So, that's a justification for tech to completely break Moore's Law, without an honest reason? Sneakers? I don't buy it. Literally or figuratively.Be that as it may, you can still go out and piss away $200.00 on a stinking pair of sneakers with some basketball player's name on them.
That same deuce might net you close to 4, 2 TB HDDs, a kick a** set of memory sticks, or even a mid to high range mobo.
Even at its current, "over priced state", you still get more for your money in tech than just about anything else on the planet. That's taking everything into consideration, R & D, raw materials, and especially the hyper precision equipment required to produce it.
How long does it take the average person to rip through $200.00 worth of gasoline, parking fees, and tolls? And you don't have anything to show for it when the money's gone.
Jus' sayin'.
PS: As long as you stay far away from those damned flagship smartphones, tech's a bargain.
It is absolutely true. Steam has stated that surveys often have 60% to 70% participation out of all those who receive them. That is a significant portion of Steam users and MORE than enough to gain an accurate view of user stats. This grants them credibility which is why media outlets, such as this one we're discussing on, have the ability to write articles and be able to confidently cite the source. Context is important. So to is merit.As explained ad nauseam already, that is not true, its not as reliable as you think.
Another statement without merit. Technology today is much, MUCH less expensive than it once was. Sure, prices go up and right now we have an artificially inflated market(thanks to the pandemic and cryptominers), however, as a general rule, prices per capita are far less expensive than they once were. Example, in the early 1980's 1MB(that's megabyte as in 1024KB) of RAM for a given computer was around $440(I know, I was there and frequently bought RAM). For context, the average median household monthly income was $370. The late 80's and early 90's weren't much better. In the late 90's prices started coming down to the point where people could buy a PC on 2 or 3 months wages. Nowadays, you can buy a COMPELETE, very well equipped PC for less than what most people make in a month. That's a WHOLE PC, not just RAM.You're paying way too much for tech these days.
Reality check. "Moore's Law|". was never a physical certainty. It is just the imaginative and speculative ramblings of someone close to the technology.So, that's a justification for tech to completely break Moore's Law, without an honest reason?
Funny how you avoid to mention how close the midrange 5 series is to 400 bucks now. Or is that high end too? All of them high end, to justify gouging the consumer? I thought it was only apple living in a fantasy world where we don't compare contemporarily, but only with selective legacy specs? Have PC sunken this low in denial?
They saw an opportunity to cash in massively and they did. I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same, but stop kidding yourself. You're paying way too much for tech these days.
It is absolutely true. Steam has stated that surveys often have 60% to 70% participation out of all those who receive them. That is a significant portion of Steam users and MORE than enough to gain an accurate view of user stats. This grants them credibility which is why media outlets, such as this one we're discussing on, have the ability to write articles and be able to confidently cite the source. Context is important. So to is merit.
What credibility do YOU have? Hmm?
Context is indeed exceptionally important. You deciding to selectively pick one wind back of moore's law and fix the other is outright laughable.Another statement without merit. Technology today is much, MUCH less expensive than it once was. Sure, prices go up and right now we have an artificially inflated market(thanks to the pandemic and cryptominers), however, as a general rule, prices per capita are far less expensive than they once were. Example, in the early 1980's 1MB(that's megabyte as in 1024KB) of RAM for a given computer was around $440(I know, I was there and frequently bought RAM). For context, the average median household monthly income was $370. The late 80's and early 90's weren't much better. In the late 90's prices started coming down to the point where people could buy a PC on 2 or 3 months wages. Nowadays, you can buy a COMPELETE, very well equipped PC for less than what most people make in a month. That's a WHOLE PC, not just RAM.
Yes, context is very important.
When, if ever, are you going to get it through your head that, "Moore's Law", isn't a law, but conjecture?Context is indeed exceptionally important. You deciding to selectively pick one wind back of moore's law and fix the other is outright laughable.
I like to imagine myself as being, "ambidextrous". Of which, I'm euphemistically referring to as, "the ability to talk out either side of my a**, with equal skill". I don't "brag" about it very often, since I'm certain others will try to belittle me by claiming, "oh that's nothing, I can do that standing on my head".. I can't understand why people here are struggling with these two observations and seem intent on inventing bizarre conspiracies.
