Is there a happy medium??

[Pauline_G]

I am preparing to buy a new system, but I am frusterated by the apparent specialization of many components and their subsequent reviews in various magazines and on websites. I am not building a PC exclusively for gaming or office applications; I want to do both on the same system! Things like videocards are reviewed as being great for gamers, but do they have anything else to offer us middle-of-the-road people? I don't want to sacrifice 2D for 3D.
I plan to use my computer for office work with programs like Word and Excel, graphic work in programs like Photoshop and Illustrator, and also the occasional high-res game.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to what types of components would best suit my needs? I would especially appreciate any thoughts on 1) a graphics card, and 2) AMD vs. Intel CPUs and their subsequent motherboards.
Any feedback or shared experiences would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Pauline_G

[spitzaf]

welcome pauline. i was in the exact same boat as you are when i built my first computer. my suggestion: i did a geforce2 mx400 video card. they are cheap (check out www.pricewatch.com (http://www.pricewatch.com) for your hardware) and it has performed remarkably well for me, and i do a bit of 3d gaming. as for the processor, i think everyone on here will agree with me when i say go AMD. the athlon processors are faster for the most part than intel and they cost a lot less. my athlon 1.4 has actually had better performance than a pentium 4 2.0GHz, according to SiSoft Sandra tests. if you don't want top of the line, go for a low athlon XP or a high athlon. if you do the athlon, i would recommend making sure it has a 266 MHz front side bus, just for the little added speed bonus.

------------------
Athlon 1.4GHz
Shuttle AK31
GeForce2 MX400
256 MB DDR 2100
WinXP

[saphalline]

Originally posted by Pauline_G:

I don't want to sacrifice 2D for 3D.

Modern 3D cards don't exactly sacrifice one for the other, afterall 3D takes more power to do well than 2D. However, the graphics cards notorious for excellent 2D are the Matrox cards, like the G400/450 or G550 (16MB to 32MB). Not really the best for 3D games, but they are good as being used for a second graphics card if you want to go that route, as they can often be found in PCI versions.

The other way to get good 2D out of the '3D gaming' cards is to get one with a built-in DVI connector (most especially the GF4 MX or Ti series - with the Ti series being way better) and use an LCD monitor as your secondary display. Expensive, yes, but cheaper than having two separate PCs for 2D and 3D. Of course I have to admit than even the so-called 'gaming' cards aren't horrible at 2D, they are in fact quite adequate for 2D performance, just not as elegant as the Matrox cards.

If you really want a Matrox card that can game with the best of them, wait another year or so for Matrox's next GPU - the Permedia. The specs on this sucker put even the GF4 Ti series to shame, tho by that time NVidia and ATI will have their next versions out as well. Still, the Permedia is bound to have the same excellent 2D quality that all Matrox cards share.

2D is not dead.

------------------
"No, we do not gnaw on our kitty." - Dr. Evil