If you don't use intense multithreaded 3d rendering apps, meddle in multiple
VMs, or professional imaging (read: >100MB image files) or pro video
encoding work, then dont bother with quad. Games are at best slightly faster
on dual core, insignificant on quad.
Get the best chip out there, which is damn cheap as well - the Core2Duo
E6850. 3Ghz, 1333mhz FSB, and ~$270 retail. It's the most significant band
for the buck for the masses since the overclocked Celeron 300A. Seriously,
nothing else comes remotely close for price/performance - actually, for
desktop use, there is nothing that surpasses it's performance, period.
Get that chip and put in on an Intel retail G35 desktop board w/ integrated
video. It will have DVI out and you will be pleasantly surprised how fast
that is for 3d (DX10, hardware T&L, as fast as entry level ATI/NVidia DX10
parts). If you decide to get hardcore into gaming, the g35 chipset has a x16
PCIe slot for an upgrade.
From: "Anthony Q. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List <[email protected]>
To: The Hardware List <[email protected]>
Subject: [H] Quad vs Dual Core Processors?
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:00:20 -0400
Ok...if you're going to drop a bit of coin (notice I said a bit) for a new
box, is it better to go quad or dual core? Anyone have any real-world
experience? Thx.
_________________________________________________________________
Discover sweet stuff waiting for you at the Messenger Cafe. Claim your
treat today!
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_SeptHMtagline2
