Yesterday was the first time in many years when I decided to check out how much a good gaming PC would cost me today.
The price for a i7 6700K 4.1GHz, 32GB RAM, 500GB SSD and nVidia GTX 1070: €1515 EUR (case and CPU cooler included).
Add a €360 27" Monitor and the total goes to € 1875. Let's round that up to €2000.
A similarly powered iMac (i7, 32GB RAM, 500GB SSD and an inferior Radeon R9 M395X) costs exactly: 4.189,00 €
More than double the price! Granted, the iMac monitor is much better, but the price difference gives you 2000 EUR to splash on monitors and still be up 189EUR !
Or maybe splash it on VR helmets and a new bike ?
And that thing gives me all the games plus VR and the pretty powerful Visual Studio IDE for hacking.
> The price for a i7 6700K 4.1GHz, 32GB RAM, 500GB SSD and nVidia GTX 1070: €1515 EUR (case and CPU cooler included).
That's not a gaming pc. That looks more like a gaming-capable Workstation. Absolutely overkill CPU (games are seldom cpu bound), and too much RAM (games don't care).
I suggest a glance at Logical Increments [0], which is definitely biased towards gaming, to see what you can do at a given price point. Note that just because of the gsync fiasco and the cloud-connected drivers nonsense, I'd gravitate towards an AMD GPU if I had to buy now.
If I may, Logical Increments is nice, but sometimes leads astray. I develop a hardware recommender, and this is in my eyes a good gaming PC for 1440p: https://www.pc-kombo.de/share/OqqYoLX. i5-6600K with 16GB DDR4-3000 on a Z170 board, good psu and good cooler. When playing on a lower resolution like the usual 1080p, AMD with a RX 480 would be a good choice, otherwise there is no alternative to the GTX 1070.
Intel just released the Kaby Lake processors which are tiny bit faster (because they are clocked higher), currently integrating this. But does not change much.
Agree with the config you recommend except the storage.
Both HDD and SSD are IMO too small.
For HDD, the 1TB is inefficient: €51 for 1TB, €98 for 3TB — that is more than 50% difference in cost/TB (both for WD blue desktop series as listed on computeruniverse.net).
For the SSD, the 256 GB is just too small. Sure that’s enough to boot Windows, but not enough to fit more than a couple of modern games, they easily take 50GB/each. I’d rather recommend 480GB these days.
You are right. The 1TB HDD is inefficient as price-per-gigabyte is a lot higher than 2 or 3 TB. On the other hand, almost always when I recommend bigger drives I get the feedback that 1TB is more than enough… Depends on the usage.
Regarding the SSD, for Windows a 120GB or even a 60GB SSD would be enough (but those are also slower). 250GB is already a lot of additional space for games – again, it depends on the usage. A couple of games is what is the usual way of thinking for what a SSD should be used, and for that 250GB is just right. But if one wants multiple modern AAA games on it at the same time 480GB sure is more useful.
There's another factor, though, which you missed entirely: larger SSDs have muchz much faster write speeds, and also read speeds. The parallel NAND chips provide a sort of intra-device RAID
But I did mention that, for the smaller SSDs? It's also true for 250GB vs 512GB, but the main appeal of having an SSD does not get lost by getting a smaller one – latency and faster load times than with a HDD.
> Logical Increments is nice, but sometimes leads astray.
I'm not a fan of their brackets and they also seem to favor nvidia over amd, but it's serves the purpose of, without actually having to put a machine together in pcpartpicker [0], seeing what can be done at a price point with current pieces.
Yes. It serves its purpose and is a good idea, but I saw multiple builds based on it that were off (things like: when do you need an aftermarket cooler, when a mainboard with a Z-chipset, …). My https://www.pc-kombo.de/ is an alternative approach which I think is more accurate, and also less work than pcpartpicker, that is why I took the liberty to mention it here.
Thanks. Yes, they are :) Currently working on making the hardware selection both broader, customizable and more reliable, and then I'll try (again, turned out to be hard so far) to get into some US-american APIs.
I'm missing an option to disable HDD altogether. I have one hefty NAS, and the other systems only have SSDs (128 GB in the notebook, 256 GB on the desktop).
If you have JS enabled, all boxes (apart from processor and mainboard) have a small black circle with a minus sign at the top right. Clicking on it will disable the category, and that carries over when searching again.
