Hey guys I need your help. Seeing as there are not many threads at all in this part of the forum, I thought it would be okay to post a help thread here.

I've always been a console gamer, until recently I've always seen PC gaming as a strict FPS affair, but now that I look into it deeper I can see there is more to it than I at first thought. At first I thought "I can just get a 360, the two both share the same games anyway." But seeing as the 360 is very unreliable console, all my friends have had the 3RROD, and the fact that all 360 games I want are coming to PC plus I want some PC only games, like Project Offset and The Witcher and Crysis(looks pretty good).
Anyway like I said I have never been a PC gamer, the closest thing I have is a laptop which is pretty crap, can play HL2 on full which I thought was good but really what semi-good comp can't now-a-days.

So I'm looking for a gaming computer that could play most of the current games on full, probably won't gun for Crysis on full, I have money but not that much money. And I know nothing about anything in this area of things, like what is a good good graphics card or how much RAM is good etc. so could you guys maybe give a laymans rundown on what kind of things I could look for and what brand of comps to get.
I live in AUS so it's probably harder to get a good comp here in a store so I will probably have to go the online way. I think its possible to make comps online, isn't it? So I could tell them what to put in it and they ship it off, or is that madness? What are good brands to get, I know Dell are supposed to be good but I can't stress how n00b I am at this.

So could someone please help with all this stuff, that would be great and I would much appreciate it
Thanks in advance.

Oh, I almost forgot to ask, good thing I looked back on this thread (theres tonnes of good info, thanks.)
Is there a difference between 533Mhz Ram and 800Mhz? There's a little bit of price difference but I want to be sure. I heard it makes a difference if you intend to overclock things, which I do (spending enough on cooling so why not.)
But I wanted to ask the masters seeing as the people on the other forums where a little vague.

Not bad, pretty decent post overall. I'd first heed you a word of caution, unless you really know how to work the bios of your system or have had experiance with OC'ing quad cores, be careful. If you google OC Q6600, you'll spring up 50 people talking about oc'ing their q6600 to 3ghz and yada yada but beleve me when I say, half of them definately dont even have decent cooling and will cut the lifespane of that card down by a good fraction. Quad cores run hot, make sure you got the cooling, all im gona say.

Just another thought, I'd skimp away from the 8600 ram...its great but you dont have much else coupling with it. Your eyes wont notice any real improvement but your wallet sure as hell will. Go with a cheaper gaming ram...stick with 4 gigs if you want...just something a bit cheaper. I know you want the faster ram but given your core components, its folly to put your money into the system that way.

One last word of caution, stay away from XFX cards...they blow. Their quality and cooling stink so again, if you want to go XFX, make sure your case has got good venting with plenty o fans...either that or watercooling. I'd have to say your margin of failure on the card might be high if it doesnt have proper cooling however I'd also speculate you wont get a lemon out of the box. The XFX series failed miserably this gen with the 8800 ultra oc'ed. The number of people complaining of faulty cards/high temps was insane. This again though is due to their lack of foresight in having proper cooling on the card to begin with. I kinda forget off the top of my head but if XFX has a lifetime warrenty on it...go for it...if not, eh...go evga. At least you know your investment will be backed up.

Out of curiosity, how does the 8600 look benchmark wise anyways? I have to be completely honest here, the card is so low on the Dx10 totem pole I never even bothered to research the thing. My advice, forget OC'ing a lower end card...its pointless because dollars to doughnuts says there is more of a difference than just memory (and you can check earlier in this thread to see what I'm talking about...at least I think I made that point in this thread). Save your cash on the ram and get a 8800 gts either 320 or 640...as much as you might not want to believe me, thats the way to go.

All this is a moot point though. If you wish to discuss this further, make another thread, I'd be glad to help you through some stuff or even do a little research. This is Ocelots thread so...back to the monitor discussion. Which again though, I still say the picture is fine on a 22'' widescreen acer.

Honestly, when I read your initial needs and wants, I think your going a little bit overboard. I'm thinking about building a similar system, a bit cheaper though, and i'm skimping on the graphics card to put it in my budget... Right now, all my components are running about $1500, although a few little things will put it at $1600-$1700. I'm gonna get a Q6600 (OCed to 3ghz) a EVGA 680i sli mobo (the std ver.) 4gb of PC8600 ram (that is really pushing my costs, but 1ghz ram = heaven. I think the ram is costing me $400 or $500 alone) XFX 8600GTS XXX edition (This is where I skimped - only 200 bucks, so a 8800gts is another $100 i think) a 500gb Samsung spinpoint hdd. Things I would have liked to add but too expensive - 8800gtx ultra, 1333mhz ram, QX6800. I think if you put together these components with a 8800gts or gtx (depending on cash) you'll be good. Slower ram wouldn't be a huge deal either. Otherwise kb/m is mostly comfort and personal opionions, and so is a monitor... I would go 22'' if you get one for under $250 usd (everythings in usd)

I would highly recommend Blue Spine Design. http://www.bluespinedesign.com/ They're prices are the lowest and the cases are pretty nice too. They'll definetly give you the most for your money. All the comps come with DirectX 10 too

Too bad I live in Australia though. Those comps look pretty cool though.

