All im trying to say teny is that dual core, no matter how fast cant beat a quad because its limited to only 2 cores.
Imagine that one computer has 2 processors, and another has 4 processors. And lets say they all have the same everything and every program it runs is capable of utilizing multi processor computers
Which is gonna run better?
A mother board takes a pretty huge role in this factor, and pretty much no Intel boards are going to be the same as an AMD board since they both operate differently.
The only time the Quad will get an advantage will be only if the program uses all 4 cores, and there are other programs running. But RAM will have to be taken into this factor too.
yes, you are limited to 2 cores, but if all I want was to open up Firefox, Im pretty sure the times are pretty much the same.
I see no point in having an Quad yet (for me). All the games and programs i have now run fine with just the 2 cores.
quad cores are not just for multitasking, most programs use all four cores at once
same for dual core there not just for multitasking, when you have a dual core , programs use the 2 cores at once..
do you see why quad is better??
And like i said within the next few months it wont be 'most programs' it will be all programs that use four cores
Theyre also good for video/music encoding/decoding.
Not
Most programs fully uses 4 cores. They barely even use 2 cores. I dont know what programs you are using.
I wouldnt say within a few months is when all programs uses four cores.
The economy in the US is pretty bad, and not everybody has money to get a Quad. So Im pretty sure the software devs arent going to make programs use all 4 cores, because then people will complain, and they wont get much sells.
But, if you are doing an upgrade, or building an computer. Its usually best to go with quad now, whether you are an hardcore gamer or not. It makes it more future proof. Which is a good thing.