Do you think this computer will be good enough to run current(2009-2011) games..like Diablo3
Hp Pavilion Elite M9340F
Its a core 2 quad. I hear that quad processors actually decrease performance over a dual core processor. Is this true? For example if the program only takes advantage of 2 cores, would it matter to have a quad core processor?
This computer has 768MB of dedicated video memory..... this more than enough to run a high end game, right?
Over all is this a good computer. Also for its price. $1030 (There is a sale today might be cheaper)
Do you think Diablo 3 will be multi-threaded (Taking advantage of multiple cores)?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
Being that you have a quad core I wouldn't worry at all about performance. As long as they add up to more than 3GHz you should be fine. Since you have a quad core I'm sure you have more than a gig or 2 of ram. The only thing you should be worried about is your graphics card. You didn't mention what you have but chances are you'll run fine, but if you want the game to look its best you'll need to upgrade. In my experience stock computers usually don't come with a great graphics card. Unless you buy something built for gaming like an alienware, or XPS.
---
For the future, if anyone reading this thinks their graphics card might not cut it even when some specs are released, try this before buying a new graphics card.
There is a free program, here, called 3D Analyze. What this program does is emulates a better graphics card on your computer. How is that possible, you say? Its easy, it uses your processor to help with the graphics. That being said, you should understand that you need a lot of processor speed or you won't be able to do anything but play D3. It will seem confusing at first, and it should be. This program breaks it down to what exactly you need your graphics card to improve on, you can even pretend you have a completely different graphics card (one of three choices). If you get lost, the help file will tell you everything you could ever want to know (English and German translations only).
This program isn't designed to make a game run on your computer that normally wouldn't; it is to make things look a little better than what you already have.
Yuck at pre-built computers! I'm 99.9% sure that will run it fine, but you need to watchout with those pre-built trash cans, they usually have integrated graphics cards which can't run jack.
Intel core 2 Quad processor Q6700
2.66 GHz, 8MB L2, 1066 MHz FSB
750 GB harddrive
Vista Home Premium - 64 bit
6 GB Ram
Graphics: GeForce 9500 GS - 768 MB dedicated, 2303 MB total available.
cost is $1030 - Note: i didnt buy it yet...but it seems like a pretty good computer...i already looked into building one. $1100 is total im willing to spend + tax. If you have suggestions..im open for them.
The rest of the specs are small stuff, like having card readers or lightscribe..Look up specs for yourself if you want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
Intel core 2 Quad processor Q6700
2.66 GHz, 8MB L2, 1066 MHz FSB
750 GB harddrive
Vista Home Premium - 64 bit
6 GB Ram
Graphics: GeForce 9500 GS - 768 MB dedicated, 2303 MB total available.
cost is $1030 - Note: i didnt buy it yet...but it seems like a pretty good computer...i already looked into building one. $1100 is total im willing to spend + tax. If you have suggestions..im open for them.
2.66 GHz seems low for a quad core. I have 3.46 in this laptop on a dual core 1.73x2. Did you typo a 2 instead of a 3? Or maybe the site made a typo.
Then again maybe quad cores generally have less because of the 4 way attack lol. I've never looked into them much.
Intel core 2 Quad processor Q6700
2.66 GHz, 8MB L2, 1066 MHz FSB
750 GB harddrive
Vista Home Premium - 64 bit
6 GB Ram
Graphics: GeForce 9500 GS - 768 MB dedicated, 2303 MB total available.
cost is $1030 - Note: i didnt buy it yet...but it seems like a pretty good computer...i already looked into building one. $1100 is total im willing to spend + tax. If you have suggestions..im open for them.
The rest of the specs are small stuff, like having card readers or lightscribe..Look up specs for yourself if you want.
I'd want a 3.0+ GHz for the processor. You forgot to add a power supply to your list. You could use a old one though if you have one. Other than that, looks pretty good, if your serious about gaming try getting an ATI crossfire combatible board, and get a video card that supports it, you'll be running games for the next 5-6 years no problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you get personally attacked by letters through the internet its a good thing to always have a box of tissues and a band-aid around.