Hey Major, here is an excellent monitor I stumbled across and it is one that I would buy if I didn't already have one. It is HDCP compliant which means you can hook up your ps3 via HDMI-DVI cable with no problems. Check it out...
Samsung 206BW 20" Widescreen LCD Monitor

Also for instructions on turning your pc monitor into a TV click here

Ooo, that one looks pretty sweet. It's pretty much the same one with HDMI ports. Cool.
So if a monitor says that it is HDCP compliant, does that mean it has ports? Or what.

Yeah, sorry about the whole currency thing, I always assume people are in the United States or shop in the ways I do (my bad haha). I'd say go for the ws if you want, 19 inch would suffice just fine or 22 inch if you want. After shipping/tax/whatever else, all I'm saying is after that bottom line, I wouldnt pay more than 300...I'd hardly have the desire to pay more than 200 to be honest. By the time you want to buy this though, I'm sure they'll be cheaper and/or you'll find another you like more. You'll be fine and no matter what, I'm sure you'll enjoy what you have.

Just remember Appolyons, the currency is relative. $300 is roughly $240 ish plus all the shipping and holding garbage we end up paying for. So the set for $300 you could probably get for $180-$200 in the US.
I might just stick with a regular WS 19'', my TV in the game room, which I use for consoles is only 20'' big, non WS. So having a 19'' monitor, to me is huge and will suit me just fine.
That is if you recommend WS over standard, if a game has native WS coded into it, will it be better than playing it on a regular monitor?
Also just a little reminder that I'll be getting this at the end of the years, start of next, so the monitor will cost nothing by then.

This time Red Sand makes a valid point but its tricky. Yeah you want to enjoy high resolutions but c'mon, is that really worth 350$'s+? We all have our vices, I'd rather spend an extra 100 on a graphics card, others would rather do it on the monitor or something else...all relative so I cant player hate on that. To me, for that price, I might as well get a 32'' lcd with either 720p or a 1080i setting and forget about a tiny 22'' screen.

Lets not pretend either, I might not know all these fancy contraptions monitors come with now, but these flatscreens are no more of a trend then the PC systems we build in the first place. The prices on these puppies drops just as quick. I'm on my laptop, so I dont exactly remember what the highest resolution on my widescreen is but trust me Ocelot, for me at least, it's darn fine good enough. Maybe down the road when these things get a little cheaper, I'll invest in one but right now, to spend anywhere over 300 for a monitor is folly. If you want to use it for television....wayyyyy different story I suppose but if you already have a tv...eh, save yourself the hassle.

What do I recommend? While Red Sand makes a great point enjoying with high resolutions, I'm just gona say a typical widescreen comes equiped well enough. You'll be satisfied and have saved a couple bucks.

I have the 931c and use it for gaming. It's great. I don't like running my games in anything higher than 1280x1024. So it works great for me.

You HAVE to tweak it when you get it. The factory settings are notoriously bad on this monitor.

You can get it for much cheaper than 389. I found it for 300 Canadian at TigerDirect.ca.

Do games actually look better in WS? I would have thought it would distort the image, stretch it so to speak.
I would like to see some comparative pics just to see what kind of difference the widescreen makes, if it's not much then I'll probably stick with this unless I should splash out and get a 22'' instead of a 19''.
Also, if you want to hook up a TV aerial or watch TV on the monitor does it have to be a specially built monitor or can you buy attachments?
It's really a novelty seeing as my TV is right next to the desk anyway, lol, but it is a crappy TV and I'd like to watch something on a good one for once. Which reminds me, the widescreens would probably be better for that anyway. Hmmm, got some thinking to do.

-Edit-
Well Samsung make the same monitor I want in Widescreen form as well, so if I get one that will probably be it. But although most games now support it, some old ones do not. I went on Wide Screen Gaming Forums to check it out and there are some helpful things, and seeing as the WS version of the monitor I want is the same price then I might get it.
But I need some more persuading/info on how it's better please.
Would you recommend it? I'm, if you haven't already read, tossing up between it and the WS version. How are you finding it? Is it better than your friends monitors etc. It does look cool, I have to say.

Nothing that has "Dell" printed on it, unless you see "XPS" by it lol.....


