Another new computer!

To be honest that's pretty much spot on - the 3000+ while not a full-whack Athlon64 (it's based on the newcastle design with only half the L2 on-chip cache memory, 512kb instead of 1mb) will give you some upgrade headroom, and the Radeon is literally at the top of the stack.

If you wanted to save a few pounds the best I could suggest is getting yourself a 9600XT... We're only 3 months away from 'the next big thing' - i.e. R420 and NV40 which will mean Pixel and Vertex shaders 3.0, along with the obligatory DirectX revision which these new boards will properly support, as well as making Half Life 2 and Doom 3 ultra wizzy quick (tm).

Xav

 

Hi Chameleon

As you rightly say, there's always something newer and better just around the corner. 2004 will herald the new BTX form factor, PCI Express, the leatest and greatest CPUs and graphics etc. However, there comes a point when you just have to take the plunge.

Your current setup, as Xavier has already said, is very impressive. If you did wait, then you probably could pick up a better graphics card and/or more powerful CPU (or at least a cheaper CPU). In terms of the graphics, however, the NV40/R420 really are the next generation of cards, as opposed to the XT line which are essentially a evolutionary progression from the market's current generation of cards. Don't get me wrong, you could quite happily play HL2/Doom3 etc. on today's graphics offerings, but if you're willing to wait, then you may be able to get something even more spectacular. But it is, in the end, down to your preference.

In terms of CPUs, no truly next generation products will be launched by AMD by then, so you're only gains would be falls in prices and the possiblity of newer, incremental products being released (a 3400+ CPU, perhaps).

Kind Regards

Jonty

P.S. For what it's worth, I'm currently running a 9600XT and it's offers very impressive mainstream performance, were you to wait. The drivers I'm a little dismayed at, but such things aside, it's a great card for the price.

 

Hi Chameleon

The differences between the 128Mb and 256Mb XT cards (both the 9600 and 9800) only usually become apparently with the very latest games (Call of Duty, for example, tends to perform slightly better with the larger memory, whereas the difference in older games between the 128Mb and 256Mb cards is not always too noticable (in future games, this extra memory may well provide a more noticable advantage)). In terms of the 9600 XT, last time I checked there was only around £20 difference between the 128Mb and 256Mb retail models, so it's really up to you. Check some reviews, consider the performance differences and think about how long you'll be keeping the card if you chose this option.

As for S-ATA, I've never used it myself, so I can't really comment, although I recall from other peoples' previous posts that they have generally been very impressed.

Kind Regards

 

*hints to Xav to get Jonty a 256Mb board *

 

i'd be tempted to go for an nForce 3 chipset MoBo...

but thats just me...

 

Some people (including me) have nightmares when people mention VIA chipsets.
This is due to back in the old days the VIA 4in1 drivers where hell to install.
(if i didnt install the drivers in the right order windows wouldnt boot, or vid card would stop working ect...)
The new chipsets and the unified Hyperion drivers have done away with all the problems of those days.