A Simple Question Really...

[stefcep2]

For 2000 pounds you could buy an absolute monster of a machine. As for what to buy, I guess it comes down to how much you want to spend. With a budget of 2k pounds an intel i7 of some description is the best bet, being that its the most powerful consumer cpu available. These come in 2 different sockets, 1156, which is the more mainstream variant, and doesnt differ greatly from the socket 1366 version, minus the fact it uses only a dual channel memory controller as opposed to the latters triple channel controller. Both use ddr3 ram from 1066mhz through 2200mhz(or higher if you want to spend the money) depending on a users wants. Obviously the faster the ram the better the performance, but dont disregard things like latency either,.... typically better timings equate to better performance than the higher speed (in mhz) variant with less tight timing. A step down the ladder would be something like an Intel i5-760, which is still quite a monster, although somewhat more affordable and is also a socket 1156 cpu. Incidently both are quad core systems (apart from the high end versions of i7, (i7-980)which can be hex core). Additionally they also support hyperthreading, which effectively means the system sees the cpus as having 2x as many cores as they physically do (not entirely accurate, but for conversations sake its near enough). As for AMD cpus theyre still quite powerful (as are all available modern x86 cpus), but theyre delegated to the budget segment for a reason,.... they simply cant compete with Intel for pure performance (or thermally) in most situations. Beware the 6 core AMD cpus, as although they look attractive on paper (reasonable prices) theyre often no better than the 4 core variants, even when multithreading is involved (software that can take advantage of multiple threads/cores). Lower clockspeeds vs the top end 4core versions as well as identical caches (ergo less per core) and no additional hardware to deal with internal cpu communications see to this. Another thing to be aware of with AMD cpus is that they wont work with faster ram and are restricted to ddr3-1600 (can go higher with overclocking and luck, but dont count on it). As for the very budget segment neither Intel nor AMD own this market in a clear manner. AMD is traditionally cheaper, but in terms of performance you get what you pay for, although the scales probably tip slightly in AMDs favor, especially for heavily threaded software (AMD's athlon x4 and phenom2 x4 cpus are quite cheap), although per thread Intel has the advantage. As for video cards, this isnt as clear as it was a few months back either. Had you asked then ATI/AMD wouldve been recommended without question for pretty much all pricepoints, but despite a few teething problems Nvidias Ferni range of cards are also a good buy. The new 104 based gpus (460) look especially attractive for thier price point. Really though apart from the budget segment (under 130$ where AMD are probably your best bet as they offer both superior performance and feature sets) you again pretty much get what you pay for with the exception of the afforementioined gf104 based gpus (460(which is both cheaper than a 5830 and performs more like a 5850, which is proportionally considerably more expensive)).
This is all assuming you go the non brand name PC route. A brand name usually adds a little to the price, especially when that name is Apple. While I have nothing against Apple products I'd never buy them myself as they simply dont offer the value (in terms of raw performance) I want. Others see value in different terms, and for them Apple products are worth the money (software bundles/osx/etc.).... each to thier own though.
I hope this is info. is of use to you and feel free to ask if you have any more questions.
p.s. Unless you want the absolute best available it'll be heard to spend 2k pounds. An Intel i7-860, 8 gig ddr3-1600, radeon 5870 (or nvidia 480), 2 terrabytes hdd space, bluray reader/writer, nice shiny case, nice sound card and 7.1 surround system and so on could be bought for well inside 1000 pounds...... you can of course go dual gpu, i7-980, etc., but Im assuming something that that would be overkill for you.... the above (or something similar) is a very nice "standard" high-end type rig.

I hate to say this but your two posts  make me think of Kenny from South Park-i look at them and I just see incomprehensible mumbling.  I'm sure what you have to say is useful..but please make it readable

[stefcep2]

Franko, IMO Winuae is most useful when used as an RTG amiga.  If you want to run 24 bit graphics software, 3d rendering then winuae has the biggest bang for your buck.  

BUT if you want to run stuff that runs on the native chipsets then Winuae just "feels" wrong.  This includes most games (but 3D FPS's run faster).  

Running a Dpaint/Brilliance/PPAint,  animations, a Scala presentation, a demo, a game or viewing some of the hand-drawn art on a 1084 with a good screen just looks so much better than when viewing it in winuae. There's something about the vibrancy of the colors, the blending of the pixels (probably due to the bell curve light distribution of the monitor pixels), the smoothness of the animation.

So for  mine, if you want to run software that runs on the chipset, then nothing beats the real thing.  If you want to run Amiga software that uses RTG or you need brute CPU speed for then winuae is cheaper and easier to acquire.