No eMAchines either..

http://www.ncixus.com/products/23215...-NF68-A1/eVGA/

I have the non revised version of this board with an E6600(Q6600 wasn't out yet..) and it seems to work really nice for me, I've manage to overclock it to 3.5ghz with a GeminII HSF

but I also hear this HSF is nice : http://www.ncixus.com/products/24512...8457/EnzoTech/

also CM stackers are VERY good cases, I'm using one and it has really nice airflow...assuming you don't clutter everything and have loose wires everywhere

and if you plan on using dual screen monitors...STAY AWAY FROM DUAL CARD SOLUTIONS...I have 2 8800 GTS and I have to switch to single monitor mode everytime I want to enable SLi...so basically, I never touched my SLi again...as for GTS being able to play games for today and tomorrow...yes that's true...but not on the highest settings...even with SLi enabled...Company of Heroes lags like crazy on 1024x768 at highest settings for me, same with World in Conflict.

I would also get more juice for your PSU...since apparently the GTX does eat a lot of power...especially if your going to overclock it...

Also Dual Channel Ram isn't bad...doesn't do much in real time performance, but it's nice to see the benchmarks

I use this one http://www.ncixus.com/products/19337...%20Technology/
tighten the timings on these and memory hungry applications will really benefit...

but I hear these ones are really nice : http://www.ncixus.com/products/21294...00C4D/CORSAIR/

anyways I'm no pro at this but this is the stuff I learned prior to buying the parts and building my comp...btw...why don't you just pirate your software? ...I'm running XP pro cracked edition haha, free updates + free software FTW...

my comp roughly cost me $2500 Canadian including shipping + tax...I ripped of some parts from my old computer though

Samsung is a very good brand and everything about that monitor is excellent except for the resolution and it isn't widescreen 16:9. The max resolution is 1280x1024 (720p). Here is a site with the specs on it. http://www.samsung.com/au/931c/
It also has it listed for $599.. so $389 sounds like a good deal to me. Games in widescreen are soo much better so I would also look into a widescreen monitor. Monitors 20.1'' and above usually include widescreen.

Remember that if you invest in an 8800gtx or an ultra, you'll definitely want a monitor that will put those cards to use with very high resolutions like 1680x1050 and above!

Appolyons man, you are the dude when it comes to PC know-how. RedSand you are also the dude, in my eyes as well. Either way you have both helped me in pointing me in the correct direction, I'm very grateful for that dudes, much appreciated. After I read Appolyons post, it's 1am I'm about to head off, I'm sure I will be persuaded in something.
Now that the main PC is out of the way, I'm scoping Monitors, part B, and I think I stumbled upon something great for cheap.
http://www.justmonitors.com.au/sam931c.htm
This is an affordable monitor and its response time is 2ms! I looked through the rest of the brands on that site and most don't even go to 2ms, only 3! And some only do when they reach the $800 mark.
Do you guys think this is a good monitor for the price? Is it too good to be true, or is it lacking something?

Cool man, and thanks for the complements. When it comes to flat screens though, I'm incredably cheap, as long as its 5 ms or faster, its good enough for me. Hardcore gamers wont even go flatscreen as there is too much of a delay. I own a 22 acer and a 22 westinghouse. Both serve me fine, I just went to best buys and picked them up less than a month apart. For me, I'd never spend more than 200 dollars on a monitor, I'd rather soak that extra cash into my PC to tell the truth. I'm sure some of the other guys can help you further as I concede my knowledge in this catagory is lacking and quite simple.

Here are the specs for Bioshock on PC:

So yeah you'll be able to run it at high with a quad core and a 8800gts 640mb. You'll even be able to run Crysis on high with an 8800gts. The ceo of Crytek said that himself. It should last you a long time.

Ok major, this will probably be the last post I make in this thread, at least in regards to this specific topic. I can only prove a point so thoroughly but now that I'm more awake (by the way, good morning), here we go.

We've established a price difference between the gts and gtx, so lets get the obvious out of the way first. However, and I dont know where the misleading started, but there is a major if not very important difference between the two cards and it does NOT start and end at the 320 vs 640. Allow me to link you to the first site I saw:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/980/2/page_2_the_differences/index.html

Again, I'm not that confident in tweaktown but lets assume their estimates are roughly correct:

GTS stream processor=96 GTX=128

GTS Mhz= 500 GTX=575

Memory (in Mhz) GTS=1200 GTX= 1350

Shader Clock Mhz (let me emphasize the importance of this one) GTS= 800 GTX= 900

Now mind you, I just pulled this out of the link, feel free to read it all because I sure didnt. My point is Ocelot, there is more reasoning behind what I'm saying than I let on, I just usually dont have the energy or time to go through it. So believe me when I say there is a bigger difference than the mb's here that you should be concerned with.

By the way, a chart you can look at but again...keep in mind we should really examine a lot before making a serious decision.

http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/graphics/reviews/0611/pic/xl596_thumb.jpg

Now before I get some newb shouting at me that there is no way this is accurate, let me first note that this is not the 640mb gts...its the precious 320...just fyi.

