The worst time to buy a Windows computer? (2022 death of x86?)

[maflynn]

amazing how slow CPU performance gains from Intel were through that period

No question and that left the door open for competitors to design something that far exceeded Intel's offering. Plus intel for reasons unknown just couldn't get off the 14nm platform.

Here's my opinion on this, I've read and heard explanations, and what seems to be the most plausible is the fact that huge companies that buy Intel CPUs operate on razer thin margins, just look at HP and Dell as prime example. If Intel were to invest in X billion dollars in R&D, that cost would then be passed down to those companies. Given their customer base, small minor improvements to CPU performance is all that these companies wanted to pay for and so either directly or indirectly Intel acquiesced. They were after all a virtual monopoly, their only competitor (at the time) was AMD and up until recently they were struggling to stay out of bankruptcy, so why not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

[Danfango]

Please do. Seriously. I found your post about the Dell interesting and mirroring some of the experience I've had with Windows laptops. As a result, I'd like to hear your opinion/rant on Windows itself and why you feel that way.

I'm currently in something of a no man's land, trying to decide between which platform to stick with in the long term. While I have a powerful Ryzen 7 Windows PC, I also have a MacBook Air M1. Both have their pros and cons, but the integration with other hardware (iPhone, iPad etc) on the Apple side is superb.

I also own a Surface Book which I am close to selling. I've always loved the versatility and different form factors of Windows hardware but I'm finding Windows 11 in particular is letting it down – and I actually enjoy using the MacBook Air, even without touchscreen or pen/tablet functionality, more than I thought I would.

Your wish is my command. This little experience pushed me over the edge today:

Ugh so I turned on my PC laptop this morning

I have a PC laptop to run some old software (SCPI/LXI test automation stuff that doesn't work on Macs). It's a fairly respectable old Thinkpad T470 which I bought new when it came out and is in good hardware condition. It's an i5 with 12Gb of RAM and 512GB SSD. I made some serious complaints...

forums.macrumors.com

This is literally only scratching the surface of the problem.

 

[c0ppo]

No question and that left the door open for competitors to design something that far exceeded Intel's offering. Plus intel for reasons unknown just couldn't get off the 14nm platform.

Here's my opinion on this, I've read and heard explanations, and what seems to be the most plausible is the fact that huge companies that buy Intel CPUs operate on razer thin margins, just look at HP and Dell as prime example. If Intel were to invest in X billion dollars in R&D, that cost would then be passed down to those companies. Given their customer base, small minor improvements to CPU performance is all that these companies wanted to pay for and so either directly or indirectly Intel acquiesced. They were after all a virtual monopoly, their only competitor (at the time) was AMD and up until recently they were struggling to stay out of bankruptcy, so why not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

No doubt that OEMs operate on small margins.
But that doesn't explain why Intel is now where they are.

I mean, AMD innovated and now they are back in the game. Strong as in early 2000s.
And AMD had lack of resources when compared to Intel. Yet they came out with a better and cheaper product.🙈

God knows what happened to Intel. But it looks like they are finally waking up.

 

[maflynn]

But that doesn't explain why Intel is now where they are.

No it doesn't, nor does it explain why Intel struggled to get off 14nm when other companies, like Apple, and AMD were able to leverage superior designs.

 

[skaertus]

No question and that left the door open for competitors to design something that far exceeded Intel's offering. Plus intel for reasons unknown just couldn't get off the 14nm platform.

Here's my opinion on this, I've read and heard explanations, and what seems to be the most plausible is the fact that huge companies that buy Intel CPUs operate on razer thin margins, just look at HP and Dell as prime example. If Intel were to invest in X billion dollars in R&D, that cost would then be passed down to those companies. Given their customer base, small minor improvements to CPU performance is all that these companies wanted to pay for and so either directly or indirectly Intel acquiesced. They were after all a virtual monopoly, their only competitor (at the time) was AMD and up until recently they were struggling to stay out of bankruptcy, so why not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

I suppose that Intel kept some healthy margins even though manufacturers may have operated with low margins.

AMD came from nearly bankruptcy to a threat to Intel in just a few years. Qualcomm and other manufacturers of Arm processors sells their chips to smartphone vendors who operate with very low margins as well, and still managed to evolve much more than Intel over the years.

Plus, the high-end Intel processors, especially for desktops, sold at a high margin.

