Please critique my next build plan

[Fistandantilis]

OK so heres the scoop, I was going to go and buy an 8800GTX but I was curious about my Athlon 3500+ being a bottleneck, I got a tip and some prices guiding me to a better upgrade option. Rather than buying the GTX I have followed the advice given, would you guys please critique this build for me:
Gigabyte GA-965GM MotherboardLINK
Patriot DDR2 800 RAM 2 gigsLINK
EVGA 8800GTS 640LINK
Now for a processor, I like the sounds of the e4300, but I am weary that I am not going to get one that overclocks well, what are you guys getting? I am looking at this e6400 as a contingency plan LINK, How are these chips overclocking?
If you guys have any tips or comments, please feel free to post, I am hoping to do the buying tonight or tomorrow.
For the above items, after rebates and after the sale of my 1900XT this build is going to cost me ~550.00 this does not include shipping.
Is the GTS going to give me what I want or should I try to fit the gtx in there?
So, let me know what you guys are thinkg about this, thanks guys, oh and swtethan, thanks for the upgrade idea, you posted it in an earlier thread I started.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Why not go with an 8800GTX and THEN LATER get the rest of your PC updated? if you are @ and above 1600x1200, you will be GPU limited.

Components look fine to me
Lookie here: http://www.techspot.com/review/40-core2-e4300-vs-e6300-overclocking/page6.html

 

[SickBeast]

Just out of curiousity: why are you even upgrading considering that your present rig is very fast already? What are you trying to run?

 

[imported_thefonz]

You might be cpu limited with the 3500 but it does not really matter when you're getting 100+fps, the difference would be not noticeable, also you still have a great system to play todays games and some of the future games aswell, are there any games that your system is holding you back?

Edit: ah sick beast beat me to my question^

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: thefonz
You might be cpu limited with the 3500 but it does not really matter when you're getting 100+fps, the difference would be not noticeable, also you still have a great system to play todays games and some of the future games aswell, are there any games that your system is holding you back?

Edit: ah sick beast beat me to my question^

I have a very similar system and I can honestly say that this system isn't cutting it for me and definitely wont cut it for any future games. At least not with the settings that I like. 1680x1050, max settings, max AF and max AA. I know it sounds silly to you guys to have such high standards, but that's how I play my PC games and I accept nothing less.

Recently I've had to start dumbing down settings to get 100% playability. I cant afford to keep upgrading my system like the OP is doing over an extended period of time. This is the reason why I bought an Xbox 360 and an HDTV. I just cant keep up with my own tastes.

 

[imported_thefonz]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: thefonz
You might be cpu limited with the 3500 but it does not really matter when you're getting 100+fps, the difference would be not noticeable, also you still have a great system to play todays games and some of the future games aswell, are there any games that your system is holding you back?

Edit: ah sick beast beat me to my question^

I have a very similar system and I can honestly say that this system isn't cutting it for me and definitely wont cut it for any future games. At least not with the settings that I like. 1680x1050, max settings, max AF and max AA. I know it sounds silly to you guys to have such high standards, but that's how I play my PC games and I accept nothing less.

Recently I've had to start dumbing down settings to get 100% playability. I cant afford to keep upgrading my system like the OP is doing over an extended period of time. This is the reason why I bought an Xbox 360 and an HDTV. I just cant keep up with my own tastes.

Fair enough, but i've always felt that console games can't compare to pc games in certain genres, such as fps, rts and mmo's. consoles defiantly do have the sports, racing, and action games though. I'll also agree it is ridiculously expensive to keep up with pc gaming, even with my modest setting's I like to play at (1280x1024, 2 aa 8 af) for most newer games I have to drop down to 1074x768 actually, my x800gto (600/600) just don't cut it anymore

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: thefonz

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: thefonz
You might be cpu limited with the 3500 but it does not really matter when you're getting 100+fps, the difference would be not noticeable, also you still have a great system to play todays games and some of the future games aswell, are there any games that your system is holding you back?

Edit: ah sick beast beat me to my question^

I have a very similar system and I can honestly say that this system isn't cutting it for me and definitely wont cut it for any future games. At least not with the settings that I like. 1680x1050, max settings, max AF and max AA. I know it sounds silly to you guys to have such high standards, but that's how I play my PC games and I accept nothing less.

Recently I've had to start dumbing down settings to get 100% playability. I cant afford to keep upgrading my system like the OP is doing over an extended period of time. This is the reason why I bought an Xbox 360 and an HDTV. I just cant keep up with my own tastes.

Fair enough, but i've always felt that console games can't compare to pc games in certain genres, such as fps, rts and mmo's. consoles defiantly do have the sports, racing, and action games though. I'll also agree it is ridiculously expensive to keep up with pc gaming, even with my modest setting's I like to play at (1280x1024, 2 aa 8 af) for most newer games I have to drop down to 1074x768 actually, my x800gto (600/600) just don't cut it anymore

I completely understand where you're coming from, this is exactly how I felt about consoles until I actually started gaming on the 360.

For FPS (main type of game I play) the controller is what bugged me the most. It felt slow, imprecise and clumsy. It honestly only took me about 2 weeks to completely forget about the kb + mouse. After a while the controller just becomes natural and I even think the controller makes the controls of the game easier.

I have also found games on the Xbox360 to be much more immersive than any game I have played on the PC in a couple of years. Gears of War is an example, I have beat this game a couple times on insane mode, but I still keep playing it. My recent PC games experiences have been that I jsut ebay the games once i am done because the newer PC games have horrible replayability.

Toss in the fact that I dont ever have to mess with drivers, system instability, overclocking, it just makes gaming enjoyable again for me.

However, if Crysis doesnt make it to Xbox360, I may have to contract this statement all together.

 

[Imyourzero]

I'm sorry, but the controller (at least the current XBOX/PS controllers) will never take the place of a kb & mouse. They are nowhere near as accurate IMO, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion also. I also like having dozens of keys available for custom mapping...there are just too few buttons on a console controller to get the job done without having to "hold this and press that" or perform a button combination to execute a command.

Don't get me wrong, I like consoles. I certainly enjoy racing and sports games more on a console, but the PC will remain the platform of choice for shooters until consoles can match the flexibility and accuracy of a keyboard and mouse.