Disappointed in system improvements post 2014.

Discussion in 'Intel x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by ExcessionOz, Dec 5, 2016.

  1. ExcessionOz

    ExcessionOz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    34
    I've been window shopping for a new system. The results are less than appealing :(

    Generally, every 4 years, I've bought a new system, and every 2 years a new video card. 2003, 2006, 2009, 2013 were my system builds, with my 2009 system still going until it's owner died :(

    2017 is coming up, and my February 2013 system is getting long in the tooth.

    My 2013 system (with 2014 video card) looks like this:

    • Antec Three Hundred Two case
    • Intel P77 motherboard
    • (Ivy Bridge) I5 3570 (non-K, never overclocked)
    • 16GB DDR3 RAM
    • Asus 4GB R9 290X video card
    • ThermalTake modular 850W power supply (mostly for R9 video card)
    • 120GB SSD for operating system
    • 700GB SSD for 'fast' large games (GTAV etc)
    • 2 * 3TB hard disks for media and archives
    • optical drives that I never use (BluRay writer, DVD writer)

    I use a Seiki 39" TV, which is 4K capable (30Hz), but my eyesight is so horribad that it's much much better in 1920 * 1080 and I get 120Hz refresh.

    For an new computer I was looking at:

    • Antec Three Hundred Two case
    • Asrock 170 Extreme 4 motherboard
    • Skylake I5 6600
    • 16GB DDR4 RAM
    • GTX 1070 8GB video card
    • Seasonic 600W modular power supply
    • 256GB PCIE/NVME SSD (boot/OS)
    • 1TB SATA SSD (fast games)
    • 2 * 4TB hard disks for media
    • Optical drive

    But from my research, I'll not get any more -performance- out of such a system than what I already enjoy with my approaching-4-year-old setup.

    My philosophy has been "replace entire system and avoid the heartache of age-related hardware failure", with a pleasant boost in performance each 4 years. I don't buy bleeding-edge components (I7 cpus, watercooling, overclocking stuff) because I am just not interested in the overheads of tweaking and getting things going As Fast As Possible. It's much more sensible to leave it all alone, and have modest but consistent results.

    Nothing has taxed my current build. GTA-V was probably the largest game I've ever had (55GB installed!) and ran perfectly well. I played Diablo 3, Minecraft Tekkit, various MMOs (SW:TOR, World of Warcraft, etc), and recently Factorio (OMG! Addictive++), and even a one-rocket-per-minute base runs at 60fps in Factorio.

    So I have no real reason to spend the money to buy a new system until this one dies of old age.

    I'm kind of interested in AMDs new Zen CPU, but intel's Kaby Lake is just a bit more power efficient Skylake, which in turn is only fractionally faster than my Ivy Bridge I5 CPU. (Watched a video comparing 5 generations of Intel from Sandy Bridge->Skylake, and the numbers are just -meh-).

    I'm just disappointed that Moore's Law really has abruptly stopped computer progress :) and 25-40% year to year speed gains aren't being made anymore.
     
  2. josh_676

    josh_676 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2007
    Messages:
    8,519
    I think the jumps are in GFX ram and SSD's.

    Plenty of improvements to be had.
     
  3. DarkForceMage

    DarkForceMage Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,213
    Location:
    Brisbane, Southside
    The biggest improvement you would get apart from load times is if you play FPS games and are looking for improved input latency, but playing on a t.v. it obviously isnt something you are chasing anyway..& for the games you mentioned there's not really much point upgrading more than the SSDs + GPU.

    The benefits are highly dependent on running newer software. Battlefield 1 for example benefits from cpu speed, cores, hyperthreading & ram speed/bandwidth.

    Scroll down to the CPU benchmarks tested at different resolutions here:
    http://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-1-test-gpu
    And memory scaling
    http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/2677-bf1-ram-benchmark-frequency-8gb-enough/page-2

    Personally as far as improving your gaming experience, if all I did was play the games in your list(I love D3), it might be better value for money to upgrade your other peripherals, especially whatever you are using for sound if it isn't already top-notch, a nice quality pair of headphones+external soundcard DAC/AMP combo, could make a HUGE difference to immersion, plus it would all be far more future-proof and versatile than a cpu/chipset upgrade & also carry over to media, not just gaming.

    Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro
    Sennheiser HD 598
    Audio-Technica ATH-AD700X (Best for FPS)

    http://www.head-fi.org/t/534479/mad...-guide-3-18-2016-mrspeakers-ether-c-1-1-added
     
  4. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    67,116
    Location:
    brisbane
    celebrate not having to update the core system by spending more on a higher end GPU and display - that's what I did.

