Quote:Processors
OK, in a continuation from the other thread, this is an extension about what I said as regards to CPUs

The fanboy war, AMD Vs Intel:
Ok, there's bound to be fighting which people prefer, I much prefer Intel myself. Most people have a preference (some just go for the cheapest at the time) so don't be surprised if an all-out flame war breaks out.

What Cores and Threads are:
Ok, the easiest way to explain this is if you imagine a normal highway/motorway with cars using it all of the time... Cores basically mean the same amount of information can be processed (number of cores) times at once, and if you imagine a motorway between each core, the more lanes (threads) the motorway has, the faster the traffic tends to move.
Simple as that

There are a few different multi-core processors at the moment, just be careful how many threads they have, as they could end up slower than one with less cores.

AMD models, cores and common name:
Athlon/Duron | 1 core
X2 | 2 core (dual core)
X3 | 3 core (tri core)
X4 | 4 core (quad core)
X6 | 6 core (hex core)
X12 | 12 core (dodeca core)
AMD tend to use one thread per core, whereas Intel use up to 2 per core

Intel name, core numbers and threads
Pentium/Core2Solo/Atom | 1 core
Pentium Dual Core| 2 cores/1 thread
Core2Duo | 2 core/2 threads
Core2Quad | 4 core/4 threads
Core2Xtreme | 4 core/8 threads

Current generation:
Core i3 | 2 core/2 threads
Core i5 | 2 core/4 threads
Core i5 | 4 core/4 threads
Core i7 | 4 core/8 threads
Core i7 980X | 6 cores/12 threads*

*This is the only Desktop Intel out at the moment which has this many cores, they plan a few more along the workstation line, but none for consumer use.

Clock Speed vs Cores
People often ask me which is more important when looking for a processor. The honest answer is that it depends what you're doing. If you're doing a lot of things at once then cores is more important (and I don't mean low-power stuff like web browsing and listening to music). Otherwise clock speed is probably what you'd need more.

Again onto the motorway analagy, if each program you're running is a lorry, is it better to have the extra lanes for the lorries or a higher speed limit so they can get there faster?

Quote:Graphics cards
OK, in a continuation from the other thread, this is an extension about what I said with graphics cards. I should also point out that there are more graphics cards manufacturers than these two, but ATi and NVidia are the two mainly used ones in the market.

Crossfire and SLi
Crossfire (or Xfire) is the idea of putting two ATi graphics cards and having them working together to produce a better quality image on screen or a faster framerate when gaming. SLi is the same but with NVidia graphics cards. The result of this is that you can only use one of the cards as an output, while the other just lends it's chip use to the other card Which one you get is dependant on a few factors, here are some of the pros and cons of each company (as of 29/5/2010):

NVidia:
Pros:
Better single-chip performance
Good for workstation cards (CUDA)
Physx support
Support for up to 4-way SLi

Cons:
A LOT more power hungry than their ATi competitors.
Usually more expensive than their ATi counterparts.

ATi
Pros:
Cheap.
Usually use less power than NVidia cards.

Cons:
Not as well-supported in the business world.
can only have 3-way Xfire (or 4-way with 2x double chip cards).
Tend to be less powerful than NVidia cards.

Compatibility
Different brands are supported by different chipsets, in the last generation of motherboards there was a distinct line between which motherboards supported what. On the new generation both P55 and X58 chipsets support Xfire AND SLi, here's a list of previously supported chips and configurations:

Xfire:
Intel:
Intel X38
Intel X48
Intel X58
Intel P35
Intel P45
Intel P55
Intel P57
Intel P67
Intel i975x
Intel i965x
Intel i945x

AMD:
890FX
890GX
790FX
790GX
790X
780G
ATi CrossfireX Xpress 3200
ATi CrossfireX Xpress 1600
ATi Xpress 200 CrossfireX

SLi:
Intel:
Intel X38
Intel X48
Intel X58
Intel X68
Intel P55
Intel P57
Intel P65
Intel P67
nForce 570
nForce 590
nForce 650i
nForce 680i
nForce 740i
nForce 750i
nForce 780i
nForce 790i

AMD:
nForce 980a
nForce 790a
nForce 780a
nForce 750a
nForce 740a
nForce 680a
nForce 650i
nForce 590
nForce 570
nForce 560i
nForce 500
nForce Professional 2200


Note that some of the above are not released yet, but when they are WILL support the technologies listed

Eyefinity and Surround Gaming
Eyefinity is ATi's idea that you can have up to 6 monitors working seamlessly from one card, in essence making a matrix of monitors
Surround gaming is the same idea, but an offering from NVidia instead. Eyefinity is out and about already, but Surround Gaming isn't due for release until Q3 2010

Quote:Overclocking
The basic overview is you make more power go into components (CPU, RAM and GFX usually) and they work faster, but this can greatly reduce the life expenctancy of the product. Some shops sell pre-overclocked bundles so you don't have to do it yourself, but it's a lot more fun doing it yourself (and you've got a greater level of control, and can probably achieve a higher overclock if you know what you're doing)

In honesty there's not a lot I can say about overclocking, except from "Be careful" I've fried a motherboard because I let the voltages slip too high, so for heaven's sakes try to find a guide (or write one for us and we'll credit you here )

Quote:Monitors
Types of monitor:
There are a few different types of monitor you can come across, the one mainly used nowadays is LCD, but there are still some TFT and CRT lying around
CRT
Cathode Ray Tubes, similar to the older, larger TVs we used to let take over our living rooms. They're big, clunky, power hungry and not very pretty to look at (in most cases at least). They're still used by people that are happy with them and don't see a need for a new monitor, and people that are in art and design, as the colour accuracy on them is top notch.

TFT
The basic monitor we used in 2004-2007, they're flat-screened, pretty low power but highly fragile, hence they were mainly replaced with LCD

LCD
Flat panel monitors we usually use nowadays. They're a lot more responsive and produce better colours then their TFT counterparts. There's a lot more to it than just that though, as there are the various different panel types (that we'll look into in a moment)

LED
LCD panels that have an LED backlight, these produce much better colours and less light bleed than most other LCD monitors. Panasonic are known for their LED backlit Viera series of TVs, which use this technology.

OLED
Organic LED screens, every single pixel emits it's own light. These panels are highly experimental and very expensive at the moment, but they exceed the brightness and have better quality than LED backlit LCD screens. They're also as good (if not better) for colour accuracy than CRT monitors.

LCD Panels
I hope that this part of the article becomes m00t at some point in the near future and OLED replaces LCD, but hell, here we go...
There are a few different types of LCD panel, as I mentioned earlier in this post. Among which are:

TN Panel:
Cheap as chips LCD monitors, this is what you get if you spend <£200 on a monitor. Excellent response times but the colours aren't great, and you only have around a 20 degree viewing angle (not good if you move about a lot)

PVA Panel
The inbetween of TN and IPS, good colours, OK viewing angle and respectable response times

IPS Panel
Better colour reproduction than TN and a better viewing angle, but not very good with response times, not amazing for gaming with