I think at 1080p gaming, CPU power is more important nowadays. Overwatch benefits greatly from the i7 6700k over the i5 6600k, going from 240-260fps to 300fps (the cap imposed by the engine, hitting this cap is useful for reducing input lag). As a result I've seen many gaming builds rocking the 6700k (and even 3000Mhz RAM!)
In this context, going to 1080p means lowering the resolution, allowing to use more money for the processor exactly because it means pushing the gpu less. I don't agree that a normal gaming PC needs a i7-6700K (reducing input lag in one game is something for pro gamers playing it as a job), but the logic is sound.
Depends on your monitor, if you decide on 144fps/hz, that can take a serious chunk out of your CPU. Lets say a game runs easy at 75FPS on the cpu, and lets assume it's 60% used. If you want to crank out 144fps, you have a problem. i7 6700K might be enough though, nut sure on the absolute required specs.
The "games don't use CPU" line is only really true for multiplatform games that must also run on the low performance PS4/XBox One AMD Jaguar CPUs.
If we look at PC exclusives [1] then we can see that these are extremely CPU-hungry games. This hunger only goes up if we want to achieve a framerate higher than 60, say going for 144.
I personally have an i7 @ 3.8 GHz with GTX 1060 and none of these games can hold a stable 1080p @ 144 Hz.
[1] For example Dota 2, H1Z1, DayZ, Civilization 6, Guild Wars 2
Fallout 4, Skyrim, Guild Wars 2, World of Warcraft and many more popular games are heavily CPU bound. Also, considering this is hacker news I think we can assume the gp doesn't need "just" a gaming PC
Ridiculous argument. Macs have never been the value proposition, especially when they get fully loaded. Any literally any point in the history of the Mac, you could say "but you can get a comparable PC cheaper!" and it would be true.
Macs have always been expensive, everyone has always complained that they're expensive, and they will continue to be expensive. This isn't new.
Nah. In 2013, macs were slightly more expensive than a comparable PC spec-wise, but still a fairly good deal. In 2016, the prices appear to have almost doubled and is totally unreasonable, while the specs are... malnourished. They even took away the escape key and the magsafe port. :(
According to their Amazon product page, the XPS 13 has a 2.5Ghz i5 and 8GB of RAM. It has a 256GB SSD and a 3000x1800 screen. It's selling for $1,350, original price $1,799.
The 13" MacBook with touchbar has a 2.9Ghz i5 with 8GB of RAM. It has a 256GB SSD and a 2560x1600 screen. It's selling for $1,699, original price $1,799.
I know people love to complain about the new MacBook and believe me, I have some complaints about it too, but it's hard to argue with the numbers. If the MacBook is overpriced, Dell is getting away with the same thing, while somehow being highly recommended in every thread on HN.
I noticed the same thing with phones. I've read a lot of comments that the iPhone was much more expensive than Android phones. But whenever I ask for Android recommendations, the very same people would recommend phones like the S7 that are just as expensive as iPhones.
The difference between the Android & iPhone market is the existence of a low end in the Android market. Flagship Android phones cost just as much as iPhones do. But if you're willing to not get the flagship, you can often get budget models for 30-50% of the cost. The Moto G, for example, is a perfectly good phone, as are various budget LG phones. You don't have that option in the Apple ecosystem.
You do realize that the Dell is 20% cheaper right? That is a large price difference.. perhaps the issue is that people seem to insinuate that 20% price difference isn't much for them so its not much for everyone.
Also, the real value proposition for PC's is that they go on sale more than once a year and you can generally get discounts, replacement parts, upgrades, spares without that 20% premium again..
Any my first entry into this thread was "Apple computers are always more expensive". The rebuttal was "yeah but they're twice the price of a comparable PC". 20% is right in line with "more expensive" but a far cry from "twice the price".
Yeah, and in every thread about the XPS, there's someone talking about their horrible experience with drivers and support, all the while saying "but the new ones look nice!".
Honestly I would love if everyone switched away from Mac. Apple (like Intel) is at their best when their back is against the wall. When they're running the show, they get lazy.
The comment I replied to say "priced have doubled for 2016", but there were no iMacs released in 2016. The latest iMac is from October 2015. So the only way to compare prices for 2016 models is MacBooks. There is no valid comparison between a brand new Windows desktop vs a brand new Mac desktop because there is no new brand new Mac desktop. The Mac Pro workstation hasn't been updated since 2013, and the Mac Mini hasn't been updated since 2014.