And Intel spent a lot of money on development. Intel spent $13.56 billion in R&D in 2020 (virtually the same as in previous years). AMD invested $1.98 billion in R&D in 2020, a lot less than Intel. Apple invested $18.75 billion in 2020, up from previous years (in 2017 and before, it was lower than Intel). And Apple has a much more diversified line of products than Intel, which should require a lot more investment.

Am I missing something? It is hard to say what kept Intel from going forward.

 

[Sydde]

Apple has a much more diversified line of products than Intel

On the chip front, not really. Intel currently has something like 3 or 4 i9s, 4 or 5 i7s, i5s, i3s, they have at least 15 Alder Lake CPUs, plus the Xeon line. Apple has 3 versions of M1 (the RAM is still modular, even though they embed it) and one A15. That is a much narrower range of products than Intel offers, even counting the variations in GPU core count in the Pro/Max range.

 

[Adarna]

My laptop is nearing 10-years old. Thus I'm starting to do some research on any potential new computer purchase. The problem is, I feel like currently we are in the worst time to buy a new computer. I feel that we are at the tail end of x86. And unlike phones, I expect my computer to last for around 10 years, not 4 or 5.

Problem 1: Windows 11
As expected, my Windows 10 laptop is not eligible for Windows 11 because it doesn't have a supported processor. Problem is, Microsoft drew a really harsh line on processor requirements, with minimum being 8th gen intel, which were just released in 2018. That's just three years ago. Sure, Windows 10 is supported until 2025. However, it begs the question whether an x86 computer I buy today would even be supported on a future version of Windows 5 years from now. Highly suspect. Of course, coincidentally 2018 is roughly the first batch of Snapdragon supporting Windows 10 SoCs. With Microsoft themselves doing their own ARM chips, to me Windows 11 is akin of the "Big Sur" of Windows, aka it's a telltale of Microsoft' transition to ARM, by quickly abandoning anything 4 years or older x86 processors. It really begs the question if buying a Windows computer today (which are not cheap thanks to the shortages), a good idea if the whole x86 platform is being left behind?

Problem 2: intel
We know intel's lackluster performance per watt, although they boosted their performance a bit with the 11th gen. But what if intel themselves are ditching x86? Intel is acquiring SiFive. That's a huge hint of intel themselves are transitioning. Of course, the problem for a consumer is that today, intel is still making x86 processors. But it's not a good feeling when you bought an expensive laptop, and see the processor manufacturer itself abandoning the architecture mere years after. Then you add the Windows anxiety above.

Problem 3: the rest are moving to ARM
nVidia is acquiring ARM. That's obvious. Qualcomm is doubling down on their Windows supporting SoCs. Even AMD is rumored to have ARM processors in the making. And of course, we have Apple, the first in line.

So why I think it's the worst time to buy a computer (that I want to last and supported for 10 years or so)? As a consumer, I feel:
- right now, I see expensive x86 laptops at the tail end of the architecture
- consumer ARM solutions for Windows is not yet here, so we are in a transition vacuum
- looking at Apple, also expensive, they only have the M1 ready at this point, and Apple is known to drop support of machines more aggressively

It's obvious that Microsoft's stringent Windows 11 system requirements is to nudge people to buy new computers. But as a more tech savvier consumer, now I feel that I would need to hold on to my old PCs even longer to wait for the ARM transition instead of wasting money on a dead-end x86 architecture. 🙃 Here's hoping my laptop is not dying anytime soon.

I see a computer as a tool.

Unless I need USB4/TB3 40Gbps I'd buy a AMD Zen 3 Ryzen PC.

When I do need 40Gbps I'd wait next year for Zen 4.

Odds are it will have Win11 but there's an option to roll back to Win10.

Support for Win10 is up to Oct 2025 and by then I'd upgrade to Win 11 that has 3 years & 8 months of patches. It should be good until Dec 2031 if your use case doesn't change all that much and you're not into PC gaming.

By 2030s I expect ARM to make major strides for Windows 12 on ARM. By this time PC prices should stagnate or be cheaper while raw performance and performance per watt will improve from a 1nm die shrink.

I'm a realist who is often labeled as a pessimist and even I do not think x86 will be rendered moot in the 2020s. By your descriptin I expect this to by next decade. By which time you'd be in the market to replace a nearly 120 month old PC.

