Gaming rig-wise, you should be aware that there are currently around five more or less known games that support quad architectures, all of which are more dependent (performance-wise) on the GPU than the CPU. Dual core processors, such as those found in Intel's Core 2 Duo series, are much better at handling games and applications with single or dual core support than their quad core counterparts, which is true even if you pay only about half as much for a Core 2 Duo as you otherwise will for a Core 2 Quad.

Getting a quad for internet browsing and e-mailing is overkill. If you want to get into video editing, then by all means, get a quad. If not, you're essentially paying for hypothetical "future proofing" and a label.

Fortunately, I'm a hypocrite. I like quads. The Q8200 is a good and relatively cool (gelid) choice, although the Q6600 model has a larger cache and can easily be overclocked to higher speeds than the former, which makes it the best performance-per-dollar Core 2 Quad CPU. If you change your mind about not wanting the top-of-the-line, you can find Intel's more expensive i7 series a few steps up the performance ladder, while AMD's Phenom II series seems to be a great and inexpensive alternative. GLG knows more about Phenom II than I do.

As for the prospective GPU of your system, get a Radeon HD 4870. The 1024 MB version is ideal if you're planning to play games in high resolutions such as 1920x1200. Given your price limit, you should be able to find a larger monitor than the 21.5" Dell, too, especially if you build the system yourself.

For comparison, here's my current rig: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread....948#post663948

"Stephen Wolfram is the creator of Mathematica and is widely regarded as the most important innovator in scientific and technical computing today." - Stephen Wolfram