There are no valid comparisons between the prices of a modern Windows desktop and a modern Mac desktop because there is no modern Mac desktop.
I forgot to specify I'm looking at non-US numbers. Apple's been hiking foreign market prices quite a bit. Also, the markup gets worse when you venture into higher specced builds.
In 2013, I was in the market for a new computer, and my top choices were a System76 Pangolin for $702, or a 15" Retina MBP for $2399. Their basic stats (CPU, RAM, disk, base screen resolution) were largely identical; I think the Pangolin actually had the advantage in disk & CPU. The MBP had a nicer keyboard, screen, touchpad, weight, and battery life though.
I ended up going back to Macs for my 2015 upgrade, but that was largely because I wanted to do Apple Watch development. You've always paid a "Mac tax" for Apple products, and it's usually been in the 2-3x range.
No. The TouchBar has replaced the function row of keys, so yeah, there's no physical Esc key, but there is still an Esc key on the TouchBar if you want one. In practice, it's the same thing and works the same way.
The biggest difference between a PC and an iMac is the form factor. An windows all-in-one pc with the mentioned specs is probably about as expensive as the iMac (if there even exists one).
It would have been better to compare it to an Mac Pro, which probably would be even more expensive...
As for the general price of apple products, Surface book, lenovo, dell xps (outside of USA) are just as expensive as Macbooks. But sure, you can always get a windows laptop with worse specs or quality.
Exactly. This has been true of every Apple product. If you compare only the specs, Macs, iPhones, iPads etc. are more expensive. If you factor in resale value or the fact that they last twice as long as a comparable Acer/Samsung device then they are absolutely worth their price.
This is my thought too. PC has always been interesting to people who care about performance, price, future proofing, free software, etc. Specifically glad the author is going to be well, on the side of the Holy Master Race but overall people who want to buy macs are, in my opinion, paying for the shiny brush and Apple not the guts. I run Debian on my thinkpad e5 series without any problems. Ubuntu 16,04 installed with 4k multi monitor support out of the box. Windows is dead, long live Tux
I don't think so, when you compare Macs to Windows machines with similar build quality. I got my 2014 rMBP because it was $200 cheaper than a Surface Pro 3 with the same specs at the time.
I just tried to find a screen that's comparable to the iMac (resolution 5210 x 2880 and wide gamut colour space), and those I did find actually were around $2000 (i. e. http://amzn.to/2iPC5SZ).
I also believe the price difference is magnified by the options you chose – Apple does indeed charge too much for additions like RAM. The base model, with the same 5k screen, only costs $2000.
All that's neither here nor there – if I'm spending 10h+/day with something, I'm not going to look too hard at the price. Just the difference in noise is worth a significant premium, not to mention macOS.
Note the potential extensive value for someone who needs a display they can use with multiple inputs or wants to keep it for the future... There's something different about a standalone display panel. Besides all said and done a custom build PC + 2x 4k panels can be bought for the same price range so why wouldn't you? Because Apple socks the psychology of scale and experience at you so the price is a bit easier of a pill to swallow alongside any other hang backs you may have: closed ecosystem of software, oh and hardware, questionable design changes re: battery life and touch bar in latest MBP, their pattern of designed obsolescence, insert gripe here but that's plenty for me to laughably head to the nearest Dell or Lenovo product when it comes to a laptop and entirely self built when it comes to PC.
Right now I have a thinkpad e560 with 1tb ssd, 16GB rip jaws ram, i76500u at 2.5ghz. Now I know this anecdote is not really the same as what is on the market now but I paid $1.2k, I have a blu-ray if I want it, extra ssd if I don't. Also card reader. And plenty of USB 2/3 and network and even a Fucking VGA out. It's just as fast as my last retina MBP, and I used the cash differece for 4k panel.
Why people upgrade so often is beyond me. Maybe it's a capitalism thing. This human race is fucked.
It's just pointless to compare. A Mac isn't useful for gaming anyways, since only a handful of games are available and drivers aren't optimised anyway.
I bet with a bit of deal scouring one could find a 5k panel that is comparable but not quite as good. The opportunity cost of using that monitor on any other computer rather than just the one mac? Priceless. Fuck Apple, they sell you on the brand not the product they just happen to have good products.
I love my iMac not because if any brand cachet, but I program a lot and love crisp typography on the screen. It is quite simple, you don't have to buy one, no it isn't a gaming machine. No reason to fuck Apple about it.