For the next 10 years I'd be more concerned for your physical/mental health and financial future rather than existential dread of stagnating PC tech.

In our organization we're keeping our laptops for 520 weeks before replacing them entirely. Use case has not changed for decades. We only do this for Windows support & preventive maintenance from wear and tear.

 

[BanjoDudeAhoy]

In our organization we're keeping our laptops for 520 weeks before replacing them entirely. Use case has not changed for decades. We only do this for Windows support & preventive maintenance from wear and tear.

That’s 10 years. That strikes me as a very long time to keep the same laptop for work purposes.
I’m curious to learn what you do but I’m not sure if you’re at liberty to tell. I’m in the games industry and in studios I worked at even producers (so generally no actual engine work) get new laptops around every 2 or 3 years.

This is not meant to sound derogatory, btw. My curiosity may well be down to me working in a particularly fast paced industry and being used to getting hardware replaced very frequently.

 

[Adarna]

That’s 10 years. That strikes me as a very long time to keep the same laptop for work purposes.
I’m curious to learn what you do but I’m not sure if you’re at liberty to tell. I’m in the games industry and in studios I worked at even producers (so generally no actual engine work) get new laptops around every 2 or 3 years.

This is not meant to sound derogatory, btw. My curiosity may well be down to me working in a particularly fast paced industry and being used to getting hardware replaced very frequently.

My industry is not tech related so the need to keep pace on tech isn't as important.

Our foundational requirement would be a Microsoft-supported copy of Windows & it be fully functional.

Programs we use are MS Office, SAP R/3 and S/4HANA & other browser-based web apps.

As such this allows us to buy sub-$700 Win10 Pro AMD Zen 3 laptops with 65W chargers. These are cheaper and superior in performance to their Intel equivalents. On its 5th year it will be bumped to Win11, 16GB memory and 1TB storage for the purpose of preventive maintenance and to extend its useful life another half decade.

These will be reassigned to rank & file while managers will get a new sub-$700 Win11 Pro AMD laptop by 2026. Hopefully by then they come with 30W or 45W chargers.

Macs are a personal preference and iPhone & iPad are optional office equipment.

For your industry it is perfectly understandable to have a replacement cycle of 2-3 years. That's how it was done in the 1980s & 1990s so no big surprise its applicable to today. For my industry we have extended our replacement cycle from 3 years to up to 10.

Correct me if I am wrong but game/software development takes about 2-3 years to complete and as such the hardware used today must be what will become affordable by year 2 or 3 when it gets released.

My personal Mac use case has not changed since 2015 so I could do with keeping a base model Mac for 10 years. The iPad Pro I bought to do email, browse and Netflix on is overpowered. A ~$300 iPad 10.2" would have been a better fit. When the display cracks I can easily buy a futue ~$300 iPad when the iPad Pro's display is more than that.

 

[skaertus]

On the chip front, not really. Intel currently has something like 3 or 4 i9s, 4 or 5 i7s, i5s, i3s, they have at least 15 Alder Lake CPUs, plus the Xeon line. Apple has 3 versions of M1 (the RAM is still modular, even though they embed it) and one A15. That is a much narrower range of products than Intel offers, even counting the variations in GPU core count in the Pro/Max range.

Yes, of course. What I meant is that Apple makes phones, tablets, computers, headphones, and other devices, plus offers software and music and streaming services. Although Intel also makes other products, its core is to produce chips.

 

[TSE]

Coming from someone who switched over to M1 Max MacBook Pro and sees the benefits and loves the benefits of ARM, X86 is still alive and well and will serve a purpose for the foreseeable future.

 

[Sydde]

X86 is still alive and well

I find this to be unfortunate. x86 was maybe OK in 1977, but by 1990, it should have been a footnote. We need to take those last two digits to heart and 86 the mess once and for all. Let Intel focus their attention on making killer ARM or RISC-V processors instead of trying to squeeze one more drop of juice out of their worn out architecture.

 

[lepidotós]

I'd agree, but I don't want Intel to ruin a perfectly good architecture or RISC-V with their ineptitude. The IBM PC was already a massive mistake, they thought iAPX 432 was going to be the big thing. Maybe just give up the ghost and transition from chasing x86_64 compatibility to a pure Core ISA?​

 

[Sydde]

It is not really fair to call Intel incompetent. They have taken a Cretaceous design and dragged it into the 21st century when by all rights it should have gone extinct 30 years ago. Their micro-architects are astoundingly good at what they do, and if they are not in control of ISA design, they might be able to really make a solid architecture sing arias.

