Something that ALWAYS gets me on these system reviews/ suggestions is WHAT IS GOOD ENOUGH? Myself, that means having all programs and games not stutter during usage. And though we can't quantify everything, it also means a good viewing performance and quick enough load times for apps and the operating system. I think THG tests and reports enough different tests to answer these items.
Now getting back to "good enough", or should I just say Good. I know a faster processor, FSB, and more RAM memory creates a faster smoother everything. But what is Good enough/good? 4,6,8 MB Ram? Whats the difference? What is the rule of thumb for a good SysMark score? How much resolution do you need / want in a game? While some things are Totally a personal preference, and i LOVE that THG posts several games in several different settings (so that we can put our own judgements on what to get), when it comes to complete systems, where do you draw the lilne? Personally, I want my computer system to boot up in under a minute- whatever that takes. I don't care if its a 10,000 rpm Raptor, or a SSD drive, or whatever RAID configuration. I want the bottem line. And while total storage can be a personal decision as well, again where do you draw the line? (I would take a stab at 500 GB for the bottem end, 750 GB for the Mid, and at least 1 TB for the high end.) My thought is for the High End system, why not a single SSD for quick boot ups, and a single (because of $ restraints) 1 or 2 TB drive? Isn't 1,000 GB enough? I personally never use a redundant RAID setup/system. I just plug the HDD in. I've only had 1 HDD go bad in 18 years of being a PC owner, and the scan disk utility warned me before hand it was going bad. (Still works, just LOTS of bad clusters, and got worse.)
Also where do you draw the line on processor speed? Hard to tell the difference between a 2.2 and a 2.6 GHz something.
The bottem line, what I know is that movies are filmed at a rate of 30 fps, and are then put through an editing room which reduces it down to 24 fps. So, why do I need/want dual $300-400 video cards to produce 100+ fps??
The screen resolution on the monitor mostly depends on the size of the monitor (around 840 x 600 would look good on an 8" monitor, but 1024 x 768 would be required for a 16" monitor, etc.) That is why I like that THG posts different resolution sizes.
WHAT I DO is look for the review of my favorite game (or game type), look for the resolution for what I play at, and find a VGA that produces at least 50, prefer at least 60 fps with AA and AF enabled. That way, it will look great, and I know it will be strong enough to handle future games, and I wont need to upgrade it any time soon. (My experience has been by the time I need stronger graphics, buying an old video card to give me SLI is no longer cost effective. And of course it can't support the latest and greatest DivX / GL stuff.)
Personally, I read THG and pricescan.com and find out the best bang for the buck that is strong enough to meet my needs. I then eithor put together a system myself, or buy one with those parts in it, or close to it. I then do an upgrade about once a year, and after about 5 years replace the entire CPU. (I reuse the monitor, speakers, keyboard, mouse, UPS, and the storage hard drive.)
The idea is, faster better things are always coming out in the computer world, so the initial purchase of a PC system doesn't have to be perfect. And for those commenting on the system, remember, there IS a price cap. That is why THG sometimes doesn't go with that higher part, or dual option!
I love how THG gives a product, and goes on to explain why they choose that product.