Why is "Future Proof" such a hated term?

[svmlegacy]

Just now, Mister Woof said:

How are you responsible? Nobody's paying you here for consultation fees.....People come to an open forum and ask for suggestions. It's a given majority of it is opinion and people need to make their own decisions.

 

That said, I usually try to justify my position whenever recommending something. 

I'm not just talking about the forum, but rather as a whole. Even still, it's not good to be having expectations of future performance. 

[Mister Woof]

4 minutes ago, svmlegacy said:

I'm not just talking about the forum, but rather as a whole. Even still, it's not good to be having expectations of future performance. 

But it's always necessary to make a projection, even if it isn't always right. Nobody expects (or should expect) absolute accuracy. But everyone can, does, and should, make estimates and use existing data to base their decisions on regarding the efficacy of their purchase for the period of time they are expecting to utilize the resource for the desired task.
 

[Sarra]

lol Flight Simulator 2020... FS has always been a horribly taxing game, except maybe FS 95. I remember getting FS2002, and on low settings, I got 35 FPS. Then I got a new machine, and ran it basically on mid settings, and got 45-60 FPS. Repeat the same with FS2004, and FSX.

 

I bought FS2020 knowing that I won't be able to really play it until the Intel 13th or 14th gen stuff comes out, and the RTX5000 series is available.

 

But, on the basic topic... I don't generally think in that way. I don't attempt to future-proof, as much as just build the best machine I can afford, and run it until it doesn't perform well enough. My machine was purchased and assembled in 2014, along with some upgrades (SSD's, etc), and I'm just finally getting ready to replace it.

[Moonzy]

1 hour ago, Cyracus said:

What is the scope of future proof?

1 hour ago, Potatocell said:

It depends how long you are thinking

take into context of PC building. 3-5 years is a good range

 

1 hour ago, martward said:

it was impossible to future-proof your PC before the RTX series came out.

1 hour ago, RadiatingLight said:

You can't really future-proof because you don't know what's coming up. a 1080Ti, even though it was the best you can get, is not future-proofed for RTX because nobody knew it was coming.

29 minutes ago, St. Nick said:

Technologies like RTX I/O

57 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

Could you have predicted that RTX is suddenly a thing and all of a sudden there are effects you can't enable with that card because it doesn't have the necessary hardware?

1 hour ago, tikker said:

You can do your best, but with revolutionary changes like RTX tomorrow's tech can be outdated yesterday.

58 minutes ago, eeeee1 said:

bought a 2060 back in december. and in one month, it will be nearly obsolete for its price i bought it for

I'm mainly comparing 2 options that are available today, not current gen vs next gen (and features that follow)

most people who bought a 1060 wont buy a 2060 just for ray tracing. They would still wait for their next upgrade cycle or when the 1060 is not performing as they'd like.

if they bought a 1070, they would have a better experience throughout the lifecycle of that card before the next upgrade (and maybe even delay 1 more generation)

 

1 hour ago, RadiatingLight said:

you CAN make those guesses, and you can strategically design your PC to last longer, but I think it's the word "proof" that ticks people off, since there's no guarantee.

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

because when people say that they mean they want their pc to run all games at 60+ fps in like 10 years when thats probably not going to be a thing

1 hour ago, TheDailyProcrastinator said:

I see people asking unrealistic questions when it comes to 'future proofing', and IMO if there was an ounce of critical thought the answer would be right in front of them.

so misuse of the term + annoying context slapped onto it = the hatred it gotten? makes sense to me

 

1 hour ago, Jurrunio said:

future proof needs more than just a guess, the concept's different. "Stay relevant as long as possible" is the right word if you're gonna put it like that.

yea, this is how i would take the term future proof in the context of pc building.

 

1 hour ago, RadiatingLight said:

Future-proofing often costs more than just building 2 systems. (spend $2.5K right now, vs spending $1K now, $1K later and ending up with a better overall system)

I'm not saying extreme future proofing, but ones that makes sense for the next 3-5 years, ie a 3600 vs 3700x

But yes, building more mid-high end system is better than building one top spec PC because they normally come with a price premium that's bad price/perf.

