Εγκατάσταση Steam
Σύνδεση
|
Γλώσσα
简体中文 (Απλοποιημένα κινεζικά)
繁體中文 (Παραδοσιακά κινεζικά)
日本語 (Ιαπωνικά)
한국어 (Κορεατικά)
ไทย (Ταϊλανδικά)
Български (Βουλγαρικά)
Čeština (Τσεχικά)
Dansk (Δανικά)
Deutsch (Γερμανικά)
English (Αγγλικά)
Español – España (Ισπανικά – Ισπανία)
Español – Latinoamérica (Ισπανικά – Λατινική Αμερική)
Français (Γαλλικά)
Italiano (Ιταλικά)
Bahasa Indonesia (Ινδονησιακά)
Magyar (Ουγγρικά)
Nederlands (Ολλανδικά)
Norsk (Νορβηγικά)
Polski (Πολωνικά)
Português (Πορτογαλικά – Πορτογαλία)
Português – Brasil (Πορτογαλικά – Βραζιλία)
Română (Ρουμανικά)
Русский (Ρωσικά)
Suomi (Φινλανδικά)
Svenska (Σουηδικά)
Türkçe (Τουρκικά)
Tiếng Việt (Βιετναμικά)
Українська (Ουκρανικά)
Αναφορά προβλήματος μετάφρασης
Κανόνες συζητήσεων και οδηγίες
Αναφορά ανάρτησης
One is to look at the level of performance relative to the latest (or rather fastest) stuff, as the idea here is the latest stuff is the peak of what we have available. Most people just consider the (using nVidia GPUs as an example) x80 (and now x90) tiers "high end", the x60 and x70 "mid-range" and x50 "entry level" (or lessening levels of "low end"). You can sort of apply that to the CPU tiers, but it makes far less sense in gaming terms there since core counts are increasingly the major differentiator between models (especially with AMD; with Intel lower SKUs still have overclocking restrictions and are clocked a bit lower). This is probably the one most enthusiasts will use. The problem with this approach IMO is where Intel, nVidia, AMD, et al. consider things as far as a "product stack" goes is pretty irrelevant to the wider landscape and is mostly more important to the "buying now" landscape instead. They are two very, very different things. In addition, terms like "enthusiast", "performance", and "mainstream" are far more commonly used than "high end, mid-range, and low end".
The other is to basically look at the wider landscape I mentioned above. The problem with this one is two things. The first is, this isn't easy to accurately do, but you can probably get somewhat close enough for a lot of things. The other "problem" is it puts the start of the "high end" far lower than "people want" (they don't think aged stuff counts as much, they don't think entry level and lower stuff counts as much, etc., despite the fact that in reality these are the more common norm) so they just argue that the product stack nomenclature or the latest generations are to be what determines the extent of the scale.
Neither is inherently wrong. I personally fall somewhat more towards the second, but most online communities will probably use something closer to the first.
To me, that PC would mostly be a high-mid (meaning higher end of the mid-range) to low-high (meaning lower range of the high end) at worst, and emphasis on worst. I'd probably call it a firm "average high end" in that it's a bit aged and not the cutting edge, but a high level of performance (relative to common norms) regardless. On the other hand, using the other criteria, it can probably be argued that with the RTX 4000 series coming, when the x60 is probably going to be give or take the x80 from two generations ago, that will thus position it as "about the be the start of mid-range". Same for the CPU but maybe less so, as it's two generations old, one of which was a bigger-than-usual jump, with another coming soon. But even by this criteria, someone calling it low end or barely mid-range right now is stretching it. I imagine only people who upgrade every new generation of every part ever and always go for the top end would say that about that hardware.
The criteria is so far apart and it leads to no end of arguing. At the end of the day, a PC should be most measured relative to how it handles the tasks you ask of it, and not solely how it compares to newer, faster stuff.
Low mid end compared to newest hardware,
mid end in general,
and ultra high end compared to 95% of Steam users. (according to suverys which arent rly convincing and accurate)
However who cares about that guy's opinion?
If someone thinks highend means ways above the average, then sure. Your PC would be highend. But again, who determines if that's "right"?
So then what about your opinion, given the two options above, which do you prefer? And why should anyone care about your opinion about which definition of highend is the right one?
Sometimes people are elitist. Sometimes people are jealous. Sometimes people are just contrary.
What do you think about your system? Do other people's crummy opinions change the performance of your system?
But who tf is saying this is low-mid tier when probably they are running Steam on a potato like one of mine PCs with Pentium E2200 :D
You are definitely right its just im trying to sell this pc and some people are saying its mid end but again till today my pc could run anything in its ultra settings(with a bit of a loud noise) Id like to think its high end😁
As Cathulhu has stated, some of Gigabyte´s newer models (GP-P750GM) are notorious for exploding and being a hazard overall. There´s a chance you might be at a risk and in need of a PSU replacement.
100% agreed.
And this !
There are people on Steam which would call a 1080 high end so don't expect too many honest opinions to your question.