Mr Mutahir, My name's Ahsan, rupert86 is the ID. Even if bugdet is not a problem, I myself like to make a cost-performance ratio. I'd recommend an AMD. Its the best cost-performance ratio. An AMD Athlon XP 2500+ w/ Asus A7N8XE-Deluxe. I don't know if you're an overclocker or not, but whenever you feel like tired of your system, just push the FSB to 200, from 166; great, you've got a 3200+. Usually Asus' boards are expensive due to all that bundled software. You may get a nicer deal at somebody else, (like Soltek SL-75FRN2-L) of course if you do not need free software (like me, I know I'd have to travel at least 3000km for a legit CD). If the budget is no real problem, you can opt for the AMD Athlon 64 3500+ for the socket 939 & Asus A8V Deluxe. Personally I think 64 bits is really no use today (for gaming etc.) except in the case that you want a Linux server. The best time to buy a 64 bits CPU would be around Feb '05, to get a Win64 OS, and PCI-Express. After all the years of repititive Win98/ME/2k/XP installation, I've come to one conclusion: MHz is to fool you. There are thousands of factors determining anything's performance, and MHz is not surely the best one. My advice: Don't go over the FSB thingy. Usually more the MHz, greater the chance of data corruption, and consequently that of process repitition. Sorry but info abt Athlon/Opteron etc would make it really very long. To prefer AMD has more reasons: Intel needs HT in order to achieve maximum performance, which means lack of support for the extremely popular OSes like Win98/ME. Simplify it man, simplify! The next is that everybody is aware that Intel's own chipsets are best for their CPUs. And due to that Intel Advanced Hub Architechture bottleneck, Intel's chipsets (e.g: 865G) takes more than thrice the time for installation than an AMD based system (e.g: even the old KM400). Also, for the Tomcat, that AMD Thunderbirds & Palominos indeed get very hot, but Thoroughbreds and Bartons are actually cooler than their Intel counterparts. Hey Alanoll, Intel themselves have released a 31 page .PDF at http://www.intel.com/design/pentium4/specupdt/30235203.pDf about the problems in Prescott. I have it but even zipped makes it 250k, so I can't post it here. Also, tomshardware.com says that the Pentium 4 560 (3.6 GHz) continuously approaches its 72.8 degrees C limits and crashes up. That's with the bundled cooler. Who knew Intel owuld go like that?? Since I myself use socket 370 coolers on socket 462's due to their superior performance and unfailing fans. Anyway, Intel is doomed for know, we hope it gets better. Just back for wditing: I myself am waiting for the Socket A Sempron, since it has SSE2 support, and is altogether a revamped core, and possibly unlocked multipliers.