 

1 hour ago, TofuHaroto said:

what's important is having a system that is enough for today.

so you think considering buying a 3700x over a 3600 today to play games in 2022 is a bad idea?

 

1 hour ago, TofuHaroto said:

when people try to "future proof" some actually end up with a worse system trying to focus on one part and end up cheaping out on another

33 minutes ago, St. Nick said:

Why people usually get triggered by it is that many people get so lost in future proofing that they buy an imbalanced system because 'I might need the performance later'.

1 hour ago, TheDailyProcrastinator said:

If i had to pick one gaming CPU RIGHT now, it would be the i5 10600k, literally the same as a 10700k/10900k.

of course balancing is still important, and if getting a 3700x means dropping a tier of GPU, then it's probably not worth it in gaming workloads.

 

52 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

Imagine buying a 1300$ RTX 2080 Ti for futureproof a month before this 499$ RTX 3070 that's supposedly on pair with it.

High-end stuff never made sense, im speaking from more of a good value card range like 1060 and 1070.

 

53 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

Hating on the phrase without even considering the actual legitimate reasons why it would be needed is just as dumb or even dumber than the guy who says they want to "future" proof his PC for gaming by getting a 3950x.

this reply pretty much sums up what im trying to say.

 

42 minutes ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

One reason why people hate that term right now: Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. 

.

you forgot the /s _{or you didnt? i don't disagree}

 

41 minutes ago, St. Nick said:

well I can see both sides of the argument.

yea i'm trying to understand the other side of the argument, hence why this post

so far I can see some compelling reasons. like sudden new innovations.

 

41 minutes ago, svmlegacy said:

I refuse to be held responsible if a system becomes slow, buggy, or poor performing in the future, due to ever advancing requirements, or a users poor choices.

I don understand why recommending a slightly better PC would make it slow, buggy, or poor performing. Maybe you mean OP didn't get his money's worth?

I would make a remark that this is more than he currently needs, but having more performance might be able to handle future titles better than a system that's just enough to get by today. And let op determine if he think it's worth it.

 

as for responsiblity, we're here to give opinions, and people should take it as so. they have no right to blame us if we tried our best with the knowledge we had at the time to provide assistance.

 

 

this reply took me 1 hr to write, because editor deleted it somehow on the first time writing it...

[atxcyclist]

It’s so hated because nothing electronic is future-proof. Even toasters have gotten better over the years.

[tikker]

1 minute ago, Moonzy said:

I'm mainly comparing 2 options that are available today, not current gen vs next gen (and features that follow)

most people who bought a 1060 wont buy a 2060 just for ray tracing. They would still wait for their next upgrade cycle or when the 1060 is not performing as they'd like.

if they bought a 1070, they would have a better experience throughout the lifecycle of that card before the next upgrade (and maybe even delay 1 more generation)

You'll have to think about next gen when talking about future proofing no? I agree though. There is plenty of room to futureproof as generally the next generation won't be twice faster. I think there's no reason for dislike if they are willing to think about future proofing with reasonable expectations, and I think most people actually fall in this bracket. Like you say it's probably the XX60/XX70 people who are just on the edge about that extra bit of performance.

 

If I wasn't interested in ray tracing, I'd be sticking with my trusty 1080 Ti which still works plenty fine for me after 3 years even after switching to 4k recently. If it doesn't, I'll turn some settings down. Back then I also bought it with the intention of future proofing and I still consider it the best investment I ever made as shortly after the crypto boom  happened and the RTX cards' pricing was just ridiculous. My next "future proofing" step will be stepping up to the 3080, that should last me a while again, because I want to play games with RTX and move up to 4k.

 

In my opinion the term "future proof" tends to have an allure to it that it will stay relevant. I'd guess that's where the hate comes from. While that works for slower moving stuff like I don't know, nice audio equipment, power tools, stuff that generally keeps its worth, technology can (and often does) move insanely fast. Look at all the people now desperately trying to flip their 1080 Ti or 2080 Ti hoping to get their investment back. It was expensive and top of the line! I paid $1500 for it! The sunk cost fallacy.

