3.2GHz Dual Core or 2.8GHZ Quad?

[mat420]

I'm trying to figure out what machine is best for me to get. I dont game, I just usually have about 20+ browser tabs open, zone alarm, trillian, skype, and i talk on aim, browse websites and work on my website. i just want something extremely responsive. i run a virtual machine (running win XP here and there too, to run programs that i dont trust opening)

do i go with the dual core or quad core? i keep getting mixed reviews. please backup your answer. thank you very much

 

[TCG]

Personal preference: I'd go with the quad core if you're going to be running virtual machines. In my experience it helps with the host machine not getting bogged down as much while the VM is up and running.

 

[mat420]

eh virtual machines is prolly only couple times a week tho versus the hours on end i use the pc each day, still think sdo? thank you.

 

[rvbfan]

You'll be glad to have those extra 2 cores when you need them.

 

[TCG]

You'll be glad to have those extra 2 cores when you need them.

 

[Devux]

Depends on your budget of course. But quad core if you can afford it.

 

[GeneO]

Build the Quad and overclock it past that 3.2 GHz - easily

 

[play2mefish]

I too concur with the Quad...

 

[DeaconFrost]

If you are only running one VM at a time, and don't plan to use more, I'd probably go with whatever is cheaper.

 

[Dwarf]

Quad core. But check that your motherboard can support quad core processors (some boards can, but only from a particular BIOS revision onwards).

 

[pparks1]

Whichever is cheaper is what I would do. I run on a quad core at home and a dual core at work and run tons of VM's and there is very little difference between the two boxes. With the dual core, you get higher clock speeds which will always benefit you, regardless of how many cores are being used. However, with multi-core apps, you might find better performance by having more cores. But I don't think if you get a dual, you will later regret it saying, "I should have gotten the quad".

 

[mat420]

by the way if it helps/anyones interested
its a AMD X4 630 2.8GHz quad core, versus

Intel® Pentium® dual-core processor E5800
Features 2 processing cores, an 800MHz system bus, 2MB cache and 3.2GHz processor speed.


price difference: about $25

 

[mat420]

oh...my first post didnt post....i was wondering if theres any mathmatical equations to figure this out?

or if running a speed tst (not sure if this is gonna be an option..probably not) on both machines, to see whats better?
i asume theres gonna be different things each machine is good at though so im not sure that'll help me specifically (not knowing for sure what i want/need)

thanks all

 

[mat420]

oh i can also get a Intel Core i3-550 Processor 3.2 ghz for the same price as them both. sounding like dual core is the way to go though, i think its worth $100 than these other two machines too.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I would go with the i3 then, as it gives you some upgrading room down the road as well. I'm surprised so many said quad-core, to be honest, because few apps, especially those you mentioned, and even written to take advantage of a quad-core system. I would say pparks1 is right on the money. In many things, a faster dual-core will outpace a slower quad-core. If you were doing a large amount of video encoding, for example, the quad would be your way to go.

 

[mat420]

lol so...i um, found this dell deal, 6 core $900 dollar comp (750 on ebay) plus a tablet for 756 after shipping
sell the tablet/phone for 300
that comp now cost me 450.

deal done. thanks all. if anyone whos tried to help me in here is interested in this hit me up via PM, they also have a laptop deal theyre doing. ur getting the 600 dollar tablet for $100 and, the desktop was discounted too tho i think idk im tired