Why tech is dead

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, oldSock said:

-Snip-

Where does it say high-end hardware has to be cheap? Or anywhere near affordable for the masses? I may as well complain cars are dead because every car I see advertised on TV is some luxury brand that would've cost two years worth of rent for me.

 

19 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

And gasoline used to be a nickel.

https://www.titlemax.com/discovery-center/planes-trains-and-automobiles/average-gas-prices-through-history/

 

Except for a few periods, average gas price hasn't really changed much over the years when adjusted for inflation.

 

13 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Handmade and giant. I don't think OP realizes you can just buy tiny microprocessors for $5 and create any IOT or smart device you want. That was unheard of 15 years ago

You could that 15 years ago too. Well, without the internet part. But you could still get something for cheap to tinker with if you wanted.

[Jtalk4456]

Just now, KarathKasun said:

one gram is worth ~$50.

Around a third of a gram, according to you, so 50/3= ~$17

Also here's another quote

 

 

Quote

 

How much is in an average desktop?

Magann: A PC circuit board, where the gold is, weighs about a pound. If you had a ton of those boards, you should have 5 troy ounces of gold.

 

so 1 lb per board, 2000 lbs per 5 troy ounce of gold

so 5/2000=.0025, or $3.24 worth of gold per board

keep in mind this article was back in 2013, so processes have been refined and parts are much smaller since. Smaller meaning less gold, so in all likeliness, it's reasonable to assume the value of gold in a modern computer of standard size to be somewhere less than the range of $3-30.

You asked me to do the math, I did it and your point falls flat on it's face

 

[KarathKasun]

1 minute ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Around a third of a gram, according to you, so 50/3= ~$17

Also here's another quote

 

 

so 1 lb per board, 2000 lbs per 5 troy ounce of gold

so 5/2000=.0025, or $3.24 worth of gold per board

keep in mind this article was back in 2013, so processes have been refined and parts are much smaller since. Smaller meaning less gold, so in all likeliness, it's reasonable to assume the value of gold in a modern computer of standard size to be somewhere less than the range of $3-30.

You asked me to do the math, I did it and your point falls flat on it's face

 

My point was that gold is not a significant cost of the PC, that would be somebody elses point that falls on its face.

 

The amount of gold used has not changed significantly, as it is concentrated in pins for add in boards/ram/cpus/external connectors.  Gaming systems have more of these connectors compared to a "standard" system, to the point of having multiple times the content of gold.

 

[iLostMyXbox21]

23 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

I said mid range, not low end

Okay, same difference, just because new tech comes out it doesn’t alter how well the past generation works..

 

 

 unless it is run by Apple in which it will be slowed down

[Jtalk4456]

14 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

1. My point was that gold is not a significant cost of the PC, that would be somebody elses point that falls on its face.

 

2. The amount of gold used has not changed significantly, as it is concentrated in pins for add in boards/ram/cpus/external connectors.  Gaming systems have more of these connectors compared to a "standard" system, to the point of having multiple times the content of gold.

 

1. That's not the point you were arguing at all, and if that's what you were trying to say, you weren't saying it in cohesive language. You were saying that my point of the cost of pc being higher than cost of gold because it has gold in it was inept. I said it made since because the cost of a product should be higher than the cost of materials. You countered by trying to say that there were $100 computers that you could extract more than $100 worth of gold from and said that was a "generous estimate". Someone said you were wrong on the number and you defended yourself and said do the math with your own numbers without corroboration. I did the math with numbers pulled straight from the industry, I did the math with your numbers. In both cases you were way off. My point still stands and the point you made with your words, irregardless of intent, fell on it's face with your own numbers even.

 

2. I don't have specific numbers for this, and i don't see articles in a quick search comparing them, but i can say that some older computers used solid gold fingers where now we use gold plated fingers. So that would be a significant reduction, though i doubt much reduction will be done in the future as Moore's law seems to have careened off a cliff. As for your GPU argument, that would make a point (the point you said you're not trying to make just a sec ago) IF the GPU didn't cost money. Since the point was cost of materials will be less than end product, adding a gpu will increase cost of materials but also increase cost of product, and I'd guess quite proportionally with the ratio in the computer. and we MAY be talking close to doubling, but I don't buy that a gpu has MULTIPLE times the amount of gold vs the whole rest of the system. 

