What hardware becomes outdated frequently?

i'm NOT op here, but straight-forward enough title. short answer: all of it.

above anything else though, it's not entirely uncommon for more than one generation of gpus to sometimes be released in a year's time or less. that doesn't necessarily outdate the previous gen per se (e.g. overclocked rebadging), but i would say gpus tend to have shorter cycles.

 

These days, it's definitely GPUs that get outdated fastest; more than any other component, GPUs must be updated every few years at least to be able to adequately play recent games.

A decent Core 2 Duo CPU is still sufficient for most usage, and current CPUs are increasingly ahead of what the typical user will ever need in terms of processing power.

Storage options such as hard drives and SSDs don't really get all that outdated for most users - even an entry-level 320 GB 5400 RPM drive will suffice for most people's needs. SSDs have come a long way in the past few years, but aside from capacity increases, even the speed of a first generation SSD is plenty fast compared to the HDD's that most people still use.

RAM is fairly similar - typical system RAM seems to double every 3-4 years, but if it was sufficient when you bought the machine, it's likely it won't be a problem within the lifetime of the machine.

Note that there are power users for which any and sometimes all of the above truly do become outdated with every new generation - people for whom maximum speed is still not fast enough and whose high requirements really do benefit them, but most people shouldn't worry too much about their computers becoming outdated in a year or two unless they're planning on doing a lot of gaming.

"Outdated" is a concept that keeps us wanting the next big thing, the fastest components, the thinnest ultrabook, the clearest screen. It's a construct that sells more computers and keeps us spending, and there are certainly benefits from upgrading, but unless you're playing modern games or engaging in other power usage activities, its main functions are to keep us dissatisfied with what we have and keep us spending money. I like to dream of (and consummate) the next big computer upgrade as much as anybody, but if your definition of outdated is measured by what tech is out there rather than what you need your tech to do, you're probably coming at it from the wrong angle.

Edit: An example

I use a cheap AMD desktop at work. It's got a 500 GB hard drive, an early entry-level dual-core AMD processor, one gigabyte of DDR2 RAM, and Geforce 9100 graphics built into the budget motherboard. If I were gaming on this machine it wouldn't handle most games from 2002. Sometimes it takes several seconds to load up MS Word or hangs when I've got four or five browser tabs open. But while it's a bit of a pain in the butt, it's not really outdated for what it needs to do; I would be delighted if it had an i7, 16 GB of RAM, a GTX 680, and a large Samsung 830 SSD, but it does what I need it to do and it rarely gives me problems, so calling it outdated and spending a bundle of cash to replace it would be a total waste.

 

overall a very thorough reply. however, just to nitpick the example--you could replace this machine with a budget laptop as they're called. such a replacement wouldn't bog with the usage you've mentioned causes your desktop to hang. $350-400 is hardly a bundle (even though it still might be a waste).

 

No argument there - a $350 laptop would perform better than this machine in almost all aspects, and even with my usage the difference would be notable in certain situations. However, computer work is only a small part of my job as a kindergarten teacher, and hanging for several seconds (at worst) while loading a file doesn't notably affect my work. The portability of a laptop would be lost on me as well - I have a personal laptop, and all of my work files sync up between the two PCs automatically, so the mobility of a laptop for work wouldn't change anything for me. In this case, (ignoring the fact that such a $350 laptop would cost $500+ in China where I live) $350 would be a bundle compared to what I need to spend to keep up with my needs, which is $0.

 

an unfamiliar and unique situation (coming from my humble corner of the world), indeed! stick with the desktop.

 

This depends on your usage pattern. In absolute terms (i.e. based on how often new hardware actually comes out rather than how often most people would need to buy it), I think the order is something like this:

1) Solid state drives. This is a relatively new technology and between all of the different manufacturers models with meaningful changes are released multiple times a year. I would estimate the average time for one to become outdated to be 6-9 months.

2) CPUs. Intel has not quite kept to its yearly tick-tock schedule, but they're pretty close to it. AMD is trying to match them so you are almost guaranteed that a brand new CPU will be obsolete within 12-15 months. There are more frequent updates as a process matures, but these are usually minor.

