This is not true. DVI does not affect available resolutions. The benefit of DVI is that it's digital, information for each pixel on your LCD can be sent directly to the screen and immediately displayed without having to convert. VGA is forced to convert the digital pixel information your PC gives off into RGB (analog) display values. This conversion costs time and sacrifices accuracy (and refresh rates), and you are more likely to see ghosting. Also, DVI can accept feedback information from the monitor through DDC2 connection, letting it know the kind of environment it's displaying on and the native resolution. All in all, DVI is probably the better choice since most cards these days use it as an output anyway and most LCD monitors have an input for it, why bother converting?Tracekill

DVI affects all resolutions. Given that the monitor you're using has a DVI port. Preferably DVI-D. The benefit of DVI is not just that it's digital... well maybe it is, but thats the point. Having to not be converted to an analog signal means it will retain its full quality, and yes you should be able to see the difference at just about any resolution, given the size of your monitor and what its native resolution is. Analog and DVI connections do not determine refresh rates, so nothing is sacraficed there. DVI is the better choice for quality, not just simply because thats what most cards and monitors have.

So if I got a DVI cable for my 19" widescreen LCD at 1024x768, it wouldn't make a difference?PESDan

There is no such thing as "LCD" resolution. The only thing you should worry about with resolution and DVI cables is if you're going to be using resolutions higher than 1920x1200. Requires a dual link DVI cord. Lots of manufactures fail to print wether their cords are single or dual link, so you need to see the cord for yourself. If you got a DVI cable for your monitor, yes you'd see better image quality. Just make sure you get a good cord. Remember, fatter cords = better and length causes the signal to deteriorate. 6 - 8 feet should do you good.

Nice article on readyboost. Basically explains that... readyboost doesn't really boost much of anything unless you have under 2gb of ram. The only part of your computer it will noticeably effect (again, if you have under 2gb of ram) is boot up time.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2160

So far photoshop cs4 should run pretty much the same as cs3 except for the panning and zooming of larger images which are the only two features that utilize the gpu right now. On a side note you can try to improve your photoshop performance by allowing it to use more ram. Edit > Preferences > Performance~

As a recommendation on the GPU, I'd say 9800gx2. It's game performance is pretty much the same as a gtx280 +/-, except it has 16 more cores. 256 compared to 240 (not really that much), and the card should be cheaper as it's fading out of the market. Unless you'd plan on going 3 way SLI later on with the gtx280.

As for a good screen; don't be fooled by high contrast ratios or "G2G" response times.

Doesn't anyone read anymore...? At the top of the article, in bold even. Maybe highlighting it will work.

Just to add a little perspective to this scenario.

My setup (Not a high end computer by any means):

CPU: Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (3.2ghz)

GPU: eVGA 9800gx2

RAM: 4gb DDR2 800mhz

Mainboard: Asus M2N32 SLI Deluxe (nVidia 590 SLI)

HDD for games: WD Raptor (First generation)

I usually get rates of 90+, however it does drop below 60 very often.

CoD4 specs here

Texture Settings

Graphic Settings