Re: The best value non-gaming processor today (FLOPS/dollar)
She will be running windows xp-32 and I'll make sure she understands not to upgrade. I guess my only fear then is support for windows 7 and how compatible it will be after 2 or so years time without possibly upgrading to a later version of windows. Thoughts?
Horrible graphics support is perfectly OK provided the processor is fast enough to software render things like 2D-images and large/fairly complex maps (she does work in land conservation and so deals with a large range of still 2d-imagery. Possibly some very large images or layered maps), as well as any graphical web-apps she might run into. In fact, having almost no graphics support at all will discourage siblings from using moms new quad core computer for gaming.
If it's between a faster dual core (higher processing power/core) and a slower true quad core (both of comparable overall performance/price), which of the two will have better support or capabilities in the future? I know it's the case especially with older games where they're only really able to exploit one core, and therefore often benchmark higher on older processors with fewer cores but with higher clock speeds.
Since I'm interested in longevity as well, my assumption is that a true quad core processor bought today would outlast even a slightly better dual core chip in terms of application support/ability to effectively exploit multiple cores several years down the road. Thoughts?