3) GPUs. Between AMD and Nvidia, major revisions of these also tend to come out every 12-15 months. There are even more minor updates in between than with CPUs, but these are not worth much.

4) Chipsets. These pick up possibly meaningful features once every couple of years and then it takes even longer for these to be used in practice (I still haven't used my USB3 ports with anything other than USB2 devices...).

5) RAM. This changes in a big way once every 5-7 years. DDR3 came out in 2007, became common in 2010 and won't be replaced until at least 2013. In between, it gets faster and there is more of it. I'd say every couple of years.

6) Hard drives. These get bigger on the same time scale as RAM, but they have not gotten any faster for a while except for the minor speed boost from the density. I cannot believe there are still 5400RPM drives out there in 2012...

7) Displays, mice, keyboards, headphones, speakers, etc. These do not become obsolete. There are new models quite often, but if you have a good one to begin with, it is quite likely that you fill find the new version to be worse. In the past few years, this is particularly true with displays -- there are still 1920x1200 laptops that are unmatched by anything from today.

 

I agree with Fat Dragon's comment on GPU being the quickest to become obsolete. Keep in this is applies more towards the hardcore gamers. Make sure the laptop you buy has a powerful GPU because it is one thing that most difficult of even possible to upgrade.

 

Good observations on the subject from a different angle. It all comes down to what one considers outdated - is last-gen tech outdated, or is outdated tech defined as tech that doesn't fulfill the user's needs anymore? If more people stuck to the latter definition, we'd have a lot less waste in the world, not just with computers and tech but everything.

We'd also have a much weaker economy by the current paradigms, and much slower computers, so take it as you see it...

 

Agree with Fat Dragon as well, though I think it also comes down to the user as well and how they treat their computer (ignoring "I want the latest stuff!!").

Personal example:

At my home, there are two desktops, and my laptop (when I home). Main desktop is an HP tower with a Phenom II X4, 7GB DDR2, 640GB 5400RPM drive, and GeForce 6150SE (built into the cheap mobo), and loaded with Vista Home. Now, this isn't a bad computer in terms of hardware and with a decent GPU, would find great use with me as a F@H client. However, they way my family uses it, it has ended up being a slow, sluggish POS that takes forever to load anything. Could be the hard drive, but it could (likely) also be from all the garbage that my relatives load onto the computer (I'm the only tech-savvy person in the family, so you see where I'm going with this). If it wasn't for me, they'd probably blow another $1000 on a new desktop or something. I would wipe everything (after backup) and install W7 on there or maybe a restored Vista, but that'd involve too much work, and I'll be blamed for anything that's "gone wrong", so for now it's still a pain to use (for me).

Older desktop is a 2005-era eMachines, Athlon 64 3800+, 384GB DDR, 200GB PATA, integrated Radeon-something GPU. On paper, much slower than the newer (2007-ish) desktop. However, this is my "toy desktop" and I'm the only one who ever uses it anymore. Loaded Ubuntu onto it, using it as a backup server for my files, and occasionally hook it up to the Internet whenever the HP is having problems (*nobody* touches my laptop! lol). Runs smoother than the HP, loads programs/files faster (despite having much older technology), etc.

Moral of the story (TL;DR): how well you maintain a computer is just as important, if not more, than what the specs are. Hell, the military still uses 70's and 80's tech in today's weapon systems and aircraft (there's probably a few Zilog Z80 chips in the F-22A most likely), and they're doing fine.

 

Definitely agree on the GPU (and with GPU advancements comes more RAM?). At the moment there is massive innovation going on in that department. After that, I'd say the display. Although not changing as rapidly, it is still an area where innovation and continued updates are expected in the future.

Laptop designers need to get the ball rolling and make this component an easier one to keep current.

 

Are you actually saying that a laptop's display is in any danger of becoming outdated? And keeping a display "current?" That just does not make any sense to me.

 

So long as the display is high res and has good color/blackness/contrast, I'd keep it for as long as it runs.

 

Well, we didn't really have the 95% gamut LED displays a few years ago, plus more and more laptops are being offered with IPS displays, so I can kind of see what hes saying.

 

Dell had R+BG displays a while back and those were 95% gamut iirc. There were lots of quality displays back in the day. Display tech hasn't really advanced in terms of picture quality, but in size and power efficiency.

