Ya I know the feeling. My custom pc is starting to age... in the wrong way lol. Had it for 3 and a half years. Upgraded it last year. I can barely play crysis on medium. Well I still messing with that. Ahhh college... I can't devert money to my pc as I use too... Theres always next year... hopefully summer... Still runs everything else just fine so I guess I am good. But back in the day...

If your work is going to require you to keep a near-state-of-the-art laptop near you, and you don't enjoy just messing and tweaking with the innards of your PCs to get the last 2 fps out of them, set up the Dell in the kids room, or at the cabin, and get the docking station...
and the latest mobile graphics upgrade...
and the 27" LCD (30 is too much unless its 4' away)...
and the Logitech Wave IO set...
and the NAS drive...
(I suppose you already have the T1 line to the house)...

Don't do your gaming on the laptop's 15 or 17" display though...except in buses, trains, planes, cafes, hotel rooms, etc.

drrider

It really does seem that PCs haven't advanced that much in the last few years.  My son's PC runs an early Athlon XP chip and it is perfectly functional for him.  At work we still have many old Pentium III's (933 Mhz) that we use (running Windows 2000 on them, hoping to retire them eventually, but not too soon).  Those work just fine for what we use them for.  Daughter runs a new AMD based system, but not that new (about 2 or 3 year old tech now).  My Vista 64 bit box (MCE type box actually) uses Athlon Dual Core 3200+ cpu.  Not terribly fast, but fast enough for what I use it for (including capturing/recording over-the-air HDTV and playing back same, as well as playing live HDTV broadcasts).

I could get some hardware that *should be* faster, but it just doesn't seem like the return on the investment would be enough for now.  The software that I run works well on the hardware I have, and I'm happy with what I have.  3 years from now I may be saying otherwise, but for now I'm gonna stick with what I have and save pennies for a good while longer.

Frankly a lot of the problems with new games running slowly have less to do with the state of hardware and more to do with sloppy coding. Uber-hardware simply becomes a crutch for bad practices. IF COD 4 runs perfectly on my hardware then Crysis can't say too much. Does it look 5% better? Sure... but it runs about 400% slower.

 

Bad optimization != me buying a new rig.

Hi!

I stepped off that train many years ago. Now I use computer that makes job done. Since I'm not playing FPSs anymore (comes with age ), that job consists of internet browsing, using some office programs, some coding in ancient comp languages and playing "evergreen" games. GalCiv-2 is by far marging the newest game on it, and Stars! the most played recently.

I'd call myself lost case for comp industry.   

BR, Iztok

My rig's only two years old, but this multi-core processor business seems to be prematurely aging it. It's enough to make a person stop bothering, really. Pity console games are simply inferior IMO to PC games...

This is one reason why I build my own computers.

My brother once said that the one I'm using right now is a beast. This was after he read posts made by people beta testing a MMO with superior computers were working slow, or were having troubles. He asked me "what did you do?".

It can be surprising how well an older computer that uses an AGP graphics card can work. If you need some recommendations on parts for a new computer, feel free to ask. Unfortunately, I'm not around to build it for you.

Heh-heh. I suspect Brad Wardell can find some geeky, nerdy, twitchy help real close-by if he wants to build a PC.


drrider

Just upgraded my own computer - to a *slightly* higher GHz, but with four cores, more memory, and a new motherboard.

Yeah, it does seem like the GHz stuff is starting to sizzle because of the thermal limits, but computers haven't stopped: Now it seems to be about how fast is the motherboard and memory, as well as how many cores. I think you're going to start to see 8, 16, 32, etc cores in the future rather than faster clock speeds - until they start hitting more limits. After that, we may either need to find a way to package silicon in 3D or go to more exotic technologies.

I do think that machines are holding their own better than they used to. My current rig, which admittedly I'm looking to retire in the next few months is 18 months old in its newest parts, I carried over the HD (a mighty 60gb) from the previous incarnation along with the RAM. It runs everything that doesn't require shader model 3.0 rather well on decent settings.

