I'm a gamer and I haven't upgraded my CPU in 6 years

[Maxym]

I don't believe anyone has mentioned how consoles factor into this question.

My opinion being that games in general have stagnated entirely since the console hardware was released. The only improvements that have come about in games over this time period are based on efficiency and design improvement to utilise the same hardware better.

[andyroo54]

Originally Posted by Maxym

I don't believe anyone has mentioned how consoles factor into this question.

My opinion being that games in general have stagnated entirely since the console hardware was released. The only improvements that have come about in games over this time period are based on efficiency and design improvement to utilise the same hardware better.

I mentioned it, and so yes, I agree, although the improvements you mention, sure some may be programming improvements or better utilization of the hardware as they become more experienced with the platform, but they do also tend to limit what the console can do early on, to help increase the time the console seems relevant. Look at Halo Reach vs Halo 4, it's the same engine, but halo 4 looks amazing, but it's mainly down to filters etc.

[octagonalman]

I seem to remember that GTA IV was one that didn't scale down to dual core CPUs due its being a console port. That was the game that forced me to upgrade from Athlon x2 to Phenom x3, but I haven't felt a need to upgrade beyond that.

[Renegade40D]

Originally Posted by Foliage

I only ran BF3 in SP mode with probably mediumish settings, I can't remember exactly what I had enabled and what not.

And you see thats why everyone got their knickers in a knot. You claim in the OP that you can play all games max settings with AA etc etc including BF3. Which anyone who plays BF3 knows is rubbish for the gear you have. Then you change it to mediumish settings in SP.

If you are happy with how the games run on your current gear then thats awesome. Maybe be a little more cautious before claiming it runs everything at max settings though.

[Foliage]

Yeah don't get me wrong, not saying there is no benefit in upgrading, just surprised at how well this CPU has lasted, before its time nothing would have lasted this long.

In the next year or two I will be looking for an i5 with similar overclocking abilities and a graphics upgrade.

[andyroo54]

Originally Posted by Foliage

Yeah don't get me wrong, not saying there is no benefit in upgrading, just surprised at how well this CPU has lasted, before its time nothing would have lasted this long.

In the next year or two I will be looking for an i5 with similar overclocking abilities and a graphics upgrade.

What is the reason people seem to go for i5 over i7? Is it just cost? Isn't the i7 a much better chip in general?

[Foliage]

I just picked i5 randomly then, I don't actually know which one I would get.

[mevereyn]

Most of what I've seen, that I can recall, suggests that the 2500k (for example) is virtually identical in many cases - for gaming, I mean - to the 2600k (for example).

Therefore, for gaming, the i5 seems like a better deal. It's the most recent CPU I thought about buying, fwiw.

However, that many months ahead, both would be so cheap... yeah, might as well go for the i7 then.

[Foliage]

I guess for the games I play and plan to play in the future (hitman) it would he hundreds of dollars for a few fps, so until I can no longer play games at 1920x1200 with med-high settings with 2xaa and vsync I won't be upgrading cpu, not to mention simply a new vid card would probably net me a huge upgrade anyway.

How many more years do you think I can just keep throwing better video cards at my e6600 before it becomes the major bottle neck?

[Madengineer]

Originally Posted by Foliage

How many more years do you think I can just keep throwing better video cards at my e6600 before it becomes the major bottle neck?

My guess is it'll die before that becomes an issue.

1.6volts is a lot of volts to push through it for this length of time. You'll either kill the chip through degradation, or kill the motherboard

[Foliage]

Originally Posted by Madengineer

1.6volts is a lot of volts to push through it for this length of time. You'll either kill the chip through degradation, or kill the motherboard

I did kill one mother board a few years ago, but I am unsure if this was the reason for it.

I set the volts at 1.6v in the BIOS but CPU-Z reports it as ~1.45v so I guess it isn't that extreme.

Still it has been going for as I said ~5 years literally never turned off at that rate. Even if I do kill it a replacement is what $50 these days?

edit: what is with you smiling after giving everyone bad news, first it is the dude you suggested might have diabetes, now me? One might even think it makes you feel good.