 

Yeah, I wasn't saying tech has advanced so much as the availability increasing.

 

Everything is "outdated" in some sense of the word. My laptop and desktop are both outdated - SATA2 SSDs with last-generation CPUs/GPUs. The laptop was even outdated when I purchased it, but I got a very good price, and it does everything I need it to. I also expect to keep both computers at least 2 more years, pretty much as they are hardware-wise. As long as they do what I need them to, I don't feel compelled to have the latest and greatest.

My work machine, on the other hand, needs to be thrown out a window. It's a Pentium 4 w/80gb HDD (probably IDE) and 2gb DDR-something. Just to get myself through a normal day, I'm required to run Outlook, 2-3 instances of Word, 1-2 instances of Excel, 7+ Internet Explorer (6.0, no less) windows, a proprietary (and CPU-hogging) Java application, and 2-3 more terminals into an ancient (copyright date is 1991) DOS-based database/claims processing program. And occasionally a few other random tools I need to complete a task here and there. And I pretty much have to have all this stuff open at the same time from the beginning of the day to the end. It actually takes several seconds to switch between windows at times, and the RAM is almost completely full at all times.

 

Even though screens have steadily, if slowly, improved since the first laptops, I don't think any single person needs to worry about their screen being outdated. It's like saying your mouse is outdated.

Lol. While office tasks are hardly taxing, on stuff that old it is ridiculous. Would your employer not save tons of money with newer hardware? The power savings alone would probably offset most of the cost.

 

It already is. See iPhone

Your display is responsible for over 50% of your laptop's energy use. Improving on that would prove advantageous. Don't you think?

Does that mean you're still running your old CRTs?

Thank you for reassuring me there is still hope.

 

"Outdated" can be relative to a user's needs. Technically, compared to the latest technology, my T500 is very outdated with a Core 2 Duo CPU, a WSXGA+ CCFL display, "only" 4GB of RAM, and a SATA2 SSD. But it's more than enough for my needs, and excels at what I use it for. In that sense, it's not outdated.

 

The iPhone is more like a video game console. There is only one line of them and the newer one makes the older one outdated. Unless you are telling me that sometime in the next year all of our 768, 900, and 1080p screens are going to be simultaneously replaced by all laptop manufacturers in favor of 2000p screens, and that all our software will be suddenly changed to accommodate that, then no, our screens are not in danger of being outdated.

Of course it would advantageous. But the power consumption really hasn't been going down much over time, and even if has been, slight incremental reductions in power consumption hardly makes anything "outdated." I used to make lots of laptop purchases. One model I was buying lots of switched from CCFL to LED backlighting. Guess what, if nobody told me, I would never have known.

Dude, the pace of laptop screen development has been so slow, and some people consider it to have gone backwards with 16:10 to 16:9, that nobody is ever in danger of having an "outdated" screen unless the rest of their laptop belongs in a museum.

 

I'm telling you that the technology already exists. Making it practical is the only current challenge.

I don't know what to say here. For me, energy conservation is a very big deal.

Maybe its the terminology thats bothering you? By outdated I don't mean its not still usable. Perhaps obsolete would be a better word?

Incorrect. The technology behind advancements in display are huge.

 

Saying that something is outdated because better technology exists is an impractical definition. By that logic all consumer electronics are outdated because there will always be something better in development.

The benchmark for cutting edge (i.e. the best, not outdated) should be the best tech available to consumers, imo.

I think what you guys are talking about is something along the lines of "noticeably outdated".

 

Kind of, but not really. Displays are the only component I can think of that have actually gotten worse over time. For example, there is still nothing out there that matches the old 1920x1200 RGB-LED (with 100% Adobe color gamut) from the Dell M4400 and such (and this was back in 2008!). Yes, the IPS screens are slightly more common now, but they also come with 10% fewer pixels.

Now, there is some hope: it looks like the "retina" display from the latest iPad may eventually motivate some laptop manufacturer to make a decent display for a laptop and Windows 8 is rumored to scale better with resolution (the current scaling is pretty pitiful). However, all of that is for the future -- over the past few years as well as now, laptop displays have not gotten better so a good one would not be outdated.

