If you had a choice between Cost or quality of a CPU or GPU which one would be more important to you?
In my case, I always chose AMD processors because they were much cheaper than Intel processors even though Intel probably had better quality processors in the past.
Now AMD and Intel have about the same quality as far as processor goes in my opinion. But I would still stay with AMD because of the prices and my personal experience with AMD processors in the past.
Then again in the past my budget wouldn't allow me to spend a huge amount of money on a high quality Processor. When I compared AMD processors to Intel's processor I found that AMD processors had many similar features as Intel did but at a lower cost. Thus in my case, I considered price to be more important than quality.
Same goes to AMD and Nvidia GPU cards in the past and in the present.
But if you only had a choice between the price or quality of a Processor or GPU which would you give more importance?
I avoid all refurbished reconditioned and open box items.
You can get a great high end GPU or CPU just by waiting and watching for sales. Weekends and the weeks following major holidays like Thanksgiving Christmas New Years your Nations Independence Day are all great times to watch online PC parts (especially all electronic household items) sellers for some really great buys.
MY Power Color Demon RX 6900 XT got it on sale the week after Christmas for $1600 US. The card is back to its regular price ranging from $2100 to $2200 US.
Always check customer reviews before you buy. Never buy from questionable sites. Always check the hardware and software specs to ensure compatibility with your MOBO and OS. Be patient. A car salesman wants you to buy the car quick that's always a red flag. Even some budget parts are still high quality. I have found this a constant fact for the brands MSI Corsair Crucial Thermaltake Zalman Cooler Master and Noctua.
I guess COST is most of my concern, but I always want to get the most quality for my money, and that usually leads me back to AMD. Not because they're the cheapest or lower quality, but because I've already built on their platform, which means I can save money upgrading fewer parts like the CPU or video card without totally starting from scratch (mobo, RAM, cooling, PSU..).
If money wasn't an issue, I'd always get the fastest, most expensive parts available..but I'm not rich, and you have to work with what you have!
Well I have never paid over 300 for any CPU or GPU. I do not game so I can get by with less money but I do like speed and raw power. I will say I have built 500.00 to 600.00 dollar systems that store bought PCs could not touch in performance to price ratio. It is amazing what a well set up computer can do. The rule I use is to buy the less glamorous middle of the line CPU, while still not cheap if paired with a good motherboard and an adequate GPU you can have a really good PC. If I were a gamer, I would balance the two to get the best performance vs cost ratio. Speaking of GPUs the costs for run of the mill cards is pretty bad but high end cards now are no longer affordable for the average joe. Miners and chip shortages have blown the GPU market all out of proportion. I run a XFX R7 260x on one of my PCs and I just rebuilt my main PC with a Gigabyte GT 1030. I have a HTPC I run with a Ryzen 5 3400g and the onboard graphics. Quality is my focus. I read reviews both professional and consumer before I buy any part. In the consumer realm it doesn't take long to weed out the reviews that are just rants and those by none tech people. I pay attention to repeated problems other than dead parts ( those do happen ) but even some of those are written by folks that don't like to resolve problems. I get stuff that does not work but not very often. I may just be lucky but I have only had one CPU failure and it took a while to find. I have been building PCs since the 80s so I have been through a lot of parts. I guess that makes me a Quality guy.
I think for me a mix of both but ultimately cost is the deciding factor. Currently rocking an AMD Ryzen 5 2700 and it was chosen because of the low price!
Quality. Had my fair share of really cheap products and wish I spent a little more for something that lasts and is stable
Cost for the most Part is generally the most important factor, at least for most everyone. You search for the parts that are in your budget range. That is the reason I have been with AMD for so many years. Quality, Dependable, CPU's and Motherboards for a good price.
Anyone that is here spouting price does not matter is blowing smoke, spending more than a months wages for any PC is hard to swallow. AMD has been here for the novice to the experienced builder since I began building my own PC's over 20 plus years ago.
