W00tage! I have found the graphics card I want

The XFX 8800GTS 320MB. The brand is XFX, a reputable brand, and as mentioned in this article on MadShrimps, the XFX 320MB 8800GTS gives the best "frames per penny" rate of the bunch of similar cards they tested. This means that I'm paying the best money/performance ratio for it, which can't be bad! It's also under £200 on Scan, which I should be able to afford at some point this year

There is also another article on the same site, testing the 320MB and 640MB versions of the same card. To be honest, people, there isn't really that much difference at all, and certainly not £100-worth of difference. The 640MB can run at a few more frames per second (i.e. single-digit amounts more) on higher settings than the 320MB, and that's about it. The core clock speeds are the same and they overclock (if that's your thing) the same as well. Besides, very few games use more than 300MB of memory, let alone 600MB. I get the feeling this is just another attempt, and probably a successful one, judging by the sales, to appeal to the "mine is bigger than yours!" market of teenage computer nerds. Y'know, the kind who run their games on the highest possible resolution with 16x Anti-Aliasing because it makes them feel big and important.* Now, I'm not too fussed about AA above 4x (there's no discernible increase in image/texture quality above that), and I game at the most convenient resolution for my monitor. As said new monitor will be no bigger than 19", I think the 320MB will be fine.

My current card, a 256MB laptop version of the 6800, manages to run most things pretty well. It can manage The Sims 2 on mostly high settings with a couple of mediums, and it can run Half-Life 2 with no problems. It's in games like Oblivion and F.E.A.R. that the age of the card begins to show. It just can't handle AA at all, and only by turning the physics and detail settings down to minimum can these two games be played at framerates of more than about 10fps**. However, it should be noted that Oblivion is notorious for being a very demanding game graphically: It was released last year, before the 8800 chips were developed for consumer use, and very few gamers were able to manage it on the higher settings. It also uses a complicated rendering/shadow engine that, again, is notorious for being very demanding. F.E.A.R. is also quite demanding, for the physics and texture detail, and both of these games are often used in benchmark tests such as in the articles above. Tomb Raider: Legend is another benchmarker, a rather newer game that actually runs quite well on older systems thanks to an options/setting set that's a bit more customisable. I could run the demo of that with no problems on the lower or medium settings.

I think my processor may have something to add to this as well: It's a Centrino (Intel, uuuurgh) 1.8GHz single-core. Veeery slow and a bit clunky at times. It can't be bottlenecking the system, as the rest of the components are about the same standard, but it isn't helping. Thank the almighty that my new PC will be a dual-core! Having said that, I am quite attached to my laptop. I've had it nearly 2 years now, and for a laptop, it's done very well. When I bought it (or rather, when Daddy bought it for me ) it was the bees' knees, now it's a crap-but-still-above-par-for-a-laptop rig. It will do for work, the Internet and World of Warcraft, but for newer games I'll be using my new system. Watch this space for more rants, musings, thoughts and comparisons of hardware

Oh, and a review of Windows Vista, coming soon!

*I know, I used to date one.

**Which is a pain in the behind because when played on a good rig, F.E.A.R. is a beautiful game.