If you arent doing any heavy audio/video encoding or have a desire to run a virtualized operating system I'd get a better dual-core instead of a quad.
-Tharin O. Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've finally decided to upgrade my main system from the Althon 64 3000+ and nForce4 mobo that have served me so well for the past couple years. I definitely going Intel for the first time in a long time but can't decide whether it is worth it for the Quad core as opposed to the Dual core. I am looking at both the Core2Dou E6650 and the Quad core Q6600. The Core2Dou is $170 on Newegg while the QuadCore is $285. It would be going into my main PC which is use for work (some numerical simulation), video rendering, and gaming. I guess the question comes down to how much multiple cores would help. From what I have seen, only a few games support 4 cores and not that many more support 2 cores. I already have an ATI X1950XT that I won't be replacing for at least another year so that might end up being the limiter on gaming anyways. All I know is right now the Athlon 64 is the bottleneck. I know certain video/audio encoders support 4 and it will help there but I don't do that much. And the numerical simulations I currently use are not multi-core aware. The budget is tight this time around which I guess is why I'm banging my head so hard about that last $100. I guess the bottom line is does everyone think that $100 for 2 more cores is a good long-term investment? -- Brian Weeden
