How excited do you get about hardware these days?

[dspguy]

Not at all excited.

I used to build gaming PCs relatively often. I built on in 2010 for a game that had high-end requirements. I barely had to swap out anything from that PC over 7 years. There was nothing I wanted to do that the PC couldn't do. So, I lost track of PC parts and what the latest technologies were. I simply didn't need them.

That PC died sometime early this year. Given the nature of how it died, I wasn't sure which part was faulty. I replaced some cheaper parts first, but when smoke rises from the case, you know its bad. I built another PC - an upgrade for me, but not high-end since I simply don't need anything with that much power.

I still play some games at times so I had to get something with a little horsepower, but I didn't really care about the latest Nvidia or Radeon cards or anything. When the OP posted:

I7 3770K rig back in 2013. 32 GB RAM. SSD. Added an 850 Pro and GTX 960 to it.

I can't say how much better an I7 is from an I5. I don't know how much RAM I really need (I went with 16). I did get an SSD, but there were a few different types and I didn't care to research the difference. And the video card models are just numbers. I have nothing to compare it to.

I'm supposed to build a PC for my son. He doesn't need a high end gaming machine or anything (yet!) but I don't even know where to start. I guess I just don't care anymore about PC parts and what's the latest and greatest.

[Malloric]

As far as desktops, not that. Laptops are more interesting. The increase in efficiency is more relevant there, so you can stuff hardware into stuff that previously was the size and weight of anatomy text book and sounded like a leaf blower. Went with a laptop instead, may still rebuild my gaming machine later but it's pretty nice having something that's reasonably thin, 4 pounds, and has about the same performance as my gaming desktop. Nothing crazy, just a 1060, but that's enough to run any AAA game at reasonable settings although it's not a gaming laptop so no high refresh rate or g-sync, which is fine. I can leave my power brick at home unless I'll be doing heavier things that actually use the GPU and CPU more heavily and get a comfortable 8-10 hours.

[bigbear99]

Laptops? Yes, that's where the innovation has been taking place, but even there, things seem to have plateaued in the last 5-6 years as thin and light have become commonplace. Battery life does seem to go up with each Intel tick, doesn't it?

I must say, though, that the cheap big screen (but heavy) laptops are often great deals, even if you need your charging brick most of the time.

[Malloric]

Depends.

800 series was what really made gaming laptops possible, although lousy.
900 made them viable but compromised (limited to large laptops, large loss in performance over a desktop equivelant).
1000 series they're close in performance. The largest trade-off is they're more expensive.

Even two years ago you'd never see anything close to desktop equivalent performance in a 4-5 pound laptop that can also go an easy 8-10 hours unplugged. You still won't see that with a full 1070 or 1080. Maybe in the 1100 series. Next big jump there is something that can actually game unplugged. Still can't do that. In potato mode I can get an hour or two, but it's potato mode. Best not to speak about value on what you get for something that can though. It's atrocious, but there's really only two companies making 4-5 pound 1060/MaxQ 1070 laptops that do have good screens and have great battery life. Hopefully that changes.

[sholomar]

I built a Coffee Lake 8700K system as an "excuse" to exercise my upgrade bug and satisfy my hobby by using the excuse that my nephew's computer was slow and that he needed an upgrade so I gave him my sandy bridge system I built in 2011 for christmas.

Part of me wishes I'd have waited for the 8 core coffee lake part or even went with AMD, since I get tired of Intel requiring new motherboards for every CPU generation and the new ryzen 8 core part is a pretty nice part especially for only being $320. What's done is done and I have it running at 4.9 GHZ and a voltage low enough that this system should last me another 5-7 years. I'm grateful AMD is finally stepping up to the plate again otherwise it would be another 5 years of Intel releasing 4 core mainstream parts. Competition is good. It benefits both companies and all of us in the end, pushing the envelope of where the tech can get us. I'm looking forward to when we hit the limits of silicon going sub 7nm and the "next big thing" comes around, as much as I'm looking forward to widespread 5G adoption and a totally connected society.

I wish I was a newborn right now.. the next 50-100 years are going to be exciting technologically for our civilization.

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by davebarnes

Not at all excited.
When I bought my first Windows machine in 1997, Intel processors were doubling in speed every 18-24 months. So, I bought and/or built a new machine fairly often. Building was fun. I also built some for friends.
Then, in 2005, I switched back to the Mac. Got excited about form factors, speed, screens, etc. Bought new machines every 2.5 years.
But, for the last 5 years, not much has happened, from my perspective, so now I buy a new machine every 5 years.

That's basically where I've been. Although I really like this iMac, it wasn't worth the $2,000 over the other computer, provided the other machine had some life left.

[mshultz]

When I bought a 486 in 1993, hardware changes made a big difference. Adding a 5 /14" drive for backward compatibility, adding a CD player, a sound card, a 2400 modem, etc.

When booting up Windows NT4 in SOS mode, you could almost read the drivers as they loaded. My last few changes have made no noticeable improvements in speed. In fact, I have downgraded my CPU and video card in favor of saving energy. My Intel Ivy Bridge 4 core processor and Nvidia 710 graphics card are several generations old now. Since I do not play games, newer hardware and software are not needed.