 

That is the point of view I would argue if I were the opposing force: going with the GPU analogy, you cannot realistically expect most of the current line up to be relevant even 2 years from now compared to what is new then. Nobody will recommend you go out and buy a 1070 anymore, but the people who bought that back then are perhaps still perfectly happy that they went the extra mile for that little bit of extra power. Budget and mid-tier buyers generally don't care for the greatest fanciest settings, but just want a solid gaming performance.

 

So in my opinion, when thinking about future proofing, realize that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Something will have to give way, but it's perfectly fine to ask about future proofness between version X and version Y which costs $100 more, but will maybe benefit you more in the long term.

 

 

[Mister Woof]

22 minutes ago, tikker said:

You'll have to think about next gen when talking about future proofing no? I agree though. There is plenty of room to futureproof as generally the next generation won't be twice faster. I think there's no reason for dislike if they are willing to think about future proofing with reasonable expectations, and I think most people actually fall in this bracket. Like you say it's probably the XX60/XX70 people who are just on the edge about that extra bit of performance.

 

If I wasn't interested in ray tracing, I'd be sticking with my trusty 1080 Ti which still works plenty fine for me after 3 years even after switching to 4k recently. If it doesn't, I'll turn some settings down. Back then I also bought it with the intention of future proofing and I still consider it the best investment I ever made as shortly after the crypto boom  happened and the RTX cards' pricing was just ridiculous. My next "future proofing" step will be stepping up to the 3080, that should last me a while again, because I want to play games with RTX and move up to 4k.

 

In my opinion the term "future proof" tends to have an allure to it that it will stay relevant. I'd guess that's where the hate comes from. While that works for slower moving stuff like I don't know, nice audio equipment, power tools, stuff that generally keeps its worth, technology can (and often does) move insanely fast. Look at all the people now desperately trying to flip their 1080 Ti or 2080 Ti hoping to get their investment back. It was expensive and top of the line! I paid $1500 for it! The sunk cost fallacy.

 

That is the point of view I would argue if I were the opposing force: going with the GPU analogy, you cannot realistically expect most of the current line up to be relevant even 2 years from now compared to what is new then. Nobody will recommend you go out and buy a 1070 anymore, but the people who bought that back then are perhaps still perfectly happy that they went the extra mile for that little bit of extra power. Budget and mid-tier buyers generally don't care for the greatest fanciest settings, but just want a solid gaming performance.

 

So in my opinion, when thinking about future proofing, realize that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Something will have to give way, but it's perfectly fine to ask about future proofness between version X and version Y which costs $100 more, but will maybe benefit you more in the long term.

 

 

All we can do is analyze the data we have and make informed decisions. It's a gamble with a little more than just mere chance.

 

An example would be:

 

Ryzen 5 1600 vs. i7-8700k in 2017. 

 

i7-8700k $200 more expensive, but 40% faster. At that time, both could pull good framerates at 1440p with the GPUs available, and a lot of people recommended against the 8700k because "future proofing was dumb" and you could upgrade the Ryzen later.

 

Well, fast forward to 2020, and yeah, you could upgrade to a 2600, or a 3600, but in the end for gaming, it turns out the 8700k is still better, 3 years later, against the future tech.

 

In this sense, buying the Ryzen 5 1600 wasn't future proofing at all, but the facts remain that the 8700k purchase was a future proofing purchase as it still is extremely competent at gaming compared to the current CPUs, from both Intel and AMD.

 

Was it a gamble? Yeah. Does it always turn out this way? No. But you use objective analysis to make informed decisions.

 

I wouldn't apply the same logic today to the i7-1700k, as the tech environment is way different than it was in 2017. There's nuance to it and blanket statements don't help.

 

As far as the 2000 series - look the writing was on the wall. I had pretty high confidence that with the marginal performance gains over the 10-series, and with only offering RTX tech demo, it was going to be a poor value sentiment generation and definitely a pass for me. I went with a discounted Vega 64 over the 2070 and a 5700 XT over the 2070 Super, and I don't regret any of those purchases. 

 

I am glad I chose the 8700k over the 1600 in 2017 (although I did end up getting a 1600 eventually, for other reasons) and I'm glad I skipped the 2000 series.

 

The concept of future proofing is not bad, but knowing the environment and especially the timing of the question will help you make a decision if buying headroom is worth it. At the same time, having a static attitude towards "future proofing" as always the right thing to do could also be a bad choice.

