My pc is getting close to 12 years old Wana talk to a pc expert on how to get a future proofed pc

[xfgevilhomer91]

I'm thinking its time I switch over heavily to pc gaming but well I'm not great with hardware and I Wana talk with someone who actually knows about hardware configurations and such so I can pick the best pc for my next 10 year needs.

[CJM]

Originally posted by C1REX:

AMD makes big improvements in CPU performance.

For how long? The first indicator was with IBM in 2004, we're two decades into the "endgame".

Originally posted by C1REX:

NVIDIA makes insane improvements in GPU performance.

RTX 4090's require special power connectors, might burn down your house, and future cards might not run on a stock 15 amp breaker.

Originally posted by C1REX:

It’s hard to build a $800 PC today to run FF16 and what about running ps6 ports?

Square has a skill issue, per MIT.

PlayStation 6 ports? You don't even know if the PlayStation 6 have a larger install base than the PlayStation 5, much less if it can achieve better performance than the PlayStation 5 Pro.

The PlayStation 6 could be a PlayStation 4 rehash, and the PS6 Pro could be just a PS5 Pro.

[Tonepoet]

Despite what marketeers try to tell us, Moore's law isn't dead. The number of microtransistors has more or less doubled within roughly two years in fairly linear fashion at least up to 2021[ourworldindata.org], which is a full 50 years since its inception.

This chart going up to 2018 is particularly useful since it shows us points where processors landed compared to a red line of the prediction[medium.com]. It was never quite a perfect guideline, but it does match up quite nicely.

James R. Powell predicts that the law will be obsolete by 2036[builtin.com] which is incidentally the target year of operation if xfgevilhomer wants to try and run the P.C. for another 12 years.

Moore's law will inevitably come to an end. You can only make a transistor so small before we reach the limits of the laws of physics, but let's not call it early.

Originally posted by C1REX:

Not possible for any PC bought today to run AAA games released in 2036 at 1080p/60.

No PC bought in 2012 can run modern games like Final Fantasy 16 or BlackMyth Wukong. Not even the top tier GTX 680 from 12y ago.

Eeh, a 680 might be able to pull off Black Myth Wukong at 1080p 30 F.P.S., since a 680 is roughly equivalent to a 1060. The V.R.A.M. could be a pretty major problem though The bigger problem is the C.P.U. Minimum req. is 8400, so I probably wouldn't try it with anything older than an i5 6600 going by the one generation back one tier up rule of thumb (I'd guess a 8400, a 7500, and a 6600 would all perform similarly).

I don't doubt a 12 year old P.C. could still be decently usable by some metric, though again that's baring in mind that it's not a very cost-effective way to plot out an upgrade path.

Originally posted by r.linder:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/nkvxrM

Futureproofing doesn't exist, what makes a configuration last a longer time is your own unchanging standards, if you only play older games then a system in your budget could handle 1080p 60fps for easily another 10+ years until the hardware inevitably fails altogether and has to be fixed or replaced

I think there's more to it than that. If the system is say using say a 3770k and a GTX 680 then I really wouldn't be too surprised if it kept on trucking with more recent games at playable framerates up until now. This person reports 1080p 30 in Elden Ring and pegs it as somewhere between 1050 and 1050 ti.

Palworld will run on a 3570k and a GTX 1050 so it's possible that as the card aged that Xfgevilhomer's standards for relative fidelity and frame-rates were gradually walked down from say 60 F.P.S. down to 30.

If you keep the same card each year is going to see diminishing perf. and you could be gradually walked down on your frame rate and fidelity standards until the games really are utterly unplayable, rather than just "unplayable", or if not that at least until you hit your tolerance floor.

Kind of like a frog boiling in a pot[cantusmori.itch.io], so to speak.

There isn't really much of a reason to upgrade so long as you're satisfied with your perf. threshold, but it's not the ideal design goal. It's more something you take advantage of by accident if it turns out you really aren't feeling the need to follow the intended upgrade path once you reach the anticipated end of the system's lifespan.

Originally posted by CJM:

A 7800X3D might last 'til the cows come home, or it may be possible to replace the CPU with something on AM5 that will work. I'd probably avoid Intel CPUs at current, given the voltage issues the 13th and 14th gen CPUs have had.

At current prices a 7800x3D is a pretty bad value. It's around $458 right now. The M.S.R.P. of the 9800x3D is only about $22 more and it's a way better chip. Only reason to spend $458 on a 7800x3D at this point is if you're desperate for availability 'cause scalpers bought up all of the initial stock of the 9800x3d[www.windowscentral.com].

However, unlike the 2019 to 2022 period, we aren't suffering from plague era travel restrictions right now, so I anticipate production will catch up with the scalpers sooner rather than later and 7800x3D can't sustain its price for very long once the 9800x3D comes back in stock, and even if it takes some time to come back down in price you'd really rather nab the 9800x3D at that price point.

The 9800x3D would also stand the best chance at lasting the longest anyway since it's the strongest gaming chip on the market, and also possibly about as powerful as the 9700x at other tasks, and unlike prior v-cache chips it is fully unlocked for overclocking so you can push the perf. even further once it starts looking long in the tooth.