Ok RedSand, its funny actually, I find myself agreeing then somewhat dissagreeing with what you have to say. As much as I detest the 320 (purely because of price for value), it's very true that I support the idea that it will run crysis. Everyone gets in such a huff over these new PC games...back in the day it was FarCry. Will it run it on high as you say? No, it wont.

Again, I like your logic but your word choice needs to be watched. When you say 'high settings' I think everything maxed out. A gts 320 will run most of today games but not all...I would question its performance in games like Darkness/shadowrun/oblivion. Also remember, the room to max out these specs will dimish as the game req.'s get higher.


While I see your point, and it is true the human eye wont pick up on much of a difference...the case isnt this simple. I dont know if you picked those 2 numbers to prove a point but lets pick 2 more realistic ones. Lets say 70 fps vs 30 fps. While the eye wont tell a big difference now, what happens when a higher end game comes out? On average, our 70 fps's will drop to about 30 or so and our 30 will go to about 15-20. In addition, if someone is running a game as you say, at 200 fps's vs someone with 60, the person will 200 will have a much larger room for upping the graphics settings...another thought.

Alright, real quick let me just see what I can find here with price:

On newegg I'm seeing anywhere from 270-330 dollars for a 8800 gts 320 mb.
For a 640 mb gts, I'm seeing 360-400 dollars.

I dont even need to go further, my point here is that you can make it work if you want. Again, the extra few dollars work to your advantage. Last time I can say it...now it comes down to what you can afford.

I wanted to add this as a sidenote to you Ocelot, game developers are trying to do 1 thing. Sell more video games. However, have you ever noticed how PC games are usually cheaper than console games? Do you wonder why? It's because PC game developers know that the average home player owns an "average" rig and one not capable of probably playing their games on high settings. So, what do they do? They need to sell copies, they want to make the game look appealing...in the end,they lower more than just the price. When you look at minimal system requirements, your playing a dangerous game. Their job is to put up honest specs that the game will run at and god knows if you ran it at those specs...it wouldnt run all that fancy heh. The purpose for this is mostly for the consumer to say "hey I have those parts and even some better!" When I worked for dell and Vanguard came out...thats the number one thing Sony was trying to do with that game and it was a laugh. Needless to say, Vanguard flopped as a major MMO.

Key points here, there is more to these specs than just 640 vs 320...know that! If you can see that, and then just see how better off you are going the extra few dollars, you'll be happy about it. Now I started this theory on this forum about buying 1 card now...then get another later. I dont want to make anythign sound inferior but if your buying a 320 or even 640 gts...dont waste your cash in the future on another for sli. Only do that for the higher end cards because as it holds true in nvidias history, they overcharge for their higher ends (which obviously blaze much faster). If you want 2 ultras OC'ed..then yes, get 1 now and wait for the other. But Redsand, you dont do that for the gts's. Your better off just buying a higher end of the new next gen card. Thats not just my take, its the smarter financial/bang for buck move.

Alright, im done with the 320 vs 640 arguement. Hope this helped guys, if there is another discussion on something different, I'll be glad to join it. Until then, take care.

All I care really is if I can plau games like Bioshock and Mass Effect on high settings. That's the bottom-line, it's an alternative to the lackluster 360.
So will there be a $300 difference between a 640Mb GTS and a 768 GTX? Because the GTS costs $535 and the GTX $815.
So really is not a couple of bucks.
So is their a noticeable difference between the two that's worth $300 and will the GTS be able to run Bioshock on full to highish graphics?

^^^ an 8800gts will run today's and tomorrow's games for a long time, maybe not at 5000x2500 resolution with 500x aa and 500x af, but it will run them at high settings. It doesn't matter if a game is run at 200fps or 60fps, you won't tell a big difference. I picked up my 8800gts 640mb for $259. You'll save a few hundred going that route. In 2 years when you need it, maybe you can pick up an 8800 ultra for $200 instead of $800. If one of your goals is keeping the cost reasonable, then this is definitely the best way to go... but thats just my opinion and I know yours is different.

Ah, sorry bud...your points have truth however I'll have to dispuit it.

To begin, we cant simply put up a link with benchmarks and make a point. This is illogical and stupid. We need many sources and credible ones wouldnt hurt, I myself have never been fond of tweaktown (just me). Remember, these tests are construed from other system specs so they'll always vary and of course, every author usually has an intended view or viewpoint they wish to convey. Just something to bear in mind.

For the sake of time/effort, I'll keep this answer straight and simple as to not deviate from the thread topic.

