The 10 year plan computer

[Nathaaab]

One of the prevailing bits of advice I’m reading is to change my tactics to keeping the same platform but upgrade the cpu/gpu over the 10 years. This would allow for high end but not flagship graphics now (such as 4080 level) and upper mainstream cpu such as 7800x3d or similar.

That's also what I would do if you really want to stay on the same platform. In that case you should definetely wait and see what Arrow Lake brings and decide what's best for you then.

 

[Chrispy_]

In terms of longevity, it's FOUR generations (Zen, Zen+, Zen 2, Zen 3 account for the same four in AM4) but the reception had been drastically different. And LGA1151 faded away a while ago already, whereas AM4 has all the potential to survive for a couple years more.

AM4 is a league of its own. Ridiculously versatile platform. AM5 will have a hard time beating that.

Don't think of it as generations, think of it as years. I've upgraded a few B350 boards from 2017 to 5000-series, and AMD is still dropping new AM4 chips 7 years later.

Intel changes platform about every two years. Sometimes three, sometimes just one. It's never been anywhere close to 7 years.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

It's never been anywhere close to 7 years.

Because Intel don't produce 1st generation Ryzen alikes and targets different people with different approach. Despite extremely high multi-threaded performance, earliest Ryzens were meh in all other regards.
It's also uncommon to upgrade your CPU (given it's not lower tier) earlier than in 5 years after the purchase. Say, I bought an i7-8700 in late 2017. By late 2024, same seven years after, it's still a reasonable gaming CPU. Yeah, those who bought a Ryzen 1700 don't need to change their mobo to slot a 5800X3D in but it's not that big of a deal. Getting a brand new setup with a 7800X3D is a higher probability event.

Those who care about life cycles the most are hardcore enthusiasts, itchy fingers, cheapskates, you name it. You also don't account the fact the new motherboards support things that didn't exist back then. A guy upgrades from Ryzen 1700 to 5700X3D and gets a cost efficient upgrade. Another guy upgrades to Ryzen 7600X and also obtains a motherboard with USB4, more NVMe slots, faster Ethernet. Nice, isn't it?

So I'd rather take this metric with a grain of salt. Too many IFs and BUTs.

 

[#22]

Some people don't have acute vision and don't really tell 1080p and 4K apart. These ones need ridiculously high refresh 1080p rather than 4K. One of my friends is exactly that.

That's an example of exception To me going from <23" 1920x1080 to 35" 3440x1440 was like saying goodbye to aliasing almost totally. Especially given that we are in upscaling era which also serves as antialiasing technique, but using it in 1080p looks crap.

My general point of whole post was imo just everything other matters more than performance and I think so from my own experience.

 

[Beginner Macro Device]

everything other matters more than performance

Unless you're a competitive gamer and/or productivity engineer. Losing games because of spike lags and losing money because your 3D model hasn't been rendered fast enough sucks.

This whole thing depends on personal needs. What fits you might be a nightmare for your neighbour.

 

[#22]

Unless you're a competitive gamer and/or productivity engineer. Losing games because of spike lags and losing money because your 3D model hasn't been rendered fast enough sucks.

This whole thing depends on personal needs. What fits you might be a nightmare for your neighbour.

My general point of whole post was imo just everything other matters more than performance and I think so from my own experience.

I was clearly saying it's my opinion ("imo"), so with cutting it off you lost context. Know that I'm conscious of people thinking differently than me existing

 

[dgianstefani]

That's an example of exception To me going from <23" 1920x1080 to 35" 3440x1440 was like saying goodbye to aliasing almost totally. Especially given that we are in upscaling era which also serves as antialiasing technique, but using it in 1080p looks crap.

My general point of whole post was imo just everything other matters more than performance and I think so from my own experience.

Uh what?

Performance is literally the main reason to play on PC. If I want a 30FPS "4K" experience with poor performing controllers and horrific system latency, I'll play on a console.

<23" 1920x1080 to 35" 3440x1440

These two are quite similar pixel densities.

95.78 to 106 pixel density.

 

[#22]

Uh what?

Performance is literally the main reason to play on PC. If I want a 30FPS "4K" experience with poor performing controllers and horrific system latency, I'll play on a console.

Don't use extremes like low fps or latency as points, because it's just bad I was clearly like prefering lowering details or be fine with 60 fps, 4070 TiS experience, but using nice peripherals than using 4090 with garbage.

<23" 1920x1080 to 35" 3440x1440

These two are quite similar pixel densities.

95.78 to 106 pixel density.

Generally everything is quite similar what once again makes it weak point