Futureproof Motherboards

[temps]

I have heard some people claim this is a bad time to build a PC because the current PC motherboards will no longer be supported by future graphics cards or CPUs people may want to upgrade to because people say motherboard technology will likely go to AM5 and dump AM4 when DDR5 RAM becomes available, or something like that. (Meaning that a motherboard upgrade will soon be required to upgrade important PC components).

What do you guys think?

====================================

EDIT: To clarify, when I talked about future-proofing a PC build, I am referring to the attempt to ensure I get a CPU/motherboard combination that will last for several years into the future by means of being compatible with future CPU/GPU upgrades.

Ideally I am hoping to simply upgrade the GPU in several years, and not need to upgrade anything else to prolong the gaming life of the PC. If needed, I hope to be ABLE to upgrade the CPU without having to upgrade the entire motherboard and reconnect everything. (This is what I was talking about when I mentioned future-proofing).

The GPU doesn't need to be "future-proof" for purposes of this discussion because imo GPUs are relatively easy to upgrade compared to the motherboard.

EDIT 2: Some seem upset over the use of the word "futureproof." To clarify -- what I mean by that is essentially simply a prolonged (but not indefinite) state of motherboard compatibility with future CPU/GPU upgrades, not the idea that some particular PC component can last forever if you spend more.

[Jelly Donut]

Escrito originalmente por 🌈Cloud Boy🌈:

Yes, i agree that there is no guarantee. But there is a possibility that it will happens again. And the possibility that it will happen again, is greater than Not happening. Because i see no reason why the game developers will raise their game's system requirements all of a sudden.

You agreeing does not mean you go around threads, shooting down other people's opinions and answers, calling info provided fake or talk as if you are the god of tech knowledge that only you can provide an answer and no one else can.

Also, Game Developer's system requirements tell only one side of the story. When they specify "recommended specifications", it can also mean the game running on that spec, without anything else in the background. I can give a prime example, Call of Duty WarZone, despite having a recommended CPU of an i5-2500K, my workplace's i5-7400 (which is about 5% better than the 2500K but with DDR4 ram), still struggled to maintain a smooth experience and that's just with the game running only with little to no background programs. I run Discord or open even chrome, it starts stuttering all of a sudden, even in Valorant too.

Or better still, despite me having a very high end PC (9900K, 32GB ram, RTX 2080 Ti), pinning a game like Fortnite to the maximum possible FPS with DLSS caused the game to stutter, although my CPU and GPU load weren't even at 100%. It goes to show Epic Games did not optimize the game well to run at that specs and FPS.

The devil is in the details, just like how ram usage, despite WarZone recommending 16GB, actually is 24GB in committed memory with 10GB of it being standby or virtual memory on the pagefile.

[plat]

Assuming you have purchased a top-of-the-line motherboard (or cpu, etc), how long is "future-proof" supposed to be applicable for? Two years? A month? "Future" means sometime ahead of right now. It's extremely vague, but it sure doesn't mean "indefinitely."

If you really think about it, the term is actually meaningless. It also depends on how you define this term yourself.

This is what I hate about marketing: it can brainwash you into believing your hardware isn't "good" enough anymore after months or one year. But for that year, wow, your stuff sure was "future-proof."

[Autumn_]

Escrito originalmente por 🌈Cloud Boy🌈:

Okay, you are saying that Future-proofing does not exist. Very good.

Then answer me this, How come those those who bought GPUs like GTX 1080Ti (as commented above) 5 years ago, are still gaming totally fine 1440p 100+fps, still totally satisfied by the performance. I can see it easily lasting 7+ years (5 years + 2 years in the future), if not more.
How is that happening?

Thanks.

It's a good card, great for its generation, like I've said before.

But again, it's not going to last forever, so it can't be futureproof.
I don't know why you think it does.

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por 🌈Cloud Boy🌈:

How is that happening?

You seems prefer to ignore answers

Indeed he does.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

Escrito originalmente por Autumn_:

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

You seems prefer to ignore answers

Indeed he does.

I did not ignored his answer.
Comment #105

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

@ Autumn

And it appears that you again applied your ''dictionary word meaning'' tactics, to write something against your opponents. Exactly as i have mentioned in Comment #68. (exactly).

[Illusion of Progress]

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Personally, I never heard this "eight cores will be needed soon" seven years ago.

It was common point that time. Owners of AMD FX-8xxx/9xxx CPUs told "wait for the new consoles, our chips will become much better than Intel in games" nearly every day.

Guess I didn't notice it much, or when I did see it here and there, I chalked it up for what I saw it as. People trying to justify their own purchases is a bit different than more objectively looking at trends.