[KarathKasun]

5 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

1. That's not the point you were arguing at all, and if that's what you were trying to say, you weren't saying it in cohesive language. You were saying that my point of the cost of pc being higher than cost of gold because it has gold in it was inept. I said it made since because the cost of a product should be higher than the cost of materials. You countered by trying to say that there were $100 computers that you could extract more than $100 worth of gold from and said that was a "generous estimate". Someone said you were wrong on the number and you defended yourself and said do the math with your own numbers without corroboration. I did the math with numbers pulled straight from the industry, I did the math with your numbers. In both cases you were way off. My point still stands and the point you made with your words, irregardless of intent, fell on it's face with your own numbers even.

 

2. I don't have specific numbers for this, and i don't see articles in a quick search comparing them, but i can say that some older computers used solid gold fingers where now we use gold plated fingers. So that would be a significant reduction, though i doubt much reduction will be done in the future as Moore's law seems to have careened off a cliff. As for your GPU argument, that would make a point (the point you said you're not trying to make just a sec ago) IF the GPU didn't cost money. Since the point it cost of materials will be less than end product, adding a gpu will increase cost of materials but also increase cost of product, and I'd guess quite proportionally with the ratio in the computer. and we MAY be talking close to doubling, but I don't buy that a gpu has MULTIPLE times the amount of gold vs the whole rest of the system. 

1. There are computers you can buy for ~$100 that have roughly that much gold in them.  The processing costs money and is not free.  Yes there are people that buy bulk scrap computers and reprocess them for profit, but the processing takes time and money for chemicals.  Net profit is very low unless you can get the computers for $30 or less.

 

2. No, there has not been a solid gold anything in consumer PC's.  Plating has been the application method for 30+ years now.

[Jurrunio]

31 minutes ago, iLostMyXbox21 said:

Okay, same difference, just because new tech comes out it doesn’t alter how well the past generation works..

 

 

 unless it is run by Apple in which it will be slowed down

It does. HD 7990 was a high end product. Does a PC using that as the only GPU match a high end system today? Nope. Is it a high end system? Nope, it was but isn't.

[BuckGup]

45 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

 

You could that 15 years ago too. Well, without the internet part. But you could still get something for cheap to tinker with if you wanted.

Wasn't like adafruit and digikey though

[Jtalk4456]

1 minute ago, KarathKasun said:

1. There are computers you can buy for ~$100 that have roughly that much gold in them.  The processing costs money and is not free.  Yes there are people that buy bulk scrap computers and reprocess them for profit, but the processing takes time and money for chemicals.  Net profit is very low unless you can get the computers for $30 or less.

 

2. No, there has not been a solid gold anything in consumer PC's.  Plating has been the application method for 30+ years now.

1. Prove it, i can't find a single example and I searched several sites. I can't even find a standard sized computer at that price, let alone one with $100 worth of gold, even based on your own numbers as I showed. 

2. and there were computers built 30 years ago... so yes 

Also you're assuming that at the start of gold plating in the industry it was as well refined a process as it is now, which is hard to believe. Also original nintendo games used cartridges with solid gold fingers according to a lot of scrap sites. And according to google the last game released in that system was in 1995, less than 30 yrs ago. I know i'm nitpicking at this point, but you're being so persistent, it's hard to resist putting out simple facts to refute what you say

[Sauron]

11 minutes ago, KarathKasun said:

1. There are computers you can buy for ~$100 that have roughly that much gold in them.  The processing costs money and is not free.  Yes there are people that buy bulk scrap computers and reprocess them for profit, but the processing takes time and money for chemicals.  Net profit is very low unless you can get the computers for $30 or less.

Reprocessing plants are paid to get rid of broken hardware. It's only logical that they'd try to extract any valuable material they can. But if you think you can buy a working piece of hardware for the price of the gold it contains, you are dead wrong and I defy you to produce a reliable source that shows otherwise. @Jtalk4456 has a source, why don't you?

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Wasn't like adafruit and digikey though

I'd argue if you wanted to do something like set up your own smart home, that was very doable in the mid 2000s for relatively cheap.

 

I mean, it was doable in the early 90s.

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, LordOTaco said:

What I think you are instead seeing and maybe realizing for that matter is that there is no need to upgrade every generation when what you have now suits your needs perfectly fine.  That is the big thing with smartphones and growth right now.  The idea that everyone who wants one already owns one and are content with what they have.  Its similar with a computer sure its obsolete the moment it comes off the lot (to put it in car terms) but you use it normally and don't put it through a soda fountain it will serve you for years to come so yeah of course you wouldn't buy anything new it would be wasting money at that point. 