A computer in 1992 was the price of a good used car. I priced a Gateway machine then at over $3,000 dollars. I inherited my first CPU From a Buddy who fell victim the USPS, I built my first pc for about $500, boy did I learn so much. But after PCSing back to DC in the Mid 90's I had Computer shows every week and a few buddy's to learn and grow with. The internet helped so much.
Today Newbies and experienced people have much better resources, hey its like a computer show 24/7. I remember paying over $400 dollars for 16 Megabytes of ram. Don't many others did too. And $460 for my first 27" ViewSonic CRT monitor. (lugged that thing around to many frag fests "Headshot")
I got my current AMD Ryzen 5 5600X after the initial rush died down. It has taken me until now to acquire a Radeon RX 5500XT 8gb ddr6 Video card. Will all know the story with Crypto mining and AMD GPU's. Miners have devastated The AMD GPU Market driving GPU's to astronomical prices.
I say value for price is my thing and I can honestly say as a 61 year old who has done his best and helped many other with their dreams of building that first PC or Gaming Rig. AMD has Been there for me and many others.
I'd probably go with quality over cost as long as the cost was very high. There is a balance that you can have where you get the best quality for your budget.
I would place the most importance on cost. I cannot control the quality that is out there, or the price that is attached. I only have control over how much I want to spend, so it influences everything else.
I don't think it's always as simple as just cost and quality. When I look for a new part I try to weigh what I need the most. I like AMD for the low power and low temperature options. Sure, cost is a factor but I usually look at what is a better *value* meaning what is going to give the best bang for buck. Sure, an older cpu will be cheaper but will it have pcie 4 or other features I want? All in consideration.
Both, but if I had to choose one - quality. Cost definitely dictates what kind of quality I can afford though (to a degree). Like others have said, you can still have quality components without having to spend a lot of money.
Quality is a priority. But then, on the other hand, it is limited by the Cost.
For this reason, if the Cost is too high, it may devalue the Quality.
Long ago, my choice was a K6/K7 because of the higher Quality (performance) than a competitor's solutions, until the years when it was of nearly the same performance but for the about twice lower price than competitors (so, why to pay more?).
Nowadays, my choice is the Ryzen CPU because of the higher Quality again. It's not a performance though, but a set of another important factors, such as superior compatibility of AMD platforms, convenience and user-friendliness, also a great achievements of the company in such directions as OpenCL and Vulkan API's, big support for the open-source communities, and so on...
None of this takes place on the competitors' side that rather keeps pushing a proprietary solutions, attempting to monopolize the market and making their customers to buy what they don't actually need by limiting a compatibility options purposely...
My background was in HPC, where quality / capability was king; and more than that, accurately representing the capability was most critical. Because of that we worked almost exclusively with AMD, if they say a component has X or y spec, it always has it, and often exceeds it. This was not true of our other vendors in that space.
That experience has continued with me in my Gaming and PC life, an optimized build of a game may have better peak performance on intel/nvida, but for a Development build of a game, AMD gear will outperform consistently, and for a release game, it will have fewer spikes/ less variability in performance.
So Cost vs. quality .... IMHO I get what I pay for with AMD gear, so am willing to pay for the Spec I want.
Honestly, Quality is more important but, cost plays a big part in being able to afford quality. I'm sure everyone wants the latest and greatest. Right now I would love to have a Ryzen 9 5950 CPU and the Radeon 6900xt. I could only afford to get the Ryzen 7 5700G and I had to get a 2 year old competitor card just so I had something to start up this monster.
I do plan on upgrading almost everything on it as I can but, I needed a PC that could run the games that I streamed at the time without lag and clipping. I had to throw it together. I had a budget that was 1/4 of what I wanted to do.
Ultimately I want the 5900 or 5950 CPU and the 6900XT GPU to run together. It maybe a year before I can get to that point though.
I would choose the CPU
With a system board that would ask for Power Supply rating of 500 Watt or better
Then I would purchase parts for thew upgrade where my upgrade would clear up the issues and then you would own a PC that will last past Microsoft saying they do not support that Operating System anymore.
The MSI Board 970A Gaming is a Windows Vista build and The SLI Krait also is a Vista Build.
Gregory G McBride