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, Moonzy said:

I know, looking into the future is pretty much a guess work, but I would assume games would tend to use more and more cores, so even if most game doesn't utilise 8 cores now, they might in the next 2-4 years (which is a standard upgrade cycle for average-high end users), so having those extra cores today might make it "worth it" in the near future.

Didn't you answer yourself here?

In your example, games don't use 8 cores today. Buying an 8 core processor today is therefore overkill for gaming. "But games released 4 years from now might use them!" Yes, but like you said, by then the processor you bought today is due to be replaced anyway , so all that extra performance you bought by going with an 8 core when you only needed 4 was a complete waste of money.

[Moonzy]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Didn't you answer yourself here?

In your example, games don't use 8 cores today. Buying an 8 core processor today is therefore overkill for gaming. "But games released 4 years from now might use them!" Yes, but like you said, by then the processor you bought today is due to be replaced anyway , so all that extra performance you bought by going with an 8 core when you only needed 4 was a complete waste of money.

No you misunderstood it

Games that come out within the next 4 years might utilise more than 6 cores is my point, not 4 years later

[tikker]

11 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

All we can do is analyze the data we have and make informed decisions. It's a gamble with a little more than just mere chance.

Yep, I agree. It's next to impossible to predict what will happen and how fast a certain bandwagon will hit its limits. I'm still happy with my 7700k and buying the 1080 Ti immeidately at launch turned out to be my best choice ever before prices exploded and the next generation didn't improve all that much.

 

26 minutes ago, Mister Woof said:

Was it a gamble? Yeah. Does it always turn out this way? No. But you use objective analysis to make informed decisions.

I think you make a key point here. A 2080 Ti is still "future proof". Nobody expected the 3000 series to show such an improvement. Does its release make the 2000 series practically irrelevant now? Sure. Was it a bad buy then? I don't think so.

 

I personally think the 3000 series will be a great future proofing step for me so I'll buy in. Time will tell if I'm right or wrong.

 

[BuckGup]

Because you cannot predict the future. Done thread closed

[Moonzy]

4 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Because you cannot predict the future. Done thread closed

it'll be exactly 1 hour later 1 hour from now. _{where's my nobel prize}

[NineEyeRon]

Future proofing is buying something and not changing how you use it.

 

I have futureproofed my gaming rig as I don’t really buy new games, usually older point and click titles.

 

If I do buy a new game it’s to play at my current resolution and inside my monitors freesync range, I don’t buy AAA titles or top of the line sims.

[Moonzy]

Just now, NineEyeRon said:

Future proofing is buying something and not changing how you use it.

 

I have futureproofed my gaming rig as I don’t really buy new games, usually older point and click titles.

 

If I do buy a new game it’s to play at my current resolution and inside my monitors freesync range, I don’t buy AAA titles or top of the line sims.

this is also a good point of view

in a sense, your PC can do whatever it's capable of doing forever theoretically

[LAwLz]

Gonna rant a little bit.

The "PC master race" community that I think this forum is strongly a part of is such a fucking shitfest. It's mostly a bunch of kids (mentally or physically) that want to brag about what hardware they got and therefore buy stupidly expensive shit they don't need. Look at all the people who bought 2080 Ti cards for example. I don't think more than 10% of people who bought the 2080 Ti actually needed them.

 

Want evidence of the PC hardware community being mostly about bragging rights and not actually about getting the performance you need? Look no further than all the manchildren who are now upset that their 2080 Ti gets outperformed by a card half the price. They don't actually give a fuck about the performance they get from their cards. What they care about is having the fastest graphics card for bragging rights and jerking off to high FPS numbers. If this wasn't the case, and they actually bought the 2080 Ti because they needed the performance then they wouldn't be upset because they still have exactly the same performance they had before the 30 series launched.