The 9800x3D is possibly the only one of the new batch of chips really worth buying for gamers, if you can get it at M.S.R.P. Otherwise I'd be looking at lower end Zen 4, Zen 3 and Alder Lake parts for better value components.

[C1REX]

Originally posted by Tonepoet:

Eeh, a 680 might be able to pull off Black Myth Wukong at 1080p 30 F.P.S., since a 680 is roughly equivalent to a 1060. The V.R.A.M. could be a pretty major problem though The bigger problem is the C.P.U. Minimum req. is 8400, so I probably wouldn't try it with anything older than an i5 6600 going by the one generation back one tier up rule of thumb (I'd guess a 8400, a 7500, and a 6600 would all perform similarly).

I agree to an extent.
You can make some new games to barely run on a 12y old PC. But how viable is to buy a top tier now to play at 30fps low settings in 12y? How likely a $800 PC will last 12y?
Plus we don’t know what future games will require.
PS6 may have a small uplift in GPU performance but may double VRAM again to 32GB. GDDR8 maybe?
Or Nvidia may revolutionise PC gaming by introducing some new AI features that only newer cards can handle.
6 generations of GPUs and CPUs is a long time.

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by Tonepoet:

Despite what marketeers try to tell us, Moore's law isn't dead. The number of microtransistors has more or less doubled within roughly two years in fairly linear fashion at least up to 2021[ourworldindata.org], which is a full 50 years since its inception.

This chart going up to 2018 is particularly useful since it shows us points where processors landed compared to a red line of the prediction[medium.com]. It was never quite a perfect guideline, but it does match up quite nicely.

Moore's law will inevitably come to an end. You can only make a transistor so small before we reach the limits of the laws of physics, but let's not call it early.

Moore's law may still be doing its thing, but transistor count and performance aren't proportional, especially if you're talking about CPUs. Much of their performance is now tied up as "potential performance" that only exists for workloads where performance scales proportional to core count, and that's not the norm. Once Denard scaling broke down around the mid 2000s, increases in "effective performance" slowed down a lot for CPUs. GPUs somewhat avoided this since adding more cores helps them "by default" since GPU workloads are far more parallel.

Performance has still increased a number times over since that broke down (and that's even ignoring additional cores), but "a number of times over" is still a far cry from "orders of magnitude" in a similar time period before it broke down. And where that will go over the next decade or two, especially if node shrinks start slowing down, is anyone's guess.

Progress in regards to performance isn't dead yet (with CPUs, the last five years may have even seen more growth than the five years before that?), but transistor count has become less and less of a good of a measure of performance progress a long time ago.

If we look at the last many years in particular, there are concerning signs in my opinion. A lot of the performance increases seem to be coming from throwing more wattage at the problem, and also from making costlier chips (GPUs, namely). If that's not a sign of slowing growth, I don't know what is. If you include price into the picture (as opposed to looking at performance on its own), the slowdown seems even more pronounced.

[Ontrix_Kitsune]

Originally posted by Rumpelcrutchskin:

90% of stuff said in this thread is completely irrelevant to OP due to him having only $800 budget.

This is following along with what I said above: Asking the steam forums for advice on a computer build is like talking to plants and expecting an intelligent answer.

[Freqsync]

OS systems are what this forum is for. Not a lawyer board of yes-men and whoa-no.

Compare camera with a 4000x3000 resolution on a 1080p to 4k screen. Without a GPU. Just CPU,

Would take several Motherboards to handle that experiment.

Now you have that .

Put a GPU and compare on Monitors not TVs that can handle resolutions of lower

That is for the same picture JUST A PICTURE.

Now you want it for video which means how files are read,
The computer expert just spent 50,000 on school, during which acquired perhaps 50,000 in debt and possible 50,000 in tech and has to spend 50,000 to house.

Steam is your best bet for that to happen to you is what 90% are trying to have happen.

Motherbaord with ddr 5 and a much needed multicore of 16+???GO back to the beginning and just work your way up and start with usb OS ... and forget about what we know and they know and find out. the picture that was taken with a black and white digital camera shown through a 16k apple monitor is still black and white picture.

[ChickenBalls]

if you want to "future proof" your pc
you should wait until next year when the rtx 50 series will be released
while at it why not wait another 2 years for the rtx 60 series and the next AMD X3D cpu....
oh wait they will also be outdated in a few years just wait for rtx 7090 mkay?

[Guydodge]

educate yourself watch youtube vids on building and picking parts..you really dont
want to build someone else's pc.theres a ton of info out there.this guy will walk you thru
it all.with this vid and many more hes done.i prefer intel and nvidia for stability and compatibility reasons as AMD can be finicky but again its all in choice.. good luck


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYqhlRd1oCA&t=710s

[hypercybermegatron]

Originally posted by xfgevilhomer91:

I'm thinking its time I switch over heavily to pc gaming but well I'm not great with hardware and I Wana talk with someone who actually knows about hardware configurations and such so I can pick the best pc for my next 10 year needs.

Am5 motherboard is a good start.

[C1REX]

Originally posted by Guydodge:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYqhlRd1oCA&t=710s

+1 to the YT channel recommendation.
Really good place to help get the best value (max performance per dollar) pc parts.