[saltcured]

Hah, yes, I have stuck to relatively classic 2.5D and 3D games that work on current iGPUs. It's nearly a nostalgia thing since I met Doom in college.

I struggle with the gaming hardware ROI, when I see how things become obsolete. E.g. my work bought me a Titan-X in 2015 for numerical/image processing work. Ten years later my Ryzen 7840u had nearly the same GFLOPs, though of course with less memory bandwidth. It also does it with vastly less heat/noise.

I know I would enjoy immersive VR. But I don't hink I would use it often enough to justify all that dedicated gear and the computer strong enough to drive it.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> I struggle with the gaming hardware ROI, when I see how things become obsolete. E.g. my work bought me a Titan-X in 2015 for numerical/image processing work. Ten years later my Ryzen 7840u had nearly the same GFLOPs,

10 years is an eternity in computer hardware. The idea that you should be able to get 7+ years from your hardware is a more recent thing. Imagine comparing the 2.8 Ghz Pentium 4 you could get in 2002 with the 66 Mhz 486 that was state-of-the-art in 1993.

It used to be that processor speeds were literally doubling every ~18 months. The computer you bought to run Windows 95 would have choked on Windows XP 6 years later.

Hardware ROI has gotten better in terms of how long you can use a system. Just look at how many people on HN talk about using 10 year old hardware for both productivity and gaming. I've got a 5090, sure, but that's mainly because of wanting to play MS Flight Simulator 2024 and Cyberpunk 2077 with all the details cranked in 4K at 240 fps, and wanting enough VRAM to do local models. If I was okay with lower detail settings in 1080p at 60 fps, I could get by with even a 9 year old 1080 Ti.

Meanwhile, imagine trying to use a computer from 1992 in 2001 as Windows XP is dropping.

EDIT:

> I know I would enjoy immersive VR. But I don't hink I would use it often enough to justify all that dedicated gear and the computer strong enough to drive it.

It takes surprisingly little to enjoy VR. I think most games are written for the Quest 3 which isn't all that powerful, and then ported to PC with the same graphical fidelity. When I first got a VR headset, I was on a GTX 1070 and it played Beat Saber at the 90 fps that my headset did just fine.

[saltcured]

I was well aware of the progress rates. But, not being tied to Windows, I have a different perspective on computer utility. As a kid, I used word processors and games on CP/M, Amiga, Apple II, and DOS before Windows 3.0, and then I got into Linux and stayed there. Basic "productivity" was always possible in my view, whether we're talking WordStar, WordPerfect, MacWrite, MS Word, AMI Pro, Libre Office, or the current cloud document editors.

I encountered subsequent Windows and Mac versions in work environments, but mostly kept them at arms length. I didn't embed myself the different Windows or Mac eras. Instead, I always had the same baseline, internet-connected machine experience with a similar environment of CLI, Emacs, X Windows, C programming, shell, Python, and other scripting languages like Scheme and Common LISP. The web arrived with Mosaic and evolved long with the content. Things like FTP sites, gopher, and USENET fell by the wayside.

But, the entire hardware history with Linux was a lot more incremental, overlapping, or blurry as far as different capabilities or needs. E.g. SMP, multi-core, large files, 3D acceleration, 64 bit, high speed networks, LCD monitors and associated video output formats. You could chase these different bits to your heart's content, but could also run for a long time with the same basic kit.

Due to CS in college and my career, I always had exposure to a range of IP networking technologies. My work computers were connected to the internet via ethernet and quite high speed WAN uplinks, while home went through the sequence of POTS, ISDN, ADSL, and cable modem. I was using Linux on Laptops, and we had WiFi at work since its very early days around 1997. We were also early adopters of 1000-BaseT in the LAN, so I remember the days when our data transfers were often limited by computer speed rather than trivially saturating the link.

To me, the increases in RAM and disk space over those decades were the most notable. I could do the same kinds of algorithmic work, but data sizes could be bigger. You can often let a program run longer, but a limited working-set size is a fundamental issue.

Of course, there were commensurate speed increases to make practical use of that extra space. I.e. how long does it take to transmit, store, and process these larger data that would exploit it? The realtime threshold brings associated eras. When was it practical to record/store/playback WAV audio, MP3, MPEG video, etc.