I use proportional fonts and feel most programming fonts are butt ugly. But even then, there isn't no reason to go with a crippled font designed for low resolution (1080p). The hardware is available now and while not "cheap", is definitely affordable when compared to my monthly salary. Most of us aren't living in the third world.
speak only for yourself, please. I live in EC, but in a less developed country. After monthly expenses, I have 200-300 euros left for gadgets, travel and unexpected expenses.
It would seem you love things that aren't exclusive to Apple, crisp fonts and development friendly ecosystem. I make my living writing code and I never game these days so I feel you! I say fuck apple because they know they have a huge market and they can exploit it, for money and not for the sake of the user. There are other ethical reasons to dislike the company but those are my own so idc much what others think there I just say fuck apple since they went and removed the decision making process and told me what I wanted. I had to go find what I wanted instead. Obviously to each their own I'm just spitting my thoughts as per the definition of a comment.
You really really don't have to buy from Apple if you don't want to. I'm considering a surfacebook for my next laptop, and the Surface Studio would be a really cool (but expensive) way of replacing my iMac. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on computers, if they work for you great! If not, there is plenty of competition.
They do seem to still have a monopoly on decent track pads, perhaps we should get the FTC and DOJ involved :).
I have a number of PCs and Macs at home (even a Sierra hackintosh) and I just prefer working on macOS.
I tried switching to Windows for work but ultimately I need iOS and macOS compilation and I also miss the macOS ecosystem too much (Alfred, Karabiner, BetterTouchTool, iTerm, etc). Also Windows is plagued by legacy software, which is not an absolute deal breaker but who prefers working with ugly outdated software?
If you have big hardware requirements moving to Windows or Linux is a no brainer. Even when money is not an issue, with Apple you are stuck with decrepit AMD GPUs.
But the situation here is direct opposite of the article you are linking to. Every year for the last 15 years or more, I have read the PC is dead. If every year I was reading that the PC was NOT dead, then the article would make sense.
Lenovo released the Yoga, the first convertible that you could put in tent mode or tablet mode, and Microsoft released the Surface, back in 2012. Intel announced the Ultrabook in 2011.
Today you have the same things. They've been revised and improved in the areas of screen, battery life, graphics performance, switching from HDD to SSD, but it's all been incremental.
>> 2-IN-1S SUCCEEDED BECAUSE THEY MARRIED THE BEST OF MOBILE WITH THE POWER OF THE PC
Has the author ever used a 2 in 1? They can be marginally useful when sharing a document with someone but they bad tablets and they are mediocre laptops.
The author most likely never uses/used a 2-in-1. The Verge is known for its heavy Apple bias going so far at one point to indicate that most of the staff writes on a MacBook (single port nonsense version). They also usually make a similar claim to "The PC is interesting again" around CES and usually have a "The PC is boring and tired" article in the early fall before the usual fall hardware events. This is because The Verge promotes a lifestyle level knowledge of technology rather than in depth overview about the industry and its products/services.
I’ve had my Surface Book for over seven months now, and it’s superb. I use it as a laptop the majority of the time, but a laptop with touch and a pen. And then I use it as a tablet some of the time, but a tablet with a pen as well, and a large tablet at that (which is normally desirable for me, though not always). Not everything is perfect about the device, and it’s expensive, but I consider it to be a good investment in my productivity and comfort.
I even switched away from Linux because of the excellence that is the Surface Book.
Yep. I have a Surface Book as well. I am reversed from your usage pattern though, I work out of my home most of the time... due to that I use a nice beefy workstation day-to-day... so I use the Surface Book more as a tablet and am happy to do so. I notice my wife who only has the surface book is about 50/50. She'll use the screen portion in portrait mode as a tablet for reading in whatever room we're in, but otherwise uses it as a laptop for basic work.
The only thing I miss (which my first tablet, the Xoom, had) is mobile data support. Yeah I could probably buy an addon device for that, but I think that would be self-defeating for tablet use.
Anyway, Surface Book is a fine 2-in-1 and demonstrates that proper engineering can make the format work.
> I even switched away from Linux because of the excellence that is the Surface Book.
That happened to me when Windows 7 got released.
I was using only laptops and as a gamer, UI/UX fan, former demoscener, game programmer, came to realise I would be having more fun, using Windows again full time as desktop.
Now GNU/Linux lives on a VM and on a travel netbook.