 

If you're going to buy PC hardware then you should look at it this way:

1) Do I actually need this or do I simply want to buy a shiny new toy to get a quick dopamine rush? If it's the former then buy it. If it's the latter then you can of course go ahead and buy it as well, it's your money after all. But it might be wise to stop and think for a little if there are better things you can do with your money. The dopamine rush you get from buying a new piece of hardware goes over very quickly. There was some thread by someone in the GPU section some day ago. He bought a brand new computer not too long ago and he was already looking for things to upgrade in it. Why? Because the dopamine hit he got from buying the computer is already over and now he wants another shot. He isn't buying stuff because he needs it. He buys stuff because spending money makes him feel good. The problem with computer hardware is that it's something that loses value and functionality extremely quickly, so it's a terrible thing to buy. Not to mention the massive environmental impact it has.

 

2) How much performance do you actually need? Don't buy precisely what you need, buy a little more. But don't buy like 50% more performance than you need. The higher end stuff you get, the worse price:performance you get. So every dollar you spend only yields you 0.8 dollars worth of performance (numbers pulled out of my ass but they are more or less accurate).

 

3) Have the mind set that your build will depreciate in value extremely quickly. Did you buy a 1000 dollar graphics card? Then you should have the mindset that it might only be worth 800 dollars next year, and 600 dollars the year after that. 

 

4) Go in with the mind set that if you want longer, you will get far better value. That graphics card you are looking at that costs 1000 dollars? If you can wait a year then that card might only cost 500 dollars. Those 500 dollars you just saved can be put towards even better stuff that goes beyond what the previous generation offered. Want an example of this? Look at the RTX 30 series.

 

5) It is okay to not play games at max settings at all times. Actually, the visual quality you lose by stepping down in graphics slightly is often very minor but it brings a lot better performance. Going from max settings to the second highest settings might result in a 10% visual quality decrease, but a 30% FPS increase. Max settings are usually horribly optimized compared to the lower settings.

 

 

Overall, I think "future proofing" is just a poor excuse people come up with to try and justify buying expensive shit they don't need. Whenever someone says "I want to future proof" all I hear is "I wanna flex on strangers online by showing them how much money I have spent on my PC".

Wanna know how I know this? Because nobody ever talks about future proofing the things you can actually future proof. Good chairs, good desk, headphones and cases. Those are things that don't have to cost a lot, but lost for years upon years. But that's not what people talk about when they talk about future proofing. No, whenever someone talks about future proofing it's always stupid shit like a CPU, which loses value and relevancy faster than a falling rock. Yeah sure, spend 1000 dollars on a CPU when you would be more than satisfied with a 400 dollar CPU. Great financial decision you made there when in 12 months your 1000 dollar CPU will be outperformed by that years 400 dollar CPU. It's almost as if buying a 400 dollar CPU today and a 400 dollar CPU next year would have yielded you better performance in the long run at a lower price. But nahh, a 400 dollar CPU doesn't give you as much useless bragging rights when talking to strangers online.

[LAwLz]

16 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

No you misunderstood it

Games that come out within the next 4 years might utilise more than 6 cores is my point, not 4 years later

Even if they do, it's not like all of a sudden all games become unplayable unless you have a 6 core.

Buying the CPU you need today, and the CPU you need in 4 years will result in better performance in the long run than buying something really expensive today and try using it for as long as possible.

Back in high school I bought a Phenom II 965 and then an i5-2500K. I spent less money on those upgrades than two of my friends did when they both bought an i7-920 system, and in the end I got better performance. Sure, there were a couple of months where they had better performance than me, but even then we were still playing the same games, having just as much fun as one another, and a couple of months later I had a CPU that were running circles around theirs, and I had still not spent as much money on my 2 CPUs/motherboards as they had spent on their single mobo/CPU system.

[piratemonkey]

I'm fine with the term as long as it isn't a huge marketing point. I'm buying a product not insurance

[LAwLz]

Like I said earlier, future proofing gets a bad rep because it's an excuse people use to justify buying expensive shit they don't need.

There are things you can future proof, if you by future proof mean you can reuse them for multiple builds over the span of many years and generations.

The areas where I think you can, and should, future proof are these:

 

1) Desk and chair - Buy a good desk, and a good chair, and they will be able to last you 15 years. I used to buy pretty cheap and shitty office chairs. They cost around 100 dollars each, and they broke after like 3-4 years. So that meant over the course of 15 years I might have spent 400-500 dollars on bad chairs that didn't even feel that good to sit on. If I instead spent 500 dollars on a single chair that could last 15 years I not only ended up spending roughly the same amount of money, but I also had a better experience for the same money.

