[gone8to1248]

When in doubt come to the pro's! As a home user wanting to build a non gaming computer would I gain anything by going with a Quad Core over a AM2 6400 chip? Also most people on here are Intel users. Could someone tell my why Intel is better than AMD. Thank you.

[Cew27]

intel quads, while they may not be top at the moment for gaming they will be soon, games are starting to used quad threads
have a look at the intel q6600 or at the new (expensive) 45nm chips

[computeruler]

for non gaming dual core but if there is any like rendering or anything you might benifit by a quad core

[serverguy]

Originally Posted by computeruler for non gaming dual core but if there is any like rendering or anything you might benifit by a quad core

I would have said the opposite...

Gaming you are better off with a dual core, E8400 being the best bet probably.

For everything else a quad is best IMO. And as Cew said, more games will run better on it in the future.

Don't bother with the 45nm quads (QX9650 etc.) They are silly expensive and you can get a Q6600 up to their stock speeds easily.

[Carbon]

If you're a non-gamer, ignore all of the above please. Unless you're doing hardcore threaded video rendering, you won't need a quad-core, and the 8400 is overkill.

Grab the 45nm E7200 when it comes out. Nice and speedy, $150 or so.

[Cew27]

i missread the above post, i thaught he said he wanted to build a gaming pc
also why ot get a quad now, it will be better utilised in the future

[Carbon]

Originally Posted by Cew27 i missread the above post, i thaught he said he wanted to build a gaming pc also why ot get a quad now, it will be better utilised in the future

Because if there's no conceivable reason a non-gamer would need a high-powered dual, why would he need a conceivably high-powered quad? That seems like an even worse proposition.

[Cew27]

because what you are suggesting is fine for the moment but in a years time it wont be

[Carbon]

Originally Posted by Cew27 because what you are suggesting is fine for the moment but in a years time it wont be

Prove it.

It's easy to say "this won't work in the future", but people are still surfing the Internet on Pentium 3s. People are still running Celerons. People are still gaming on Pentium 4s. ATI just released a AGP bus 3850. There's no problem with futureproofing, but buying into quad-cores is buying into blind hope that that's where the market will go and that's not certain at all.

Regardless, the problem is with power. What will someone with a non-gaming PC do? Surf the Internet, play music, do IM stuff. Most of this can be achieved on a 4+ year old PC, but the OP wants to build a new one and that's fine as it's his decision. I suggested a budget 45nm dual-core for the reason that it speeds up multitasking (run Windows on one core, apps on another), is relatively cheap ($133 MSRP), and is the defacto industry standard.

None of the quads have these properties. There is no conceivable reason most gamers need a quad-core (beyond hype propagated by CPU manufacturers and fed to gamers), so why would someone like the OP need one?

The thing is - they don't. Anyone who claims that quad-core is the way of the future needs to research the death of NetBurst. There are no certainties in this industry.

As an expert, you have to do your best to present the evidence fairly, because any bias or skew will go unnoticed by those requesting your help. It's an implicit trust in your abilities to be impartial. It's not something you can do a drive-by "get a quad, it'll work in the future" post on, it's hundreds of dollars of someone's money. Again - I respect your opinion and those of the rest in the thread. I just disagree heavily from a cost/performance standpoint.

[Cew27]

carbon be realistic! sure an anchient pc will perform but not that that it can its how well