I went from a C2D to a C2Q, both clocked at 3.2GHz. The only two differences I notice (as expected) are that my video encodes are significantly faster (H.264 HD capture encodes, specifically), and running multiple VMs takes a little less toll on the host. As I said, this is pretty much what I expected.
In most scenarios, though, the argument is between a faster-clocked DC and a lower-clocked QC. Unless you're specifically doing things that benefit from massive parallelism, the higher-clocked DC will be almost universally faster. However, with multi-core processors having become ubiquitous, it's likely only a matter of time before more mainstream software is optimized to benefit from the boosted parallelism modern processors offer. Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:hardware- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 6:00 AM > To: The Hardware List > Subject: [H] Quad vs Dual Core Processors? > > 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.