[elvis]

Originally Posted by m3k

you can blame consoles for the lack of demand in technology.

Originally Posted by andyroo54

The reason you can play all these games on such seemingly high settings, is because these games are developed for consoles, not just for PC's.

This nonsense again. You always read it in threads like these from PC gamers who have no idea what it costs to actually make a game.

The handful of amazingly detailed, graphically spectacular eye-candy games that people list as the benchmark of PC gaming are all titles that either cost studios money, or barely scraped by in terms of money made to cover costs. None of them were a sustainable business model for any of the studios involved.

Professo posted a fantastic link the other day that detailed the cost breakdown of a huge volume of Triple-A PC titles over the last 10 years. I'll try to dig that out and post it here. But it illustrates nicely exactly why bleeding edge, system-smashing graphics don't work. It has nothing to do with "those evil consoles holding everyone back", and is simple economics 101. You just can't make games to that standard every time (or even at all for 99% of studios), as it will send you broke.

PC gamers make my head spin. They constantly want the most amazing graphics and games to be released quickly and bug free, but they don't put up with development delays, they don't put up with last generation graphics, and they crack the shits if the title costs too much (or just pirate it, as seems to be backed up by the numbers when you look on any torrent tracker).

The worst thing that ever happened to the PC games market are modern PC gamers.

[edit] Link here. Anyone who responds to the above without reading every single line of this is coming into an argument without the necessary information.

http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012...all-of-gaming/

Thanks again to Professo for linking it to me originally.

[HunterBunter]

Originally Posted by Foliage

How many more years do you think I can just keep throwing better video cards at my e6600 before it becomes the major bottle neck?

perhaps a while yet, as you won't really know what you're missing out on until you try a game on a better system. Also, I think your choice of games matter.

It makes economic sense for companies to produce games that tone themselves down to run at reasonable frame rates on slower machines. If you don't really care about the bells and whistles, you won't really find another reason to upgrade.

Is your original question better phrased: Why are there not games you like that make more use of the CPU? I notice you mostly play FPS's, and no strategy titles.

I for one think there's a ton that can be done with AI in games, and if you play a game like CIV5, that's where you notice a big difference in CPUs during the computer's turn. Your choice of games simply don't require much of anything from the cpu in real time. Most shooter AI is as simple as:

See enemy? No - follow predefined path
yes - face enemy and shoot
throw in a few random "actions" like do a roll or hide behind a box, none of which are cpu intensive and that's pretty much FPS AI.

Civ5 / strategy games would use Heuristics which can take as much CPU time as you can give to evaluate all the possibilities before acting. When was the last time you were actually surprised or impressed by any of the involved actions that a mob took in an FPS?

The game I'm developing is going to be a hybrid fps/rts, so cpu will definitely matter (although it won't hurt frames because of multi-threading). The enemy AI will have to be able to build it's own base and make strategic decisions on where to attack yours, as well as actually attack and defend, to have any hope in defeating you. It'll still run on slower pcs, but I expect it will actually be more challenging on faster ones.

[prezident doom]

Yeah for sure. I haven't touched my rig for 1 year and the most recent upgrades were due to old parts failing.

[m3k]

its best to build for bad computers so that

A: masses can access your game

B: runs on consoles.

I still blame 6 yearold consoles for games to run just fine on 6 yearold cpu's

The technology is readily available, Just nobody has the balls to use it because they cant risk low returns on a title.

EG: Indirect global illumination, Proper real time colour scattering refraction is available, the Dx11 library's are filled with exciting tools that will bring current cpu's and gpu's to their knees..
Real time dynamic destruction, realtime water physics, real time fire physics, all available......

Cost effective? Hell no, what game studio other than the crytek has the balls to ignore console gamers and market their game to people with top of the line rigs ONLY. that accounts of <1% of market-
the few of us who actually give a crap about upgrading our computers..

and it didnt even pay back well- so what makes you think thell do that stunt again especially with today's consoles being literally 6 years old.

they wont. because its poor Effort to reward ratio. simple as that.

so they'll make another COD re-skin and call it a day.