>6yo CPU/mobo still does not feel in any way slow or in need of upgrade
The limiting factors have changed- or rather, the limiting computers have changed.
Throwing more client horsepower or internet speed at the problem can't solve the fact that the server (and to a limited extent, an internet connection) has to deliver both a huge amount of JavaScript and the (typically image/video/audio-heavy) content itself.
The client is always underutilized- the fact that smartphone apps (or rather, cached local copies of what would normally be a website) have similar performance to a modern desktop PC should speak volumes about that.
It's probably why Microsoft smartphone-ized Windows; though their execution of that was awful and it didn't help that WinRT wasn't mature on release.
And raw server performance (like desktop performance) has been at a plateau for a while now as well. The lack of competition for Intel doesn't help that (maybe AMD's new processor line will start driving improvements again, but there are no hard numbers on performance; and higher-TDP ARM designs aren't currently competitive with Intel's in this space either).
Until this changes, and there's nothing to indicate it will on Intel's roadmaps, clients will continue to be good enough- it might be the first time in history where computers (since 2008 or so) are replaced because the hardware failed and not because they were insufficiently fast.
"it might be the first time in history where computers (since 2008 or so) are replaced because the hardware failed and not because they were insufficiently fast."
You're forgetting two things:
1 - Games
2 - VR
Games especially have a very long history of having a bottomless appetite for more and more powerful hardware every year as they push the limits of what's possible.
VR is dramatically upping hardware requirements, and those requirements are going to exponentially increase as consumers start to demand and expect 8k per eye, full motion, high framerate, 360 degree, 3D, wide field of view, interactive VR -- all on smaller and lighter headsets, ideally wirelessly.
>Games especially have a very long history of having a bottomless appetite for more and more powerful hardware every year as they push the limits of what's possible.
Sure, though the CPU has less to do with that. For reference, most modern games still perform just fine on first-gen i7s and second-gen i5s; the most recent of those was released 6 years ago. GPUs are a replaceable part where CPUs are not.
At least GPU technology is still advancing in big ways, though I think that's more a property of how they're built, what their functions are, and (especially for higher-end cards) what kind of power budget users are willing to accept. It's unusual for the newest mid-range card not to match the previous high-end card.
Intel, on the other hand, has never released a CPU with TDP over 150W (AMD had a couple at 220W), even though most in the overclocking community know that 5GHz is regularly attainable on modern CPUs. But that that's been mostly true since 2013.
You make some good points -- and to be candid, I didn't touch on the network effect(s) because I was trying to maintain some brevity / focus in my original post.
Aside -- I grew up in the days before network reliance (or even network presence) consequently I don't think of my 32GB / 8 core / 8TB / 32" monitored computer as an enhanced VT52. :) Though I certainly respect the fact that for many people, once you exceed the grunt required to render HTTP(S) at an acceptable speed, there's no great interest in a faster computer.
Your observations on Intel -- is it possible they were a bit more prescient than we typically give them credit for, insofar as not pursuing ever faster CPU's (which would now have been considered relatively unnecessary for the majority of installations)?
The limiting factors have changed- or rather, the limiting computers have changed.
Throwing more client horsepower or internet speed at the problem can't solve the fact that the server (and to a limited extent, an internet connection) has to deliver both a huge amount of JavaScript and the (typically image/video/audio-heavy) content itself.
The client is always underutilized- the fact that smartphone apps (or rather, cached local copies of what would normally be a website) have similar performance to a modern desktop PC should speak volumes about that. It's probably why Microsoft smartphone-ized Windows; though their execution of that was awful and it didn't help that WinRT wasn't mature on release.
And raw server performance (like desktop performance) has been at a plateau for a while now as well. The lack of competition for Intel doesn't help that (maybe AMD's new processor line will start driving improvements again, but there are no hard numbers on performance; and higher-TDP ARM designs aren't currently competitive with Intel's in this space either).
Until this changes, and there's nothing to indicate it will on Intel's roadmaps, clients will continue to be good enough- it might be the first time in history where computers (since 2008 or so) are replaced because the hardware failed and not because they were insufficiently fast.