So I've been doing some thinking and doing some watching over the years with the computer industry. I've always yearned for the hottest stuff, from the blazing dual-P3 1Ghz setup with SCSI, to quad graphics cores mixed with quad CPU cores.
But lately it's come to mind that, in all honesty, the top-end stuff is really about keeping the prices on the mainstream stuff in check.
Now, say I have $3000 for an upgrade tailored to the driving force of the industry...gaming. This is a little less than 3 months of work in my humble job. At this point, I have two hypothetical options (disregard actual dollar amounts):
Top end CPU: $1000
Top end GFX: $1000
The rest: $1000
____
$3000
Now, say that AMD/Intel and nVidia/ATI release a new top-end part once per year, with one refresh in between but they leapfrog each other in terms of release dates, so whoever has the most recent release is the fastest out.
That means I could spend $3000, once per year, on new top-end stuff and be good for another 365 days.
The second option is:
Mid range CPU: $500
Mid range GFX: $500
The rest: $500
___
$1500
Oops! That's an extra $1500 for the year! What ever shall I do?
6 months later, brand new stuff is released and the new mid-range part owns the last high-end, so...
Mid range CPU: $500
Mid range GFX: $500
The rest: $500
___
$0 left to budget
Remember the AthlonXP? In some benchies, the mid range owned the high end P4. Same with the Athlon64. Same with the Core 2 versus the A64.
Now, this is aimed towards people who have to BUDGET. I don't have the luxury of a new top end processor every 6, 9, or 12 months because of such things as debt, car loan, food, etc.
Personally, while bragging rights are nice, the Core 2 Duo Extreme will only be the fastest for so long. At the end of that year, the mid-range might be faster then the previous top-end.
I love to tinker so much that I pick the "more but cheaper" option, rather then the "less but expensive" option. It doesn't last as long, but I get the newest tech when I upgrade.
The advantage, IMO, of doing this is that software takes so long to develop that I feel more "aligned" if you will, with new releases. They are written based on predictions of what hardware will be like when it's released. So when I upgrade to the newest mid-range, many times it runs stuff just fine.
Then again, I've slacked off on the hardware front. My most recent addition was a swap from a Venice 3000+ that OC'd to sky-high limits (900Mhz+ over stock, anyone?) to a 4400+ because the price was so tempting. Plus, it's running faster than a 4800+ anyways.
I don't, however, skimp on my motherboards. Although I do feel bad for getting a $200 SLI board that's never had anything better than a single 6600GT in it, and probably never will.
What's your take, given the options? Obviously you can wait for prices to drop, but that's not the point of this rant...doing that is an endless battle. Upgrade or die.
Disclaimer: All this stuff was boiled in my head and represents a black-and-white view on the industry, not necessarily specific details or prices. 
hardware
prices 
all the ones I'm running now are a couple years old and were give aways.