A lot of the improvements which make 2-in-1's useful rather than mediocre are incremental. Just as both the smartphone and tablet concepts for years before hardware existed which could make it work well. I'd say the two major hardware barriers up to this point have been i) having a fast processor which is also efficient enough to operate within a small thermal envelope, and have a decent battery life, ii) keeping the weight down so that the device is comfortable to read from. We've just got to the point where you can get desktop-class processors that fit within the thermal envelope, in devices which are 700g. Now it's just about software.
Maybe they are starting to get good and suck less? The first yoga and surfaces aren't exactly held up as very successful, but we seem to be turning a corner...finally.
Sometimes incremental improvement over a few years is all that is needed to push something over the edge of success.
Course, some ideas are probably going nowhere even with incremental improvement.
Yup, I would argue that the surface book is actually more interesting(I'll admit that I'm based since I snagged one recently). The combination of tablet and PC is fantastic and really well executed. I had a similar reaction to most of the CES news.
I wonder if it's more of a reflection on Apple's lackluster products lately.
I agree. As a developer, a desktop PC gives me the most value and peformance. I recently replaced my Asus zenbook laptop with a new desktop PC that I built myself, with an Intel i7 CPU, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD and a great nVidia graphics card, at a price that no laptop could ever compete.
Just today I was listening to more grief and complaints about the new MBPs (I develop on an older one now), and I got so tired of it all and said to myself, "the way out of this cycle might be to build a desktop PC and put a Linux distro on it."
I don't take my current rig out of my office very often these days, though if I were living somewhere else I might. But I can get all my work done in my office for sure, so this is looking like a good way out for me. Did you price your components out on NewEgg?
Yes, the price of a new MBP is outrageous compared to a custom built desktop PC. I would think companies and startups would see the value of desktop PCs again.
> Did you price your components out on NewEgg?
I bought the components in Norway on komplett.no. The price was about 33% of a new MBP with 15" screen, but I got significantly better specifications.
Probably somewhere around the late 2000s or early 2010s, I'd say.
By that point, you could already buy a PC with enough power to do almost anything that most people needed. They ran Windows 7, which is arguably still the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced. Everyone's major important software ran on Windows PCs first and anything else second. Everyone's hardware came with Windows drivers.
There has been some useful progress in hardware since that time, particularly in the areas of storage, networking/communications, graphics/displays and lower energy consumption. However, in terms of the fundamental capabilities and "shape" of a PC, things haven't really changed much since that time.
More importantly, there has been relatively little real innovation in mainstream PC software for years, it's just that often now you only rent it, it keeps changing itself around, and it tries to spy on you all the time. The interesting innovations in software are almost entirely in either the mobile space or online services today.
I would actually argue that this is the least interesting that PCs have ever been. The only thing they're doing that's interesting is copying features from more interesting form factors like tablets and cell phones. The PC (laptop/desktop, doesn't matter the OS) is complete.
This years fastest processor is exactly the same speed as last year. This years video card plays the same games as last year. What interesting things do we have? A touchscreen? It's interesting because it turns out PC into a tablet. Folds over on itself? Turns the PC into a tablet.
4K is nice but it's not any more interesting than any other resolution. VR is nice but that doesn't make a PC more interesting, it makes VR interesting. You can do VR without a PC.
PCs are commodity products with little compelling reason to upgrade anymore. VR is the most interesting thing happening, and most people are doing it on their phone instead of on a PC. They sell the Gear VR at Walmart, for crying out loud.
I disagree. Good VR needs a good video card, and the recent 1080 from Nvidia is a strong improvement to the previous generation. You will notice a difference.
Have you tried a Vive? GearVR vs Vive is like 2012 Chromebook vs modern MacBook pro. You need a modern desktop to drive the Vive. And I feel like a lot of people who say VR doesn't excite them haven't tried the Vive, it's much more exciting than any other product on the market.
SSDs are getting much faster. 4K monitors are cheaper, and better. If you don't game, modern processors can drive multiple 4K monitors.
Running a Bitcoin full node on a desktop is reasonable, running it on a laptop is noticeably detrimental. You need too much juice. Plus the 100GB hurts a lot more on a laptop, where in a desktop you can get 5TB for $100 during sales. Torrenting, Tor nodes, media centers, all things that don't work as well on laptops as they do on desktops.
As a software developer I can very confidently say that my desktop is much better for development than my laptop. Both the processor and the SSD make a huge difference.
