- Aug 22, 2008
- 500
- 0
- 18,990
What is the best bang for the buck - How much should spend on that new system and how often should you upgrade?
I have been thinking for a while on what is the best system building strategy with regards to getting the best "play-ability" in games for the least amount of money over a long period of time. Here is a comparison I did between Toms system builds throughout the years, and I came to the conclusion that spending about $500-750 every tick or tock in Intel's or AMD's strategy time plans (every 1-2 years) on new mobo, CPU and GPUs give the best bang for the buck, but I am curious to hear your opinions on this matter.
Comparison of value over time:
Lets assume that your system requirements (or wants) is to always be able to play the newest games out there, preferably at the max details, but not necessarily:
If you buy a good case, cooler and PSU, you probably won't have to replace them often to increase performance - so lets look solely at what you do need to replace often if you want to increase performance: CPU, MOBO, RAM and GFX
In March 2007 you could have bought:
Value - $331
CPU AMD Athlon X2 3800+ AM2 $82
Motherboard MSI K9N4 Ultra-F $59
RAM Wintec AMPO PC2-6400 1 GB $70
Graphics XFX GeForce 7600 GT $120
=Playable at max settings most games 2007 (1024x768)
Mid range - $805
CPU Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 $230
Motherboard MSI P965 Platinum $135
RAM Patriot eXtreme Performance PDC22G6400LLK $160
Graphics EVGA GeForce 8800GTS PN: 320-P2-N811-AR $280
= Playable all games 2007 (1600x1200)
Enthusiast - $2655
CPU Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 $970
Motherboard Asus Striker Extreme $330
RAM Crucial Ballistix DDR2 1000 PC2-8000 $235
Graphics 2x GeForce 8800GTX 768 MB ($560) $1120
= Playable all games 2007 (2560x1600)
In March 2008 you could have bought:
Value - $563
CPU AMD Quad Core Phenom 9500 $190.00
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H $100.00
RAM Wintec Ampo DDR2 PC2-6400 - 2 GB $43.00
Graphics HIS Radeon 3870 ICEQ Turbo $230.00
Mid range - $1333
CPU Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 $540
Motherboard Asus P5N-T Deluxe $250
RAM Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 PC2-6400 - 4 GB $128
Graphics EVGA GeForce 8800GTX, 768 MB $415
Enthusiast - $2320
CPU Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 $1060
Motherboard Asus Striker II Formula $320
RAM Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 PC2-6400 - 4 GB $100
Graphics 2x Gigabyte GeForce 8800GTX - GV-NX88X768H-RH $840
In March 2009 you could buy:
Value - $420
Intel core 2 duo E7400: $120
Gigabyte EP45-DS3: $100
2 x ATI Radeon 4830 : $150
G Skill 2x2GB PC8500 DDR2: $50
Mid range - $685
AMD Phenom II 940: $215
ATI Radeon 4890 1 GB $230
Gigabyte 790 UD4H: $140
G Skill DDR3 1600Mhz 4GB: $100
Enthusiast - $1756
Core i7 920: $280
2 x Nvidia GTX 295 $500
MSI X58 Eclipse SLI Intel X58 $310
CORSAIR DOMINATOR 6GB DDR3 1600Mhz $166
Evaluation
We are looking at things from a budget perspective here, so this is the most important consideration in this evaluation- Namely: What is the best bang for the buck?
Now you will be of course thinking to yourself that value is a relative term - and yes, you are correct. However there is an easy way we can simplify it - basically good value is getting a system that does what you need it to do at the cheapest price. If it excels doing this, then best value will of course be a determination of whether or not the extra performance scales linearly with the price premium. The X to Y graph of performance to price in computing generally looks like this:
The sweet spot for gamers is what we are trying to find here. Now consider that most gamers will be using 1600 or 1900 res nowdays - but 1200 and 1400 res were common in 2007 - The goals there change over time - but playability is the main priority.
So simply put - the objective in 2007 was 30 fps in games at high settings and 1400 res.
In 2008 it was 30 fps in games at high settings and 1600 res.
In 2009 it is 30 fps in games at high settings and 1900 res.
So this comparison will evaluate what was the sweet spot to achieve this - was it to build the cheapest system that just meets the specs each year - or have an uber system that lasts 3 years, i.e. "futureproof"?
