Luke122
01-10-2008, 02:32 PM
Does a $50,000 amplifier sound better than a $1000 amplifier? It's very possible.. Does it sound $49,000 better? Well, that's open to interpretation.
Is a Q6700 @ $630 really that much better than a Q6600 @ $280? 2.66ghz vs 2.4ghz, 2x4mb cache on both.
There's a term that is used most often in HIFI, that applies very much to us geeks as well.
"Diminishing Returns"
At some point, the amount of performance/quality gained by an upgrade becomes quite small compared to the cost of that upgrade.
As hardware/software modders/enthusiasts, we have the benefit of doing more with our existing equipment for no cost. Overclocking and tweaking can help squeeze new life from existing components, without costing anything.
There will of course always be people who have to ride the cutting edge of technology, having the biggest, best, fastest, newest, etc.
I'm not one of these people.. for me, it's all function over form. If it does what I need it to do, then I dont need the best or latest.
The point of diminishing returns for me is actually quite low; if a $300 upgrade will increase my performance of my machine by 100%, but a $400 upgrade will give me 115%, I'd stick with the $300 one.
Call me cheap if you like, but if I could spend less than $100 to get maybe 30-40%, I'd rather do that.
So here's the question I pose to you all..
How important is it to you, to have the latest and greatest, best and fastest?
Is a Q6700 @ $630 really that much better than a Q6600 @ $280? 2.66ghz vs 2.4ghz, 2x4mb cache on both.
There's a term that is used most often in HIFI, that applies very much to us geeks as well.
"Diminishing Returns"
At some point, the amount of performance/quality gained by an upgrade becomes quite small compared to the cost of that upgrade.
As hardware/software modders/enthusiasts, we have the benefit of doing more with our existing equipment for no cost. Overclocking and tweaking can help squeeze new life from existing components, without costing anything.
There will of course always be people who have to ride the cutting edge of technology, having the biggest, best, fastest, newest, etc.
I'm not one of these people.. for me, it's all function over form. If it does what I need it to do, then I dont need the best or latest.
The point of diminishing returns for me is actually quite low; if a $300 upgrade will increase my performance of my machine by 100%, but a $400 upgrade will give me 115%, I'd stick with the $300 one.
Call me cheap if you like, but if I could spend less than $100 to get maybe 30-40%, I'd rather do that.
So here's the question I pose to you all..
How important is it to you, to have the latest and greatest, best and fastest?