resolution display (3840x2160) and possibly higher res VR.

 

[Allanon]

I don't have a fixed schedule for upgrades, but I usually upgrade the video card once every 1.5 - 2 years. The trigger is usually a wave of new games I can't run at high settings anymore. Cpu - mobo upgrades are rarer, once 3 - 4 years and only when it is obvious that they bottleneck the video card too much to continue using them. I believe that with the new generation of consoles inbound, I'll have to upgrade next summer.

 

[Minttunator]

Yeah, the rise of system requirements of games - and, hence, the need to upgrade - has really slowed down over the last few years due to consoles. This won't even change much with the new generation of consoles, as they are already relatively weak when compared to PCs - as opposed to the 360/PS3 which were as powerful or even more powerful than a midrange gaming PC at the time.

Of course, there might be some interesting shifts when the new consoles come out - such as the need for more graphics memory or better threading in games - but we'll just have to wait and see on that one.

Personally, I used to upgrade all the time back in the day, but I haven't really felt the need lately - partly due to the fact that I can run pretty much anything well and partly just due to the fact that I play less and less cinematic AAA+++ shit and more old/indie games, which don't really need a powerful PC.

 

[Hellraiser]

Upgrading is a luxury so I do it sporadically like every 4-5 years unless something breaks, last major upgrade was nearly 2 years ago. If I have cash to spare on PC parts than either I buy new GPU or a HDD. Which I should with the former because the current one is 4 year old tech so it is a bottleneck, but it is not like there have been GPU power demanding titles worth playing released recently.

 

[Destroid]

I only upgrade when a game I want to play doesn't run acceptably. Not very often, as you might imagine, not so long ago I went from a 2.3ghz core 2 (really not up to modern games well), to an i5. I kept the HD6850 I purchased when my 8800GT had a meltdown about 2 years ago. It's true what others have said, modern games really load up the CPU a lot more than older games which were very GPU limited. I guess because GPU tasks are very friendly to parallel processing.

 

[Kane]

GPU demand has mostly plateaued, many of the more realistic effects aren't really conductive to gameplay and there is very little difference in graphics quality between games from 2006 and 2011 (see skyrim vs. oblivion f.e.). CPU demand rises exponentially with amount of players in a game, and in this age of MMOs every game tries to put more and more players on your screen. and even games that still have as much stuff going on as 15 years ago like RTS need more CPU due to improved pathfinding and generally more refined calculations going on behind the scenes.

it also helps tons that you can actually turn down GPU load by lowering your graphics settings. can't do the same for CPUs. having an i5 is a must now, the increased bandwidth alone is worth it.

 

[laclongquan]

Still duo cores here. My latest upgrade is graphic card.

 

[Spectacle]

GPU demand has mostly plateaued, many of the more realistic effects aren't really conductive to gameplay and there is very little difference in graphics quality between games from 2006 and 2011 (see skyrim vs. oblivion f.e.)

Bad example, since Skyrim is extremely outdated and suffers from mediocre art design too.
Compare Oblivion to Battlefield 3 and you'll see a world of difference between 2006 and 2011.

I've been feeling a compulsion to do a complete upgrade lately, but my old i7 is still hasn't fallen that far behind the latest CPUs so it would be kinda pointless, a lot of money for a relatively small benefit.

I might get a new video card sometime this autumn, and I'm thinking about replacing all my hard disks with SSDS, apart from that I'll stick to my hardware.

 

[Karmapowered]

Upgrading, what for ? 2013 clones of IWD games ?

Once devs decide to put proper AIs in their games I might feel it worth to look into more horsepower for my gaming rig.

 

[Carrion]

I bought my current computer in 2008 and it was mediocre even back then, but I've still been able to run every game that I've wanted to well enough (except maybe Arma 2 and 3), so I think I'll manage for another year or so. I don't think I've ever gone this long without upgrading my hardware in any way. I guess it's partly because of lack of good new games and partly because the increasing focus on consoles has slowed down progress.

 

[Dexter]

Yeah, Skyrim is a really bad example. It's still a DX9 game and obviously built with consoles in mind throughout its design.

At least pick a game built largely with DX11 in mind, for instance Battlefield 3, Crysis 3, Sleeping Dogs.
Or DX9/DX11 hybrids like Metro 2033, Metro: Last Light, Batman: Arkham City, Tomb Raider, Max Payne 3, Dirt 3

Also as a special mention Witcher 2, it's amazing what CDP could get out of a DX9 title at this stage.

I've got to say that even though there are some improvements here and there, there's been a rather sharp drop-off in improving graphics quality since Crysis came out in 2007.

Here's some Benches of some of the Top cards on some of the higher end cards: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...AN-Performance-Review-and-Frame-Rating-Update
And how these would do on 4K gaming at the moment: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-High-End-GPUs-Benchmarked-4K-Resolutions

I guess it also depends on what kind of experience you can live with, personally I usually want to max out games and if they drop below 40FPS or so I don't even much attempt to play them and put them aside for the next upgrade. And I remember being rather sensitive towards FPS in games like Jedi Knight 2, Quake 3 or CS:S or otherwise "fast-paced" ones. On my CRT I could clearly improve my gameplay a lot if the games were pushing 120FPS at 120Hz, but since games became much slower and LCDs took over I'm kind of satisfied with 60FPS.

Regarding CPUs, Intel hasn't really improved much about their architecture since ~2010/2011 when they came out with Sandy Bridge in regards to desktop use and even that wasn't that much of an improvement over their previous Bloomfield CPUs.
They seem to be mostly targeting the mobile and portable/notebook market with Ivy Bridge and Haswell: http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/06/06/might-haswell-upgrade-your-cpu-not-for-your-desktop-rig/

There is not much reason to upgrade other than maybe for Rendering, CAD, Encoding or Emulation.

And even Nvidia seem to be targeting the Android market more and more with Tegra etc., although they still have a lot hanging on the Professional and Gaming market.

 

[baturinsky]

Skyrims runs ok on 5-year old CPU. But GTA4 is slow (but still playable). Ditto minecraftwithmods.

 

[Borelli]

One of the (rare) advantages of modern gaming is that since graphics has reached it's peak you rarely have to upgrade anymore. I don't even check system requirements anymore since i KNOW it will run on my computer.

 

[A user named cat]

The best and most significant upgrade I've made in the past decade or so was getting an SSD, after thinking my WD Raptor was the shit for years. It was like night and day. Even more so than jumping from a single core Celeron to a quad Phenom II or an old Nvidia 7600 to GTX 560. Looking forward to larger drive sizes and cheaper prices, only upgrades I plan on making until Phenoms start really bottlenecking.

 

[Kane]

Compare Oblivion to Battlefield 3 and you'll see a world of difference between 2006 and 2011.

A better idea would be to compare BF2 with BF3 and I don't see a big difference there at all. Sure you can toggle all those post processing effects, but who plays like that?!

 

[baturinsky]

So, any suggestions about CPU and HDD? Is smaller SSD better than bigger HDD?

 

[Dexter]

Compare Oblivion to Battlefield 3 and you'll see a world of difference between 2006 and 2011.

A better idea would be to compare BF2 with BF3 and I don't see a big difference there at all. Sure you can toggle all those post processing effects, but who plays like that?!

Same map area in both games Strike at Karkand:

Gulf of Oman:

Level Destruction:

Improved Animations with Ant Middleware:

Improved Lighting techniques with Geomerics Enlighten Middleware:


They also improved some other not immediately obvious things like Sound recordings etc.

Nope, nothing changed.