Skidmarksdeluxe
Posts: 8,645 +3,290
Thank you. Fortunately we've always had a very close family.
Weekend Open Forum: What's the oldest gadget you still use regularly?
- Thread starter Jos
- Start date
Thank you. Fortunately we've always had a very close family.
G
Guest
My oldest functioning "gadget" would have been the 8800 GTX, however...
Approximately on the 30th of November, 2013 - the 8800 GTX quit with a short burst of artifacting, exponentially increasing in amount per time before ultimate failure. I am considering attempting repair, however, a part of me knows the era has passed, and running at 85 degrees C for 6 years is obviously considered by the chip to be stressful. It had an excellent run, the cost per month of the GPU was on the order of 7 dollars, and performance was never an obstacle. I would have to say that I got my value out of the device, by and only by neglecting the demands of consumerism (yes, I am targeting the one who upgraded 1-2 "generations" ago) and choosing the device wisely. It was an investment, and not recently did any GPU remain the fastest for as long as the 8800 GTX did (citation needed - examine the numbers for independently). The improvement per generation has yet to necessitate an upgrade - I am simply not impressed with the performance of the technology. After all, how could one be when the chips on the order of multiples of 10 years from now are already working prototypes (citation needed)?. The fact that someone might believe the latest silicon semiconductor chip is "bleeding edge", well, I'll let the reader of this decide first whether or not they are this person, and then decide how they feel. Performance per current application and one's perception of the combination is all that is relevant. The GTX 680 was the only GPU I have considered to be good since the 8800 GTX, however, it is still not good enough. Seem crazy? I do not think in factors of less than 1. A 25% improvement, even a 50% improvement, is not enticing to me, and it shouldn't be to the reader as well. At that rate, where are we going? A multiple of 7 times faster in 7 years? This is roughly the rate of progress since the 8800 GTX. What of "Moore's Law"? Was it deemed "profit-ineffective"? If it were not, we would have 12 times the performance in 7 years. Even that, is very unimpressive to one that is able to remove one's frame of mind from the land of factors less than 1. This concept of suppression of progression due to greed does not stop with computer technology - it is ubiquitous in all of human society. The cause of this is what one may label as an intrinsic negative force, and it does not stop there - "it" goes so far as to attempt to manipulate one to enjoy this suppression of progression. Heavy, and such is reality.
I do not see this as negativity as much as I do an obstacle. I choose to see it this way, and therefore I choose to overcome this obstacle. My mean message is to encourage the reader to do the same. This surmounting can only be accomplished by an awareness of a environment bigger that what one immediately sees.
A small benefit to the mass adoption of this awareness will be a pressure on the producers of non-essential electronic products to produce a better product. But one's reasoning for changing the world should of course not be a better GPU.
NN
Approximately on the 30th of November, 2013 - the 8800 GTX quit with a short burst of artifacting, exponentially increasing in amount per time before ultimate failure. I am considering attempting repair, however, a part of me knows the era has passed, and running at 85 degrees C for 6 years is obviously considered by the chip to be stressful. It had an excellent run, the cost per month of the GPU was on the order of 7 dollars, and performance was never an obstacle. I would have to say that I got my value out of the device, by and only by neglecting the demands of consumerism (yes, I am targeting the one who upgraded 1-2 "generations" ago) and choosing the device wisely. It was an investment, and not recently did any GPU remain the fastest for as long as the 8800 GTX did (citation needed - examine the numbers for independently). The improvement per generation has yet to necessitate an upgrade - I am simply not impressed with the performance of the technology. After all, how could one be when the chips on the order of multiples of 10 years from now are already working prototypes (citation needed)?. The fact that someone might believe the latest silicon semiconductor chip is "bleeding edge", well, I'll let the reader of this decide first whether or not they are this person, and then decide how they feel. Performance per current application and one's perception of the combination is all that is relevant. The GTX 680 was the only GPU I have considered to be good since the 8800 GTX, however, it is still not good enough. Seem crazy? I do not think in factors of less than 1. A 25% improvement, even a 50% improvement, is not enticing to me, and it shouldn't be to the reader as well. At that rate, where are we going? A multiple of 7 times faster in 7 years? This is roughly the rate of progress since the 8800 GTX. What of "Moore's Law"? Was it deemed "profit-ineffective"? If it were not, we would have 12 times the performance in 7 years. Even that, is very unimpressive to one that is able to remove one's frame of mind from the land of factors less than 1. This concept of suppression of progression due to greed does not stop with computer technology - it is ubiquitous in all of human society. The cause of this is what one may label as an intrinsic negative force, and it does not stop there - "it" goes so far as to attempt to manipulate one to enjoy this suppression of progression. Heavy, and such is reality.
I do not see this as negativity as much as I do an obstacle. I choose to see it this way, and therefore I choose to overcome this obstacle. My mean message is to encourage the reader to do the same. This surmounting can only be accomplished by an awareness of a environment bigger that what one immediately sees.
A small benefit to the mass adoption of this awareness will be a pressure on the producers of non-essential electronic products to produce a better product. But one's reasoning for changing the world should of course not be a better GPU.
NN
Similar threads
