What do you want in the next few years?

[matty-hodgson]

With technology going the way it is, advancing at a massive rate, I was just wondering if you're really all that bothered about your CPU getting much faster? Or your GPU being able to pump out a few more frames.

Would you not rather keep the performance you have now for a couple of years but it was MUCH quieter, owing to the efficiency of the CPUs and GPUs and other system components?

Would you rather Intel/AMD developed newer and much better ways of cutting back on energy costs?
Would you rather ATI/NVIDIA spent more money making quieter cards?

I'm basically just trying to gauge whether or not the big semiconductor companies should be spending all their money on making these 6 core processors or should they be trying to create even more energy efficient CPUs instead? Providing they still gave the same performance.

[Guy]

I've given up on the whole upgrading every so often for the sake of it.

I have my Thinkpad for work/general web browsing/day to day needs. My main pc still handles everything I throw at it, only upgrade when you start not being able to play games.

Also now the S14 seems to swallow vast chunks of my money!

[lego batman]

I want them to make more faster shiny things, so that the budget end of the market gets corresponding more-er, fasterer and shinier.
It's why I bought an e5200 after all.

[scaryjim]

Avoided the temptation to go for the fourth option, but it was a serious temptation

I'd like both of course: extreme performance with minimal power draw. But pragmatically my next couple of computers (i.e. my choices over the next 5 years or so) will be based more on cost and energy efficiency than on out and out performance. For pretty much everything I do on a computer, I am still the biggest bottleneck, so I don't see the point in spending twice as much money on a computer that will not get anything done faster.

[Pob255]

I'd actually like them to slow down, spend longer getting things right so you don't need 20 versions of the same basic thing with just slight variations.
That way produce more of fewer versions there by lowering the costs.

But that just wouldn't work it's totally against the constant creating & feeding demand of consumerism so it's not economically viable.

[Syllopsium]

I'm certainly planning to wait until the next die shrink which should lower power somewhat; being stuck with a S775/Conroe 8800GTX system is not conducive to low power consumption..

Having said that, I'm not going to replace my system until it runs out of capacity. I'm hoping quad core and 8GB RAM will keep me going for years.

Might replace the CRT monitors with TFT, though - they won't last forever.

PK

[Zak33]

first off.. good thread.. cos it saved me doing it!

Secondly: I'd like BOTH power AND efficiency... and if it can be proven to me that it'll save me money long term I'll pay more.

My old mains power meter reader gadget....cost me a tenner.. saved me litereally hundreds since I used it.

Graphics card... I have a 4870 Toxic.. I WILL change it to the 5 series once the gap in price comes down a tad so that the rest of the saving will be made in electricity. I have considered a 5770 already but it's a move DOWN in performance in a few of my favourite games to my card, so no point.. but the fact is I looked at power draw on every review.

My quad core QX6700 is still pretty fast, and so needs no upgrade for me for a while... but I'd love to cut back power draw on my machine if possible... and it's more video card draw than CPU.
(underclocking my 4870 toxic is impossible as it already goes right down in gpu terms.. BUT I CAN reduce the GDDR5 and it drops the power draw by over 20w.. so presuming I remember to put it back up for gaming, 20w over 5 hours work per day, 5 days per week is.. a LOT!!

So I want BOTH...power AND efficiency.. and I WILL pay extra for it if it works out better over 18months to two years.

With one exception.. I dont like slow hard drives.. and the whole eco green thing at 5w power draw and a normal fast drive at 8w.... nah....gimme the speed.

But work BOTH into one drive... I'm in

[badass]

My quad core QX6700 is still pretty fast,

If you're concerned enough about money that you're really keeping an eye on your PC's power consumption, never buy an Intel extreme CPU again! It'll take years of power consumption to pay back the cost difference of that CPU over more reasonably priced alternatives!

[Englander]

I wouldn't mind a bit of both. My Q6600 is more than powerful enough for my needs especially when overclocked but it really does pump out the heat so a smaller manufacturing process wouldn't go amiss.

As for graphics card, my 8800GT can run Modern CoD:MW2 at highest everything @ 1680x1050 so that's doing just fine but needs one heck of a cooling system to keep it cool and quiet. That said, I wouldn't want to run it at any higher a resolution because then I think it really would start to show signs of age. It's next on my upgrade list but what it's replaced by will hopefully be a spot cooler whilst being a bit faster, too. So, a bit of both is what I voted for

[Champman99]

POWAH! I did vote for a bit of both. Because you see, I'm stupid, and (at the moment) I dont pay the electricity bill. (The computer is on all day because Folding helps cure disease mum, okay?!)

Even if I did, I dont think I'd factor in running costs into my purchases. In fact I dont even know how much of a difference they make. If an efficient graphics card was £250, and one with the same performance was £200 but less efficient, I'd probably buy the £200 one but would I be better off if I kept it for 2 years and ran it many hours a day.

With that in mind I like to have efficiency forced on me, because I probably wont chose it alone, and its a good thing! Plus cooler products means OVERCLOCKING!

[Singh400]

I'd like a bit of both.

There is no reason we can't have both. Technology advances so fast

[scaryjim]

... Work both into one drive... I'm in

ssd?

[jim]

I don't pay the electricity bill as things stand, so power consumption just isn't a direct financial concern for me.

If it's obvious things, then that's fine with me. For instance, I've sacrificed being able to see anything during the night and put in some energy saving bulbs.

But I'm not prepared to make those sacrifices when it comes my PC. And I don't think I will be in the future either - I'll always do little things to help, like sleeping my PC when it's not in use, but I've no intention of paying extra money for a Q9550s over a Q9550 or using a netbook to browse rather than my quad-core desktop.

[scaryjim]

... I'm not prepared to make those sacrifices when it comes my PC. ...

Then I'll know who to blame when sea levels rise and my house gets flooded

[Anteries]

I would like to see the return of single core computing. I would like to be able to buy a four or 5 GHz single core with hyper threading. Something that would clock right down for tiny power consumption when downloading stuff and general browsing. but would be powerful for single specific tasks like voice recognition or encoding.

[scaryjim]

I would like to see the return of single core computing.

It hasn't gone away, has it? I'm doing something wrong if it has, given my HTPC has a single core processor in it

I'm not sure what the difference between AMDs process and Intel's is, but AMD seem to be able to produce CPUs that will still work as single cores even if the second core is faulty, while Intel's don't. Assuming that pattern continues, I imagine AMD will continue to churn out single core CPUs to support the < £30 market for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, having been to directly compare the difference between one and two cores with my Sempron 140 (which was unlockable to a dual core), I have to say I'd hesitate to buy a single core CPU for day to day computing again. It's fine for my HTPC which I fire up then play DVDs or watch iPlayer on (so 90% of the time the computer is on I'm not actually interacting with it). But the system was noticably more responsive during general tasks when it was unlocked to a dual core, and I think I'd struggle to go back. Perhaps a very high clocked, hyperthreading single core would compensate for this: but then why would you bother with that, as the higher clock speeds would probably draw as much power as a second core...