Intel core 2 Quad processor Q6700 - GOOD
2.66 GHz, 8MB L2, 1066 MHz FSB - GOOD
750 GB harddrive - GOOD
Vista Home Premium - 64 bit - YUCK, but GOOD
6 GB Ram - GOOD, OVERKILL
Graphics: GeForce 9500 GS - 768 MB dedicated, 2303 MB total available. - TERRIBLE
cost is $1030 - Note: i didnt buy it yet...but it seems like a pretty good computer...i already looked into building one. $1100 is total im willing to spend + tax. If you have suggestions..im open for them.
The rest of the specs are small stuff, like having card readers or lightscribe..Look up specs for yourself if you want.
See bold.
Video card is junk, I believe you're overpaying for that rig by around $400. Does it come with a monitor?
Do you have any suggestions for a good video card? What makes this one Garbage... lol
I havent bought a new pc in long time, im using a sooped up 10 year old computer, this computer is already 4 times better, but its still good to know. I am using an Hp pavilion 7960....512 ram, Pentium 4 and 1.3 GHz, 512 video memory.. time for a major upgrade lol.
if you have a better model, or link for all the peices i need to build it myself i would appreciate it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
If you want a good video card, or motherboard, I suggest making sure that there both Crossfire X compatible. Then get 2 of the same video card that are crossfire X comatible aswell. Then rig your setup with that. Heres a good card thats pretty cheap. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121217
I just bought 2 of these resently and I have them running in crossfireX, I'll be able to play games for the next 7 years probably without changing my setup. its a little more money, but its worth it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you get personally attacked by letters through the internet its a good thing to always have a box of tissues and a band-aid around.
I havent bought a computer in long time...im currently using a sooped up HP pavilion 7960 (about 8 - 10 years old). 1.3 GHz, 512 MB video memory, 512 ram....etc time for major upgrade...
If you can link to me a better model, or all the parts (for the price, $1000-1100 = most willing to pay) its greatly appreciated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
a Dual Core CPU is not exactly the same as taking the power of two single core CPU's and adding them together. The power of the two cores is not added together and then applied to any one program. The way it works is any multi-threading capable application, that means 64-bit applications ONLY, it's processing load can be split between the two processing cores to better handle the load but this is not done through some simple 50/50 split.
One way to look at it is like this, if you need to move 100 pounds of weight the distance of 100 miles, a single core would have to do that all by it's self. On a Dual Core, using a 64-bit program, the first core will move say 60 pounds and the second core will move the other 40 pounds at the same time. This allows the weight to travel the distance in a shorter amount of time but it's not the same as moving the 100 pounds twice as fast on it's own.
The first, main core, will always do the bulk of the work. Any 32-bit program is handle strictly by this core and can not address the second core to help share some of it's load. Most programs these days are still 32-bit and only a handful of games, like The Orange Box and Crysis, are 64-bit. Any 32-bit game will only be able to use that one core just like any other 32-bit program.
With all that said, if you were to compare a Single Core CPU and a Dual Core CPU, one core of the Dual Core is still more powerful then a regular Single Core CPU of the same GHz rating. A single core of a 2.0GHz Dual Core is still more powerful and more efficient then a 2.0GHz single core CPU. Dual Core CPU's have more transitors and larger cache's that allow them to handle more information faster. Because of this, when using a 64-bit application that can address both cores, a 2.0GHz Dual Core is actually more powerful then two 2.0GHz single cores put together.
New generations of Dual and Quad Core CPU's are also more powerful then previous generations of the same CPU. There have been various generations already with multi-core CPU's and a first gen Pentium D Dual Core @ 2.0GHz is not as powerful as the latest Wolfdale Series 2.0GHz Dual Core. Again, more transitors and a larger cache on the new chips compared to the old ones.
LMAO! Yahoo answers?! Like I said, it doesn't work like that - the CPU's work together efficiently but not at a rated combined speed. Hence why a single core processor at 3.0 GHz will outperform a dual-core processor at 3.0 GHz in a single threaded environment. If you think your 1.7 GHz Dual-Core runs at 3.4+ you've got another thing coming son, there's also something called OVERHEARD. The cores are designed to handle separate applications rather than loading x amount of your CPU(one total CPU not core) on your entire CPU on one thread thus being more efficient. You're thinking, "hey I have two cars going at 100 mph, so 100x2 = 200" The cores DO NOT FUSE to produce double the frequency that's just not possible. Here's a pro tip, I recommend you look at Anandtech/Tomshardware/hardforum if you're really interested in learning something.