It was Jobs. The term "post-PC" was never that smart I thought. I remember him in the interview, dead serious look on his face as he pressed the point. The thing is, "PC" doesn't necessarily need to remain stuck in the past, defined as "keyboard in front of big monitor".
That said, I'm right now sitting at a keyboard in front of big monitor, a big tower under the desk blowing hot air. I have Planet Coaster running on my second monitor. I now must return to PC (on my PC).
Making highly detailed roller coasters and amusement parks is very addictive, and cannot be done on a mobile or non-PC device at this level of detail. Sometimes you just need a PC to get to the good stuff.
The PC market stopped growing a few years ago, post market growth usually means innovation slows down because everyone can see the ceiling of the market.
The market still isn't growing that much, but we are seeing interesting innovative computers nonetheless. Perhaps a redefinition of the market to cross over with tablets.
I think this article misses the point of what we are seeing. Input and output devices are changing for the first time in decades. At the same time, cloud computing is disconnecting the computing power from the input and output devices.
You now can select from keyboards, mice, touch, voice, and use local or remote computing power, to get results delivered in real time or async to screens, devices, messages, VR, voice, or IoT devices. And that is not even getting into what robotics can do.
So it is not that the PC is interesting. It is that EVERYTHING is now decoupled, and we can mix and match like never before. It should be interesting to see where people take it.
I just wrote a very long and pointless comment trying to express this very idea. It's not that the PC is any more interesting than it has been, it's that a lot of interesting things are happening in tech, and the PC is the way to access them.
It's like saying that cars are interesting again because the city built a new stadium. No, the stadium is interesting. The car is just how you get there.
That Dell has a nice looking screen, but then they go and ruin it with the carbon-fiber-looking body. I'd also have to be able to run some operating system that isn't Windows (I'll never use Windows again) without having to screw around with drivers or other annoying quirks. Until it's beautiful and comes with a non-junky operating system I'm stuck with Mac.
With that being said, I'm very glad to see other manufacturers are putting effort into catching up after like 8 years of serious sub-par machines. All we need now is for one of them to drop Windows and seriously support a Linux distribution and then we could have a real Apple competitor in 3-5 years.
I'm a big fan of the port decision on the new MacBook Pros, but the cost, the obsession for thinness at the expense of battery life, etc... isn't acceptable and they're learning that this year, hopefully, or they'll be on the ropes in 5 years. Or perhaps they kill the Mac themselves. It's not a problem to make a laptop thinner every year. Just don't sacrifice performance and battery life to do so.
> I'd also have to be able to run some operating system that isn't Windows (I'll never use Windows again) without having to screw around with drivers or other annoying quirks.
Since like ten years the only time I have to mess with drivers is when I install Windows to someones computer (and I used Arch linux for ~3 years and since last May I'm on FreeBSD). You can go for Ubuntu or Elementary OS if you're looking for a nice desktop.
Ah. I'm currently using a MacBook that I love and not looking at the moment, so I'll keep your suggestions in mind in the next few years. We'll see how Apple responds.
> All we need now is for one of them to drop Windows and seriously support a Linux distribution and then we could have a real Apple competitor in 3-5 years.
Only if the community makes their mind what a UNIX desktop, usable by all types of users, is supposed to look like.
Even then, the first comment would be asking how to replace it with distribution X.
I don't know what the options look like but Dell sells Linux laptops too. So does System76 but those ones looked a little clunky last I checked them out.
I'm not sure PCs are really any different than they ever have been. It's always incremental improvements, year over year. Maybe with Intel essentially stonewalled on Moore's Law improvements, graphics cards pretty well maxed out, and ssds becoming relatively standard, there's not a whole lot of room besides going after different form factors and better efficiency.
I suspect the only near-term actually interesting innovation will be docking stations (keyboard/mouse/video screen) for our phones so that we're always carrying around the same PC.
That doesn't seem too far off in the future to me.
I've never lived without a laptop since 2002, and this year I'm going to get Razer Blade 14".
Laptops are getting desktop like performance with the portability of a small backpack and the weight of under 2kg. Full HD with 14" laptop looks just right.
With the human size not changing at all, I see that there's always a need for a PC.
I will be upgrading to this as my main machine as when my current MBP pro dies. It's 4 years old now. I will miss macOS though. I have a Surface Pro 3 and its just horrible to use - both as a tablet and laptop.
edit: A bit more detail: I've done a lot of reseach into gaming laptops in the last month as I'll be starting a job using unity in Feb. The Blade seems to be just a little bit better than ASUS and MSI offerings. I think the Alienware machines just look like cheap junk so didn't really look into them.