The same goes for desks.

 

2) Case - PC component standards have not changed in many years, and they show no sign of changing anytime soon either. Buy a good medium sized case and it will be able to last you ~10 years or so. It will most likely look outdated before it actually needs replacing for technical reasons. So if you buy a high quality one with a somewhat timeless design, that isn't too bulky or too small then it will last ages.

 

3) Power supply - Just like with cases, power supplies haven't changed much and show no sign of changing either. Get a modular one with decent efficiency that is nicely built (check JonnyGuru). It will last you ages. I got a Corsair RM750X and when I bought it I thought that I will hopefully not need to replace this PSU in something like 15 years.

 

4) Keyboard - The keyboard layout won't change anytime soon, and a mechanical keyboard can last ages. I have an IBM buckle spring keyboard somewhere that's from the 80s or maybe early 90s that still works. That's how long a good keyboard can last.

 

5) Speakers and headphones - There are 20 year old speakers that are still considered really good. 

 

6) Hard drives for storage - Don't try and future proof high speed storage. The advancements are too fast. But bulk storage with hard drives is something that can rather easily be future proofed. Buying one large hard drive today is better than buying one small one today, then another next year, and a third the year after that. Hard drives and SSDs are also nice because you can reuse them across multiple builds, and you can add more drives if you do fuck up and buy too little.

 

 

I wanted to add monitors to the list but I think monitor tech has picked up steam in recent years and are now evolving rather quickly.

[AlwaysFSX]

34 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

5) It is okay to not play games at max settings at all times. Actually, the visual quality you lose by stepping down in graphics slightly is often very minor but it brings a lot better performance. Going from max settings to the second highest settings might result in a 10% visual quality decrease, but a 30% FPS increase. Max settings are usually horribly optimized compared to the lower settings.

It genuinely shocks me that almost nobody tests hardware at lower quality/higher frame rates. Especially low end products? I don't care if something can get 30 fps on high settings. I want to see if it's possible to maintain or exceed 60.

13 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Like I said earlier, future proofing gets a bad rep because it's an excuse people use to justify buying expensive shit they don't need.

I believe it also causes the huge influx of threads where 'new' people ask for information that's either irrelevant to the performance of hardware, or the performance of unreleased hardware nobody knows about. The amount of threads popping up asking about 30 series performance or power usage is quite sad actually. "Future proofing" is an excuse to not think.

[Moonzy]

44 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Buying the CPU you need today, and the CPU you need in 4 years will result in better performance in the long run than buying something really expensive today and try using it for as long as possible.

in case you didn't read my other replies, i'm not comparing a 3600 to a 3950x, but a more sensible 3700x that has some headroom, basically point 2 of your "rant"

while i agree that games won't suddenly stop running on 6 cores for a long time, but they are definitely moving to higher thread count, and having lower thread counts definitely hurts frametime stability. (but this is just one example)

buying an uber expensive rig doesnt make sense (point 2 of your rant), but buying something with a little more headroom than what is currently the "recommended average" might allow you to do things that you otherwise couldnt in few years time.

or cater to a sudden change in interest like mister woof suggested.

you can turn down game graphics/settings, but that's not what some people might want, so it's essentially down to the user's expectation.

 

but that doesn't justify the hatred towards the term, it's ones preference. If he thinks spending about $100 extra on his CPU/GPU allows him to play at settings he wants, so be it.

 

I basically agree with your rant, people seem to assume future proof meaning buying the most expensive stuff, but instead what i'm talking about is "having a little more headroom than what's currently the recommended average" kind of future proofing, which is point 2 of your rant.

 

so it basically boils down to context and misuse of the term causing it to be hated, as you've mentioned.

 

28 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

3) Power supply - Just like with cases, power supplies haven't changed much and show no sign of changing either. Get a modular one with decent efficiency that is nicely built (check JonnyGuru). It will last you ages. I got a Corsair RM750X and when I bought it I thought that I will hopefully not need to replace this PSU in something like 15 years.

It's not that I disagree on this point, but I've been yelled at by people (I'm assuming elitist) for saying that a PSU, which was widely recommended back in 2016 to be "okay", to be "okay enough" in 2019. So it seems to me PSU standards are moving forward.

