It goes without saying, but any conclusions based on the charts is still essentially dependent upon individual configuration and more importantly application, more specifically, which apps a given system is going to be running the majority of time.
If it's strictly for gaming, I think just about everyone agrees there is a rapidly diminishing rate of return performance wise once you start pricing CPUs above $200.
Only someone with too much money to waste would use a $1600 i7 based Xeon to play games for example. Yet that's what you'll often find in dedicated workstations along with $1,000+ workstation VGA cards. Waste of money relative to performance? Tell that to the professionals that make their living with Maya, 3DS Max, AutoCad, After Effects, Premiere, etc. where there is no such thing as too much processing speed.
Sure I'd love to have a Xeon W5590 based workstation with a Quadro FX3800 like they have in the animation lab for Maya (hell, make it an FX5800 while you're at it), but those are $3000+ systems. Instead, I have to settle for a "hobo" workstation build with an overclocked i7 920 and a FireGL V7700 for about $1300 including OS. Would I rather use the Q6600 or E8400 system with gamer VGA card instead for productivity apps at a little more than half the price? Hell no.
They both make great cost effective gaming systems though. Apples and oranges.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
