Assuming you're limited to saving $500/year on a new rig, I'm curious to know what the majority of you would do. Would you buy a bleeding edge state of the art rig @ $2500 and let it last 5 where performance tapers off towards the end or are you one of those who likes consistent performance by spending 1-1.5k every 2-3 years? I don't know who would wanna vote on that last choice but I threw it in there anyway. Keep in mind that this is about how you like your pcs performance year over year and not about what you personally need.
How would you rather spend on rigs over the long term?
- Thread starter darkxshade
- Start date
Well that's a whole different debate to discuss about with its own pros and cons and requires a lot more discipline keeping track of how much you spend and upgrade as you go. It may be a better solution but for simplicity sake, this poll is for those people who prefer to get brand new systems from year to year.
I spend about £1300 18 months ago, and plan to spend about £800~1000 in 6 months, I'm trying for the £1000/2 years, since I seem to have to do a full system upgrade each time (Socket A -> Socket 939 -> Socket AM2 or 775, depending on what I go for), so there is little option to re-used RAM/CPU/mobo.
Although I upgrade things like HDD more frequently whenever I need space
Although I upgrade things like HDD more frequently whenever I need space
If you really think about your question and subsequent poll, it makes me wonder what your objective would be asking it in the first place. since this is a pc forum, then you must believe that most of the members are pc enthusiasts (hobbiests) and thus will be 'investing' in their rigs on an on-going basis. and since newer, bigger, faster, products are almost constantly becoming available, the mind set of the hobbiest follows the trends.
So IMO, you'd find a very small amount of members here that genuinely build a rig to last for 5yrs (even though there is a thread in the GH Forum about a guy who wants to build a rig that'll last 5yrs), most people here are interested in building a faster machine and keeping it current as their budget allows.
So, isn't your question actually a moot topic in an enthusiasts forum?
So IMO, you'd find a very small amount of members here that genuinely build a rig to last for 5yrs (even though there is a thread in the GH Forum about a guy who wants to build a rig that'll last 5yrs), most people here are interested in building a faster machine and keeping it current as their budget allows.
So, isn't your question actually a moot topic in an enthusiasts forum?
1,000-1,500
when your computer starts to get slower and you can't keep up I don't go by years :-D just when it feels like it's time
when your computer starts to get slower and you can't keep up I don't go by years :-D just when it feels like it's time
- Nov 30, 2005
- 50,231
- 118
- 116
Pretty much exactly what I was thinking. A more intereting poll/thread to me would be "How much do you spend on upgrading your PC each year?".
- Mar 4, 2000
- 27,370
- 240
- 106
Take the money out of the equation - it clouds the issue. I will spend what ever it costs to stay on top of things whenever technological development justifies it. Ergo, my upgrades are event driven, not time driven, and the cost is not a consideration. 
i usually build computers like every three years depends how far i'm behind from the technology.
Originally posted by: corkyg
Take the money out of the equation - it clouds the issue. I will spend what ever it costs to stay on top of things whenever technological development justifies it. Ergo, my upgrades are event driven, not time driven, and the cost is not a consideration.
Yes, but don't the events generally occur on regular intervals?
bob4432
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2003
- 11,727
- 46
- 91
i chose the last option because it seems like every year i upgrade my rig to the tune of ~$500, maybe less. so i guess my setup up is evolutionary. like now, rig in sig will be going to home server, and since i can get a m/b and a opty 165-170 i can keep my ddr for a ~$220 upgrade. drop in a x1950xt 256MB if needed and i am good to go. then next year, again if i need more gpu or decide to get a larger lcd, pick up a better gpu. i figure skt939 will last me for probbaly more than another year unless i start doing some really hardcore encoding at which point i would get a some flavor of a quad core and really bite the bullet.
this is how i have built machines for years. all of my machines have evolved into others. the last time i actually built a brand new rig with all new parts was 10yrs ago.
this is how i have built machines for years. all of my machines have evolved into others. the last time i actually built a brand new rig with all new parts was 10yrs ago.
Well, let's think about this. Suppose you spent $2,500 on a system in January, 2002. According to models reviewed in the 12/01 issue of PC World, you could expect to get something like this:
Pentium 4 1.8-2.0GHz
256-512MB RDRAM
40-60GB hard disk
32-64MB AGP video card
DVD ROM and CD RW drives
Five years prior to that, you would have gotten a Pentium MMX system running at 200MHz or less, with perhaps 16MB RAM--32MB if you were lucky.
A four-year plan is more reasonable. A $2,000 system in January, 2003, would have probably fetched an Athlon XP 3000+ with 1GB RAM, 80GB hard disk and possibly a DVD burner, if you could find a good enough deal. Three years ago you would probably have gotten the same kind of deal for $1,500.
In January, 2005, you could have gotten an Athlon 64 system with 1GB RAM, DVD burner and a roomy hard disk for about $1,000. This past January you would have gotten about the same for $500.
The thing is, though, with $500 per year, you can have an evolutionary PC, like another poster already mentioned. I think that's the best plan.
Pentium 4 1.8-2.0GHz
256-512MB RDRAM
40-60GB hard disk
32-64MB AGP video card
DVD ROM and CD RW drives
Five years prior to that, you would have gotten a Pentium MMX system running at 200MHz or less, with perhaps 16MB RAM--32MB if you were lucky.
A four-year plan is more reasonable. A $2,000 system in January, 2003, would have probably fetched an Athlon XP 3000+ with 1GB RAM, 80GB hard disk and possibly a DVD burner, if you could find a good enough deal. Three years ago you would probably have gotten the same kind of deal for $1,500.
In January, 2005, you could have gotten an Athlon 64 system with 1GB RAM, DVD burner and a roomy hard disk for about $1,000. This past January you would have gotten about the same for $500.
The thing is, though, with $500 per year, you can have an evolutionary PC, like another poster already mentioned. I think that's the best plan.
flexy
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
i never make a budget....i rather focus on WHAT components i want
And then i look around the cheapest places...and some sum comes up. I also prioritize, eg. gfxcard, cpu, motherboard...and i totally SKIMP on other stuff...eg. i dont need $300 cases w/ lasers in them etc.
But i definitly always tend to get very high-end components...and then use a system for 2-4 years. (Of course i overclock everything up the wazoo
I doubt that I will ever do a total build again. My computer is in a constant state of evolution, and I only replace parts as they wear out, or when the urge grabs me. Therefore, I one of those who voted for $500 per year.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter