Not really. Anything over and above just decreases the chance of you requiring to change that component when the new ones come out. Which would be smart, unless you're incapable of logical choices and prefer to spend money more unnecessarily, since the condition was that everything was equally priced, ceteris paribus.
Aye, but most people give it a week or two at least to make sure the new tech works and isn't festooned with faulty components (as has happened before). Additionally, most will wait for at least the first price drop. It is false economy to buy the cheapest, as you end up paying twice at the end of the day, but then, who buys the cheapest if they're into gaming?
Not really Since you tend to pay exponentially more for the highest of the high end components for a generally linear improvement in performance, it is far more economical to upgrade more often than buy the most expensive components on the market half as often. Although the condition was that everything was equally priced, this is obviously not the case in the real world and so is not a valid consideration. My point was in response to nRollo that those who spend less on components are not necessarily compromising.
Oh, blates... brb, remortgaging the house... OK, I'm back! Now, time to put my Asus Mars into a £30 computer - all I could afford. Pentium 4 + 2 GTX285s in one card, squashed into an AGP slot (I hope those PCI bits I snapped off glue back on easily - they'll be fine, right?), here I come! I get your point, but these parts are for record-chasers. The extreme overclocker who's not content pouring liquid helium on a regular GTX295. The person who likes the 5-10% (or whatever) edge they get over enthusiasts who DON'T have a grand lying around in their back pocket. All I did with that "rough guide to spending £Arm-and-a-Leg" was point out that you could sit on the near-bleeding edge of technology, for the same price of one of these bad-boys - you'd have a computer that would install Crysis instead of Solitaire and laugh about it! It's a part you're not likely to see in anyone's actual machines. Even the people with a grand to blow on graphics cards could Quad-SLI a bunch of GTX285s for that money - and that's THE best combination of graphics cards money could buy (theoretically, at least). In fact, from a VERY fundamental point of view, it's twice as good as the Mars card, because it's the same, but double. So, I don't buy it (pun very much intended). Unless you're chasing the e-peen of "Who can get the most points in 3DMark Vantage with only one PCI slot in use?", this is pointless. Maybe it's the best of the best, but only when compared to one of everything else, and at that price, you can't help but feel 3-4 of the competition would be both cheaper and better... PS: Don't bother with FSB overclocking? Lrn2BIOS.
There's this aspect of it, and the other is if you have a 25X16 or 3D Vision monitor, "too much graphics performance" doesn't exist. I have both types of monitors on my main rig, and the people who would be a target market for this card would also likely have the "best of best" monitors that need uber graphics.
