[SOLVED] The old vs. the new... What has truly changed?

[maverick3n1]

I grew up going from XT to 286, 386, 486 SLC and DX2, 586, 686, Pentium and so on. In each step, there was a fairly dramatic difference in performance.

Over the years, I've found that now, the focus no longer seems to be on performance, but power draw. Processors are getting smaller and smaller, drawing less power and generating less heat. That works great for the mobile community, but for the world of Platform PC's, it seems like we are at a state of idle.. Upgrading, at least when it comes to processor means reducing power draw, but not much else. Am I wrong?

I'm currently running an I7- 4790K processor. I'm pretty sure I've been running it for at least 6 years now. I've considered upgrading, but the only benchmark info I could find on it was "Android" numbers, which basically tells me it's benchmarking on mobile devices. Mobile devices typically modify the chipset for their use and reduce core numbers/access to them if they are un-needed to cut power costs.

So realistically, is there much of a point in upgrading my computer/building a new one? It seriously feels like, from specs alone, that building a new computer today, may speed up my data transfer rate, but outside of that, processing power is fairly similar. Sure, I could get a better graphics card, but I feel that I could get a similar level graphics card on the MB/Processor I have now, that won't cap out substantially different than a modern day processor, or at least the bottleneck will be minimal and therefor not very noticeable unless I'm trying to squeeze every last drop of performance and graphics out of the top of the top game.

Am I wrong?

 

[Karadjgne]

I had Win7Pro. I loved that I could go in and have a ton of manual options for what I wanted to do, had buttons everywhere. Moved to Win10 Pro on free upgrade. Now many settings are hidden, but the Search engine is far better in 10. It's much more automatic, prevents a lot of user errors when a wrong or misunderstood option is enabled.

7 is a pc platform. Almost everything you do is localized. 10 is an internet platform, if it's not local, the pc will try its hardest to find what you want elsewhere. It's like having a permanent hookup to Windows update/MS update.

I didn't like it at first, I was SO used to XP/7 Start, menus, looks etc that I balked at the change, it's not much difference than an avid android user being given an iPhone. But once I wrapped my head around the permanent change, the new way of doing things, using 1 or 2 clicks to find stuff instead of 12 steps just made life that much simpler.

Obvious differences? Yes, plenty. 10 is 'lighter' than 7, so does run faster, uses ram more efficiently etc, less cpu too. About 5-10% faster. But mainly it's in How windows is used, not What. It's more intuitive, easier to find with dedicated folders like documents and downloads etc. 2 start bar menu options, quick access, it's just easier which for you is faster.