 

[ian87w]

That’s 10 years. That strikes me as a very long time to keep the same laptop for work purposes.
I’m curious to learn what you do but I’m not sure if you’re at liberty to tell. I’m in the games industry and in studios I worked at even producers (so generally no actual engine work) get new laptops around every 2 or 3 years.

This is not meant to sound derogatory, btw. My curiosity may well be down to me working in a particularly fast paced industry and being used to getting hardware replaced very frequently.

Most regular PC tasks don't need the latest i9 and nVidia RTX graphics.
In the past, the time bomb of PCs were the hard-drive, since that's the component that tends to fail first, and people will just replace the whole PC. Nowadays, with SSD, literally any PC can last for decades, as long as it has enough RAM and disk space for the intended purpose. On laptops, the limiting factor becomes the battery, not the computer itself.

One can simply look at the system requirements of Microsoft Office. That should be a simple gauge of how old of a PC that can still be usable today.

My (just turned obsolete) i5 2012 mac mini can still do pretty much all that I need.

 

[ian87w]

It is not really fair to call Intel incompetent. They have taken a Cretaceous design and dragged it into the 21st century when by all rights it should have gone extinct 30 years ago. Their micro-architects are astoundingly good at what they do, and if they are not in control of ISA design, they might be able to really make a solid architecture sing arias.

intel is just another example of a company "sitting on its laurels." They literally only moved their butts when Apple dropped them. Even today with AMD being superior in value and performance on BOTH desktops and laptops (intel used to win in laptops), intel is still pretending like they're the only choice. I'm just glad OEMs are more opened up to using AMD for their mid-range and flagships now instead of relegating AMD to the lowest end tier.

 

[ian87w]

Coming from someone who switched over to M1 Max MacBook Pro and sees the benefits and loves the benefits of ARM, X86 is still alive and well and will serve a purpose for the foreseeable future.

The transition for Apple Silicon for all its worth is actually relatively quite fast. Remember the PPC to intel transition? It took the likes of Adobe forever to even make universal binary. Now, Adobe and Microsoft have gone native for most of their apps for Apple Silicon.

And imo the trailing developers that have not transitioned is simply due to Apple's small marketshare. Apple Silicon is an even smaller percentage over the existing intel macs.

But it's going to be different if intel themselves were the one doing the transition. If intel decided to abandon x86 architecture, everybody will be paying attention and go with it. I mean what OEM would want to stick with x86 when that happens?

My annoyance is that despite the inferior product, intel (and to the extend, PC OEMs) are still charging big money for their PCs and laptops. I'm still seeing laptops with only intel i5 and 8GB of RAM for $1000+. Thank goodness for AMD keeping the competition going.

 

[lepidotós]

Intel did just join RISC-V (link to article), so I expect to see some of that weight really boost that... existent architecture into new levels of popularity. I will still never, ever buy an Intel-branded RV chip or computer with one in it (not least of the reasons being I'm still a PowerPC person through and through), but at least Intel can't grab onto the patent for it for dear life and drive it into the ground with backdoors and apathy.​

 

[bobcomer]

My laptop is nearing 10-years old. Thus I'm starting to do some research on any potential new computer purchase. The problem is, I feel like currently we are in the worst time to buy a new computer. I feel that we are at the tail end of x86. And unlike phones, I expect my computer to last for around 10 years, not 4 or 5.

Problem 1: Windows 11
As expected, my Windows 10 laptop is not eligible for Windows 11 because it doesn't have a supported processor. Problem is, Microsoft drew a really harsh line on processor requirements, with minimum being 8th gen intel, which were just released in 2018. That's just three years ago. Sure, Windows 10 is supported until 2025. However, it begs the question whether an x86 computer I buy today would even be supported on a future version of Windows 5 years from now. Highly suspect. Of course, coincidentally 2018 is roughly the first batch of Snapdragon supporting Windows 10 SoCs. With Microsoft themselves doing their own ARM chips, to me Windows 11 is akin of the "Big Sur" of Windows, aka it's a telltale of Microsoft' transition to ARM, by quickly abandoning anything 4 years or older x86 processors. It really begs the question if buying a Windows computer today (which are not cheap thanks to the shortages), a good idea if the whole x86 platform is being left behind?