    I'm still on a 3770K and it's been fantastic.

    I think it's weird that you are getting this longevity out of an Intel system and decide, hey I'll buy a crappy AMD. :confused:
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2016
  5. ae00711

    ae00711 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,307
    this.
    seriously wtf
     
  6. Flamin Joe

    Flamin Joe Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    5,216
    Location:
    4300
    I agree, which is why I'm still running an X79 with a 6 core 4930K. The only upgrades I'm contemplating is my R9 390x (waiting to see what the 490x will bring before deciding) and moving my 2.5" SSD to M2. Having built a few systems at work with the M2 NVMe drives, the difference is like night and day.
     
  7. Pemalite

    Pemalite Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    721
    Location:
    Port Lincoln, SA
    I have a 3930K and still see no reason to upgrade my core components. Probably even got a few more years of life left in her too.

    Glad I got a motherboard and PSU with a 10+ year warranty now, Already half way through it. :lol:

    I am currently upgrading the drives though, the notorious OCZ Vertex 2 in my rig decided to finally die on me recently. - A 6 year run on the most failure prone SSD is good IMHO.

    At the moment, I am thinking my Next Upgrade will likely occur on Socket 2066 with PCI-E 4.0 if the stars/prices+performance align correctly.

    AMD did have a few shining moments though. Having the first $100 Quad core with the Athlon 2 x4 was a positive step for the entire industry.

    And we can't forget the Phenom 2 x6 was a ripper as well, especially when you push the NB clock and Core clock up.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2016
  8. sanjeevlives

    sanjeevlives Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,893
    Location:
    Perth
    dont think you need a new psu and id put that money to a nice case
     
  9. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    45,081
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Speaking as someone who left PC gaming over a decade ago because I got sick and tired of constant upgrades just to even make the minimum requirements needed to play new games, I'm really happy that hardware is finally slowing down to a sensible rate.

    Some OCAUers might be too young to remember a world where you were dropping $1K+ per year minimum on new hardware just to be able to play games at all (let alone at decent frame rates).

    That world sucked. Be thankful that hardware has slowed down a little, and we can all catch our breath and spend money on games instead of hardware.
     
  10. Sledge

    Sledge Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    8,977
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Yep I'm still on i7-2700k
    I want to upgrade, but don't see the need yet..
    Upgrading GPU early next year to help with VR, but other than that... ??
     
  11. OP
    OP
    ExcessionOz

    ExcessionOz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    34
    For 1080P gaming, more GFX RAM makes zero difference to my gaming. I really am vision challenged these days, and LARGE text on 1920 * 1080 on a 39" screen is invaluable. A friend has a 30" 2560 * 1600 display, and I just can't read his screen at all :(

    The thrill of higher definition graphics has passed me by in my old age :(.

    SSD speed is also pretty well irrelevant, since I won't be putting games on the NVMe system SSD, only on the SATA SSD, and i've already got one of those, so no gains to be made.
     
  12. OP
    OP
    ExcessionOz

    ExcessionOz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    34
    Yeah, long past the ability to play twitch FPS games. Back in the day, I was into all the titles, the last FPS game I really played well online was Battlefield Bad Company 2, I'm just way too slow. I tried playing Overwatch recently, hilariously outmatched by just about anyone. Load times aren't bad, with my heavily used games on SSD, I'm not waiting that long for things; In Battlefield 3 I was always ready to rock and roll before my friends (who didn't have SSD's)

    I would defend my 'gaming on TV' though -- the Seiki has been a great investment, 120Hz 1920 * 1080 is rock solid, it's not like I'm looking at pixels, like a horrid 40" screen, it's as clear as any monitor I've used over the years. For many years I was gaming on a 32" Sony Bravia and it was a fantasic experience in City of Heroes and World of Warcraft, truly immersive. The Seiki is far better than the Bravia was at rendering certain combinations (red on black back ground text was the only awful bit of my Bravia experience), it's very very good, then again, my vision is significantly impaired compared to what it was like when I was in my 40's.

    Good call, but I got that covered, I use Beyerdynamic DT 990 Pro headphones, they're phenomenal (Amazon deal some years ago). I used to swear by Sennheiser, but the build quality of the headphones got worse and worse. I ALWAYS game with Headphones, sound-through-speakers is just annoyance for my partner, and also when using Voice Comms, gotta hate hearing other people's Pew Pew Pew noises coming through with their voices!
     
  13. hosh0

    hosh0 Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,971
    Location:
    Sydney N.S.W
    So it's not that the improvements have dried up, it's your requirements haven't changed since then. And games still allow you to play on hardware from back then to meet those requirements.
     