Quote from "DarkMagicc" »
Do you have any suggestions for a good video card? What makes this one Garbage... lol
I havent bought a new pc in long time, im using a sooped up 10 year old computer, this computer is already 4 times better, but its still good to know. I am using an Hp pavilion 7960....512 ram, Pentium 4 and 1.3 GHz, 512 video memory.. time for a major upgrade lol.
if you have a better model, or link for all the peices i need to build it myself i would appreciate it.
Send me your e-mail in PM, I have a build for you under $900 that kills that HP.
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz LGA 775 65W Dual-Core
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s 32MB Cache
Antec Nine Hundred Black Computer Case
G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1000 (PC2 8000)
CORSAIR CMPSU-650TX 650W Power Supply
LG 20X DVD±R DVD Burner
OCZ Vendetta 92mm Ball CPU Cooler
ARCTIC COOLING MX-2 Thermal Compound
GIGABYTE GA-EP45-DS3R ATX Intel Motherboard
VisionTek Radeon HD 4870
$989 @ New Egg, I don't usually do prices for Americans (I'm Canadian) so these numbers can be a little high. Best thing is to usually look around in multiple places.
EDIT: If you want to go Quad-core feel free but the FPS gains/losses aren't worth it. Most benchmarks show the Quad-cores at a FPS disadvantage.
In my defense, what you said I'm thinking, is not at all what I said before. I said 3.46 divided into 2 cores, if you read it right. I never said that it ran at 3.46 all the time.
However, I took your advice, I went to one of those places you listed (I'm not saying which), and we'll see what happens.
In my defense, what you said I'm thinking, is not at all what I said before. I said 3.46 divided into 2 cores, if you read it right. I never said that it ran at 3.46 all the time.
However, I took your advice, I went to one of those places you listed (I'm not saying which), and we'll see what happens.
Wasn't trying to be an ass about it, but the whole 1.7 GHz Dual-Core = 3.4 is just a marketing gimmick, just like the whole dynamic contrast ratio on monitors.
If some people are confused, this will probably confuse you more.
1.7x2 does not = 3.4
0.85x2 does not = 1.7
1.7x2 = 1.7
In processor terms, involving multi-cores in one casing.
LMAO! Yahoo answers?! Like I said, it doesn't work like that - the CPU's work together efficiently but not at a rated combined speed. Hence why a single core processor at 3.0 GHz will outperform a dual-core processor at 3.0 GHz in a single threaded environment. If you think your 1.7 GHz Dual-Core runs at 3.4+ you've got another thing coming son, there's also something called OVERHEARD. The cores are designed to handle separate applications rather than loading x amount of your CPU(one total CPU not core) on your entire CPU on one thread thus being more efficient. You're thinking, "hey I have two cars going at 100 mph, so 100x2 = 200" The cores DO NOT FUSE to produce double the frequency that's just not possible. Here's a pro tip, I recommend you look at Anandtech/Tomshardware/hardforum if you're really interested in learning something.
Send me your e-mail in PM, I have a build for you under $900 that kills that HP.
You are partially incorrect in your first statement.
Let's say we take a Core 2 Duo E6600 (a Dual Core Processor) that runs at 2.4 Ghz. Now lets take another Core 2 Duo E6600 that runs at 2.4 Ghz and disable one of the two cores. Now we hypothetically have two identical processors as far as architecture goes (which makes a VERY big difference). Now, in single threaded applications, clock for clock they will perform identically. However, if you increase the core clock of the single core E6600 to 3.0 Ghz but leave the Dual Core E6600 at 2.4, then the single core will slightly outperform the dual core in single threaded applications.
Now, If you were to take that same dual core and increase the core clock to 3.0 Ghz and reduce the speed of the single core back to 2.4 Ghz, the dual core will outperform the single core in single threaded applications same as the other did at the same clock speed. It is all relitive to the speed of the processor when it comes down to them being of the same archetype.