Smartphones are hardly the only form of "tech" though - and neither are desktops, laptops, whatever. Yes, the smartphone market growing at the rate it has been is unsustainable and is doomed to recede, but that doesn't mean tech companies, even smartphone centric ones, will suddenly go out of business. Eventually there'll be some new class of mainstream product everyone will want, and the cycle will repeat.

 

It's also funny to say this right in the middle of a cpu race - in the last 2 years CPU tech has advanced more than it did in the 7 years prior.

[RuffRuffmcgruff]

Interesting take on the current abysmal tech climate, let me be clear i mean in terms of cost for peformance.

 

I definitely don't think tech is dead it's never been more alive, albeit way more expensive.

 

As other people have mentioned i thik the OP has just lost interest in being with that crowd of consumers, " MUST HAVE LATEST TECH"

 

I think a lot of us have moved away from that constant need of new tech, part of it is being financially responsible and the other part is realising you don't need it to carry on doing what you've always done. Upgrading is always nice but it isn't always needed.

 

My two pence  

[BuckGup]

2 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

I'd argue if you wanted to do something like set up your own smart home, that was very doable in the mid 2000s for relatively cheap.

 

I mean, it was doable in the early 90s.

Ummmm what. Sure you could probably do things like make your door open for you with an actuator but we are talking about the OG Pentium and Digital 21064. You would have to hack things together instead of buying purpose made parts. That now days cost only a few dollars and consume only a few milliwatts 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, BuckGup said:

Ummmm what. Sure you could probably do things like make your door open for you with an actuator but we are talking about the OG Pentium and Digital 21064. You would have to hack things together instead of buying purpose made parts. That now days cost only a few dollars and consume only a few milliwatts 

And by "doable" I meant it was doable for what was probably the same amount we're spending on current smart home stuff. But given the technology advancements another 15 years later, you could probably do this same stuff on cheap micros of the time.

[Bananasplit_00]

right now i could flip all my GPUs for a profit actiually, maybe that one wasnt the best thing to pick on tbh.

 

I can also say that i will not be upgrading anytime soon, just going to be cleaning the blocks and topping up the loop for the next probably 7 years or so unless i get a very nice job right after uni. Graphics cards are stupid expensive, CPUs are stupid expensive, RAM is stupid expensive. The only thing that isnt priced at retarded levels is SSDs. Thats literally it. Everything is vastly more expensive then when i started this hobby in 2015. 

[TacoSenpai]

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Smartphones are hardly the only form of "tech" though - and neither are desktops, laptops, whatever. Yes, the smartphone market growing at the rate it has been is unsustainable and is doomed to recede, but that doesn't mean tech companies, even smartphone centric ones, will suddenly go out of business. Eventually there'll be some new class of mainstream product everyone will want, and the cycle will repeat.

 

It's also funny to say this right in the middle of a cpu race - in the last 2 years CPU tech has advanced more than it did in the 7 years prior.

Oh I'm not saying they will go out of business or anything just explaining why the OP might not see the benefit in buying anything and it appears to be slowing down for him.  Sure theres gonna be a need for computing tech etc and it'll continue to try and improve as long as that need exists.  Its just most people don't have the need to constantly keep upgrading and buying the latest new thing so it might seem like not a whole lot has changed.

 

[BuckGup]

1 hour ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

And by "doable" I meant it was doable for what was probably the same amount we're spending on current smart home stuff. But given the technology advancements another 15 years later, you could probably do this same stuff on cheap micros of the time.

Yeah I still use X-10 for christmas lights. What I am talking about is like making your own 3D printer, bike telemetry, moisture sensors in a basement,  and so on. X10 is pretty primitive but works I guess

[Mira Yurizaki]

14 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Yeah I still use X-10 for christmas lights. What I am talking about is like making your own 3D printer, bike telemetry, moisture sensors in a basement,  and so on. X10 is pretty primitive but works I guess

Which you can do all of those things with a basic 8-bit micro. One of my college assignments was to use a cheapo PIC12 to make a PWM fan controller that responded to temperature from a thermistor feeding an ADC on the micro.

 

I mean we have current NASA space probes running on processors whose first iteration was released as early as the late 80s.