They are all priced incredibly closely it really does come down to your preference for style and minor feature variations.
Lots of comments here about custom desktop builds being cheap. But what about the portability you've sacrificed? No big deal, the tremendous savings you just made can go into a cheapo use-it-for-travel laptop and you'll still have money left in the bank.
As a passionate core PC gamer (who has dabbled in consoles) for the past 20+ years, I can confidently say that right now is the greatest time it has ever been to be a PC gamer. A non-exhaustive list of reasons why this is true (some of these apply to more than just the PC):
- There are very few exclusives that matter anymore. The cost of making a AAA game is high enough that publishers can rarely afford to exclude a good part of their market. Of the two consoles that matter, many Xbox exclusives are coming to PC anyways.
- The quality of the PC versions of most games has gone up. There was a transitional period in the mid 2000s where gaming switched from being PC centric to console centric and the PC versions of many AAA games were awful. This has mostly passed. Even Japanese developers are releasing good stuff on PC now, and that group of developers have long seen the PC as alien.
- The digital download market is sane. Valve and Steam are a mostly benign monopoly, and Valve being privately held assures me this will remain true for a while. Problems down the line are problems for future Jake, though. Even so, the individual publisher stores are usually not too bad. Ubisoft's uPlay is fine and integrates with Steam pretty well, and EA's Origin has a big leg up on UI design and actually led the pack on refunds. GOG exists for people that want older games or draw a hard line on DRM.
- There is a range of hardware available for any budget, and the value and reliability of that hardware is the best it's ever been. You can get a $150 GTX 1050 Ti and have modest performance at 1080p on most modern games, or you can drop $650 on a GTX1080 and play most anything at 4K/Ultra, and there are many steps in between. As usual, the sweet spot of performance per dollar is somewhere around the $250 "mainstream" card, but the options exist.
- The Steam Controller and Steam Link are amazing. They open up a whole range of games that previously could only be played with a mouse and keyboard on your desk into your living room. Many games have native support for the XInput controller standard but the Steam Controller takes it even further. The Link steps in if your PC and TV are too far away for an HDMI cable.
- There are tons of games now in every niche. Consoles stay mostly to AAA games (which is fine, I love AAA games), but the range of AA and indie games on PC is amazing. If you want a simulator for something like farming, trains, or driving a truck - PC is your destination. How about managing a bloodline through medieval Europe? Tons of stuff that just isn't possible with a controller alone or that wouldn't be financially viable with the cost of console licensing is available, often with much more direct lines of communication to the developer.
- Digital distribution makes it simple to acquire any game you want at any time, often at a discount over physical stores. I can get a game in a few clicks on Steam and if it's on sale I may save anywhere from 50-90% off retail. I know that the modern consoles have this as well, but it is something I love about PC.
- eSports are fun and they are centered on the PC. I was initially skeptical, but I do enjoy watching some now, and it is undeniably a large market. But the related idea of streaming (Twitch, et al.) is also really cool. I like watching and interacting with some smaller streamers on Twitch, and it is a new way to be involved with gaming.
Like I said, I don't think there's ever been a better time to be a gamer and especially a PC gamer. With consoles taking a more PC-ish "upgradeable" route, I wonder how the market will change in the next decade.
This is effectively a ridiculous lie. I just spent three whole days researching 2-in-1s and tablets and hybrids and laptops, just to understand what the fuck the offerings today actually mean. tl;dr, they suck
Start with the premise of Windows 10. It's horrible. Not just the interface, which doesn't give you anything you want or need when you want and need it, forces you to reboot against your will to install updates you can't choose to install, crashes apps regularly with no real understanding of why, hogs resources unnecessarily, spams you with meaningless notifications, and of course, leaks metadata everywhere. Still with no meaningful stock firewall or application security or value-driving base apps or functionality. It's lame, it's annoying, it sucks. It's Windows, Okay?
The thing you're bound to do the most on a computer in 2017 is surf the web, and you need a fucking Supercomputer to load 10 tabs, even though five years ago you needed a machine much less powerful and with much less RAM than the ones today and could load 50-100 tabs without it breaking a sweat.
Next there's the fact that there's really one chipmaker dominating PCs right now: Intel. AMD comes up short performing poorer and making up a tiny part of the market, this is not even close to the good old days when Intel and AMD were in a constant arms race.