  14. OP
    OP
    ExcessionOz

    ExcessionOz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    34
    Why do you think they're 'crappy' -- no, wait.

    If you have the opinion that AMD is 'crappy' then you're welcome to your opinion and bye.

    The Athlon Thunderbird was (at the time) gob-smackingly awesome. My AMD video card experience has been hands-down better than my NVIDIA experiences -- 4850 was hands down faster at everything, I went with a Nvidia 570 and it was just not very good and hellishly expensive, the R9-290x has been brilliant (if power-hungry) and still competes with the nosebleed-priced 980TI's, two years later.

    I don't buy into the fanboyism of clock-speed-equals-greatness, nor do I consider spending $1.2K on a video card when I can buy a better performing card for half that price, considering my monitor preferences.

    I'm not driving 4K @ 60+FPS, and I couldn't discern the difference between 1920 vs 3840 screens showing any kind of action game. Frame rate at 1920 * 1080 is virtually the same between five generations of Intel CPUs and high and AMD/Nvidia GPUs.

    If AMD Zen is good enough, and provides 8 cores for less than the price of an Intel CPU, I'm willing to give them a chance. Since it ain't available yet, nobody really knows what it will be able to do. Going around with the predetermined 'AMD=CRAP' opinion is something children do when they're comparing things in the schoolyard, it isn't a -considered- opinion, and it's certainly not the kind of argument which will sway anyone with a functioning brain.
     
  15. OP
    OP
    ExcessionOz

    ExcessionOz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    34
    Not quite. The 'improvements' are minor, as shown in this video from earlier this year, where a guy tests five generations of Intel I7 CPU's with the same graphics card:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhuC8Tf9i3I

    The last couple of minutes has the final results if you don't want to go through all the talking-head guff, and shows very small percentage gains for 1080p gaming over the whole Sandy Bridge->Skylake range using a GTX970 and GTX980ti

    Note that I'm not suggesting improvements aren't there for some people; I limit my expenditure on hardware because in 5 years time expensive bleeding edge stuff becomes worthless, and since I'm not interested in the entire overclocking thing, I'm not in the same market as the enthusiasts with their water-cooling setups for CPU and GPU, with SLI implementations and Titan X 'Pascal' video cards like TotalBiscuit's new setup, $$,$$$'s for current best-in-class. It's overkill++.

    Clarifying here, not arguing the point :)
     
  16. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    67,116
    Location:
    brisbane
    leave your money in the bank and wait till the PC gets flaky or if you think it needs to be faster upgrade the GPU - I'm dead serious, I think you are throwing your money away. Unless you have specific plans for the old machine.

    I said the AMD is crap because even though they are cheap I think they provide terrible value. Who cares if it's 8 core if the software isn't multi-core aware like 80-90% of software (especially games) today and single core performance is worse than your old rig.

    Wake me up when they make something worth buying again.
     
  17. chip

    chip Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    3,964
    Location:
    Pooraka Maccas drivethrough
    performance per watt has improved quite a bit since Sandy Bridge.

    That's important for datacentre, and mobile. Desktop enthusiast users are obviously a tertiary concern for Intel.
     
  18. hosh0

    hosh0 Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,971
    Location:
    Sydney N.S.W
    But thats my point, you stopped at 1080p gaming. There's only so much they can do there. But there are other changes happening, per watt performance is down, the amount of heat being put out etc is down.

    But by no means am I saying, you're wrong or anything like that, just what matters to you at this time hasn't changed much. But that doesn't mean there haven't been improvements.
     
  19. munka

    munka Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,548
    Location:
    Perth
    Another vote for the only thing that has moved is SSD drives and Graphics.

    Even then I have a 9 month old PC running a R390, which is only marginally better than your R290X. I have a Skylake I5-6600K which is great but I only bought a new PC because I was coming from a laptop that couldn't be upgraded. I doubt your and my PC would be very different side by side.

    To get any benefit from new SSD technology you'd need an NVME port, which does mean throwing out the whole system and starting again. I can't see that as worth it for the money.

    If you must burn the cash give some thought to sinking all that cash into a GTX 1080, or save your cash for the next big thing. Give AMD a chance to launch something new, it might not be exactly what you are after but might force Intel to offer something innovative.
     
  20. OP
    OP
    ExcessionOz

    ExcessionOz Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    34
    This is true. It's not very reassuring to see people out-of-hand dismiss AMD or advocate Nvidia, when it's patently obvious that Nvidia are making way more profit from their products, and providing less performance than possible, because they haven't got a lot of competition.

    Competition VASTLY improves the overall quality of things for consumers. Bad competition (the 'fake' market, sunglasses, handbags that kind of malarkey) notwithstanding.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: