If you expect these new parts to be the foundation of a PC that will last 3-4 years again (with upgrades) I would certainly look at getting an IX38 chipset.
Also, take a look at the Q9450, gives you the best of both worlds :) If your set on the parts you listed, your CPU choice is based on what you run now and intend to run in the future.......if you are going to run a lot of VMs, then the quad is almost certainly better. VMWare (Workstation at least) limits the number of CPUs to 2 per guest OS but this should not be an issue in anyway. Regards, Jason Tozer Database Analyst London Ext 1131 - 3SC.5 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brian Weeden Sent: 05 March 2008 15:14 To: hwg Subject: [H] CPUs Going to be buying the parts for a new PC next week and I'm pretty psyched as I'm replacing an Athlon system I built 3-4 years ago and have been upgrading piecemeal. So I've got a 3000+ Athlon 64 running on an nForce4 mobo. After 6 months of research I am still debating over dual core vs quad core. I'm going to continue using my existing video card as it's doing just fine and here's the rest of the parts list: Mobo - Asus P5K-E/WIFI-AP PSU - OCZ Stealthstream 600W RAM - 2x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 DVD - Samsung SH-S203B Fans - 2x Scythe 120mm So I'm debating between these two CPUs: Q6600 Kentsfield (2.4 Ghz, Quadcore, 65nm) E8400 Wolfsdale (3.0 Ghz, Dualcore, 45nm) They are both within $20 in price so really it comes down to other features. I know that the majority of programs these days don't take advantage of more than 2 cores (except for the multimedia big boys like Photoshop and video encoders). While I will be using the machine for some A/V work, that won't be a common task. More commonly it will be for multitasking several programs at once under Windows XP for work and then gaming. The kicker is that I am getting rid of my HTPC and replacing it with a NAS and the Popcorn Hour settop box. The HTPC used to be my ripping, encoding, burning, and downloading box which was nice because I could offload those intensive (both time and horsepower) tasks to it and not have it slow down my main PC that I use for work and gaming. With it going away, those tasks will now be done on my main PC. I was envisioning perhaps running 2 or 3 VMs at once doing all these various tasks. Anyone see problems with that under XP and the ability for those VMs to use separate CPUs and RAM? Or am I reaching too far and is this something I can't do under XP? I have several work programs that are Windows only (along with games) which are the two reasons I haven't gone to Ubuntu. ---- Brian This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. Incoming and outgoing email communications may be monitored by Clifford Chance, as permitted by applicable law and regulations. For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer to any Clifford Chance office. Clifford Chance LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England & Wales under number OC323571. The firm's registered office and principal place of business is at 10 Upper Bank Street, London, E14 5JJ. For further details, including a list of members and their professional qualifications, see our website at www.cliffordchance.com. The firm uses the word 'partner' to refer to a member of Clifford Chance LLP or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. The firm is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Authority's rules can be accessed by clicking on the following link: http://www.sra.org.uk/code-of-conduct.page
