On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:04:05 +0100, Peter Hovorka
wrote:

Hi

Thanks to both of you for the nice reply.

I usually like AMD much more in regard to desktop systems - their
architecture seems a lot 'leaner' to me and I've got much better
experiences with them.

My problems:

- I don't know about the FS-specific performance of INTEL compared to
AMD. That means how do the 32 (and 64) Bit CPUs of both vendors compete
in regard to FS 2004 performance.

The AMD Athlon 64 will give you the best performance in games. But an
Intel P4 3.2ghz with 8000mhz FSB will do fine too.

- I don't know about the performance differences of the actual ATI
chipsets compared with the NVidias.

According to benchmarks I saw today the Nvidia Geforce FX 5950 looks
to be the top performer if money is no object. But in games that use
Directx9 pixel shaders it has been shown that the Radeon cards perform
much better, unless that was just a Nvidia driver problem. If you want
the best bang for your buck then get a Radeon 9800pro. The RadeonXT
cards are a bit faster but not enough to warrant the extra bucks.

PS: The Parhelia seems a bit weak to me...

Yea, it is, but it supports triple monitors, the other cards only
support dual monitors.