> People working with multi-hundred megabyte graphics files is a small > subset of graphics users.
Very true, but that was to rebut the point that there is no noticeable difference between single and multi cores. Gamers also benefit from multi-cores. Even if certain apps won't directly benefit from multi-cores, the system itself is definitely quicker and more responsive. Add to that the increasing magnitude of online mutli-media content and the single-core argument falls flat on it's face. Try and view the Met's new online HD broadcasts of its operas with a older or single-core machine. It'll choke. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/arts/music/15met.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin There really isn't any real reason to *not* get a multi-core other than cost and even that reason is largely moot. > Presumably the guy must be making movie > posters or something else very large and very high res. If he liked > going multi-core, he should love Photoshop CS4 which is supposed to > make use of the graphics card to manipulate those huge elements. Something along those lines. We use CS3 now and I'm leaving it up to him if he wants to go to CS4 or not. There has to be a reason to drop that cash beyond "it's new!". ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