Your statement is lacking basic logic. Even if only 1% participate that is still millions of systems being polled. That is hardly "insignificant" and would represent a reasonably valid sample size in ANY scientific survey. However, your assumption of numbers is as flawed as your interpretation of my statement.What proportion of Steam users is that? You have misinterpreted something here.
Steam claims that 60 to 70% of people who are sent the survey participate, which is fine. But your comment suggests that 60-70% of total Steam users are represented in the survey, which is not the case. Based on how often I have received the survey each month on all the machines I have Steam on, that number is far less than 10%, maybe 1%, which is an insignificant portion of Steam users, making their survey not particularly accurate.
The broad strokes are probably true but most of the data is likely to be only accurate within 10-20% or so, especially at the lower ends of participation, like the video cards with ~1% representation. This becomes obvious as about once a year, the monthly data notably departs from the otherwise gradual yearlong trends, which happened this month.
So this month's data is even more crap than usual. Try again next month.
Garbage in, garbage out. Sample size doesn't matter if you don't sample the same pool of users every time.Your statement is lacking basic logic. Even if only 1% participate that is still millions of systems being polled. That is hardly "insignificant" and would represent a reasonably valid sample size in ANY scientific survey. However, your assumption of numbers is as flawed as your interpretation of my statement.
Scientific surveyYour statement is lacking basic logic. Even if only 1% participate that is still millions of systems being polled. That is hardly "insignificant" and would represent a reasonably valid sample size in ANY scientific survey. However, your assumption of numbers is as flawed as your interpretation of my statement.
Garbage in, garbage out. Sample size doesn't matter if you don't sample the same pool of users every time.
It seems clear you two need to brush up on Survey Theory.More than enough proof there that Steam survey is utterly crap.
There is an undeniable linear relation between generation numbering by manufacturers. These generation numbers have been a solid price reference for decades.There is often a stark contrast between feeling ripped off than actually being ripped off.
In today's world, feelings are at a high inflation rate. The return on the investment is rather low.
Oh that is a silly statement. Of course Intel's CPU's are good. Just because AMD has a line of CPU's that's better doesn't suddenly make Intel's offerings crap. CONTEXT is important!Me: Who cares? It's not like Intel CPUs are good, they're just AVAILABLE.
Your level of reading comprehension isn't strong enough to realise that the word "good" is being used in a relative manner in this case? Well, it looks like everyone else understood my words just fine.Oh that is a silly statement. Of course Intel's CPU's are good. Just because AMD has a line of CPU's that's better doesn't suddenly make Intel's offerings crap. CONTEXT is important!
Because 10th gen Intel were sold at large discount
Nor should you. AMD's pricing has been stupid lately because of the demand and lack of availability. There's no point in paying a crap-tonne more because of the brand name if the performance of the less-expensive option is good enough. That's one of the reasons that the last Intel CPU I owned was a Core2Duo. The value preposition of Phenom II and FX-8300 was just too good. Having a good hate-on for Intel helped too. LOLYup, pull the trigger on an upgrade and decided to grab a i5 10600KF even though I'd been waiting to grab a 5600X for ages. What made up my mind for me? AMD $370CN, Intel $255CN for pretty much the same thing or debatably even better. I want AMD to do well, competition is good for everyone, even bought a first gen Ryzen system when they came out (sold it to a work buddy). But I just can't justify paying a $115CN premium for the privilege of supporting AMD.
That's why I say that the motherboard you choose is immensely the more important choice in the build. It sets the tone of the your upgrade path. I use to cheap out on this part, but no longer. Got to pay attention to the VRM here or you will find yourself with a dead board. My last upgrade included a quality board and an entry level CPU. It's also why I prefer AMD. More upgrade options. Intel is to Apple like AMD is to Microsoft.Nor should you. AMD's pricing has been stupid lately because of the demand and lack of availability. There's no point in paying a crap-tonne more because of the brand name if the performance of the less-expensive option is good enough. That's one of the reasons that the last Intel CPU I owned was a Core2Duo. The value preposition of Phenom II and FX-8300 was just too good. Having a good hate-on for Intel helped too. LOL