Now lets look if you bought the cheapest of these systems and (important!) overclocked each of them,
I think you will be surprised:
Buying only value systems each year:
2007 bargain system plays all 2007 games, 2008 system bargain plays all 2008 games, 2009 bargain system plays all 2009 games.
So you have to buy 1 bargain system each year: $331 + $563 + $420 = $1314
So in three years you spent a total of $1314
Buying the Enthusiast option to "Future Proof" yourself long term?
If however you had bought the most expensive system in 2007 it would cost you $2655, hehe and guess what .... It gets trashed like a pikey up against the overclocked bargain 2009 system. lol lol lol - so you would have wasted a lot of money there, in fact it only beats the bargain 2008 system so you lose 2655- 331-563= $1761 - ouch!
Buying the mid range system to "Future Proof" your self short term?
What if you bought the medium range systems? Well the 2007 medium system gets trounced on by the 2008 bargain system, so that doesn't give you much value. The 2009 bargain system also beats the 2008 medium range system.
Ram and motherboards
Remember though that these cost analyses are just to gain perspective - they are not actually completely realistic as in several stages you could skip upgrading RAM or Motherboards - CPU and GPU upgrades are the most important, however don't by a MOBO or RAM thinking that it will last be upgradable to the best CPU/GPU for the next 2-3 years, here is why:
Look at the 2007 mid and enthusiast range MOBOs:
They were excellent for their time but are now CPU outdated due to the new socket 1366 i7 - so CPU outdated in 2 years. They are also GPU outdated as now the PCI x16 pathways are much better and offer much better scaling than in these old motherboards - so outdated compared to the new SLI/CF motherboards
Look at the 2008 mid and enthusiast range MOBOs:
These again are pretty much gonna be outdated soon because there is no option to upgrade to the new core i7 or i5. So after only a year they are no longer even close to the new enthusiast-mid range i7 CPU performance .
Look at the 2008 value MOBO:
Wow, amazingly this could be upgraded in 2009, with a small F7 BIOS download, to a AM2+ 940 phenom II or AM3 720 BE and a newer graphics card solution, for example - a 4870 1GB or 2x 4830/4850 - then you have a system that is as good as the 2009 builds, for only $250-350! I would of course not bank on this always happening, as the 2007 value system would not have upgraded so well in 2009. Added bonus is of course that you can sell the old parts on EBay - especially when they are not that outdated.
And this shows exactly why you shouldn't bet on your MOBO too much - it may provide you with a decent upgrade platform for 1, 2 or even 3 years - but only only time travellers will know for sure.
The RAM here has also been very transferable - but as it is so cheap and offers so little performance gains any way it is not so important.
How much should you spend on systems and how often should you upgrade?
So in the end your guess is as good as mine - will the 2010 bargain system trounce the 2009 medium range option? I don't know actually because the CPU prices aren't as divergent as in the previous years.
I just did this comparison to make a point that you actually save crap loads of money if you can be assed to upgrade your system every time a new generation of component comes out that really increases performance and at the same time don't spend much more than 500 bucks on CPUs, MOBOs, GFX and RAM on a yearly basis.
"Future Proofing" Is it a bunch of BS?
Then there is that other question: "Future Proofing" your system, or "Is this system future proof?" - personally I think it is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. How do you future proof in a industry with the highest rate of innovation and development turnover known to man!? Well I think the answer to that is of course you can try by wasting a lot of money - but even then you may not succeed. If you really hate me for saying this I am sorry...
I just think that looking at a system as "future proof" is misleading, it should be instead called something like "potentially upgradable" or "legacy components".
The things that I think might come close to what i think is intended behind the false statement "future proof" are the components with long potential life span like a PSU, PC case, good quality air or water cooling (vapo even if you got the cash) - these are legacy components because they can work with newer generations of other components like Mobos, CPU's and GPU's.
Hard drives (maybe RAM sometimes) are also somewhat more long lasting in their relevance and can be legacy components. Mobos are then possible to consider as "potentially upgradable" because they can sometimes be upgraded with newer CPUs and GPUs. But no entire pc build is ever future proof because of the immense innovation in computing, and this goes especially for GPUs. (My opinion)
What do you guys think about this strategy/ideology? lol - ideology sounds wrong but eh
I have been thinking for a while on what is the best system building strategy with regards to getting the best "play-ability" in games for the least amount of money over a long period of time. Here is a comparison I did between Toms system builds throughout the years, and I came to the conclusion that spending about $500-750 every tick or tock in Intel's or AMD's strategy time plans (every 1-2 years) on new mobo, CPU and GPUs give the best bang for the buck, but I am curious to hear your opinions on this matter.
