06-04-2003, 03:56 PM
Had this question been asked (indeed, it has been, more times than I can count) about 2 years ago, or even 1 year ago, you would have seen at least a couple PII's and PIII's, ranging from 233 MHz, to 1.0 GHz.
The computer industry changes just about ever 6 months, with a huge leap forward. Normally, progress in such leaps and bounds is made over a number of years, not months, and as such other products (like cars) tend to be around for FAR longer. They do what we need them to do, and have almost all the "features" that newer products have, without being disadvantageous enough (or expensive enough) to force us into the next realm, the next generation. Computer products do not follow this mode. When the product practically doubles every 6 months, the shelf life of any given product will last a mere few years, rather than a decade or more. There will, of course, always be exceptions to this (intactibility notwithstanding), but those exceptions are far fewer, and farther inbetween, than in other markets.
Take someone who had that old 250 MHz PII clunker. Hell, let's go a bit further. A PII 450 MHz. Up until a year or two ago, that system would have handled just about anything on the market. It might not have run everything so smoothly, but with enough RAM and a good video card (which can be bought in small increments, as opposed to the hefty investment of a complete system overhaul / replacement), it would get you by quite nicely. Now look at what's on the market today: most products (in terms of games, since that is the market being discussed in this thread: gaming and its corresponding machines) run at a bare minimum of around 800 MHz or so. Some still quote as low as 500 MHz (Morrowind, for example), but most tend to be within the 600 - 800 range. Very high compared to our old clunker of a computer, but what about compared to the hardware available on the market? It seems like only yesterday we had breeched the MHz / GHz line, and now just a ways back we were already talking about hitting 3.0 GHz and up. Compared to what's available on the market, the system reqs for computer gaming has actually, percentage-wise, DECREASED in comparison to the previous generation. Rapidly ever-increasing hardware power is actually outrunning the increasing need for said power, and thus the need for high-end systems gets set down a notch. Now, that is actually in direct contrast to the point I am making, and in direct line with your questioning, so I will address that.
Those people with the old 450 MHz clunker have been able to get by with it, without much suffering (if any at all) up until just a year or two ago. By that point, though, the need for an upgrade took a step up, into the realm of pushing the consumer to purchase. Since the need always preceeds, and in greater amount, the fulfillment of that need, this combined with the fast-paced climb in hardware performance makes it increasingly LESS expensive to make that upgrade. Thus what once was, and would only have been, a jump from 450 MHz to 800 MHz or so, is now a jump from 450 MHz to 1.5 GHz, for the same money (or even less), and because it's actually HARDER to get anything less, and the cost / reward ratio is not high enough to be beneficial over the higher-end hardware. In other words, what it once cost you to double in power a year or two ago, it now costs the same (or less) to triple, or even quadruple your power. Therefore, it's not so much a NEED for that high of a power (truly, we CAN do with less, even if performance does suffer slightly; we CAN get by with the minimal graphical detail, and play games quite well on low-end systems, even though we generally prefer the fancier graphics available to us on higher-end systems), but that it is so ABUNDANT, so massively CHEAP, that when it comes time to make that jump, the leap is that much greater. The HARDWARE industry moves so fast that upgrades are becoming (again, percentage-wise in terms of gain) ever greater, wider, and less costly.
To sum it up: 1.5+ GHz may sound like a lot. Indeed, it IS alot compared to the stated "need" on the games we play (we won't go into the "actual" need, as the "stated" need is more often than not closer to the truth than what we claim; despite how it usually does fall just a little short). But compared to what is on the market now? Compared to the cost / reward ratio of what is available, and furthermore, what is coming out in the near future? It is actually QUITE small. One quick scan of this thread will show you that most people have systems with over 2 GHz worth of power. Two years ago, that was barely on the horizon, let alone part of the mass-market. I, myself, am only running a 1.6 GHz machine, and even I feel inadequate compared to others. It runs all my games just fine, but then, so did my PIII 850 before I got this one (it has some minor trouble with the new games, but only when I tried to push its limits; I can run every single game that I own on that machine, without question nor incident). And yet, look at my machine compared to others here. A year ago, this was in the low-end of the top machines on the market. Breeching the 1.5 GHz mark was pushing you into the higher realms of hardware. And now? It's barely a memory! I will undoubtedly keep this machine, as my main machine, for several more years, simply because it will take that long before the need to upgrade outweighs the cost of doing so. But when I finally do so? What will I end up getting? Probably something in the 3.0+ GHz range. Why so much? Why such a HUGE leap? Because anything less is just too cheap, and too hard to find, not to go for the extra power. Why spend $500 on a 2.0 GHz, when I can spend $800 on a 3.0 GHz with twice as much RAM, HD space, and video processing power? For just over half the cost, extra, I virtually double my gains, and inveritable triple or even quadruple the lasting power of my machine. And all it cost me was, what, an extra two days pay? A few hours of overtime here and there?
See my point? :) Long-winded, but if you really stop to actually THINK about it, there's a great deal of just "why". Who would have thought that such such a small, simple word could invoke the largest, most in-depth discussion, on any given topic. Isn't language grand? ;)
Oh, and for the record:
The computer industry changes just about ever 6 months, with a huge leap forward. Normally, progress in such leaps and bounds is made over a number of years, not months, and as such other products (like cars) tend to be around for FAR longer. They do what we need them to do, and have almost all the "features" that newer products have, without being disadvantageous enough (or expensive enough) to force us into the next realm, the next generation. Computer products do not follow this mode. When the product practically doubles every 6 months, the shelf life of any given product will last a mere few years, rather than a decade or more. There will, of course, always be exceptions to this (intactibility notwithstanding), but those exceptions are far fewer, and farther inbetween, than in other markets.
