Mid range is definitely better value for sure, anything high end is overpriced bigtime.
The better value: Enthusiast vs. Mid-range
2
I had a thought to start a discussion about what's the better value when choosing hardware: Top-of-the-line, or best Price/performance mid-range component. I picked the general graphics card forum because I figured we could all relate to it best when choosing video cards.
I've heard arguments from both sides. Some say to invest in the best performer because it will last longer, others say to save money then just buy the next best thing when it's time to upgrade. So basically, you buy a $500 video card with intentions of it lasting 4 years, or a $250 video card that lasts 2 years which leads to another $250 for another 2 years. (It's just too common to hear someone say they want something to last 4-5 years, yet we all know how well that story goes.
![]()
)
I guess we'd have to evaluate how long it takes an enthusiast level component to depreciate vs how long it takes a mid-range component. I know it's not as cut and dry as I'm making it out to be as there's numerous variables at stake, from the quality of the component to how often it's being used and what it's exact uses are. But for arguements sake, did for example the 8800 Ultra last longer then the 8800 GT? The variables at stake being one was released long before the other, one was designed on new architecture, and so on. I can't say what the best mid-range card was when the 8800 Ultra was released, but I'd assume that person who bought it soon upgraded to the 8800 GT - thus the total sum of what he spent in dollars over the period of when the Ultra was released and when the 8800 GT was released is close to the price of the Ultra at it's release...
...or I could just be completely too bored out of my mind and this is a useless discussion...
![]()
I've heard arguments from both sides. Some say to invest in the best performer because it will last longer, others say to save money then just buy the next best thing when it's time to upgrade. So basically, you buy a $500 video card with intentions of it lasting 4 years, or a $250 video card that lasts 2 years which leads to another $250 for another 2 years. (It's just too common to hear someone say they want something to last 4-5 years, yet we all know how well that story goes.
I guess we'd have to evaluate how long it takes an enthusiast level component to depreciate vs how long it takes a mid-range component. I know it's not as cut and dry as I'm making it out to be as there's numerous variables at stake, from the quality of the component to how often it's being used and what it's exact uses are. But for arguements sake, did for example the 8800 Ultra last longer then the 8800 GT? The variables at stake being one was released long before the other, one was designed on new architecture, and so on. I can't say what the best mid-range card was when the 8800 Ultra was released, but I'd assume that person who bought it soon upgraded to the 8800 GT - thus the total sum of what he spent in dollars over the period of when the Ultra was released and when the 8800 GT was released is close to the price of the Ultra at it's release...
...or I could just be completely too bored out of my mind and this is a useless discussion...
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
2
Quote:
Why not High End's Lower End,
![]()
Always creates room for upgrade later.
Originally Posted by Ktmrida4life Mid range is definitely better value for sure, anything high end is overpriced bigtime. |
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