Problem 2: intel
We know intel's lackluster performance per watt, although they boosted their performance a bit with the 11th gen. But what if intel themselves are ditching x86? Intel is acquiring SiFive. That's a huge hint of intel themselves are transitioning. Of course, the problem for a consumer is that today, intel is still making x86 processors. But it's not a good feeling when you bought an expensive laptop, and see the processor manufacturer itself abandoning the architecture mere years after. Then you add the Windows anxiety above.

Problem 3: the rest are moving to ARM
nVidia is acquiring ARM. That's obvious. Qualcomm is doubling down on their Windows supporting SoCs. Even AMD is rumored to have ARM processors in the making. And of course, we have Apple, the first in line.

So why I think it's the worst time to buy a computer (that I want to last and supported for 10 years or so)? As a consumer, I feel:
- right now, I see expensive x86 laptops at the tail end of the architecture
- consumer ARM solutions for Windows is not yet here, so we are in a transition vacuum
- looking at Apple, also expensive, they only have the M1 ready at this point, and Apple is known to drop support of machines more aggressively

It's obvious that Microsoft's stringent Windows 11 system requirements is to nudge people to buy new computers. But as a more tech savvier consumer, now I feel that I would need to hold on to my old PCs even longer to wait for the ARM transition instead of wasting money on a dead-end x86 architecture. 🙃 Here's hoping my laptop is not dying anytime soon.

No way is x86(x64) dying anytime in the next decade, they still have a good majority of PC sales. (still over 60% and actually trending up currently)

 

[mi7chy]

Now is the worst time for wallets with record low CPU prices due to fierce competition between rival AMD and Intel, 32GB DDR4 that has been as low as $90, falling SSD storage prices, dGPU street prices trending down for months, new Intel dGPU competition entering market and RDNA2 APU as alternative.

 

[thekev]

The transition for Apple Silicon for all its worth is actually relatively quite fast. Remember the PPC to intel transition? It took the likes of Adobe forever to even make universal binary. Now, Adobe and Microsoft have gone native for most of their apps for Apple Silicon.

Apple's tooling has improved to a degree over the years. It has a couple rough spots (accelerate still has complaints), but most of it at a glance looks far better than it was in 2005. This probably made it a lot easier than the last time.

 

[Colstan]

While hardly the death knell for x86, it is notable that Lenovo just announced their first ARM ThinkPad using a Qualcomm Snapdragon processor. Whether this is just a one-off trial on their part, or cracks starting to form underneath the x86 hegemony in PC, is another matter entirely.

 

[ian87w]

While hardly the death knell for x86, it is notable that Lenovo just announced their first ARM ThinkPad using a Qualcomm Snapdragon processor. Whether this is just a one-off trial on their part, or cracks starting to form underneath the x86 hegemony in PC, is another matter entirely.

I believe it's just a trial.
There are two issues.
First, Windows on ARM is still a work in progress. And MS cannot be like Apple that can just ditch any backward compatibility.
Second, imo performance of Qualcomm chips are still behind. For a transition, emulation is inevitable, and to be able to do that, your SoC must have the performance overhead. Apple magically did it with their M1. I don't think even the Snapdragon 8Gen 1 is sufficient.

 

[lepidotós]

@Colstan Hopefully, they also switch over to providing Linux or BSD as standard on those new Thinkpads, rather than Windows 11 ARM. If they do... I'd be curious to try one.
Edit: aaaaand it's Windows 11. And 8:5, which I honestly think is pretty indistinguishable from 16:9 and wish would have been 3:2 instead.

Side note: did you know Intel just killed Coreboot?​

 

[mi7chy]

While hardly the death knell for x86, it is notable that Lenovo just announced their first ARM ThinkPad using a Qualcomm Snapdragon processor. Whether this is just a one-off trial on their part, or cracks starting to form underneath the x86 hegemony in PC, is another matter entirely.

Different product tier. Same reason I don't see my Surface Pro X as an x64 replacement but rather fills a void between x64 and Macbook Air M1. If the Surface Pro X had an equivalent low power x64 like AMD 6000U I'd take that over ARM which is not as versatile.