It's interesting and pretty much tell us the true life story. Yeah, not everyone has the ability to buy a new CPU or graphic card in every six months. Only morons or very rich people will upgrade a 2400+ to 3000+; or saying his Ti4600 is way too slow and go purchase a 9800 Pro. We all live in a real world that everyone has their own life except storming for newer computer hardware when his system is still pretty much higher than average. (It feel so good when I sold my old Duron 900 system and get my current Athlon XP 2600+ though...)
indeed... my system is pretty damn zippy... cept for the geforce2pro.
Ive been looking at the 9700 nonpro, and its finally got below 500 bucks Australian... but im still holding out, just too much money just for a video card... maybe when the 9800 nonpro comes out...
The average system is probably a Duron with Geforce 2 MX, or TNT2.
TKH: My system is a 3000+ with Radeon 9700 Pro, and I can assure you that I'm neither a moron or very rich
I just happen to be a computer hardware enthusiast who has a real life besides it. And I do earn my own money.
I try to build a system with "matched value/performance" components. It's pointless to buy a P4 3Ghz and slap a GF4 MX video card in there as well. The opposite is also true an Athlon 1Ghz with a Radeon 9700 Pro is also pointless. Match your components according to their performance and then keep that system together (resist the urge to upgrade) for 1 to 2 years. Then go out and re-vamp the whole system before your current rig is obsolete. That way you can still sell it to someone and recover some money.
I don't believe these results - they are probably much higher than the real average system. Most people do benchmarking the moment they have bought a new machine or upgraded old, so the results of the "voluntary poll" must be skewed in favour of newer (and faster) machines.
Probably? According to a quick poll of the home PCs of everyone in my office, the 'average' PC is between a Pentium3 733MHz and a Pentium4 1.8GHz with 256MB of RAM and if you don't count onboard video, then a we're looking at lucky just to even have a GeForce1.
You have to weigh this however with the simple fact that almost everyone in my office hasn't even purchased a new computer (or done a serious upgrade) between 1.5 and 3 years.
And would you believe I'm a software engineer for a high-tech company? **LOL**
I suppose it could be worse though. The average 'office' PC at work here is a P3 800MHz (100MHz FSB) with 256MB of RAM and a Matrox G400. Almost everyone here has a box configured this way.
<font color=blue><pre>If you don't give me accurate and complete system specs
then I can't give you an accurate and complete answer.</pre><p></font color=blue>
I wish I had your office PC. We're forced to dock our notebooks which is typically a PII 300-350 with a whopping 128MB of ram running Win2k. I've actually got used to my system utilizing the swap file. But at least I have a 21" monitor, but of course the graphics cant support over 1024x768.
I don't think he was talking about OWNING a 3000+. I think he's saying that if you spend too much money on upgrades that only result in a small performance gain, then you need to find another hobby to spend your money on.
War Eagle<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Auburn9698 on 04/04/03 02:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>