My reason for replacing this machine is that 60gb is getting too tight with games increasingly asking for 7gb+ installs and the fact my card is shader model 2.0. Tha means I cant play bioshock/crysis or use the new graphics engine for eve-online which is out soon.

I do feel a bit guilty though as the current machine remains quite serviceable, the Orange box games run very happily, I get good performance out of Stalker and Medieval 2 Total War. And ofc galciv2.

Modern tech and games seem to run well on older hardware providing you drop some graphical loveliness or if the game is not from the latest dx10 focused generation. Only now that dx10 is arriving do we see system requirements step up a notch. That aside, we seem to have had a generation of games using a much greater range of hardware than in the past.

What?! Don't you build your own PCs Brad?!

I'd say that computers are just as slow as ever compared to the games that are available.

In 1993 when DOOM was released, it required a 33MHz CPU and the best available was only the next model! (The 66MHz). Today, Crysis on 1920x1200 with everything maxed (I think) on a 8800GT only gets WWW Link on the latest computer....That means that the technology companies need to pick up the pace! Like the Stormboyz in DoW says: Faster! Faster!

At first I thought this was gonna be a parody of some users complaining about GalCiv 2 performance on their "new" PCs and that their PCs can't possibly be slow.

I've never had what you could call the 'latest and greatest' as far as hardware goes. My machine was/is the last one I put together about 3 years ago. Granted, it was as close as I've come to being on the front edge of the envelope, and as such, is still a very usable machine. The only real upgrades I've made in the last year are starting to use the SATA interface and controller (dual 250GB in a mirror), and upgrading the video card two or three generations. To be honest, I didn't really have to many speed issues with DL or DA, until reaching endgame positions on the larger maps, but the difference in speed with TA is really noticable (hot damn, way to go, crank it up, bring on the immense map, we're going to kick some alien butt tonight). I finished a default size map in a couple of hours, as opposed to a day or two or three (the wife gets a little testy if I don't come to bed once in a while, it's a pregnant thing), so I'm seeing the changes a way of making an already above average game an excellent one.

Well, I don't trust mothererboard RAID yet: I tried it once, and the controller failed. Despite the dual harddrives, the controller is still a single point of failure - and one that doesn't appear to be very reliable.

Even worse, when a RAID controller fails it's a pain to get the data back because the hard drives are written in a special format an OS can't read. These days I stick with regular backups.

Anyways, glad to hear that TA is working well for you . Stardock is really trying to cut way back on memory usage - they are starting to hit the limits of what current 32 bit technology is capable of.

Silicon chips will eventually hit the roof, a point where the transistors become so small that they can no longer conduct electricity efficiently. After that, it's graphene carbon nanochips for another half-century or more and eventually, quantum computers.

Until then, Moore's Law holds true. But Gates' Law holds true even more - while hardware gets faster, software gets slower(sloppy code, featuritis), and the work gets done no faster.

It's nothing to do with sloppy coding, barring the relatively new OS to get to grips with. It's simply that the game market (at least the traditional high graphics stuff like FPS's) has moved away from graphics as the demanding feature (you can thank the consoles for that). To bring up your example; COD4 is still the same old segmented shooter of old, while Crysis is attempting to simulate a couple of square miles simultaneously. It's not the graphics slowing the system down, it's the physics, the AI and simply having the entire area loaded into the system at once rather than being able to feed gradual segments through.
I've got two boxes at home, one with a quad core 2.6Ghz Intel, one with a 3.0Ghz Dual Core. Both can run Crysis at maximum graphics settings with near identical performance (40-50 FPS). Try turning physics up to full on the dual core and it becomes a slideshow (6 - 8 FPS, dropping to 1 FPS if anything moves), while the quad core sees around a 6 - 7 FPS drop maximum. The Quad has a Geforce 8800GTX, while the Dual has a 7900GT. Something tells me it isn't the difference in cards causing the slowdown there