RAM- I would go for a duel-channel DDR2, rather than Tri-channel DDR3 which would require a much more expensive mobo and i7 for full potential.
CPU- AMD ofc. You can find AMD phenom 940s 3.0 quad core for bout 200 bux, and they bench equally if not higher than the equivalent Intel quads for far less. Plus, you can OC it to 3.5 on the stock cooler.
Mobo- Depends on if you go AMD or Intel. I love asus mobos though.

 

Hrm I happen to have a Nvidia Apollo 6800 AGP card here atm. Also, lol at you not knowing your slots. But srsly, under 1K you can build yourself a good system nowadays easy

 

Well, there is no real difference between Intel and AMD for the end user. Question of a personal taste. I'd say, stay on the old architecture – DDR2, Core Quad and such. It will cost you less, but give almost the same performance. Core i7 is good, but only when you have other components which allow it to show its best. It costs too much and not really worth it I think.

For the actual configuration, get Core Quad or Core Duo. Four cores will mostly give you an additional ease of use – you OS will run smoother, you can have moar applications running at the same time (winamp+game+encoding etc.). There are not many apps optimized for four cores now (But there may be soon).
If you plan to overclock, then Q6600 is the best choice, it's cheap and with great oc potential. If not, something from Q9xxx series. If you are getting Duo, any E7 is good. Anyway, CPUs today aren't what should really concern you. I, for example, still run my Quad on its default 2,33 Ghz. Just don't have a reason to overclock it.

What does matter, is a graphic card. For getting a general idea of what you need: I have a 9800gt, and it is enough for most games. Still, Crysis and Cryostasis on max settings will sometimes dip lower than 20 fps. I run a 1440x900 resolution, so if you have a bigger one, you'll need to take this into account.

As for the other components, get 4 Gigs of RAM, two are really not enough for Win7 (or Vista for that matter).

For my system I've left a default case PSU, with 450 watts, and it works stable even if I overclock. So, for configuration like the one I gave, you probably won't need more than 500W.

Basically, spend $750-850 and you'll get a good system for the next 1,5-2 years.

 

I think AMD already caught up with their Phenom II 9xx line. X4 940 has overall performance levels somewhere in between Q9400 and i7 920, and does even better than i7 in games. That, though, is more i7 problem than anything. If you take in the account that AMD CPU costs substantially less than matching Q9x and has impressive overclocking potential (easy 3,6 and some report going to 4,2) it's a viable choice.

Plus, you can use DDR3 with any model of this series already.

Anyway, any test I've seen for two CPUs with equal frequencies doesn't reveal more than 15% or so difference. Which, actually, is not a big deal. Plus, I wonder why would anyone need that much horsepower. Specialized calculations, encoding and such aside, I've yet to meet any app that my four cores at 2,33 wouldn't be able to handle.

@Xiph: Why not? Vista is shit, but Windows 7 is actually good. It is optimized rather well for multicored CPUs. Plus, there is no good port of DirectX 10 or 11 for XP or *nix yet.

 

Thats what they said about Vista too. I think Xiph is gonna wait so that all the bugs and shit can get ironed out in the first month or so of the release of it.

Or he might not want to upgrade. Im still on XP right now.

Unless you got money to burn stay with the today's tech not tomorrow's. Its not like theres a whole lot that can take advantage of it anyways.

 

Well, I'm using 7 since it was a beta. Even now using a RC, because it's free and I can't be bothered to reinstall OS again. There were some problems, like Autodesk products installing from the second try, old games running strange and such, but nothing that couldn't be solved. For the worst cases I keep WinXP on a virtual machine, but haven't had to use it yet.

The main argument in 7's favor is that you'll get DirectX 10 in games. In some games it makes a difference, and in the years to come games will increasingly rely on it.

In any case you'll need to install the 64-bit version of XP or 7, or you'll get only 3-3,5GB RAM out of your 4GBs.

But directx 10 and multi-core systems are today's tech.

 

Be fair, most apps aren't even coded/optimized for TWO, and the "but there may soon be" line was in heavy use since late 2005. Don't believe the hype. Unless you do heavy video/music editing 4 cores isn't ever worth the extra money imho.

^^^Same thing with the DX10. Every game I played on DX10 was shitloads slower then a DX comparison and looked nearly identical, save for some explosions/smoke effects in Hellgate. Even on a uber stripped down Vista install, it still was markably slower. Millions didn't bother going to Vista, millions have been soured and will stick with XP until they're forced to switch at gunpoint, DX 11 or something will be released for XP holdouts, they have to, with the PR hit they took holding DX10 hostage to Vista, and then it backfiring when everyone found out Vista was a failure, hell they kinda have to. DX10? Screw it.

"But you'll need it.. maybe, well.. it might be worse... but once you buy it, too late!"

I've gotten screwed more time then I can think of when I was trying to build my last PC. Vista, gotta have it!, quad core, gotta have it!, 4gb ram, changes the whole game! gotta have it! Screw it.

Buy what works today, buy something upgradable. Deal with tomorrow, tomorrow. Buy something reasonably priced that you know will run what you want to play without trouble, and don't worry about it.

