(If you are poor don't look you will cry)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs
.


But the ssd drives only use 1.5W each according to the samsung specs, so 36W for the drives and 1964W for the rest.But while memory becomes cheaper, energy doesn't... and that thing sucks 2000W


Anandtech had a good article about SSD technology sometime last fall... about the time the Intel X25s hit the market. IIRC it said that Intel states their new drives will give a lifetime of 5 years writing 100GB per day. So, for more normal use, the lifespan would be all but comparable to do a normal HDD.I read that a recent SLC SSD can do as much as 100.000 reads per cell, wich are of course levelled... so that it can work for 5-7 years like normal HDs, and they are improving fast.
I wouldn't say useless, but yeah I think we've kind of plateaued. My CPU is soon to be 4 years old (Athlon64 4400 dual core) but it can still handle most games and fairly high settings thanks to the gfx card update I did last year (to a 8800GT). The Empire Total War demo was really the first think I've tried that it gets heavily choked up with.Anywyay i think that things like this expose how much CPU improvement are useless today...
with the same CPU, but exponentially better HD, performances are incredible... Core2+SSD >> i7+HD?
They'll bloat up software with more features so that eventually people will need to upgrade. Of course there are some areas like video decoding that require more horsepower. But of course the big factor is that even joe average home user probably isn't likely to keep a desktop more than 5-6 years before replacing it. Laptops are generally replaced much fast than that. So most people will still end up upgrading, even when they don't need it.Who could need then to buy a better CPU for everyday use?
