amd or intel

Thinking about buying a new system would like to use amd.What i have used in the past.Spend under 2000 dollars if i can.Already have a msi twin frozr gtx275 oc vid card.Also have a 500 hard drive.Have a acer 20 inch wide.What extras do the assassin and hailstorm have over the cm 932.What would be a good intel for that same price

1680by1050
battlefield bad co2,dragon age,witcher,total war.
running 20 inch wide screen acer

How would this be ticket number 409974

make sure you get a corsair psu 1k watt if you want to add CF later

everything else looks good if your res is 1920 x 1080 or 1920 x 1200 if lower all you need is a 470 or 5850

I would like to stay with amd how would this build be ticket 410985.
 What are the model numbers for acer 22 inch an samsung 22 inch monitor.
  Could i get a differant motherboard for amd.Could i get a corsair h50 for cpu.
   Thanks for everything

wow just wow dude remember when running a 64 bit os the ram usage is doubled so 3 gb would work on a 32 bit system but not really,for a 64 (huge bottleneck alert).

program/app creats jobs for the cpu/gpu once they are compelte they are stored in ram until they are used. with out enough read room this computer will run out of ram. this will create a major performance drop if he does not have enough. 6gb is more then enough and hard to fill.
miss, the 6 gb of ram is a extremely recommended. you can add it later but the overclock would need to be re-done.

the haf 932 is not as important, but it would be great for airflow if you have the space for full tower over a mid tower.

this guy is a 80gb intel freak. which is too small to do anything with but waste your money

he was right about the raptor and 1tb

a cheap way to increase performance

1 1tb hdd
2 6 gb of ram

would be nice... this will increase longevity (upgrading is cheaper then always buying new ones)

evga LE motherboard

7 pro: it is backwards compatible and it has xp mode. this may be handy if he wants to use a older microsoft word, ect or transport his projects, essays, homework from school in a thumb drive. you can get really great drives for under $20 now at days with ssd tech

only get the 930 is the 920 is not available... the reason b/c it will overclock just the same and it is cheaper. you wont notice the difference

at ds u get free labor on upgrades for life... just cover parts and shipping. so why waste money on a new computer when all you may need int he future is a video card.  or way down the line a cpu.

miss if your going to take anyones build take dst4me's build but switch the hdd1 to a 1tb and use the rest and get him a great monitor!

Originally posted by Raif wow just wow dude remember when running a 64 bit os the ram usage is doubled so 3 gb would work on a 32 bit system but not really,for a 64 (huge bottleneck alert).

Average RAM usage is no where near doubled. Only actual 64-bit applications use 64-bit sized memory pointers, and even then 64-bit applications usually only tend to use maybe 50% more memory than their 32-bit versions. A 64-bit OS is fully backwards compatible and runs 32-bit apps just like a 32-bit OS would and runs them with the same memory footprint as a native 32-bit OS would run them. The majority of apps are still 32-bit (unfortunately), so average RAM usage does not increase significantly as you'll never have many actual 64-bit apps running.

On any non x58 platform systems 4GB is considered plenty and a sweet spot that is often chosen, so at just 1 GB less why would 3GB be considered some horribly small inadequate amount? The answer is it isn't, and 3GB will do just fine for a budget PC for a casual user. Without some really intensive multitasking you would have to run some very RAM hungry rendering or encoding apps to tap out 3GB worth of memory. I don't think one would qualify as a casual user in either of those situations and they likely already know their habits require more memory than most and will adjust their budget accordingly. For tight budget people however, buying and popping in extra RAM later on down the road when funds allow is a simple enough process.

Originally posted by Raif this guy is a 80gb intel freak. which is too small to do anything with but waste your money

I'm tired of correcting you, so how about this, why don't you put up or shut up? Why don't you show us what an 80GB OS/apps drive looks like when it's out of room? A Windows 7 Professional 64-bit install only takes up 12GB, I'd love to see the asinine amount of applications it would take to fill the remaining 63GB, I bet you wouldn't even be able to manage it without large game installs.

See your problem is that you insist that people be able to install their entire Steam games collection on their SSD. While this is certainly a viable use for an SSD (I do it, 56GB Steam folder), I can't think of a stupider suggestion for anyone on a tight budget. Games on a SSD are a very expensive luxury. Games benefit very little from SSDs compared to OS and apps, you don't spend much time loading maps, and even then most games don't have vastly improved loading times on a SSD because they (ironically) end up mostly held back by GPU/CPU/RAM speeds. At over $3/GB for an Intel SSD from DS we're talking upwards of $30 per game to store them on the SSD, and considering they get almost no benefit from it compared to a normal HDD, please tell me why on God's green Earth you would recommend something so ridiculously expensive to someone on a tight budget?

I feel bad even recommending the 80GB Intel SSD for OS/apps to people half the time, it's overkill for just OS/apps. If DS carried it I would be recommending the $100 Intel 40GB X25-V in a heartbeat to most budget builds, amazing performance for the price and over 20GB worth of space for applications would be more than enough for most people's needs. Pair with a $90 1TB HDD for games/media/less important apps and you're golden.