Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
A lot of the extra potential that is there in modern CPUs is increasingly being attributed to the extra cores and threads, as "traditional" advancements have greatly slowed, and extra cores isn't something that software benefits from "by default" like a higher frequency or other architectural changes, but only if it is written to take advantage of them. This is why my decade old Core i5 2500K was still getting by just fine until I moved from it. Besides the extras cores and threads of stuff newer (which itself didn't start occurring until recently), from most things I've seen, the fastest CPUs are only recently approaching reaching the point of being a mere two times faster (core for core) than that almost a decade old platform.
Additionally, like with most things, returns diminish the higher you go. Eventually just putting more and more cores will become less and less feasible (stuff that parallelizes linearly will almost always see worthwhile gains, but general software and games are not under this category).
By the way, I like your older example specifically because the Core 2, in my mind, for a long time (and honestly still does?) represents such a good baseline for what's good enough for base PC/OS performance a lot of the time. I still use one in an HTPC for basic web use and streaming and it's no different for that sort of use than something modern really. My laptop many generations newer (Haswell) has like half the IPS of a the higher end desktop Core 2 (largely due to the laptop CPU being clocked so low) and even something like that was and still is fine for basic use. So yeah it's definitely true that what we've needed hasn't grown with hardware.
But what the future holds is anyone's guess. Three to five decades on is a long time. Old rule applies here; use something until it's no longer feasible. Whether that's two years, five years, eight years, twelve years, or twenty-five years, if it works then it works, but attempting to make it last some predetermined amount of time is rather meaningless.
I am not 100% sure it is the ssd, but considering the logs - it seems likely.
Warranty according to Samsung is "MZ-V6P512 (512 GB) 5 Years or 400 TBW" - pretty sure it wouldn't have anywhere near 400 TBW (probably has under 10 TBW). It also has a heat spreader, is in a <50% RH room, is rarely actually written to (apart from whatever windows does to it)
[edit] It has 854.8GB Total Bytes Written during it's life
Doesn't sound like that drive gets used that hard, but the benchmarks I've seen often show NVMe heat spreaders really don't do anything or can actually be worse than having the bare naked drive. You mostly have to write tons of big files on them though to test that kind of stuff, so it's probably not relevant to you.
You definetly should see about monitoring the temperature As Illusion of progress mentioned. maybe a fan isnt pushing air like it should?
also , temperatures for most NVME drives are less of an issue for the nand cells , they actually prefer hotter operating temperatures. (if not bonkers high ofc.)
I feel like some of these still widely played games today will retain a large enough playerbase well into 50 years to still be able to get into a game and while there will be improvements and changes most definitely I feel that a computer built today with decent specs will still be able to run it 50 years from now.. the question is will the hardware survive.
Cool experiment or idea maybe.
As Snakub Plissken mentioned, if you just want to do something as it is, if you have that right software and hardware combination, you are just set. It is just there. It might not "last" as a primary, functional PC if you need it to remain updated and connected to modern services or the web, but it will still work just fine as a snapshot of that time on it's own as long as the hardware lives.
But this is out the window for online games once you start talking decades. Yes, some popular games have retained active commingles for years, but we haven't yet reached a point to say whether they will stand the test of three to five decades (and even if outliers do, expecting it of the whole is entirely different).
Beyond the fact of the community staying active is that these will still need to connect to modern services and receive updates. World of Warcraft in 2021 needs more than it did in the early 2000s. In the case of something like Steam and games that use it, as those you've listed, look at the hardware requirements of some games from the earlier years of Steam (think original Half Life and the like). A system that ran it back then probably won't (natively and as well anyway) today. Why? In effect, the real minimum requirements can't be any lower than what Steam itself also needs, which is likely to grow with time.
Will a PC from today work in 50 years? Yeah (presuming no hardware failure). Will it handle the needs of those times? Way too far off to guess. If we were continue current trajectory I'd actually say a top of the line (and loaded with RAM) PC might work fine for basic use by then (but possibly lagging on media heavy stuff if the web gets more demanding due to a low powered CPU), but not for games. And, that is only looking at hardware capability and ignoring things of today will have long lost support and not meet standards of tomorrow. And, again, this also assumes current trajectory, which is somewhat slowed this last decade. A potential breakthrough in the next 50 years changes this all.
Like just this year I got hooked on tribes of midgard not high in requirements but definitely needs something made in the past decade.
And just now a game called Sable has caught my eye as something I might try once it goes in a bundle or sale.
World of Warcraft is a good example.
A top end pc built in 2004 when the game first came out would maybe struggle to even play the current game now in 2021 using the same specs it might just run but barely.
Damn; is my PC doing something wrong then?
I've had my NVME for 18 months and Samsung Magician says I've written 14TB already.
But I don't download much...
ssd life span is more about crib death and amount written than it is about time.
you are likely looking at about 1 petabyte before problems will arise, but I would consider an upgrade/mirror the ssd to something new at the 500tb mark.