Until recently I felt the exact same way. My primary computer is a 3-year old Dell T7610 workstation with a Xeon E5-2687W v2 processor, 64GB RAM, 4 x 500GB SATA SSD drives. Cost more than $4,000. 3 months ago I bought a second computer to use as a backup and to test software before installing on the main system. A really tiny, Dell 7050 micro system, i7-7700 CPU, 16GB of RAM, and 500GB of M.2 PCIe SSD storage. Cost, less than $800 on DellOutlet. I installed my trading system on the new tiny Dell 7050 PC, and it ran, no problem. CPU barely broke a sweat. So I decided to benchmark both systems using a script that I use to backup my SQL database. The database is over 44GB and includes 9 years worth of quotes, news headlines/text, earnings, etc. The script usually takes about an hour to run, and uses heavy disk activity to extract all records from the database into CSV text files, followed by heavy CPU usage with 7Z to compress to a single Zip file. The results: - Xeon workstation: CPU-heavy tasks 23.3 minutes, disk-heavy tasks 32.9 minues, total 56.2 minutes; - Tiny PC: CPU-heavy tasks 36.4 minutes, disk-heavy tasks 10.8 minues, total 47.2 minutes; I was so surprised, that I rebooted both systems, and reran the test. Same results. Yes I could spend another $900 and upgrade my Xeon workstation to use M.2 PCIe SSDs instead of the current SATA SSDs, then it would handily beat the PC. But what I am trying to point out is that longevity of workstations needs to be weighed against the performance increases gained by simply buying new technology every few years.