 

I agree that outdated is a bad word, but my main position remains. There is a whole lot of technology out there in the development of displays. The least manufacturers can do is keep that in mine when they design their laptops.

 

Krane, what sort of changes have we seen in displays that has made them "outdated frequently?" What would the differences be between a good display from 2008 and good display from today? CCFL vs LED backlighting and 1200p vs 1080p? I think most people around here would prefer to use the former. There is also 120Hz refresh for 3D, but for most people it doesn't even matter. Now if we look at all the rest of the parts that form a computer, the only ones that have seen slower advancement are the keyboard and battery... And if we look at regular consumer LCD's it is even worse. They have pretty much remained constant aside from adopting LED backlighting instead of CCFL backlighting, and most are glossy instead of matte. I always preferred my 16:10 matte screens, and I have noticed 0 difference with LED backlighting. Like I said before, if nobody told me it was there, I wouldn't know. And the "power savings" that were touted about LED backlighting were not real in all circumstances.

You can talk all you want about amazing displays coming to a computer near you, but if we look at the progress of LCD displays in laptops, there has not been a whole lot of improvement. The situation seems even worse when we compare the screens to the rest of the hardware they were paired with. An awesome computer from 2008 is pretty obsolete by today's standards. The top end video card in it would be not a whole lot faster than the Ivy Bridge IGP, draw lots of power, and be loud. However, many people would be glad to exchange their current displays for the display of such a computer.

If they don't give a hoot about much more critical parts that get outdated much more frequently, what makes you think they would ever care about the display?

 

Well, competition in the smartphone display category has been heating up for the past few years with AMOLED, IPS, qHD and 720p displays. It's moved into tablets with the iPad 3 and the Asus Transformer Infinity and it's even started trickling into ultrabooks.

Display tech hasn't moved very fast in the past, but it's certainly starting to pick up.

 

As much as I dislike Apple in general, their "Retina display" marketing may finally push positive changes in the realm of laptop screens. Now that extremely common devices such as the iPhone and iPad are sporting high-quality, high-res screens, many people are finally ready to pull their heads out of their butts and get on the bandwagon demanding better screens. 1366x768 isn't going away anytime soon, but better, higher-res screens will start coming to market much more rapidly than they have so far.

The tech has been consistently improving, and now the demand will push it into the market.

However, calling a screen "outdated" is a rather strange thing to say. If the screen's tech is so old that its usability is severely compromised compared to modern tech, such as my old CRT monitor at work that refreshes so slowly you can see it with the unaided eye, or the screens on the third-party-refurbished Thinkpads at the local computer shops here where the viewing angles are less than 10 degrees, then you're probably ready for an upgrade, but a screen functions as the display interface of the computer, so calling it "outdated" seems strange as long as it continues to display what the computer sends it. "A piece of garbage", "unusable", and "headache-inducing", perhaps, but probably not "outdated". Not really. A monochrome Hercules monitor would be outdated on any computer built after about 1990, since it can't display what they need to display, but a crappy CRT from 2000 may induce nausea, threaten to blow up at any time, and change colors when the kid next door plays with his magnetic poetry set, but if it's capable of displaying what your computer sends it, "outdated" might be a rather strong word. Maybe "dumpster-bait" or "fish tank" would be better.

 

outmoded? i agree with your point though.

 

Yea but going on buddhist philosophy, no single person needs to worry about anything in their life being outdated.

Factually CCFL screens are outdated so you might as well worry about it.

@ Fat Dragon, isn't style one of the biggest aspects of being overall up to date? A screen wants to function as a display interface, with style - with improved characteristics nonessential to its primary function AKA bright colors. No need to distinguish the word "dated" as a tech term.

 

Touche. That post kind've got away from me - about 2/3 of the way through I asked myself what exactly I was trying to say and came up with nothing, but I was having enough fun that I finished it, rambling as it may have been. I'm totally on the boat for wanting better screens and being willing to upgrade to that priority, but for many a screen is a screen and they don't care one way or another as long as it doesn't actually impede the function of the laptop/camera/phone/tablet/etc.

 

Lucky for me the NBA 2K series continues to optimize instead of increased flash and polygons