How good will this work

i'm getting a new computer for around $1400
right now i'm on my old celeron 433mhz comp (no way in hell it can handle guild wars)
but the one i'm getting is.

amd athlon 64 4000+ 2.4ghz 1mb l2 cache (clawhammer)
motherboard: asus a8n delux SLI with firewire and 2xpci-e slots
200g hard drive
16x dvd+-rw
xp home sp2
1g ddr dual ram
256 nvidia 6600

would i have ANY screen flutters or split load times? I had another computer that was malfunctioning and it had horrible split screen load times.

Spend a little more and get a 6800gt, it would accompany that setup much better. Also, go for either San Diego or Venice for your cpu core. I doubt you will have any problems with that pc on games for quite some time.

Will work perfectly.

i would get the fx-55 over a 4000 san diego chip.
and the 4000 san diego chip was AT LEAST 300-400 dollers more than what i paid for this, no matter where i looked. (actually this same setup was 200-300 more everywhre else too)

the fx-55 was about the same.

if i want to upgrade i can just buy the chip later for about that price when it's lowered :P

i read a few reviews on the clawhamer as well, apparently one says it outpowers intels extreme 850 3.4 processor.

For the same money you could get probably get a 6800Ultra, if you drop down to a 3500+. Remember, two 6600GTs in SLI are roughly equivalent to one 6800Ultra. You can always buy a second 6800Ultra in the future and really smoke with that setup. A higher end video card with a slower processor will do you MUCH better for gaming if you are looking to spend a set amount of money.

is sand diego really that much better that you'll notice speed differences and other things than the clawhammer?

I think you should see this site:

http://www.hexus.net/content/reviews...lld19JRD0xMjU1

It shows a Venice 3000+ overclocked up to 2.8ghz with the stock heatsink. The processor is 300€ less than the San Diego, and have SSE3 instructions as well as better memory controller and better heat dissipation. Has half the L2 cache but if you get that overclock with no heat problems sure you will have better perf than with the Clawhammer/SanDiego4000. Sure, the San Diego can do probably more than 2.8ghz, but don't expect to get to 3ghz without watercooling. So, looking at price/ghz the Venice3000+ is the better (by a great margin) option.

Also, if you can afford a Clawhammer4000, get for a Venice3000 and spend those 300€ in a better VGA, or whatever you want.

Also, for the memory: get a pack of GeiL Ultra-X 2x512Mb ~200€. It can get 260mhz with good timings (2-2-2-5) with few or no voltage tweak.

For the HD, Western Digital no doubt.

And the MoBo, think about a DFI LanParty UT-D. Some 10-15€ more and you have the better SLI MoBo available at the moment, and with exactly the same additives than the ASUS.

Hope it helps

No. Your bottleneck is your graphics card. Guild Wars will run excellently on that setup at the highest graphics settings. If you're really looking towards the future, then you could even get a cheaper 939 processor, even a 3000+ (my 754 A64 3000+ runs the game extremely well). In a couple years, once the price drops on the Athlon 64 X2 chips, you could use the money you saved, plus a little extra, to buy one, and get much better performance than a single core 4000+ that you would buy today.