My friend, if your looking to cut the price down, by all means get your 2 gtx's (or purchase 1 now because that alone will run most games today flawlessly and then buy the 2nd later). However (and I'll try and answer a few questions here), dont go for the gts 640 if you can afford the gtx, that simple (in this instance, your seeing a large difference). Your not saving a 'few hundred' by switching from a gtx to a gts, maybe a 100 or a little more. Let me tell it you straight, and I'm a little sleepy so forgive me if I sound more blunt than I mean to. You've just sunk 1k-2k into a brand new computer system. Do not stab yourself in the back trying to cut back. If you want bang for buck, sure...however I (imo) recommend you go the extra mile here with the graphics card. It's worth it.

To address the question of mhz. I'll just keep this simple and un-technical for you. In a way its the speed/frequency at which the card clocks at. The faster you run the core clock (mhz) aka OC'ing in this instance, that card will get hotter. Do not let someone tell you that an OC ultra only wins by a few frames, this is most certainly untrue. If you really want to see something amazing, go to www.youtube.com and type in 8800 ultra benchmarks, you'll find a split screen comparison of the gtx versus an OC ultra. Trust me if you dont want to take the time to watch it that the FPS's on the OC ultra are more than double the GTX. YES MORE THAN DOUBLE! Having said that, there is a major difference. Bang for buck though, go gtx man...save yourself the dough.

Thats all I care to type now, I'm tired. Goodnight all.

I wouldn't recommend an Ultra. The price difference doesn't justify the performance gap between the GTX.

Here is a site to look at: http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1122/6

It shows benchmarks of ATI's 2900xt vs 8800 Ultra's vs 8800gtx's. Yes the 8800 ultra wins, but by nothing more than a few frames per second... and a few frames per second is nothing when playing a game. I would seriously consider getting the 8800gts 640mb and save your yourself a few hundred dollars.

So is the OC Ultra is what, a regular 8800 GTX? By the sounds of it then that would be the better and cheaper option, seeing as so far the would thing costs about $2850 and I'm more than happy to make that cheaper.
So if a regular Ultra runs at 612 mhz what does an overclocked GTX run at? Couldn't you overclock a Ultra and have an even better one or is that crazy because it would blow up or something?
I assume overclocking means to make it run faster than it's built to, but what does mhz mean? Megahertz is a power reading isn't it so I don't see how having more would make it better.

First, I want to point out that I was mainly trying to give Phaded an idea of why the xt's in sli is not a good option. More or less, its my opinion that the cards are a waste of cash. However, I support my belief as you have reiterated but there are a few (if not very important) issues that we must touch upon.

Lets begin with this, because I was rather vague in my last post (i attribute that mostly to the subject I was writting it under). If you so choose to buy 1 ultra now, you should make sure you not only find a good brand coupled with a solid warrenty but make sure its overclocked and most importantly...by how much.

A regular ultra runs at about 612 mhz. Why pay an extra 100+ when you could just buy an overclocked gtx thats faster? Long story short, go with the OC ultra...preferably 640 mhz and up. Now, this isnt as simple as plug and chug. These cards are overclocked on top of already heated cards, under load your 8800 ultra OC will be running about 90 degrees. We could boil water if we wanted to. Its imperative you invest in a proper case with good cooling. Without it...this is all a moot point.

My own personaly theory's make me rather torn at the moment. I'm glad I invested in 2 ultras (mind you, I pay a much lower price than you would find online), yet I have to wonder...the next gen of nvidia will be more than just power. I believe the cards will be faster but I hope to god they will be running cooler as well. On top of that, have any of you even held a ultra in your hands? The card is in a word...massive. At this rate, chassis's wont even be large enough to support the cards. It will be interesting to see how this all developes.

Bottom line, if you dont intend to start building until christmas, invest now in parts that you know you'll need and wont loose much value (at least we hope hah). A good case (again, I use the stacker 832, it kicks ***...trust me), and possibly an ultra if you intend on investing in another one later. Let's not pretend this isnt somewhat of a large investment so do whatever you can to help yourself out later.

That's my plan for now, buy one Ultra and in 2 years when games become my taxing, I will buy another, SLI them and bobs your uncle. By that time Ultra's will be cheap as.

I commend you on the research, and while these benchmarks are interesting, I have to admit I'm not thoroughly pleased with what I briefly saw. Forgive me, I have a dentist appointment in a few minutes I have to go to so I could only scan it. Trust me Phaded when I say, yes 2 xt's are a better value cost wise yet in the long run between power consuption on your psu and heat emission, your loosing out. Those are two things, which to me, are very important.

Also, look at this one, I found it interesting.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/11...hdr/index.html

Odd how an ATI based game can only pull out with such a slight margin. All I have to say really bout that (if you didnt catch it, thats my forest gump impression).

Listen, if you are considering purchasing the 2 xt's, I'd love to help you out and do some more research. As of right now though, off the top of my head I know what I'd recommend. Go the extra mile (which really wont be in the short run or long run actually) and purchase yourself 1 ultra. Use it, have a blast or even get a nice oc'ed one like I did. Then, when a game finally comes out that might pose an issue with "smoothness" or something of the sort, buy the other one. At this time, it might be around november/december but the prices will be cheaper and you'll have 2 ultras for the same if not less than you would have payed for 2 xt's now. Trust me boys, thats the smart investment to make.

