Weird picks. Can you explain some things to me cause its a overkill/waste of money in my opinion. Why a E6600? IMO overkill. A cheaper AM2 x2 3800 would be more suited.
2Hdd's? any need?
2GB ram for a Linux base machine for programming and a game that needs 256mb? 1GB is needed max.
I'll suspend my disbelief long enough to answer this. If you have a thousand dollars to spend on a PC, why on earth would you buy an X2 3800+? It's slower, has less cache, and it's completely outclassed. If you have enough money, C2D is the way to go right now. And not terribly expensive, either.
I didn't name a mobo because I was listing important technologies to include. Naturally, he should pick a mobo that supports dual channel, RAID, etc.
Hard drive access time is the slowest thing on pretty much any computer. If you've ever used RAID, you know that it changes the whole feel of the computer. It feels much more responsive.
Yes, 2GB. I still can't believe I'm hearing this. Even 2GB is going to seem inadequate in a year. Remember, this is the industry where 64MB was standard just five years ago. Memory is cheap, anyway; hardly the place to skimp.
I agree. If an individual is just entering the PC building arena, the E6300 is a great place to start. It provides a lot of headroom to squeeze more from the processor in the coming months and years. I was shopping around, and an E6300 can be purchased for US$190.00 (+/-).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a $200 CPU has the potential to rival and even beat a $1000 CPU.
The E6300 has 2MB of L2 Cache vs 4MB. As cache figures start climbing up, the E6600 will remain competitive far longer than the E6300. Meanwhile, the E6600 is the best overclocker of the bunch (except the extreme, of course). I've seen it pushed over 5Ghz on some forums.
My philosophy on getting value for your dollar tends to be this: buy the cheapest version of the best technology. With the E6600, you're getting everything the computing world has to offer right now with paying the $800 premium for an ultra-high end piece.