[BuckGup]

9 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

Which you can do all of those things with a basic 8-bit micro. One of my college assignments was to use a cheapo PIC12 to make a PWM fan controller that responded to temperature from a thermistor feeding an ADC on the micro.

 

I mean we have current NASA space probes running on processors whose first iteration was released as early as the late 80s.

Correct but the availability and cost 

[PlayStation 2]

What happened to this thread to where it needed to be monitored?

On topic: it seems like your analogy of tech value vs. gold value is flawed. Buying new tech is like buying a new car; you buy it for its features and performance in the here-and-now rather than resale value. If you're looking for resale value in the car world, you buy either the absolute top of the line or those with an incredible track record. I'll use the HD 7950 and the R9 280 here; you can still get decent money for them. I'll call those the 4Runner and the Tacoma of the GPU world, while the Titan is a super car, something that symbolized the top of the line not all that long ago and is still very prestigious. 

The world of PC building, and budget builds in particular, has gotten notably better in price and performance. Yes, top-of-the-line rigs are insanely expensive, significantly moreso than a few years ago, but it's not hard to buy something that'll max out most of the games you want to play at 1080p or do your bidding rendering video, like my rig. People are very willing to spend that top-tier cash for the top-tier parts. I personally can never bring myself to some of it (not going to lie to you, I'd love a TR 2990WX) but to each their own, really.

If you feel satisfied with your PS4 and tablet? More power to ya, bud. I'm not complaining nor should anyone be complaining about it. I do feel that most "PCs are dead" topics are really more of a subjective look rather than a hardline objective look at the topic, because it's very hard to say whether or not the segment is truly dying or the hype train of "needing a PC" for basic tasks is transferring to more portable devices than laptops.

[Mira Yurizaki]

11 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Correct but the availability and cost 

If we're talking about the space probe, the only reason why the hardware costs more than would otherwise is because of the strict requirements needed to survive the harshness of space. Take that away and it's laughably cheaper to cobble together at least the brains to perform the same operation, more or less.

[Hiya!]

My god this thread still keep on going? its going nowhere...and where the hell is the OP lol  

[Tristerin]

 

4 hours ago, oldSock said:

-snip-

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can agree with a lot said here.  I get some guff about using an FX 8350 8 core CPU in this day and age.  Honestly I cant pony up the dough for a full system upgrade without something else potentially suffering.  So its not worth it because this 7 year old processor...still works.  Still chugs through games.  The only reason I bought my wifes Ryzen system was because mobo shot the craps with a 1090t in it.  Was time for an upgrade because we game together.  Notice my GPU's in my sig?  Im not poor per say, but Im not rich either.  I CANNOT justify forking over that kind of money for a few more FPS.  People dog on my GPU's - they work, I get frames, I play competitively enough that...my gaming group wins much more than we lose.

 

GPU pricing since 2017 has me jaded.  I thought Id have bought a new GPU for each rig, but as you equate it - Id rather buy an ounce of gold.  Why?  I do buy gold and silver.  Silver is better imho but that's a different topic (spoons, saucers, coins, everything) and I cant for the life of me think its worth sinking...$500 into a piece on my computer.  The R7 260x?  $100 bucks LONG time ago.  The 2 HD 7850s in my rig...like $120 each and if it supports Crossfire I can run epic settings.  No need to replace.  But like everyone else I get this CONSTANT itch to just replace and upgrade.  Im REALLY glad I haven't yet.  Each time I almost buy something and decide nahhhhh.  I actually feel good about the nahhhhs.

 

Since then Ive actually QUITE enjoyed tinkering with my FX pc to make it last as long as possible, and enjoying my HP Pro for tinkering...its stuff is cheap.

 

Do I think Ill go back to Console gaming?  Probably not.  Im a fan of the mouse and keyboard.  I enjoy understanding how things work.  For example, all I have is a HS diploma.  However today the head of our SAP department came to me and said no one from IT can get here for 3 weeks - can you figure out why our Cisco router isn't working in the shop?  Guess who installed it?  Guess who can fix it?  Me.  So that's while I keep going on in the world of PCs - I truly enjoy understanding them at a hardware level.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, Tristerin said:

I get frames, I play competitively enough that...my gaming group wins much more than we lose.

I just wanted to poke on this part, but I think most aspiring competitive players forget the hardware doesn't make you win or lose, but your skill.

 

What if I told these people that certified FAA flight simulators likely run at 30FPS? Are they now going to never step on a plane because the FAA has the gall to think 30FPS is "just enough"?