[QUOTE="djmillard2"]get a desktop. extremely better performance for rediculously lower prices. build it yourself for the lowest prices.p00zer

If you're considering a desktop, why were you thinking about a laptop in the first place?

What you really need to do first is learn how to read forum descriptions. as it states at the top of the page 'NO HARDWARE SPECIFIC DISCUSSIONS' are allowed here. this needs to be in the hardware forum.

MrUnSavory1

I agree with the article. I had a 3-week old Vista 64-bit OS on my system that was fully updated and it loaded faster than my week old Windows 7 (also fully updated).

Nothing huge, but it's about 15 sec longer.

YES. Mine's set to 3.4 right now, and it's absolutley magnificent.

Word to the wise. There are two numbers that dictate processing power: CPU Clock ratio and FSB Frequency. For the Q6600, it can be anywhere from 6-9 ratio and you'll want something along 333-420 FSB. You get CPU processing power by multiplying the two numbers (right now, your's is set to 9x266). At some points, you'll hit a wall and you have to decide whether you want more CPU ratio or FSB frequency.

You're much, much better off going with a higher FSB than a CPU ratio. A higher FSB will help both your CPU AND memory while the clock ratio only boosts up the raw processing power, which you don't usually utilize 100% unless you're benchmarking. However, the higher FSB will increase system responsiveness, and you'll see a noticeable difference.

So I would suggest bumping that ratio down to 8, even 7 if you must in order to get that higher FSB.

If you want a general, stable setup for a Q6600, I'd go with:

CPU clock ratio: 8

FSB Frequency: 400

Memory timings: 5-5-5-15

Memory voltage (depends on your memory, just be sure it's set to something static)

North Bridge voltage: 1.38

south bridge voltage: 1.10

That'll give you 3.2 GHz easily, and hopefully with no issues. If you want, you can try bumping up the FSB further, but you won't notice a drastic difference from then on.

I usualy play games at 1280X 1024 my monitors native

leoploradon01

Or just go with a Radeon 4870/Nvidia 260. Really depends of your tastes.

Left 4 Dead? :?FiFa_kirikiki

Not really anymore, better to wait for the second game and see if people like it.

Team Fortress 2; BF2 if you don't have it (buy the vanilla version online though, it'll be only 10 bucks for just as much content).

TF2 is way more fun than any of the rest.

L4D would be if it had a more friendlier community and developer's support like TF2.

Well, if you want to keep it under $500, forget about an i7, you'll definately turn up overbudget.

Since you're doing video editing, I'd recommend a quad core, maybe get yourself a nice Intel Q9550.

That video card undoubtedly has to go. There's a nice array of choices for you, I'd try and decide between the ATI Radeon 4890 or 5850. I think the 5870 is a bit steep for the minimal boost it gives over the 5850. Best recommended is the 5850.

Your ram is fine, 6 GB will hold you over easily, and DDR3 isn't really a must product yet (and it'll cost you significantly if you go with that plus i7).

Make sure your cooling and PSU are good enough to OC, and I'd say you're in for one helluva difference in gaming.

BTW, what resolution do you game on?

Chuck it out the Window.

Seriously, that thing is old. There's no magical way of turbocharging hardware. You'll either have to put up with it or drop cash on building your own.