Comparison of value over time:
Lets assume that your system requirements (or wants) is to always be able to play the newest games out there, preferably at the max details, but not necessarily:
If you buy a good case, cooler and PSU, you probably won't have to replace them often to increase performance - so lets look solely at what you do need to replace often if you want to increase performance: CPU, MOBO, RAM and GFX
In March 2007 you could have bought:
Value - $331
CPU AMD Athlon X2 3800+ AM2 $82
Motherboard MSI K9N4 Ultra-F $59
RAM Wintec AMPO PC2-6400 1 GB $70
Graphics XFX GeForce 7600 GT $120
=Playable at max settings most games 2007 (1024x768)
Mid range - $805
CPU Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 $230
Motherboard MSI P965 Platinum $135
RAM Patriot eXtreme Performance PDC22G6400LLK $160
Graphics EVGA GeForce 8800GTS PN: 320-P2-N811-AR $280
= Playable all games 2007 (1600x1200)
Enthusiast - $2655
CPU Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 $970
Motherboard Asus Striker Extreme $330
RAM Crucial Ballistix DDR2 1000 PC2-8000 $235
Graphics 2x GeForce 8800GTX 768 MB ($560) $1120
= Playable all games 2007 (2560x1600)
In March 2008 you could have bought:
Value - $563
CPU AMD Quad Core Phenom 9500 $190.00
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H $100.00
RAM Wintec Ampo DDR2 PC2-6400 - 2 GB $43.00
Graphics HIS Radeon 3870 ICEQ Turbo $230.00
Mid range - $1333
CPU Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 $540
Motherboard Asus P5N-T Deluxe $250
RAM Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 PC2-6400 - 4 GB $128
Graphics EVGA GeForce 8800GTX, 768 MB $415
Enthusiast - $2320
CPU Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 $1060
Motherboard Asus Striker II Formula $320
RAM Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800 PC2-6400 - 4 GB $100
Graphics 2x Gigabyte GeForce 8800GTX - GV-NX88X768H-RH $840
In March 2009 you could buy:
Value - $420
Intel core 2 duo E7400: $120
Gigabyte EP45-DS3: $100
2 x ATI Radeon 4830 : $150
G Skill 2x2GB PC8500 DDR2: $50
Mid range - $685
AMD Phenom II 940: $215
ATI Radeon 4890 1 GB $230
Gigabyte 790 UD4H: $140
G Skill DDR3 1600Mhz 4GB: $100
Enthusiast - $1756
Core i7 920: $280
2 x Nvidia GTX 295 $500
MSI X58 Eclipse SLI Intel X58 $310
CORSAIR DOMINATOR 6GB DDR3 1600Mhz $166
Evaluation
We are looking at things from a budget perspective here, so this is the most important consideration in this evaluation- Namely: What is the best bang for the buck?
Now you will be of course thinking to yourself that value is a relative term - and yes, you are correct. However there is an easy way we can simplify it - basically good value is getting a system that does what you need it to do at the cheapest price. If it excels doing this, then best value will of course be a determination of whether or not the extra performance scales linearly with the price premium. The X to Y graph of performance to price in computing generally looks like this:
The sweet spot for gamers is what we are trying to find here. Now consider that most gamers will be using 1600 or 1900 res nowdays - but 1200 and 1400 res were common in 2007 - The goals there change over time - but playability is the main priority.
So simply put - the objective in 2007 was 30 fps in games at high settings and 1400 res.
In 2008 it was 30 fps in games at high settings and 1600 res.
In 2009 it is 30 fps in games at high settings and 1900 res.
So this comparison will evaluate what was the sweet spot to achieve this - was it to build the cheapest system that just meets the specs each year - or have an uber system that lasts 3 years, i.e. "futureproof"?
Now lets look if you bought the cheapest of these systems and (important!) overclocked each of them,
I think you will be surprised:
Buying only value systems each year:
2007 bargain system plays all 2007 games, 2008 system bargain plays all 2008 games, 2009 bargain system plays all 2009 games.
