Considering the economic and environmental problem that we are in, should we also now start considering how future proof and repairable computer hardware is? For example, when once built how long can a gaming rig hold its gaming performance at atleast 40fps at 1080p? If so, how could this be done by professional tech review websites such as bit-tech, hexus,etc?
Future proof is a myth. There will always be something better if you have the budget. Take the top end gpu today the 980ti in a few months Nvidia will release something that if early reports are true is at least 30-40% quicker on a much better process node. Performance per $ or £ is a better metric for most. It's why the Nvidia 970 has sold so well because for a good while it was King in that segment and it will easily handle 1080p or 1440p. Today most people reading websites like bit tech want to know its 4K fps. No gpu on the market is future proof for that resolution. PC gaming is in a mini resolution on the back of 4K. A APU can do 1080p depending on what you play. If all you play is league of legends a PC build 5 years ago will still give 60fps. 6 most popular PC titles do not require a lot of gpu grunt to play. Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Dota 2 / LOL, football manager, call of duty ( whatever the latest title is). All will happily run on a older gpu at 1080p with all settings maxed and will do above 60fps.
But overtime performance per $ will change at a particular resolution for a PC system. That could determine how future proof one's build is. For example, if you invest in a console, you know you are pretty much set for the lifetime of a console at a certain performance rate. If one could quantify this future proofness maybe one could get a rough idea about the system's future performance at the time of the build. As for repairability, it could take into consideration how easy and cost effective it is to repair a component if it konks off.
*no* computer components are economically viable to repair (there are a few exceptions but on the whole it isn't, and the viable ones are usually astronomically expensive in the first place)
In order to quantify how future proof something is you need information on what will occur in the future. That is the technology that will be employed in the software you use as well as knowledge of the hardware products that will be released in the future and how well the future software(and current software) will use the future hardware. So that's not really possible to do. For example we all know pascal is coming with HBM 2, but what impact that will have on a game performance isn't known yet because no independent testing has taken place yet. Even if you had such foreknowledge on both hardware and software, the possible combinations of hardware and software on top of range of what is considered acceptable performance is so great that you still couldn't have a single all encompassing metric of future proofness. It would be like having a "good" metric for present day technology. Future proof is a fundamentally flawed concept.
No company wants you to future-proof as they want you to upgrade to sustain their existence. And no company will commit to a socket (for ex) if it could become a limitation. In practice, component makers often don't have much more than a 6-12 month view of products anyway; let alone several years. Only chip makers have longer term plans but even then how that's packaged closer to launch can change (because of FABs, market changes, new technologies etc). Do we ever need to repair these days? *Most* hardware keeps going long after the upgrade. Other things that die like HDD or SSDs(NAND) or the inner silicon are irrepairable. 8/10 times it's because of no further software updates, or modern software features aren't retroactively applied as you only get 12-18 months support.
Yea, but then how do you solve the electronic waste problem if the business model of these companies requires us to fill up our landfills? Maybe its requires a push from influential reviewers and customers?
In my opinion, the only future proofing that you can really do when it comes to a PC build is to go high end and have something that'll last you as long as possible. Every 6 years or so I spend around £1200 to £1500 on new bits and pieces as I know that level of kit will last me another 6 years at least with the way things have gone in the past.
My previous build was a core i7 920 on a Gigabyte X58a-UD7 with 6GB of Corsair Dominator. HDD duties were taken care of via a 120GB Cruicial C300 (plus a couple of mechanical drives for game installs and so on) Graphics was a Gigabyte GTX 460 That was about 6 years old and I have just upgraded to: Motherboard have stayed the same (for now, going to be changing the SSD for something better soon) but the CPU is now a Xeon x5650, RAM is now 24GB of Corsair Vengeance, Graphics has gone up to a Gigabyte GTX980ti. Hard drives has stayed the same for now but the PSU has been upped to a corsair RM750 and I have also added a new screen in the form of an Acer XB240H. Once I have finally got around to overclocking the hex core CPU, that little lot should last me another 6 (ish) years when I'll do it all again.
Recycling and Corporate Social Responsibility. Gov could (already does) mandate some level recyclable materials like packaging. Sustainable sourcing.. very difficult when the business is not based in UK. US companies do it, East Asian.. mostly less so. You could also start a business to innovate ways of recycling electronic waste - the silicon in chip cores is already very pure and will take less energy to purify than the alternatives. It's just getting to it.
Wow! I imagine this is for much more than gaming. But did you ever feel during those 6 years that when it comes to gaming the decline in performance return is too much than as compared to a console? Plus, your system cost almost double a console initially! Point being, performance per pound falls off much faster for a PC than a console and unless you spend way more you cant futureproof it over the lifetime of a competing console.
A console was never an option. I have tremendous trouble using a controller vs keyboard and mouse for the types of games I tend to play. Then there's the need to tie up the tv for console use and the fact that I'm going to have a pc anyway. The previous spec of pc lasted pretty well and there's not doubt that it could have continued running games pretty well but it was showing signs of starting to struggle on the graphics side. A memory upgrade was always going to be on the cards and the upgraded CPU set me back a whopping £55. By doing things this way, I get to have a very high spec system that will last me long enough that I can easily justify spending the same amount next time around (£1200 over 6 years works out to £16.66 a month - easy to save up and put in a pot/account)
I have a similar spec PC as he had. With better graphic cards and can still max settings on every game with batman been the only exception at the resolution I play at which is 1080p. Had the PC about 4-5 years now. Next change will be full upgrade to 4K but not sure when that will be. None of the games I play are supporting 4K properly yet. Its strictly a gaming PC. I own another PC for other stuff that uses x79 mobo CPU and quadro gpus. Is that ever going to be good value for money can't say it is. But that's beside the point. Hobbys are rarely value for money and on sites like this 99% of the people on here are technology hobbiests who want the latest tech with no care for cost. I remember true gamer making a SLI laptop with desktop level CPU and loads of ram it cost the earth but it performance was crazy. For the way he worked it suited his needs. I own both consoles ( Xbox one and ps4) plus A lot of crap I really don't need but that's really not the point. Want overrides need.
