[Liam]

gfx http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Produ...oductID=747609

mobo erm http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Produ...oductID=500105

These are just examples though.

Liam

[PsychoHippy]

The thing you need to know about HD is it is aalways about the quality of your 3d card which deals with most of the rendering of the image.

i recomend nvidia over ATI. they are more reliable and i know they are more expensive.

also, look for a graphics card with a fast core and memory (anything over 500mhz core is considered fast for a 3d card. latest nvidias go upto 740ish)

also, check the BUS speed (also known as FSB) of your motherboard your buying or already have. the graphics card cannot run faster than the bus speed of your motherboard. and the person above me recomended an ASUS motherboard. i agree with him.
i think ASUS is the best make of motherboard. i have one they come with helpful support programs etc

and i recomend Intel instead of AMD because AMD procesors get HOT! very hot. everyone i know with an AMD complains about it (unless they have good cooling)


ALSO dont get 3gb of memory. always go for even numbers if you are getting dual channel memory. the pc prefers it. and if you are running windows XP remember you CANNOT use more than about 3.6gb of memory. windows xp cannot handle it.
to get more memory you need a 64bit operating system.

hope these tips help

[Stu DemonD]

Originally Posted by PsychoHippy i recomend nvidia over ATI. they are more reliable and i know they are more expensive.

Why?

Say you want to run a dual monitor system on SLi? Then want? A 3rd GFX card maybe?

[ChrisUK]

Originally Posted by PsychoHippy The thing you need to know about HD is it is aalways about the quality of your 3d card which deals with most of the rendering of the image.

I hope your not talking about HD Video such as movies as this has nothing to do with your graphics card other than it drives your monitor. HD video mostly requires good processor -> memory bandwidth and a good hard drive read rate achieved by using 7,200rpm SATA-II.

Originally Posted by PsychoHippy i recomend nvidia over ATI. they are more reliable and i know they are more expensive.

Again explain?. I know this to be pure crap. I've used ATI since 1996 in all my PC's and most of the PC's I build for clients and they have not once gone wrong.

Originally Posted by PsychoHippy also, look for a graphics card with a fast core and memory (anything over 500mhz core is considered fast for a 3d card. latest nvidias go upto 740ish)

Again duff info. Clock and mem speed does have a part to play but only when it goes with other figures such as memory pipelines, PCIe Lanes, and work per clock.

Originally Posted by PsychoHippy also, check the BUS speed (also known as FSB) of your motherboard your buying or already have. the graphics card cannot run faster than the bus speed of your motherboard. and the person above me recomended an ASUS motherboard. i agree with him. i think ASUS is the best make of motherboard. i have one they come with helpful support programs etc

I agree Asus make good boards. The rest of that paragraph is rubbish. The Front bus is the physical connection on the motherboard between the CPU and RAM what has that got to do with the graphics card? .

Originally Posted by PsychoHippy and i recomend Intel instead of AMD because AMD procesors get HOT! very hot. everyone i know with an AMD complains about it (unless they have good cooling)

Maybe back in the days of the 1.4Ghz Athlon 'Thunderbird' core. Since then they have ran cooler than the equivalent Pentium. Just look at the 'Prescott' core on the P4 Ht's you can use them to heat your house ffs.

Originally Posted by PsychoHippy ALSO dont get 3gb of memory. always go for even numbers if you are getting dual channel memory. the pc prefers it. and if you are running windows XP remember you CANNOT use more than about 3.6gb of memory. windows xp cannot handle it. to get more memory you need a 64bit operating system.

Why not? As long as the memory is installed in pairs it doesn't matter what amount is achieved you still get the Dual Channel performance. 4gb is perfectly fine on Windows XP. Any more is stupid though.

Originally Posted by PsychoHippy hope these tips help

Not really you have just confused him with duff info.

[BigglesPiP]

4GB or ram and an X1050????

AMD is great for an easy to upgrade cheapo PC, but intel is where the performance is at. Taking the same budget as you used above, I've come up with this spec, if you want. I'm not going to force intel on you, but this is what can be done.

P35 based Motherboard (terrific clocker, 45nm support)
http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Compo...roductId=28016
Q6600 Quad 8MB cache (G0, runs cooler)
http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Compo...roductId=28356
nVidia 8600GT
http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Compo...roductId=26918
2GB of good memory:
http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Compo...roductId=26115

If your PSU is good enough, then this will blow any AMD spec. of the same price into the reeds.

[ChrisUK]

Originally Posted by BigglesPiP 4GB or ram and an X1050???? AMD is great for an easy to upgrade cheapo PC, but intel is where the performance is at.

Lies. Proof or GTFO. At the moment £ for £ AMD are faster always have been. Intel only come into their own when their stupidly high clock speed (and stupid power consumption and heat output) come into play when doing things such as video editing and encoding.

[BigglesPiP]

Originally Posted by ChrisUK Lies. Proof or GTFO. At the moment £ for £ AMD are faster always have been. Intel only come into their own when their stupidly high clock speed (and stupid power consumption and heat output) come into play when doing things such as video editing and encoding.

Dude, have you been living under a rock for 2 years?

Take AMD's Phenom 9850 2.5GHz @ £150 (Flagship)

And we will compare it to Intel's 2.4GHz Q6600 (G0) @ £140 (Bottom of the quad Range)

performance is about the same.

The AMD has a TDP of 125W, the intel; 105W. They are both 65nm components, but the Intel is the cooler running chip, consuming less power.

[306maxi]

Originally Posted by BigglesPiP Dude, have you been living under a rock for 2 years? Take AMD's Phenom 9850 2.5GHz @ £150 (Flagship) And we will compare it to Intel's 2.4GHz Q6600 (G0) @ £140 (Bottom of the quad Range) performance is about the same. The AMD has a TDP of 125W, the intel; 105W. They are both 65nm components, but the Intel is the cooler running chip, consuming less power.

Have to agree with that. AMD's aren't great when it comes to performance.