My pc will run what you want so let me think about it's bits and bobs.

3 year old motherboard, fairly recent at the time.

4 gigs of ram.

quad core 2.6 ghz

1 gig graphics card

loads of fans for cooling

500 watt power supply

That's all the important bits I think!

Just keep in mind that the larger the screen you are using the more processing power it takes up. Or something.

i advise going with AMD over intel if your looking for lower cost and good parts

well, as far as hardware wise i'm kinda new to that myself. But i can suggest that you buy off of Newegg.com, whether you're buying the entire PC outright or building it yourself

first important question........what amount of coin do you have to spend?

AMD is cheaper but the dual/quads of intel run cooler and imho are simply better.

I also am in Nvida fan, simply because they are more graphics power for what your wanting to do that AMD in my opinion.

So let me give you my opinion on what I would build for you (I build high end liquid cooled graphic computers not that I am trying to sell you anything) all my info comes from Newegg.com

Processor/MB combo: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Combo.....t=Combo.580763
Video card: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ.....82E16814121389

Ram: Depending on if your using 64 bit or 32 bit windows. But 4 gig of what ever the MB supports. More if your using 64bit

PSU 700 W + Thought things are getting less of power use, you want the extra horsepower to run all the extra stuff. Don't cheat on this one, cause it will bit you in the ass

Case: personal choice.

Focus on the GPU but don't go crazy unless you have 1000+ to spend. You can save money by using AMD/ATI but I have been building computers since 1980 with the TSR model computer and well frankly though Intel has mad some stinkers, they have really made some winners too mainly in the dual/quad departments.

I haven't had an AMD machine for a long time. I stopped buying their stuff when I realized (back in the P3 days) that AMD wasn't worth beans for stuff like games and graphics.

The newer processors are so powerful now that most of them should be able to do what you need. I can't give you specifics because it's been too long since I built a new machine, but in general I would advise a large amount of RAM and a quality video card. Get as much HD as you can reasonably afford. One of my first upgrades is usually a larger hard drive. For everything else, don't skimp by buying the "cheap" version, but don't waste money buying latest and greatest top-of-the-line version either.

RAM volume depends on the op system. a 32 bit system will only use 3 gig for Windows, and if you have 4gig, 1 goes to video shared, which is not bad but your limited. Now if your using 64 bit system, then by all mean pile it on.

However, Video card, processor, PSU, MB in that order. you can get a terabyte HD of pennies.

I would advise against AMD and going with Intel if you are looking for reliabilty, especially for Photoshop, games and , 3D content creation.

For actually building it the best tutorials used to be at tomshardware.com, they maystill be there.

Generally get some sort of an ASUS motherboard, an NIVIDIA Grphics Card. Kingstom Memory, and whomever is currently the top consumer reports score for hard Drives 9this changes monthly or yearly) Get a larger case over a smaller one, to allow for good cooling and expansion. Fans Fans Fans. Do not go for liquid or other exotic cooling fans, Don't go for gimicky products or solutions, if this is a working machine, build it to a company Spec, rather than some exotic hot Rod that will crater on you because it's overclocked and overheated, and has too much power pulled off for LED ornamentation. Get a case with a simple door if you see yourself worling on it a lot, like addind, swapping cards or drives. Antec makes my favorite cases. Avoid ATI Graphics cards, they are an "also ran" brand, and don't have the inroads to game and content creation companies like NVIDIA has. Multiple Graphics cards are great for games, (some) but not that good for graphics, except in the case of 3D rendering. Nultiple Cores are a godo thing, but not entirely essentail, it will last you a fefew years longer with multiple cores. Windows 7 Because it works, NOT vista, and get all the Ram you can. Hope this helps. Macs are limited in software choices, and you paya premium for the software that does exist, It's like having to take your car to the Mecedes Dealership, rather than yur ford to the corner mechanic. Magnitude of different. Linnux is not quite ready for prime time. It works, but not well enough for consuemer, or non-gearhead use. Hope this helps.

Scott

From my own perspective:
AMD/Intel are fine, at the premium end of the market Intel is the better choice, for budget conscious AMD. For mobile devices, the Core i series is a sensible choice based on power consumption (thus batter life). I own both intel and AMD based machines, and for value for money the AMD quad core 6xx serier processor are a good choice.

*if primary concern is processing power over cost: Intel
*if primary concern is power usage: Intel
*if getting good value in the mid range area of the market: AMD (in desktop space power/heat is not a huge concern).

For 3D/sculpting work consider if you are going to use something like Octane Renderer consider its dependencies (Octane Renderer is a CUDA based product thus will only run on NVidia cards, and ones that are "Stream" only run on AMD/ATi cards).

*If you use for gaming: either are fine - really they are (if you don't care about PhysX then go nVidia)
*If you are using for simple modelling (using OpenGL/DirectX): Similar performance either way
*If you wish to run applications that are "CUDA" only based: nVidia (ie. OctaneRenderer)
*If you wish to run applications that are "Stream" only based: ATi
Overall there are more CUDA solutions than Stream or OpenCL at the moment for 3D rendering, so nVidia may be the best choice(at present).

Memory:4GB minimum (go for a brand name, and keep all sticks of memory the same type - or at least the same "timings")

Motherboard: I've had Asus and Gigabyte, both are fine. You pay a premium for a "SLi" enable board, if you are playing games... and want brilliant resolutions at high frame rates (ie. 27" at 2560X1440) SLi is "worth it" otherwise don't waste money (the board/CPU combination will depreciate quickly).

My suggestion:
*AMD Quadcore x4 965(most things are GPU/Gfx card limiting on games)
*Motherboard to suit (I have a micro ATX one- does me fine... which will have a 16x PCi-E slot so runs cards- nor will I go for SLi)
*nVidia GTX570 for gfx card (if in the $400AUD region) or ATI 6870 (if in the $250AUD region)
*Decent power supply/case (look at minimum spec of power supply for GFX card selected as that will really determine what you need).
*Minimum 4GB ram... get in 1 pair of 2GB if going for 4GB or 1 pair of 4GB if going for 8GB (then you can potentially get more in the future and cost difference between buying 4 sticks vs 2 sticks of 2X size is minimal).

Find the sweet spot of price/performance- case in point: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2960/9 . In a render the i7-980X (a $1199AUD processor) rendered a scene lest than twice as fast as a AMD x4 965 (a $176AUD processor)... if you wish to impress friends... otherwise... get a good midrange processor. Let someone else make your processor choice cheaper :D

OS: Windows 7 over previous versions... Home Premium OEM will do.

Hope I don't just add to the confusion.

Very informative! Thank you for your detailed reply, it definitely made me consider some options I had not before. I will update my journal post soon with a short breakdown of the two PCs I am currently looking at, and would be happy if you could share your opinion. :)

No problem...

One line that is wrong (should have proof read the the thing again, apologies):

*If you use for gaming: either are fine - really they are (if you do care about PhysX then go nVidia) <- as nVidia don't support the PhysX API on AMD/ATi cards)

I currently own machines with AMD and Intel CPUs (basically laptops Intel, desktop AMD - as I can't justify the price differences for a desktop, but battery life is my primary criteria for Intel in laptops).

I'd rather use the difference by instead of liquid cooling (good if you intend on overclocking but at standard clock not worth the money)... go for GTX570/GTX580 (directX 11 compatible vs 10.)

Apart from that it is a pretty darn good machine you are speccing up there.

Cheers! :) Thanks again for all the feedback. At least I feel like I am dancing in the dark a bit less now, haha.