AMD or Intel

[edDV]

I'd look at the application that's playing the video back, instead of you CPU. Since your graphics chip doesn't support all pure video features, no H.264 Decode Acceleration with IDCT and CAVLC/CABAC, nor VC-1/WMV Decode Acceleration with IDCT, it only has basic h264/VC-1 acceleration, you might want to instead update that to a series that does. Or explore other playback software. nVidia also has issues with HD DVD playback acceleration.

In order to even use the limited PureVideo acceleration that your card has, you have to use the correct software that takes advantage of this. The cards that support all PureVideo features are 8500GT, 8600GT, and 8600GTS. According to nVidia, the 8800 line doesn't offer any more support than our 7600GT cards do.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10043938&&#post10043938
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=29573

Even with a quad core intel, you'll still get frame drops without using the correct playback software.

Thats wrong, i have played many Blu-rays on my Power DVD with my friends Blu-ray player and the CPU utilization is always less then 10% so i bet my 8800GT does the hardware rendering for playback.

Already pointed out,read above.

That would depend on how that particular Blu-Ray disc was encoded. Most are encoded MPeg2 and those should be easy to play. VC-1 is mostly found on HD DVD these days and the ~15Mb/s rate being used isn't extreme. Few if any BluRay or HD DVD discs are currently using MPeg4 h.264. When users start authoring their own discs, they are more likely to use h.264 which will be much more difficult to play.

[Super Warrior]

Super[/url] Warrior]Since i made the switch to laptops, i've had two. Both entry level comps.

First: Inspiron B120- had a 1.4Mhz Celeron-M w/1MB L2 Cache

Second/current: Vostro 1000- has a 1.8Mhz AMD Sempron w/512kb L2 cache. Also first ever comp to have an AMD cpu in it(always had celerons).

The Inspiron B120 with its Celeron-M was a LOT faster. My Current one with the AMD Sempron also runs nicely but it takes noticeably a bit longer to get things started up on a program before it can run it.

For example just selecting simple stuff like clicking to go into my control panel, was almost instantly brought up with the Celeron, but with AMD it takes about a second or two.

This may be because the AMD has less L2 cache, so it performs slower despite being 400MHz "faster" than the celeron. Overall, i still like my AMD and it does well for me.

I would think the difference would be more related to 1) HDD speed 2) amount of RAM 3) OS plus item 2

Both had the same amount of ram(1GB DDR2), same O.S(XP Home), i don't know about HDD speed though...

[waheed]

After doing some research and with a £300 budget limit, this is what I have considered to my upgrade:

AMD AM2 6400+ Dual Core Black Edition CPU (approx £112)

Asus Crosshair AM2 nForce 590 2000FSB dual SLI dual PCI-E x16 Motherboard (approx £119)

OCZ 4GB DDR2 800MHz Kit (2x2GB) PC2-6400 Memory SLi Ready Edition (5-4-4-15) (approx £65)

the rest of the component will be used from my current rig.

total approx £296

Let me know what your thoughts are.

[waheed]

Any opinions on my suggested setup?