price estimate please

For a computer that can handle most games at average settings I say like a good 700-1000 that's not including the graphic card. If you plan to beef your graphic card from the standard one that is provided then it would really be based on preferences. But seeing as how you like nVidea graphic cards I say another 100-300 depending on how much quality you want. In conclusion, about 1k+ moneywise is what you are looking at.

This process would be cut greatly if you got a friend who can make the computer for you or something and won't charge you so much.

500-600USD. Not terribly expensive.

Indeed, with 1000 you could already build a pretty good machine, higher than average.

And i suggest thou to go for ATI since they have better performance with less amount of money.

But yeah around 500-700 what-ever-usd could make you able to get an average comp.

But, I bet, if you go look in the right places, it might just cost around 400-500. :P

Get a new computer, don't upgrade something that old. You can get a new computer for even cheaper than what the people say above. Find the right deals on the right products, and jump on them. My computer cost ~500 a year ago, and it's still running games on high/medium settings.

But remember, the better computer (aka faster), the longer it's going to last and it will play newer games on maxed settings as well.

Here are some interesting deals that are good for a budget computer:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125298&cm_re=4770-_-14-125-298-_-Product

This one is good if you get the right kind of motherboard with AMD ACC. Then you'll have a quad core processor at $40.
http://www.overclock.net/online-deals/701467-ewiz-athlon-ii-x2-5000-potential.html

Just go deal hunting, and wait until you see a steal for the parts that you want.

Right now is not exactly the best moment to buy a system as both AMD and Intel are running out new processors which use new sockets and it's not sure which platforms going to be the better choice.

I prefer Intel processors as they have (at the moment) a greater range of products on the market and they're less finicky.

EDIT: I better reword this part to clarify what I want to say. As is, I *wouldn't* build an AMD-based PC since the CPU slot is at the end of its life. The Phenom is the last processor to support this slot. AMD is very competitive in the low-midrange, so for sheer budget it seems like the good choice. However if you plan ahead you'll see that with Intel a whole range of (currently) high-end CPUs will fall into your budget within a couple of years. With AMD there will be no new CPUs availible for you, other than the Phenom.

IMHO there are two options for you (if you go Intel):

1. Buy a *good* LGA 1156 motherboard (pricey!) but you're bound to be able to upgrade it for quite a while. The only part that you should never buy cheap is the motherboard. It's not so much a choosing the right brand (Asus, MSI, Gigabyte) but willing to pay for a high-end model. Doing so ensures that the board will serve you for 4-5 years. (I've used good motherboards for close to 10 years, upgrading the CPU and video-card several times).

If you do this you'll also have to shell out the money for at least a Core i5.
All in all this will be a modern system that should serve you for 4 years.

(You should be able to run most stuff at high settings).

This is expensive, but this system life should be extendable to 8-10 years with upgrades. (In the end it will only be a mediocre system *with* upgraded, but the upgrades will be a lot cheaper).

2. Buy a *good* LGA 775 motherboard. This is already obsolete technology, but this time I think you'd well off if you bought a middle-range model. The good thing about this choice is that as people switch to LGA 1146 there'll be a lot of used high-end LGA 775 cpus to be had for cheap.

For this one I'd buy a cheap budget CPU (E5200, E5300, E7200, E7300) and upgrade when the high end CPUs become cheaper.

This configuration will be about 1/2-2/3 of the LGA 1156 one, however you'll only able to extend its life (that is make it run stuff at least on medium settings) for 3-5 years.

In either case I'd buy a middle range ATI video card. Sadly NVIDIA really dropped the ball lately and the equivalent ATI cards not only use less power but are cheaper to boot. (It almost never makes sense to buy high-end cards. You're a lot better off selling your card and buying a new one as prices drop).

Some leaked info about the next processor line for Intel suggests that they will be replacing the LGA1156 with a new chipset that will use 1155 pins for the same technology that the i7 9xx's have on the LGA1366 line. Even so, the 1366 will be seeing the six-core CPUs when they are ready. If possible I would suggest dishing out the bucks for an i7 930 and being future-proof for anything that happens. But even though there is evidence the 1156 line will be getting replaced, it is still a very strong platform and I definitely recommend it if you are buying on the cheap.

Actually the whole point of buying a more expensive motherboard is to have the ability to upgrade your CPU later on. So I wouldn't buy a top of the line CPU I'd wait until its price drops into my budget (which will happen as new models take the spotlight).

Do the quad-core processors have a bigger bump over dual-core's yet? Last I read (maybe two years ago, a long time for computer parts but still not long enough to see quantum leaps) the performance difference was negligible.

Since hardly anything uses more than 2 cores that answer is still no.
However regardless what some idiots say, L2 cache really matters. There is a reason why models with more are that much more expensive.

Quad cores definitely help. My dual core gets maxed out anytime I play any modern game and the quad core just breezes through it. The only things that don't really take advantage of the extra cores are the XP and earlier era games which would only run on 1 core. Even if your game doesn't take advantage of all the cores - the operating system and all your background stuff will. I'm not sure why Flaser thinks quads aren't worth it but I'd like to hear his reasoning. The cache on the processor is definitely a big factor and is the reason for how processors evolved up to this day. Quads will usually have more cache because it is a newer technology and has to feed four processors' worth of information.

No, to play games you only have to pay half that. What games do you want to play?

Not quite anymore, most new games (i.e. 3 months or newer) have multi-threading support for quad cores. A good example of this is Bad Company 2, which scales Quad-core processors very well.

So I guess, older games (i.e. games that don't support multi-threading very well) will vary between performing better on a dual core and performing better on a quad core.

I think if you are trying to compare a quad core and a dual core, always look at operating frequencies. If a dual core is set to go 3.2GHz, and a Quad core is set to go 1.6 GHz (not likely to happen, but this is a hypothetical situation) pick the 3.2GHz dual core. But if the values are closer together, the quad core will have a better edge with [newer] games.

Benchmarks always help.

Also read this (and look at benchmarks) about L2 cache to understand what Anomalouse is saying.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cache-size-matter,1709.html

Although I don't really think the L2 cache really makes too much of a difference, the benchmarks prove they do make a difference. It's all matters what's in your budget, and the price variations between processors.

you can self build a computer that can run games at top performance settings for around $1,200- $1,500 so I dont know why peoples estimates for an "average" computer are so high.

Actually you can build system a lot cheaper...

...it just doesn't make sense in the long run as you won't be able to upgrade it and will be forced to invest more.

This man speaks truth.
You can build a very respectable gaming box for that sort of money, specially if you're going to reuse things like monitor, hard drives ect.

Personally I think it's best to overbudget when building so you have a bit of leeway when buying components a good target to aim at is around the $2000 mark if you plan to overhaul your box.

Also people don't forget the importance of a good power supply and decent case to house your components.
People always neglect this and go cheap specially with power supplies then cry when their $30 powersupply took out their computer when it went off with a bang (literally).
Cases are another aspect people neglect.
Look for something that has a solid build, cable management options to hide those cables to improves airflow, on the subject of airflow look for a case with good thermal design to keep components nice and cool, last but no least make sure the case can actually fit your hardware.

For CPU needs go with at least a quad as it's the future, many games and apps are being optimised to make use of multiple cores so why limit yourself to two cores when you can get 3+ for a good price.

As for video card choice I personally recommend ATI at the time of writing this post as it currently offers the best in price/performance plus the new cards chew up less power, are relatively cheap and will drop in price when supplies are replenished.
If you're after surround gaming go ATI as their Eyefinity technology allows for a much easier and better way of enjoying surround gaming without tinkering with third party programs like SoftTH, or buying the Matrox TripleHead.