 

Hmm... well, I never was a big fan of upgrades. More than this, I've never been able to upgrade something so that it will be able to work as well as current systems.
The need for upgrade appears some two years after buying a system. So you go all enthusiastic to select a new video card... but you can't, because there is PCI-E all around and your motherboard only has AGP. Same story with memory, CPUs and most everything else. Even if you are able to upgrade some components, there is a big chance that something couldn't be upgraded and will be bottlenecking the whole system.

There is also question of compatibility, time spent on selecting/installing/testing new components and such. The only upside is that you get to spend your money gradually.

The only viable upgrade plan I see is to buy a good motherboard with the most recent socket and low-price components for it. Which kinda ruins the whole "being able to play what you want" thing.

Which matters only for big apps, which will need more resources than one core can provide. But small apps don't need this kind of optimization, OS will simply spread their load on all cores. So, when I have VoIP, winamp and background apps running, their needs can be handled by two cores, while game uses other two.
This is basically what appeals to me – being able to run many things simultaneously without stuttering and slowing down. The same reasoning can be applied to using 4GB of RAM.
I agree, though, that four cores are mostly for enthusiasts and you won't really need more than two in the next couple of years.

Concerning DX10 – I've never noticed games running slower, though that may be because I have good enough video card.
I'm not trying to use it as a selling point, but if your video card will have it anyway, why not use it?

 

What I meant is that there is no guarantee that you'll be able to upgrade your new computer in the future. Say, three years later you'll have the same problem you have now – incompatible slot. And we can be pretty sure that DDR3 will be used everywhere along with more high-speed bus and new CPU sockets.

 

They have.

 

You seem to really, really want him to blow bucketload of cash on shit he doesn't need.

I build most of mine ass end of 06 and only swapped to a newer mobo when EVGA gave me an upgrade to make up for a failed board. I can run anything out, including Crysis at some nice specs without trouble, and I bought the vid card that was the next step down from Nvidia's flagship card at the time. Oddly, I haven't had to upgrade yet. Hell if I'd of waited two years, I could of gotten all this stuff for 1/4 the price, and still be fine for the next several years.

Stuff that's out now, if you buy quality, you can buy middle of the road stuff that will work just fine for the next 4-5 years. 5 years down the road you might be playing on medium instead of maxed out, sure, but gaming has hit a point where the graphics can't get much more intensive, by that I mean in 5 years we won't need a PC with 10 times the power to run it, like what happened this last cycle, unless something drastically changes.

Silly me, all the posts and articles about Dx10 being slower then 9 for barely any graphical gain must of been false, and my card must just be crap. But on the bright side, the most recent tinkering has improved the performance hit from -10% slower on average to slightly closer, and with Windows 7, supposedly the hit will disappear totally.

If you're gonna buy a new vidcard, of course he's going to buy a Dx10 one, but don't run Vista, Dx10 isn't worth dealing with that shitty OS and taking the hit. Dx11 is right around the corner though, so I wouldn't go buying an expensive vid card right now. Get yourself a 100$ +/- card, then swap it out in a year or two, and you'll be good for years.

 

Curses, you foiled my cunning plan!

Actually, I'm merely arguing in favor of spending all money at one time and getting something that can be considered middle-high end system, to be able to use it for at least couple of years without bothering with updates. It can be used long after this playing on medium. Mine system was bought for $750 and I think it's a fairly reasonable price for such a thing. He can even reduce it for a $100 or so by getting a dual core CPU.

Plus, you are just saying things that are in direct contradiction with my experience, so I can't help but argue. On the internets. Shame on me.

Now you're just taking my words out of content and turning them sideways. I've never said that Windows 7 will improve performance for dx10 games. I also never said that he should run Vista, but I did make a case for Windows 7, which I've used extensively for the last 6 months and was rather impressed with its stability and shit-freeness. Plus, no one makes you use DX10 as most games have an option to use dx9.

. Do you really think so? I, for one, think there is no stopping it. This way or another, computers will improve. Whether there will be new type of graphic adapter or whether it will go by the way of multi-adapter systems, or something else entirely it doesn't matter. Technology will improve and games will go with it.

And you are completely wrong about graphics imho. They already would be more intensive if technology allowed it. The problem for developer is to use less, to make the game playable. There are many, many things that can be added. From trivial doubling the polygons for models to physics to complicated lighting systems.

 

Well I should rephrase.

Yes they're going to get graphically more intensive, but not on the scale we've seen the last 10 years. Look at a game like Jedi Knight 2, and compare it to Crysis. You need a computer with what? Dozens, a hundred? more times power in all sorts of categories to be able to run Crysis in High, versus Jedi Knight 2 on high.

The scale and speed graphics got insane and needing monster computers to run them won't be matched for awhile I think. No more needing triple the computer you had 2 years before to be able to play the latest stuff on high. Graphics will always improve, and eventually anything you buy today will be obsolete sure, I don't dispute that.

But buying a mid to lower high end card today, and 6 years later, you're still going to be alright, playing medium, or hell even low, but low by then will be better then what you'd think it'd be, then buying, say, a fx 5200 in 2004, and finding out you can't play jack with it above low at good speeds and video quality in 2009.