Quote:
El_Phil said:
As in one processor runs the game, the other does the anti-virus, MP3 player, rips the CD and anything you do in the background.
|
Unless you have a horribly innefficient AV program (Kaspersky only uses more than 0% CPU in taskman when it is doing a full system scan, which can be done at night when not using the PC anyways), CD ripping is the only process there that is even marginally processor intensive. IM programs, MP3 players, etc. tend to use very few resources, so will not benefit tremendously from dual cores. Unless they are Trillian 3.x and you are viewing the contact list, of course... ugh.
Quote:
El_Phil said:
Finally games are going to utilise dual core eventually, so it would be future proof and good for a few years. As I understand it in a couple of years your effective processor power is going to double when games can use both cores.
|
The problem being that you will be spending twice as much money now for a processor that really won't do much for you until a few years later when games might commonly be made as multithreaded applications.
400 euros more for dual core is most certainly not worth it. You will certainly be able to buy a good dual core processor in 2 years for less than that. "Future proofing" is only worth it when it doesn't more than double the price.