 

Personally, I would agree, but I'll have to delve deeper into PSU to make a concrete statement like this before I get yelled at again.

 

40 minutes ago, piratemonkey said:

I'm fine with the term as long as it isn't a huge marketing point. I'm buying a product not insurance

I agree that companies shouldn't use it because they can not guarantee it.

But users are allowed to gamble a bit, whether it's a good or bad decision is up to ones expectation and views.

The term itself shouldn't be hated and avoided like the plague, unless the philosophy/concept behind it is bad or unhealthy.

But users have been misusing it as a way to say "the most expensive thing money can buy", which may have changed the implied meaning or concept.

[Beerzerker]

Some have already expressed why it can be a deceptive term when used.
There is no way to "Future Proof" anything - The advances in tech and software that will happen eventually renders anything purchased or built today obsolete over time, just how it is.

 

Some have said and I agree, it's more of a term for expressing a period of time in which the build is expected to be viable for use such as being able to play game titles in an acceptable way over the next 5 years as an example, esp those yet to be released within that future timeframe.

 

In truth it depends on the user, the needs they currently have and expect to have in the future.

 

TBH about it you can take a system built over 10 years ago and still use it for things like web browsing if you want, it may be slow by today's standards but it's still useable; however the term "Useable" also has a standard of performance when compared to current builds, which again is based on user expectations.

 

I'm not a fan of the term myself but I do get the context of it when said.

[Sauron]

4 hours ago, Moonzy said:

even if most game doesn't utilise 8 cores now, they might in the next 2-4 years

I've been hearing this exact argument for almost 10 years. The reality of it is that you just can't predict this and, so far, everyone who has tried it has been wrong. Maybe in 2 years having 8 cores will make a difference over 6, maybe it never will or, by the time it does, your cpu will be obsolete for other reasons anyway. Given that AM4 supports CPU ranging from 4 to 16 cores I don't think you'd be beating yourself up much over it if you bought a 3600 and then "had" to upgrade to a used 3700 3 years from now - on the other hand if you really do nothing but play games with your pc and 8 cores are still unnecessary 5 years from now you'll just have wasted money.

 

Other than that, consider this from the angle of someone clicking on a thread where OP is asking for recommendations for a build. No matter how you slice it, if you say your build is "future proof" you'll either have to be extremely vague on the time frame where that applies or risk being dead wrong and setting up an unrealistic expectation. Plus you might end up making OP spend more money than they need to for potentially worse performance in the off chance that it will get better a couple of years down the line.

 

So while we can argue all day about whether it's theoretically possible for something to be "future proof" the reality of it is that this type of consideration has no real life application. When I'm recommending a build I'll usually make sure there's a little margin on top of the required performance (unless the budget is really tight) regardless of whether OP specifies they want a "future proof" build or not and going out of my way to recommend things they don't need just feels dishonest.

 

It has the same stigma as the word "bottleneck"; people use it without knowing what they're talking about and eventually you get tired of explaining the nuance to people who just don't get it. It's easier and faster to dismiss it as "not a thing" and move on with the recommendations.

[Strider1974]

I have always thought of Future-Proof like Fool-Proof. Taken at its most literal both terms are pointless, but the concepts they are trying to express make sense when realistic expectations are applied

[Fatih19]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

1) Do I actually need this or do I simply want to buy a shiny new toy to get a quick dopamine rush? If it's the former then buy it. If it's the latter then you can of course go ahead and buy it as well, it's your money after all. But it might be wise to stop and think for a little if there are better things you can do with your money.

This. I had this behaviour years before, where I would just buy things and buy more things for the sake of it. I then realize that it's not the things I have that gave me happiness, but it's the delta. The short burst of happiness I get when I open the box, and then it goes back to the baseline, and I need to buy more things. After realizing this, I was able to make more intelligent purchasing decision and doing better financially.

[Guest]

My Classic hardware is totally future proofed.

 

It was proofed to be totally obsolete in less than 2 decades on all levels and fronts just like the hardware your viewing this post from now.

 

Obsolete to the future, so the idea is totally and simply just an oxymoron.