I'll probably be getting in January next year anyway, I just wanted to bone up on this sort of stuff before then, just so I don't end up wasting money on other stuff.
I did another quote with your suggestions and it came to $2850, which is a fair bit of cash which will probably pay for the monitor at that cost. Thanks for your help RedSand, you answered all my questions very helpfully. +rep
If I have anymore questions I might run them though here, seeing as the community is nice as opposed to a few forums I've been to.
Anyway seeing as I'm doing this at the start of next year, do you think I will see a price drop on any of these things, or see them becoming redundant for things at the same price?

I would definitely go quad core. You can always overclock them to match the speed of that e6850, plus it's got 2 more cores. The q6600 is a very good value these days... and will future proof you.

Striker is the overclockers dream board. It comes with many features to help everything run cool and also has a q fan for quietness. I don't think it is worth $100 more. The other board is an excellent choice as well. Keep in mind that both of them have a very good sound card included so you don't have to spend the extra cash on anything creative labs has to offer.

The Coolermaster Stacker is definitely one of the best cases out there. The case is an excellent design allowing for maximum airflow to ensure all your components are nice and cool. You shouldn't have any trouble fitting anything in it.

If you plan on in the future running SLI with dual 8800gtx's then go with the 850w Coolermaster. The psu that I have right now is a coolermaster and so far it hasn't let me down.

Window's Vista sucks a lot of ram out of your computer (almost 1gb), so 4gb's is definitely not a bad way to go. I think 2gb's is plenty of ram right now though for video games (for video editing definitely go 4gb's), but in the future you'll want to have 4gb's. So I would get 2gb's now, and once the games start demanding 4gb's then upgrade. And make sure you get ddr2 800 pc6400.

Like I mentioned above, the plus with that motherboard you are getting has an excellent sound card already built in, so no sound card needed.

Home Premium is what I would get. Now I'm not exactly sure whether to get 32 bit or 64 bit. Obviously 64 bit is more powerful, but a lot of software doesn't support it. I had xp 64 bit edition once, and I couldn't get anything to run with it... so you might need to research how well software runs with 64 bit edition. 64 bit is ideal though.

Alright the monitor, a lot of people skimp out on this one, but this is the most important component if you want nice looking visuals. The ideal monitor would have a high resolution (at least 1680x1050), a widescreen ratio of 16:9, a high contrast ratio of at least a 1000:1, and a low response time like 5ms. Here is a pretty good monitor for the money: click here
Now if you are looking for one with tv capablities, then I would recommend just getting a 1080p HDtv, and hook up your computer to it. Although I'd never do that
If you're going to spend the cash for an e6850, then definitely just get the q6600. You have an excellent motherboard with sound capabilities, no need to go striker. Get the Coolermaster Stacker case with at least a 700w power supply for SLI. The 850w Coolermaster psu in one of your links above is an excellent choice, but not the only one. Get 2gb's of ddr2 6400 ram now, and upgrade 2gb's more later. Get Windows Vista Home Premium. 64bit Vista is better performing, but a lot of software doesn't support 64bit although most new games coming out will, but just to be sure do some more research on it. And don't buy a sound card!

Good luck with it. Also keep in mind that it's rumored Nvidia's new line of gpu's may come to shelves this November. That means a big price drop for current gpu's or a lot better performance with the new ones. Also if you have any questions on components, go to newegg.com and look it up. It gives a brief detailed description and you can look at specs and reviews, very helpful. Have fun!

I will admit it sounds skeptical but this review tells it all, and true in some cases it's only marginally in front, but they are also cheaper amongst other things.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/11...ion/index.html

https://ipspty.com.au/index.php?comp=pc-i
Okay I found a pretty good site that builds PCs for you and I think I may use it.
Anyway I have a few questions on what I should choose and will update when I've looked through everything. Okay heres some;

-Should I get a high ends Core Dou processor like the E6850 (thats the short name, I'm don't want to right all the specs) or should I get a cheap Quad Processor like a Q6600? The are both around the same price, the Quad being a slight bit cheaper

- Whats the difference between the Quad Core FSB1333 - Asus (Striker Extreme) and the Quad Core FSB1333 - Asus (P5N32-E-SLI)? They both state the same specs ie nVIDIA 680i SLI and other things but the Striker is over $100 more.

