HD5670 is a weakling, it is certainly weaker than 9800GT and even more than HD4830.

The minimal card for gaming these days you should look for is HD4850/HD5750/HD6750, nothing less.

Overclock that E6400! Make 7X400 MHz FSB or 8X366 MHz FSB on 1,35V and you are good to go.

Amazing if you can get a GTX 460 for 150$. The cheapest i can get is 250.

The kid does not need a powerhouse PC in my opinion. 13 is a bad age for gaming, he needs to get into sport more; he will be fine with a slower PC and there are plenty of very good older games anyway if he wants to play, i mean even games from 1996 and on. Not everyone wants to play the latest Battlefield or Call Of Duty series, get over it... Make sure you get him a power supply that is not some entry level cheap dirt, 350W 80+ will be fine. A lot better than some cheap 500W IT SL-500. AMD Athlon 2 X2 for CPU. 2 Gb of DDR2 800. Video card no more than a GT 240. I would recommend a HD4650, so that he can save on PSU. HD4850 for 50 is a sin not to buy, but i think he does not need it. It's too powerful.

1) 8800GT 256 Mb and HD3850 256 Mb should be considered below X1950XTX 512 Mb. Even 8800GTS 320 Mb was never that good against X1950XTX 512 Mb in most games. I had a HD3850 256 Mb and a NX1950XT 512 Mb, and honestly the X1950XT was faster..

2) Also in this list the GTX280 is superior to 9800GX2 - but this is only due minimal frame rates i take, right? Because on average and maximum frame rates the 9800GX2 is a fast as GTX285. I have seen lots of benchmarks where SLI 8800GT are equal or better to GTX280, and 9800GX2 is obviously above SLI 8800GT, because 9800GX2 are two 8800GTS 512 cards put in one. On average the 9800GX2 is faster than GTX280 in most cases.

So big but I wonder what's bigger, that star or that Canis Majoris?LIONHEART-_-

Canis Majoris is alot bigger, some 57 times more wide in radius, but is it also about 15 times lighter than R136A1

i want to witness a supernova b4 i die....

GrabTheYayo

The last supernova witnessed bye eye was in 2008, so it's not a rare occurrence, you might get your chance - stay looking all day at the skies with a 7,5 cm refractor, don't go to job, don't meet friends, don't eat and don't do other things alike - just stay focused on the skies and you might witness a barely noticeable appearance of a new spot!!!

[QUOTE="Artas1984"]

It's not the bigest star, it's the most massive and luminous star - totaly different things, although it is still very big - 35 times more wider in radius than the sun, there is a picture.. You will find that quite often the biggest stars in the universe weight a lot less than our sun. Actually our sun is extremely dense for it's little size.

specialzed

ONCE AGAIN - IT IS NOT THE SAME THING..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_stars

Big is an adjective that determines the visual size of the object, not it's density.

It's not the bigest star, it's the most massive and luminous star - totaly different things, although it is still very big - 35 times more wider in radius than the sun, there is a picture.. You will find that quite often the biggest stars in the universe weight a lot less than our sun. Actually our sun is extremely dense for it's little size.

The R163 object in Tarantula Nebula was known for years, but just know it's stars were identified precisely

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10707416