Also, and this is a no brainer, throw a multi-threaded application into the mix and the Dual Core processor will win out by a large margin.
This is the "problem" so to speak with Dual and Quad cores. Most programs as well as upcoming programs are written and optimized only for Single and Dual core (or single threaded, and dual threaded) processors. What this means is if you have a Dual Core and it tires to run a single threaded application, it will run it only as fast as one of it's cores can push it through. However, the second core will attempt to break the application data into "two" in order to turn the single thread into dual threads in order to increase the processing speed, but because the application is not optimized for this, you will not see very much of a performance increase from this action.
Now, since there are very few programs that are optimized for Quad cores (except for industrial applications) you more often than not are having two wasted cores. Granted, Quad and more cores are the way of the future, it is not currently so for the present. If you took a 3.0 Ghz Dual core processor and ran a dual threaded application and took another 2.4 Ghz Quad core processor and ran the same program, the Dual core will outperform it by a slight percentage. And the same can be said for a single threaded application, however a new game like Diablo 3 will be optimized for more than one core. I can safely say this with no knowledge of the Diablo 3 requirements because it would simply be stupid to do otherwise.
Is it better to get a Dual Core over a Quad Core? Possibly. If all you plan to do is play video games, you will want the highest clocked Dual Core processor out. If you plan on doing more than video games, possibly video encoding, AUTO CAD, or some other intesive application, then you will want a Quad Core, however it would be wise to get the fastest Quad Core avalible if you go the Quad route.
Will your system be horrendiously slow because it has a Quad Core? Absolutely not! It will still be blazingly fast. Intel is the way to go right now in the Dual and Quad core processor markets. What matters more, however, is your Graphics Card performance. It's good to have a very fast Processor, but it is no good if you're running Integrated Graphics. I advocate a well balanced system. A good processor (Intel 2.66Ghz- 3.16Ghz), a good amount of ram (3-4 GBs), a decent sized hard drive (250-500 GBs), and an appropriate graphics card for your viewing screen.
Your Graphics Card performance will be capped and/or hindered by the size of your monitor. If you have a lower resolution monitor (1280x1024 or lower) then you will see no benifit from buying an expensive graphics card like the Geforce GTX280 because it will be limited by the size of your screen. The same applies for if you use a high resolution Monitor (1680x1050 or higher) because if you have a cheap little graphics card like the Geforce 9500, it won't be able to display the graphics at playable frame rates because it is having trouble keeping up rendering all those pixcils.
If you have a Low to Mid resolution monitor, I recommend getting one (1) of the following: (in order of cheapist to most expensive with each card faster than the next)
Nvidia:
9600GSO
9600GT
9800GT
9800GTX
ATI:
HD3850
HD3870
HD4850
HD4870
For High Resolution Monitors, you can either get one or dual or even tri and quad video cards (multiple cards via: SLI or Crossfire)
Again, each card is ordered cheapist to most expensive with the first card being slowist and last card being fastist
Nvidia:
9800GTX (can go up to tri-sli)
9800GX2 (dual cards for quad-sli)
GTX260 (can go up to tri-sli)
GTX280 (can go up to tri-sli)
ATI:
HD4850 (can go up to Crossfire-X which is 4 cards)
HD4870 (can go up to Crossfire-X which is 4 cards)
HD4870X2 (can Crossfire with 2 cards, not released yet)
I will not get into the pros and cons of multiple graphic solutions because this is a budget oriented discussion.
DarkMagicc, I highly recommend that you be VERY careful with what people tell you about computers. I assure you that a lot of people that think they know a lot about computers actually know very very little and are only telling you second hand, recycled information as well as some propeganda. Intel would very much want you to buy their brand new super-expensive quad cores even if all you want is a cheap yet well balanced and moderately performing system. If you want to be set right, I recommend checking out www.maximumpc.com and reading any of their articles on budgit PC's and attempt to learn as much as you can before you take the dive into buying a new computer, or possibly building your own computer.
If you have any questions, feel free to send me a Personal Message and I will attempt to do my best to set you straight with good knowledge.
