Eugene's observations

I have just built a new PC for myself. These are the components I used:

An interesting (to me anyway) calculation is to devise a figure for all new PCs I deliver to clients that indicates the oomph per £. By dividing the aggregated performance metrics of each PC by the price paid for it, the last six PCs I delivered cost an average £709 and their ratios of performance to cost are 1.1, 0.7, 0.9, 1.0, 0.7, 1.0 My own new PC cost me more than average - £1,094 but my performance to cost ratio is 2.3. Meaning that by spending 50% more than average, I have a PC giving 150% more performance than average.

So my new PC goes about 2.5 times (or 3 times after over clocking) as fast as the average for relatively little increased cost. So what ? Well there are two conclusions I draw: that spending a little more gives a big payback in terms of value for money, and by having a PC that well specified, I can probably make it last two years longer than more modest machines. So the cost per year turns out to be similar - only mine goes faster than yours :-)