Things were way different than now. I absolutely can't see the future so I won't try and predict 8 cores will be needed in X years or that new consoles will make them mandatory, as it's not my intent (nor is it necessarily what I think either), but only to say that the "consoles didn't do it then so it's proof it won't happen now" isn't necessarily applicable either. That's overlooking some key differences I mentioned in my prior post.

By the way, those FX CPUs weren't even 8 fully fledged core CPUs anyway. What is it with FX and bringing bad luck a lot? Remember the GeForce FX (5) series?

[InfinityJosh]

Escrito originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Escrito originalmente por vadim:

It was common point that time. Owners of AMD FX-8xxx/9xxx CPUs told "wait for the new consoles, our chips will become much better than Intel in games" nearly every day.

Guess I didn't notice it much, or when I did see it here and there, I chalked it up for what I saw it as. People trying to justify their own purchases is a bit different than more objectively looking at trends.

Things were way different than now. I absolutely can't see the future so I won't try and predict 8 cores will be needed in X years or that new consoles will make them mandatory, as it's not my intent (nor is it necessarily what I think either), but only to say that the "consoles didn't do it then so it's proof it won't happen now" isn't necessarily applicable either. That's overlooking some key differences I mentioned in my prior post.

By the way, those FX CPUs weren't even 8 fully fledged core CPUs anyway. What is it with FX and bringing bad luck a lot? Remember the GeForce FX (5) series?

I had a FX5600, great GPU for the time.

[Illusion of Progress]

Not sure I'd call it a great GPU at the time, with the FX being nVidia's worst GPU generation by far, but if you personally found enjoyment with it, that's all that matters.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

Was digging for the meaning of the word ''future-proof'' in the dictionary. Future-proof does not mean FOREVER. It has a separate meaning when it comes to Computing Hardware or Software. Here, According to the Cambridge Dictionary, Future-proof means-

''to design software, a computer, etc. so that it can still be used in the future, even when technology changes:''.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/future-proof

[Jamebonds1]

Here is deal.

https://linustechtips.com/topic/345641-future-proofing-doesnt-exist/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/how-to-plan-for-technology-future-koenig-elsayed-ali/

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/275890-why-you-cant-future-proof-your-gaming-pc

I have been here for quite a while as I can remember. Most members claimed a few older GPU is a future-proof which I do not believe it is.

Also, Cambridge misinterpreted.

It is definition for British word, but I will post it anyway.

(Of a product) unlikely to become obsolete - not true for PC, my GTX 680 have been obsoleted, so is GTX 10XX.

[r.linder]

Pascal isn't obsolete yet in terms of raw performance (depending on what you're playing; anything below the 1070 may be unsuitable), but if you're interested in raytracing, it's instantly obsolete.

Ampere brought big gains to RT performance, and AMD's own RT with RDNA2 has upped the popularity of RT. It's inevitable that RT will replace rasterisation completely at some point, and when that happens, ALL video cards that can't keep up will be rendered obsolete for modern gaming.

[Autumn_]

Escrito originalmente por 🌈Cloud Boy🌈:

Was digging for the meaning of the word ''future-proof'' in the dictionary. Future-proof does not mean FOREVER. It has a separate meaning when it comes to Computing Hardware or Software. Here, According to the Cambridge Dictionary, Future-proof means-

''to design software, a computer, etc. so that it can still be used in the future, even when technology changes:''.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/future-proof

And technology change is constant.
So you cant have a piece of hardware that will last you until hardware stops progressing (unlikey to ever happen.)

I don't get what's so hard to understand about this, lmao.

[plat]

"Obsolete" is so NOT synonymous with "incapable" or "no longer relevant."

Many, myself included, have older hardware that runs just fine, thanks. I definitely got my money's worth out of my almost 5 five year old 1080 FE and feel no shame about running it until I can replace it at my convenience.

How many people felt shame and and envy and discarded perfectly good hardware because of this "future-proof" jazz? I think the best is yet to come game-wise as ray-tracing is still more of a concept and less of a reality right now.

Intel and its "future-proof" motherboards every two years, don't get me started...

Edit to add: OP--temps, did you ever think your post would ignite such a lively debate and conversation? Pretty amazing--I gleaned some things from the posts here, for sure.

[Jamebonds1]

Escrito originalmente por plat:

"Obsolete" is so NOT synonymous with "incapable" or "no longer relevant."

Of course not.

[InfinityJosh]

There’s a component we should everyone consider the most important for gaming PCs lifespan: the CPU.
A strong CPU will support any future GPU without any bottleneck allowing the owner to just put money on a singular component down the road if newest games become more demanding: the GPU.
If you save on CPU you will regret, the CPU upgrade will involve also MB and probably new generation RAM.
I myself would always go for a high end i7 processor since it will allow me to replace only the GPU in 3/4 years, the system will last at least 8 years at high levels.