Thats a very good setup. You'll be happy with it.

If I were you though, I'd buy a x2 4800 instead of a 4400 mainly so it can keep up with the 7800 GTX which can handle quite a bit of data.

Keep in mind that future games will start using the full potential of cards like the 7800 gtx and then your CPU will become a huge bottleneck (in fact, it already is to a small extent).

Quote:


For all games currently out right now, thats going to be fine. A 4400 is enough. However, I'm sure you want your computer to last longer and not be bottlenecked by the CPU, but not only that, you want your vid card to perform at the performence level that you paid for. Going with a cheaper CPU may not allow you to do that.

A good example of this is Half Life 2. Some person on another forum ran a 6800 ultra with a fx-55 and a 6800 ultra with a pII 486. The fx-55 machine ran at 1600*1200 with full aa and fsaa. The 486 barely ran at 640*400 with no aa/fsaa. Its quite obivious that the CPU cannot feed data fast enough to the gfx card because we know the gfx card can handle much higher amount of data.

While the difference may not be that extreme, in the future there will be noticiable difference between a 4400 and a 4800. Will a 4400 perform good? Yes, but your wasting money by using a 4400 because you never use the 7800 gtx to the full potential. To tell you the truth, even a 4800 can barely keep up with this card, but the performence gap is much closer.

Think of it like this:
You buy a super-expsensive 7.1 thx a/v reciever and then buy cheapo 2.0 speakers. Yes, the 2.0 speakers will work, but the reciever is not operating at the performence level that you paid for. Now. if you buy a 5.1 speakers, then the performence potential you lose is much less and therefore less money is wasted.

If your unwilling to spend that much on a CPU, you might consider waiting a bit and get the 7800 GT (a slightly cheaper version of a GTX) which will be out in a month or two. That way you get closer to the performence level you pay for.

OK, new plan. Having no real idea about proccessors i dont know whether this is stupid or not, but here goes. I buy a Intel Pentium 4 3.2E Ghz 800Mhz Skt 478 Prescott Processor (OEM), which is only about £130. How well would that run. Then, as the 'new games' arrive, i could upgrade to a new proccessor, as time dictates???

Stupid???

Quote:


Buts thats doom 3, which is not CPU bound. Doom3 engin is just gfx and not much else. Games will be like HL2 in the future, with physics and vehicles and lots of CPU resources needed. I garentee you that your friend will see a huge difference in fps with half life 2 or far cry.

Back to main topic:
A 4400 is much better than 3.2 prescott. I think you should stick with your current setup and just get a cheaper video card (like a 7800 gt, just wait a little) or a CPU that can handle the vid card you want.

A single core fx-57 can also handle that card, but thats even more expsensive than the 4800 and is not really futureproof.

Bah, its all to damn expensive for what it is

Just to clarify AutoPilot, are you saying that infact a slower G-Card would work more efficiently with this processor, because the faster card would be providing data faster than the proccessor could handle? I really dont have a clue what i'm talking about here

Thanks once again guys for the help.

No, thats super. Thanks for the help. Exactly why i thought i should start this thread, because i knew i would make mistakes like this.