So you have to buy 1 bargain system each year: $331 + $563 + $420 = $1314
So in three years you spent a total of $1314
Buying the Enthusiast option to "Future Proof" yourself long term?
If however you had bought the most expensive system in 2007 it would cost you $2655, hehe and guess what .... It gets trashed like a pikey up against the overclocked bargain 2009 system. lol lol lol - so you would have wasted a lot of money there, in fact it only beats the bargain 2008 system so you lose 2655- 331-563= $1761 - ouch!
Buying the mid range system to "Future Proof" your self short term?
What if you bought the medium range systems? Well the 2007 medium system gets trounced on by the 2008 bargain system, so that doesn't give you much value. The 2009 bargain system also beats the 2008 medium range system.
Ram and motherboards
Remember though that these cost analyses are just to gain perspective - they are not actually completely realistic as in several stages you could skip upgrading RAM or Motherboards - CPU and GPU upgrades are the most important, however don't by a MOBO or RAM thinking that it will last be upgradable to the best CPU/GPU for the next 2-3 years, here is why:
Look at the 2007 mid and enthusiast range MOBOs:
They were excellent for their time but are now CPU outdated due to the new socket 1366 i7 - so CPU outdated in 2 years. They are also GPU outdated as now the PCI x16 pathways are much better and offer much better scaling than in these old motherboards - so outdated compared to the new SLI/CF motherboards
Look at the 2008 mid and enthusiast range MOBOs:
These again are pretty much gonna be outdated soon because there is no option to upgrade to the new core i7 or i5. So after only a year they are no longer even close to the new enthusiast-mid range i7 CPU performance .
Look at the 2008 value MOBO:
Wow, amazingly this could be upgraded in 2009, with a small F7 BIOS download, to a AM2+ 940 phenom II or AM3 720 BE and a newer graphics card solution, for example - a 4870 1GB or 2x 4830/4850 - then you have a system that is as good as the 2009 builds, for only $250-350! I would of course not bank on this always happening, as the 2007 value system would not have upgraded so well in 2009. Added bonus is of course that you can sell the old parts on EBay - especially when they are not that outdated.
And this shows exactly why you shouldn't bet on your MOBO too much - it may provide you with a decent upgrade platform for 1, 2 or even 3 years - but only only time travellers will know for sure.
The RAM here has also been very transferable - but as it is so cheap and offers so little performance gains any way it is not so important.
How much should you spend on systems and how often should you upgrade?
So in the end your guess is as good as mine - will the 2010 bargain system trounce the 2009 medium range option? I don't know actually because the CPU prices aren't as divergent as in the previous years.
I just did this comparison to make a point that you actually save crap loads of money if you can be assed to upgrade your system every time a new generation of component comes out that really increases performance and at the same time don't spend much more than 500 bucks on CPUs, MOBOs, GFX and RAM on a yearly basis.
"Future Proofing" Is it a bunch of BS?
Then there is that other question: "Future Proofing" your system, or "Is this system future proof?" - personally I think it is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. How do you future proof in a industry with the highest rate of innovation and development turnover known to man!? Well I think the answer to that is of course you can try by wasting a lot of money - but even then you may not succeed. If you really hate me for saying this I am sorry...
I just think that looking at a system as "future proof" is misleading, it should be instead called something like "potentially upgradable" or "legacy components".
The things that I think might come close to what i think is intended behind the false statement "future proof" are the components with long potential life span like a PSU, PC case, good quality air or water cooling (vapo even if you got the cash) - these are legacy components because they can work with newer generations of other components like Mobos, CPU's and GPU's.
Hard drives (maybe RAM sometimes) are also somewhat more long lasting in their relevance and can be legacy components. Mobos are then possible to consider as "potentially upgradable" because they can sometimes be upgraded with newer CPUs and GPUs. But no entire pc build is ever future proof because of the immense innovation in computing, and this goes especially for GPUs. (My opinion)
What do you guys think about this strategy/ideology? lol - ideology sounds wrong but eh
Even if you don't overclock the 920, the 940 and 965 don't offer a performance increase near justifying the premium for these more expensive CPUs. Only get the 965 or 940 for bragging rights - and even then it just seems silly to the rest of us because you can overclock the 920 just as high as the 965 - it all depends on how lucky you are with the binning! Unless you are using the PC for professional apps that are incredibly CPU bound do not get these more expensive i7 models:
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram