The previous link was broken, so I’ve reposted a safer one with archive.org

  • HidingCat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The starting premise of the article is based on upgrading from a previous generation. Which sane mind does that? Aside from the one time I got a freebie, all my upgrades were at least two generations apart.

    Edit: Also, coming with certain prices on the RX 6000 series, as long as you’re from three generations behind you’ll get a good upgrade. I went from a GTX 1070 to a RX 6700 XT. Felt a big improvement there.

    • scutiger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They do make the point in the article that even upgrading from two generations back is a waste, as you’re getting basically getting no real benefit to having waited two generations instead of one. You may as well upgrade to last generation instead of this one and save yourself some money.

      If you’re three generations behind, no matter what your upgrade path is, you’re getting a significant upgrade, but it’s still not worth upgrading to the current gen when last gen is much better value for a marginal performance difference.

      The exception to all this is buying the absolute top-of-the-line, which is never good value, but is again significantly inflated in price from the previous gen.