Arguments for and against upgrading to the latest tech please

[Zarick]

I am wondering if you guys think its a wise idea to upgrade to the highest currently possible or if its better to upgrade to the best current value?

 

[nageov3t]

depends on what you plan on doing with the computer, and how much money is a factor.

personally, I make need-based upgrades. I like to keep my computer near the edge of tech, but before making any major upgrades, I need to ask myself if there's anything to be gained from the upgrade, beyond cutting fractions of a second off of the time it takes to reboot or open up office.


edit: there's also the question of stability to consider. if you upgrade to something on the cutting edge, you might find yourself with a driver-less product that's constantly giving your trouble (*cough*64bitchips*cough*).

 

[Regs]

I tend to go with both value and new.

9800 overclocked 200 dollars - compared to a 400 dollar 9800 XT
AMD A64 3000 overclocked 230 dollars - compared to a 400 dollar 3400 or 3.2C Intel
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 for 110 dollars - Compared to a 200 dollar platnum edition
Corsair PC3200 for 110 dollars a DIMM - compared to 150-200 dollars for PC3500 LL

 

[KillaKilla]

I'd say usually 2 steps below top of the line is usually the best deal;

9800Pro-128
A-643000+
Kingston(hyperX), Crucial, Corsair 3700 (UCed for better timings?)

Probobly best bang/buck ratio currently... maybe for the above memory...


-KillaKilla's brother

 

[Cuda1447]

The question I have is someone who's going to upgrade in the next month... are they wasting their money to have their system run good for the future?


If I upgrade to 2nd below the best, but still get quality parts, with AGP dying, and all the other technology changes coming... am I screwed for the future?

 

[SkaarjMaster]

No, because the next time you upgrade you can get all those neat new parts (PCI Express, DDRII, next-gen SATA, 64-bit processors and OS, stupid BTX case and MB, etc.).

 

[DaveSimmons]

The highest level is always way overpriced, and the small speed gains usually don't translate into much extra longevity.

Moving one or two steps down usually makes much more sense, for example to the A64 3000+ and 9800 pro you ask about in your other thread.

A 9800XT is almost double the cost of the 9800 Pro for only a 10% speed gain. If you have any debt, putting that extra $150 towards paying it off is a much better investment. If you're debt-free put the money into an INGDirect.com account and you already have a nice start on your next upgrade. Same with the CPU.

 

[Alptraum]

It depends on the person. For me personally I generally just get the fastest out at the time I am buying. If you are looking for more of a value system one or two steps below the top of the line is usually a sweet spot.

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Alptraum
It depends on the person. For me personally I generally just get the fastest out at the time I am buying. If you are looking for more of a value system one or two steps below the top of the line is usually a sweet spot.

Yes, but also to be well aware of what hardware is out there too. When you learn the 9800XT is just a overclocked 9800pro with a bigger cooling solution, you're not going to spend an extra 100 dollars. Not unless you're a performance freak which some of us are.

Or when you find out a 90 dollar 1.8 Ghz Barton can be easily overclocked to a 200-300 dollar 2.2 GHz 3200 Barton, you'll think twice.