Yeah, the future of 3D gaming, blahblahblah. I'm not really interested in PC games.
Here is an excerpt from an AIM conversation I had which resulted in me posting here:
Anyway, I am planning to build a new computer since my recent one died, and I'm going all out and just buy the best I can get. Like I said, would dual be better than quad for me? I don't really intend to do much hardcore PC gaming. What I do intend to do, is lots of multi-tasking, running stuff like Winamp, AIM, Firefox with multiple tabs, lots of programs at once open. Also some emulation gaming, including stuff like N64, PS1, and even Dreamcast, as well as some newer 3D MAME titles. I intend to do some slight picture and audio editing. Maybe some video editing but not much.
Question 1: I'm assuming dual would be better than quad for that kind of thing, right? If what he says is right.
I also read up for it here: Is dual-core better than quad-core?
Question 2: Would a dual or quad be good for heavy image editing and digital art? Such as running Flash, maybe with Photoshop also running in the background, dealing with editing massive resolution images? (Assuming the GPU is great, and there's lots of RAM)
Question 3: In regards to the Intel dual core CPU's, Newegg.com - All Intel Core 2 CPU's Why is the 3.16 GHz not the most expensive? Is that one the best, even though it's not the most expensive? Would that one be best for my needs?
Oh and I intend to run XP SP2 64bit, or maybe even SP3 if they ever come out with a 64bit version, with DirectX 10. NOT VISTA.
I posted here rather than searched (I did search a bit though) because I'm trying to avoid OPINIONS. I want hard data and facts, I mean, either it does or doesn't run better, it's hardware.
Thanks.
Here is an excerpt from an AIM conversation I had which resulted in me posting here:
Eric (11:46:40 PM): So I've read up on dual core vs quad core some more.
Eric (11:46:57 PM): Right now, the top dual cores outperform the top quad cores, but new quad cores are incoming.
Me (11:47:43 PM): How do they outperform them?
Eric (11:47:57 PM): Faster, basically.
Me (11:48:19 PM): Wouldn't that have to mean the quads are flawed in some way?
Me (11:48:26 PM): Or aren't doing what they're supposed to?
Eric (11:48:53 PM): No. Think of like...a motorcycle outperforming a car. Doesn't mean the car is flawed, it just means the motorcycle is that much better.
Eric (11:49:29 PM): Just better technology in the latest dual cores.
Me (11:50:06 PM): So an Intel Core2 Duo is better than an Intel Core2 Extreme Quad?
Eric (11:51:28 PM): The top Core 2 Duo bests the top Core 2 Extreme Quad though.
Eric (11:52:03 PM): Newegg.com - Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHz 6MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor - CPUs / Processors
Me (11:52:07 PM): But how/why? If the quad is more expensive, but isn't as good, why does it even exist?
Eric (11:52:09 PM): That's the one I think.
Eric (11:52:28 PM): Because it costs them more to make it.
Eric (11:53:11 PM): Like the new RAM, DDR3. It's about equal to DDR2, because it's so new they haven't improved the technology to the point where they can increase the price to performance ratio.
Eric (11:53:21 PM): And something about timings that I didn't understand.
Eric (11:54:04 PM): Video cards are the same way. New cards are always super expensive compared to old ones, but it takes them a while to work out kinks and smooth them out.
Me (11:54:23 PM): Hm.
Eric (11:54:44 PM): Pricing is based on how much it costs to manufacture, not how well it performs.
Eric (11:55:05 PM): In the case of hardware anyway.
Eric (11:55:30 PM): Pricing for software is meant to make up for development time, so it scales differently
Anyway, I am planning to build a new computer since my recent one died, and I'm going all out and just buy the best I can get. Like I said, would dual be better than quad for me? I don't really intend to do much hardcore PC gaming. What I do intend to do, is lots of multi-tasking, running stuff like Winamp, AIM, Firefox with multiple tabs, lots of programs at once open. Also some emulation gaming, including stuff like N64, PS1, and even Dreamcast, as well as some newer 3D MAME titles. I intend to do some slight picture and audio editing. Maybe some video editing but not much.
Question 1: I'm assuming dual would be better than quad for that kind of thing, right? If what he says is right.
I also read up for it here: Is dual-core better than quad-core?
Question 2: Would a dual or quad be good for heavy image editing and digital art? Such as running Flash, maybe with Photoshop also running in the background, dealing with editing massive resolution images? (Assuming the GPU is great, and there's lots of RAM)
Question 3: In regards to the Intel dual core CPU's, Newegg.com - All Intel Core 2 CPU's Why is the 3.16 GHz not the most expensive? Is that one the best, even though it's not the most expensive? Would that one be best for my needs?
Oh and I intend to run XP SP2 64bit, or maybe even SP3 if they ever come out with a 64bit version, with DirectX 10. NOT VISTA.
I posted here rather than searched (I did search a bit though) because I'm trying to avoid OPINIONS. I want hard data and facts, I mean, either it does or doesn't run better, it's hardware.
Thanks.