Four cores is nice, but if you're not using an application that can utilize those, then you're really just running on a slow two core processor. I guess it depends on what you do...I know most games don't even support 4 cores, as well as most photo editing software (only some parts of Photoshop run more than 2 cores). I guess if you're running Vista, a lot of the UI can tie up some processing power. If you don't use many applications that utilize more than two cores...then you're just bottlenecking yourself to a 'moderate' 2 core machine
edit: IMO, get a beefy two core, use Tomshardware to find what the new hotness is...but a chip brand should not hold you back if it's testing well on benchmarks and lifetime
I did some reading and you are right on the 2 core versus 4 core. There doesn't seem like a whole lot of applications are taking advantage of it right now. But I expect that to change over time. The linux guys tend to write for this stuff pretty quick so its just a matter of time.
I thought of going with a dual core intel chip as I am replacing an existing AMD X2 2.8G chip. To be frank, I was happy with what I had but while swapping cards in the box I somehow broke one of the retaining clips for the heatsink. I glued the heat sink to the CPU using thermal adhesive and its good to go but it bothers me that its like that. As a short term solution its ok but the mobo is vertical and the heat sink is hanging there so to speak.
I don't really think it will fall off, but my box runs 24/7. I would hate for something to happen and then the box overheats and burns down the house.
My wife would really hate that. : )
The quad pricing is pretty good and the performance is good enough too. So I think I am ok with it. I will probably upgrade again in a year or so anyways so its all good.
Now I need to figure what to do with the mobo/ram and cpu once I pull it out.
Anyone need 4G of ram?