-Which one of these cases is the best? I've heard you need them to be a certian size for the SLI dual chips.
https://ipspty.com.au/computers/a-brochure/cases.pdf

- If I get a comp case without a power supply, which of these is good? I need an SLI compatable one though, for the future
https://ipspty.com.au/index.php?comp=pc-i&cid=4

- What should I get memory wise? The choices are all Kingston and range for 1 Gb to 4, and differing MHz, the highest being 800

-What should I get Audio wise? the choices are all from Creative Sound. I'm getting Logitch X-540 for speakers and they are 5.1 so I need a Sound card that works for 5.1

- What Vista version should I get?

-What monitors do you have I want a good one, possibly with TV capabilities and HD stuff etc.

Okay I did a test build and made this, this is just the PC, no mouse keyboard of monitor.
It costs quite a bit, is SLI compatible but only has one chip.
Any suggestions please?
PROCESSOR: (Dual Core) Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6850 (3.00Ghz) 4Mb Cache, 1333FSB
MAINBOARD: Quad-Core FSB1333 - Asus (P5N32-E-SLI) NVIDIA nForce 680i,SLI,DDR2,SATA II RAID,8C Sound,1394,Gb
CHASSIS: Midi Tower, Black, 650W ATX/SLI Power Supply, 11 Drive Bays, Front USB (Cooler Master Elite 330/650W)
POWER SUPPLY: No POWER SUPPLY
MEMORY: Kingston 4Gb DDR2 PC5300 667MHz (4 x 1Mb)
HD-Value: Maxtor 320Gb SATA-II, 7200RPM, 16Mb Cache
HD-Standard: No STANDARD HARD DISK
HD-RAID: No RAID HARD DISKS
RAID SETUP: No RAID SETUP
VIDEO: 768Mb, NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX, DDR3, PCI-Express
MONITOR: No LCD MONITOR
DVD-ROM: 16x DVD-ROM Reader & 52x32x52 CD-RW Combo Drive OEM
DVD-RECORDER: No DVD+-RW RECORDER
AUDIO: Integrated High Definition Audio
SPEAKERS: Logitech X-540 (5.1 Speakers 6 Piece)
KB & MOUSE: No KEYBOARD & MOUSE
KEYBOARD: No GAMING KEYBOARD
MOUSE: No GAMING MOUSE
NETWORK: Dlink Wireless PCI Adapter, 802.11g / 802.11b, 108Mbps
O/SYSTEM: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium 64-Bit OEM
SOFTWARE1: No MS OFFICE SOFTWARE
SOFTWARE2: No ANTIVIRUS & SECURITY SOFTWARE
STORAGE: No EXTERNAL & REMOVEABLE STORAGE
POWER: No UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY
SYSTEM BUILD: Please assemble, test and install the Operating System
WARRANTY: 3 Year On Site Hardware Warranty, Australia Wide via UEE (System up to $3000)
SHIPPING: Melbourne CBD delivery
SHIPPING INSURANCE: Includes Shipping Insurance
Total: 3044.00 x 1 = 3044.00

Again, thanks a lot so far.

Appolyons, RedSand426, Phaded and DeadlyFire, you all seem to know what your talking about and I'm grateful.
Could you all post your comp status ie. what you have, why it's good etc so I know what 'the masters' have and what they think is good. Because I don't want to go out and get a video card only to find its rubbish or some other comapny makes a better one.
From what I've read so far nVIDIA and ATI are the leading brands, but which one is better? or is that one of those PS3 over 360 debates?
By the sounds of it though nVIDIA is better because everyone recommends the 8800 chip.
Anyway thanks so far.

Lol, in laymans terms please? I didn't get a word of that other than nVIDIA is better pretty much. So what would you recommend, the 2 ATI's or the Ultra?

Just make sure to check out warranties and return policies from sites like cyberpower because I knew someone who had a tough time.

Your post is interesting, yet slightly flawed and if you would allow me to, I'd like to tell you why. As funny as it seems to me, I almost want to say 1 ultra is better than 2 2900 xt's but since there are 2 of them (or crossfire in this instance), I'll take a leap and say your probably right with that. Yet, by how much? I bet you dollars to doughnuts, it's not by a lot. I dont know XT's but I do know that 1 ultra is just slightly behind 2 gts's and since a gts is almost comperable to a xt...all I'm saying is bring us a link or 2. Until then, I'm wary about your remark.

Furthermore, I could exploit you further by commenting that a OC ultra while only slightly more expensive than a regular ultra (mind you, I bet I could find a OC ultra thats the same or even cheaper than a regular ultra), your margin dimishes greatly.

Even further, I could say...why even go ATI anyway. Yes I'm nvidia biased, but do you have any idea how much power a XT sucks up? It's been a while since I looked at the benchmarks but from what I remember, it gives the ultra a run for its money (in fact, I think its more). Those xt's arent worth the dime they were made on. ATI flopped this round, end of story.

Only get a 2900XT if you are getting 2 so you can CrossFire them, 2 512mb Sapphire 2900XT's in CrossFire are known to perform better than 1 8800 Ultra, also get the 512mb 2900XT's if you fancy them because the 1024 is wasted anyway.