Intel has, for the past 8 years, been slogging through a series of combinations of performance "tweaks", which have resulted in sometimes faster, sometimes slower, generally uninspiring computing platforms. Between mobile and PC there's a whole complicated universe of CPUs and GPUs designed to be somewhat impossible to compare due to their constantly almost making the old products obsolete, but not quite, because PC and mobile design changes just enough to make the new products disappointing.
More power? Less battery. More battery? Annoying form factor. Good form factor? Less power and battery. Low heat dissipation? Poorer performance. Otherwise good everything? No modern connectors, or display, or storage. No matter what year it is or what revision it is of the same exact model from the last 3 years, something about it is going to suck.
The Dell XPS 13, which has been given every conceivable blowjob by every reviewer i've found, is an underwhelming and overpriced notebook. It's not the fastest, doesn't have the longest battery, isn't the coolest, isn't the thinnest, yet year after year it's supposedly the best mobile there is. And every year, a machine with comparable specs from two years before is 1/3 the price and still works fine. The whole market is a sales con.
And let me tell the whole god damn industry something: hinges are not an innovation. Room dividers from the 15th century had double hinges that let them move 360 degrees, this is not rocket science, and it's certainly nothing to jump around and shout about. Magnets, amazing as they are, have been around forever. If you don't use them in your design it's because you were trying to rush a pointless release of your redundant platform. The industry has been holding back basic, useful features for years just so they can charge you more money the next year for something a kid in metal shop could make in an hour.
I just bought a Lenovo IdeaPad Miix 700 Core m5-6Y54 4GB 128GB (?!), a 1-year old stupid portable, for less than half its old retail price. It's a 2-in-1 with a 4 cell battery, which means it is too heavy to hold as a tablet, so they bundled a tiny keyboard, which of course has no rigid hinges so you can't place it on your lap. The "tiny" 4 gigabytes of RAM, and some weird bug with the touchpad, cause Chrome to crash constantly. And the keyboard stops typing randomly. For all of this inconvenience you get a high-ish resolution display that's good for drawing on, and of course, it provides only a mild amount of heat from the back.
The CPU is an m5, which is an already-obsolete ultra-low-power version of a hybrid between a Pentium and an i5, which inexplicably has more L3 cache than anything but the highest performance CPU models available, yet less clock speed, with the main goals not being performance but less heat and power draw. Just forget that CPU exists since Intel no longer makes it (unless you do want higher L3 cache than other CPUs today). And of course you're stuck with a whopping two cores, because how can we fit any more than two cores on a CPU when we have to use a gigantic 14 nanometer process? Oh, AMD and virtually every smartphone ships 4 to 8 cores in its chips? Don't worry, you can still totally get a high-power, 6-core (!!!), i5 6440 HQ, which has the same cores and L3 as an i7 from last year, and performs the same, and sucks as much power, and doesn't have very good graphics. Unless the manufacturer "turns down the TDP" and makes it run like a slower, earlier CPU, which you can't really change, all to make it slightly less hot. And of course, whatever the performance is, it will slow down quickly and consistently as the machine gets hotter.
The RAM is of course "tiny" by today's standards, but again, don't worry, you can pay a $200 premium for them to put a $30 stick of RAM in the thing to make it barely usable again.
After comparing benchmarks and battery life and processor specs and graphics and form factors and price for two days, I can tell you one thing about the PC (mainly mobile) market: it's more infuriating and confusing than ever, and nothing is worth the money they're asking because somehow it's going to disappoint you.
I'm pretty sure the people downvoting paid full price for a recent PC and are mad that i'm telling it like it is.
Yesterday was the first time in many years when I decided to check out how much a good gaming PC would cost me today.
The price for a i7 6700K 4.1GHz, 32GB RAM, 500GB SSD and nVidia GTX 1070: €1515 EUR (case and CPU cooler included).
Add a €360 27" Monitor and the total goes to € 1875. Let's round that up to €2000.
A similarly powered iMac (i7, 32GB RAM, 500GB SSD and an inferior Radeon R9 M395X) costs exactly: 4.189,00 €
More than double the price! Granted, the iMac monitor is much better, but the price difference gives you 2000 EUR to splash on monitors and still be up 189EUR ! Or maybe splash it on VR helmets and a new bike ?
And that thing gives me all the games plus VR and the pretty powerful Visual Studio IDE for hacking.