Right on cue Tom's has a new article debating the dual vs quad issue focusing primarily on overclocking and value for the money:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/dual_vs_quad/ -- Brian Weeden On 11/7/07, Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was actually thinking about the virtualization comment from Tharin. > I use XP mainly because of gaming. I have Ubuntu on my laptop and > much prefer it for your daily office/internet/stuff usage but of > course gaming sucks. And I would really prefer to use OSX for my > video work because the tools are just easier to use and interface > better. > > Has anyone built a virtualization box? Meaning, it should be possible > to have 3 OS images (XP, Linux, OSX) and just moving between the three > as you see fit. Now that I could see needing a quadcore and about 4GB > of RAM. > > Aside from I/O becoming your chokepoint, anything else I'm not > thinking about that would prevent such a setup from running? > > -- > Brian Weeden > > > On 11/7/07, Anthony Q. Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > that looks like a fine board to me...core 2 quad is your ticket... > > > > we seem to have very similar needs in a PC. > > > > Brian Weeden wrote: > > > Right now I'm playing Orange Box (friggin AWESOME), Bioshock (when it > > > doesn't crash), Civ 4, and AOE 3. I'm mainly an RTS / strategy gamer > > > but do grab the occasional FPS but only the ones with good first > > > person as I don't get into the multiplayer shooters much. > > > > > > For mobo I was looking at the ASUS P5K-E/WIFI-AP > > > http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16813131196 > > > > > > Dual video cards is not something I plan on doing anytime soon but > > > onboard USB, Fireware, LAN, and audio is. > > > > > > > > >