Take someone who had that old 250 MHz PII clunker. Hell, let's go a bit further. A PII 450 MHz. Up until a year or two ago, that system would have handled just about anything on the market. It might not have run everything so smoothly, but with enough RAM and a good video card (which can be bought in small increments, as opposed to the hefty investment of a complete system overhaul / replacement), it would get you by quite nicely. Now look at what's on the market today: most products (in terms of games, since that is the market being discussed in this thread: gaming and its corresponding machines) run at a bare minimum of around 800 MHz or so. Some still quote as low as 500 MHz (Morrowind, for example), but most tend to be within the 600 - 800 range. Very high compared to our old clunker of a computer, but what about compared to the hardware available on the market? It seems like only yesterday we had breeched the MHz / GHz line, and now just a ways back we were already talking about hitting 3.0 GHz and up. Compared to what's available on the market, the system reqs for computer gaming has actually, percentage-wise, DECREASED in comparison to the previous generation. Rapidly ever-increasing hardware power is actually outrunning the increasing need for said power, and thus the need for high-end systems gets set down a notch. Now, that is actually in direct contrast to the point I am making, and in direct line with your questioning, so I will address that.
Those people with the old 450 MHz clunker have been able to get by with it, without much suffering (if any at all) up until just a year or two ago. By that point, though, the need for an upgrade took a step up, into the realm of pushing the consumer to purchase. Since the need always preceeds, and in greater amount, the fulfillment of that need, this combined with the fast-paced climb in hardware performance makes it increasingly LESS expensive to make that upgrade. Thus what once was, and would only have been, a jump from 450 MHz to 800 MHz or so, is now a jump from 450 MHz to 1.5 GHz, for the same money (or even less), and because it's actually HARDER to get anything less, and the cost / reward ratio is not high enough to be beneficial over the higher-end hardware. In other words, what it once cost you to double in power a year or two ago, it now costs the same (or less) to triple, or even quadruple your power. Therefore, it's not so much a NEED for that high of a power (truly, we CAN do with less, even if performance does suffer slightly; we CAN get by with the minimal graphical detail, and play games quite well on low-end systems, even though we generally prefer the fancier graphics available to us on higher-end systems), but that it is so ABUNDANT, so massively CHEAP, that when it comes time to make that jump, the leap is that much greater. The HARDWARE industry moves so fast that upgrades are becoming (again, percentage-wise in terms of gain) ever greater, wider, and less costly.
To sum it up: 1.5+ GHz may sound like a lot. Indeed, it IS alot compared to the stated "need" on the games we play (we won't go into the "actual" need, as the "stated" need is more often than not closer to the truth than what we claim; despite how it usually does fall just a little short). But compared to what is on the market now? Compared to the cost / reward ratio of what is available, and furthermore, what is coming out in the near future? It is actually QUITE small. One quick scan of this thread will show you that most people have systems with over 2 GHz worth of power. Two years ago, that was barely on the horizon, let alone part of the mass-market. I, myself, am only running a 1.6 GHz machine, and even I feel inadequate compared to others. It runs all my games just fine, but then, so did my PIII 850 before I got this one (it has some minor trouble with the new games, but only when I tried to push its limits; I can run every single game that I own on that machine, without question nor incident). And yet, look at my machine compared to others here. A year ago, this was in the low-end of the top machines on the market. Breeching the 1.5 GHz mark was pushing you into the higher realms of hardware. And now? It's barely a memory! I will undoubtedly keep this machine, as my main machine, for several more years, simply because it will take that long before the need to upgrade outweighs the cost of doing so. But when I finally do so? What will I end up getting? Probably something in the 3.0+ GHz range. Why so much? Why such a HUGE leap? Because anything less is just too cheap, and too hard to find, not to go for the extra power. Why spend $500 on a 2.0 GHz, when I can spend $800 on a 3.0 GHz with twice as much RAM, HD space, and video processing power? For just over half the cost, extra, I virtually double my gains, and inveritable triple or even quadruple the lasting power of my machine. And all it cost me was, what, an extra two days pay? A few hours of overtime here and there?
See my point? :) Long-winded, but if you really stop to actually THINK about it, there's a great deal of just "why". Who would have thought that such such a small, simple word could invoke the largest, most in-depth discussion, on any given topic. Isn't language grand? ;)
Oh, and for the record:
- P4 1.6 GHz
Windows 2000
45 GB Maxtor (I think; came with the comp, and I forget exactly what it is, but I'm pretty sure it's a Maxtor; bleh) HD
120 GB Western Digital HD
GeForce 4 4200 64 MB 4x AGP video card
Creative Sound Blaster PCI 128 audio card (stolen from my old PIII 850 machine, since some hardware upgrades caused massive issues with my on-board sound; one of the wires was causing huge interference, and due to the positing of the sound output on the motherboard, there was no way around it)
15" Proview monitor (a relic from when my old Packard Bell monitor, from my first REAL computer {yes, it was a Packard Bell}, lost first the red, and then the green color guns; this monitor is on its way out, too, as it's come down with a bad case of flickerings every so often)
A defunct Panasonic DVD drive, ripped from my 850 (gonna need to replace this, too :/)
48 / 12 / 40 Memorex CD-RW<>
[st]
Indeed, a veritable conglomeration of hardware, spanning several generations (not to mention over half a decade) of computers. :) I'm a regular mutt when it comes to computer hardware. ;)
Roland *The Gunslinger*