Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Droberts" data-source="post: 1886517" data-attributes="member: 13839">im not debating top end benchmarks, im saying its overpriced. i build in accordance to cost vs real world needs of the customer. you match your weapon to your prey, you don't go deer hunting with a rocket launcher, you dont hunt bear with a sling shot. in todays diverse pc component market the old rule of more money = better performance has been replaced by more marketing = higher price != performance scaling. throwing an obscene amount of money at a system and hoping that the end result will be better than the other guys box is not the way to go, make your money count.  when i build pc's for people i min-max the cost/performance ratio based on the available hardware on the day of purchase.regardless of what your performance goal is, a paying customer will always, always, always pay more per unit of performance for an intel based machine than an amd based machine. with intel the higher you get in performance the higher the rate of price/performance. amd, not so much. top end benchmarks may favor intel in a few areas, but when price vs performance is the war, amd is and always has been the clear & decisive victor. in the case of the 2500$ pc, you paid about 1500$ too much, unless you're running 8 way SLI and went with an SSD stripe or something. for 2500$ i could build a quad gpu amd system with 5 monitor 360 degree wrap around, though you'd need to make sure you had ATI video cards to get it to work with all games new & old... nvidia dropped horizontal spanning support from their gforce line a while back. now you can only get it with their quadro cards. ati still includes it on all radeon chipsets.</blockquote>

Verification