When 8 gigs becomes standard in the market, pinch me cause thats gona take a loooooong time. I would however recommend 4 gigs now with vista. Careful of your word choosing between "standard" and "recommended".

How much are you willing to spend?

CPUs
Low Dual Core = Pentiem D
Low-Mid Dual Core = AMD X2 3600+ - AMD X2 6000+ = $65-$170
Mid Dual Core = C2D E4300 - E6550 = $100-$190
High End Dual Core = E6600 - E6850 = $160-$340
High End Quad Core = Q6600 - QX6850 = $300-$1200

GPUs
Low End DX10 NVIDIA: 8600 GTS 256 MB = $110-250
Low End DX10 NVIDIA: 8800 GTS 320 MB = $280-300
Mid End DX10 NVIDIA: 8800 GTS 640 MB = $360-400
High End DX10 NVIDIA: 8800 GTX 768 MB = $500-650
High End DX10 NVIDIA 8800 GTX Ultra 768 MB = $600-900
ATI's cards are lacking against the 8800 cards though.
Mid Range: ATI 2900XT 512 MB = $380-450
High End: ATI 2900XT 1 GB = $530

RAM
2 GB is standard at the moment in 2008-2009 I expect 4 GB to takeover and in 2010-2012 or later I expect 8 GB to become the new standard on the market.

Yes Australia is quite bad with the only thing I like to by, tech and software. I hate it, it's more than double in most cases.
Also if I get an SLI worthy comp, does that mean it actually uses 2 graphics cards at once? That sounds cool, so I could get an SLI buy 2 medium cards that could end up being more powerful than the one awesome one for the same price? Or does it work differently.
Also what the difference between these 3;
http://www.eyo.com.au/prod_D-T80G-TH...VI_DVI_TV.html
http://www.eyo.com.au/prod_D-T80F-SH...VI_DVI_TV.html
http://www.eyo.com.au/prod_D-IV-8800...interface.html
Each is just in what I'm willing to spend, depending on other things.
Or can I get a chip from a different manufacturer like ATI for cheaper?

http://www.eyo.com.au/systems.php?system=V-I-G

This is a good start and would be a much cheaper than dell. I would swap the ram with 2gb's of pc6400, find a cheap keyboard, cheap mouse, decent speakers and a decent monitor at least 19in. Doing all this would be much, much cheaper than the dell you were looking at.

The 8600gt graphics card is not the best out, but looking at australian prices... the 8800gts's seem a bit high priced.

Thanks for the help so far Red Sand, I'll be sure to check it out.
I was just checking the previous link on the make your own section and was confused between these two:
http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/cfgc2d.asp?v=d
and
http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/cfgpd.asp?v=d
Ones about $100 more and its the same thing isn't it? Or does SLI mean something good?

Yeah the more expensive one has 2 video cards in it. SLI is used to link 2 video cards.

The video cards in those systems aren't worth a hoot though. I strongly suggest getting nothing less than a 8800gts for serious gaming although you could get by with a 8600gt. Too bad you don't live in the us, the prices here are much better

Yes i agree, get at least an 8800GTS or 2900XT.

Is it? Do you think I could do better for less or what, I'm a teenager so I make money I don't spend really so I don't have a budget. But I don't want to be blowing huge amounts of money on stuff I won't be using.
I'll worry about the 'rig', I know the tech lingo lol, first then the monitor. I'll treat those as separate things as I want a really nice monitor, I've gone with a shoddy TV for too long.
Anyway is Vista good? I've heard you need it to play DirectX 10 games and so forth plus I see most new computer games are using it, but I've also heard you can't play old games on them or something.
Does anyone know of any good AUS sites? That one link is in US, although it looks great, I can't really use it.
BTW what are some decent comps that you can get off that site, so I can use them for later reference.

That is good, depends on your budget really. If you can make them yourself then it will be much cheaper.

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/

These guys seem decently priced. The best way to go would be to build it yourself by ordering most of the parts off of newegg.com, but for some it can be a tedious task.
As for parts I would recommend nothing less than these specs:

CPU: Intel c2d E6600
Video Card: 8800gts 320mb
RAM: 2gb pc6400
PSU: 500w

Is it an Aus site?
BTW would this be an ok PC to start looking at? Any room for improvement?
http://www1.ap.dell.com/content/prod...n&s=dhs&~ck=mn

I wouldn't go any less than 800mhz. That seems to be the standard now days for new computers.

Couldnt have said it better myself. I wouldnt dip below 800 nor would I go any higher. To me, ram is so volatile in price and gives such slight jumps in performance (when comparing the same level with heatspreaders and all that jazz). Stick with 800, it wont cost you that much more than the lower ends and its performance is worth the price increase.