definition of “bang for the buck”

[ebprince the computer nerd]

I was wondering, does the term for pc’s, “bang for the buck” mean the best PC for the price, or the best price to performance PC?

[Jtalk4456]

1 minute ago, ebprince the computer nerd said:

I was wondering, does the term for pc’s, “bang for the buck” mean the best PC for the price, or the best price to performance PC?

well best price to performance could have a low end that is a good ratio or a high end super expensive that is a good ratio, so I'd say the first

[SkilledRebuilds]

I'd say Best PC for the Lower Price. (An OCers Perspective) and increase Performance manually to be better than OG part choices.

(The perspective factors in OC needs too like compatability strengths,.. and cooling)

 

But I'm a fan of getting below the best and stretching its legs real close to top results for much less dollars.

[lewdicrous]

I generally see it as the best/highest performance for the lowest price, for a specific use case.

The best bang for buck PC for office work, would differ from the best bang for buck for gaming, for example, both in terms of price and performance, but they would be the most viable option, considering the parts available, how much someone is willing to pay, etc.

[SolarNova]

Generally speaking its in regards to price:performance.

However there is the added rule that it has to be within the range of acceptable performance for the given task.

 

A £50 10 year old bargain 'used' PC may have way higher price:performance than a £2000 new PC, however if the £50 PC cant even run the most basic of games, its useless as a gaming PC.

For example if the £50 PC achieves 10 FPS in a game for £50 thats £5 per FPS, vs the £2000 for 120FPS being £16.6 per FPS.

£5 per FPS is better than £16.6 per FPS, but 10 FPS isnt playable.

 

So a line has to be drawn in the performance part. Take a set minimum performance metric (E.G: FPS), then build or find the cheapest possible option that meets it.

Then as a comparison compare vs something(s) that costs more but has higher performance. Compare the 2 (or more) and decide if the higher price is worth the higher performance. If it is then the higher price option is the better 'bang for buck' , if it isnt then its not.

 

#nopoliticsintended

[mariushm]

Something with excellent value/performance for the money,  something close to the peak on a bell curve.

 

For example, a Ryzen 5950 may have the highest performance on a Socket AM4, but it's not best bang for buck because it probably doesn't have the best value per core, or the best value per "benchmark points"  and in most games you won't have a linear increase in performance so a  much cheaper 6-8 core processor will have a better value for most gaming compared to 5950.

 

[airborne spoon]

this term is not just for PC it is used on damn near everything, like car parts when upgrading to get rid of stock crap. or office furniture best ability to do and store what you need while keeping the price low but not going so low you end up with an inferior product that will fail in a year.

[WhitetailAni]

For me it's best performance/cost.

Problem is you can scale performance over cost infinitely, so I avoid using this term.