No big deal, I was first offended when you laughed at Yahoo Answers; while yes, for the most part, people are probably wrong, but that guy seemed to know what hes talking about. And everything I've been reading since then is pretty congruent with what he said. One core of a dual core setup at 1.7 is faster than a single core 1.7, but the whole dual core at 3.4 is not faster than a single core 3.4 (which I think you said the latter of).
Calling me son didn't help, I hate that
I've been looking over this, this and this for now.
I just always assumed the Dual Core meant that the 2 cores pretty much split the work evenly (obviously not 50/50 all the time). But I do have this which shows me what they're up to all the time.
Ill check the build Krauser listed, and thanks for the info Varth...I do have some significant knowledge of computers, being as my knowledge might be slightly outdated i posted this thread. Ill check on it soon. Like i said my budget is about $1100 + tax = total.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Not Even Death Can Save You From Me" ~ Diablo (II)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hp Pavilion Elite M9340F
Its a core 2 quad. I hear that quad processors actually decrease performance over a dual core processor. Is this true? For example if the program only takes advantage of 2 cores, would it matter to have a quad core processor?
This computer has 768MB of dedicated video memory..... this more than enough to run a high end game, right?
Over all is this a good computer. Also for its price. $1030 (There is a sale today might be cheaper)
Do you think Diablo 3 will be multi-threaded (Taking advantage of multiple cores)?
---
For the future, if anyone reading this thinks their graphics card might not cut it even when some specs are released, try this before buying a new graphics card.
There is a free program, here, called 3D Analyze. What this program does is emulates a better graphics card on your computer. How is that possible, you say? Its easy, it uses your processor to help with the graphics. That being said, you should understand that you need a lot of processor speed or you won't be able to do anything but play D3. It will seem confusing at first, and it should be. This program breaks it down to what exactly you need your graphics card to improve on, you can even pretend you have a completely different graphics card (one of three choices). If you get lost, the help file will tell you everything you could ever want to know (English and German translations only).
This program isn't designed to make a game run on your computer that normally wouldn't; it is to make things look a little better than what you already have.
Intel core 2 Quad processor Q6700
2.66 GHz, 8MB L2, 1066 MHz FSB
750 GB harddrive
Vista Home Premium - 64 bit
6 GB Ram
Graphics: GeForce 9500 GS - 768 MB dedicated, 2303 MB total available.
cost is $1030 - Note: i didnt buy it yet...but it seems like a pretty good computer...i already looked into building one. $1100 is total im willing to spend + tax. If you have suggestions..im open for them.
The rest of the specs are small stuff, like having card readers or lightscribe..Look up specs for yourself if you want.
Then again maybe quad cores generally have less because of the 4 way attack lol. I've never looked into them much.
This isn't good enough??
No, that's just right. 3.45 // 1.73x2? lol, Unfortunately it doesn't work like that.
Good computer minus the video card, garbage.
I'd want a 3.0+ GHz for the processor. You forgot to add a power supply to your list. You could use a old one though if you have one. Other than that, looks pretty good, if your serious about gaming try getting an ATI crossfire combatible board, and get a video card that supports it, you'll be running games for the next 5-6 years no problem.
See bold.
Video card is junk, I believe you're overpaying for that rig by around $400. Does it come with a monitor?
I havent bought a new pc in long time, im using a sooped up 10 year old computer, this computer is already 4 times better, but its still good to know. I am using an Hp pavilion 7960....512 ram, Pentium 4 and 1.3 GHz, 512 video memory.. time for a major upgrade lol.
if you have a better model, or link for all the peices i need to build it myself i would appreciate it.
I just bought 2 of these resently and I have them running in crossfireX, I'll be able to play games for the next 7 years probably without changing my setup. its a little more money, but its worth it.
If you can link to me a better model, or all the parts (for the price, $1000-1100 = most willing to pay) its greatly appreciated.
Hows this then
LMAO! Yahoo answers?! Like I said, it doesn't work like that - the CPU's work together efficiently but not at a rated combined speed. Hence why a single core processor at 3.0 GHz will outperform a dual-core processor at 3.0 GHz in a single threaded environment. If you think your 1.7 GHz Dual-Core runs at 3.4+ you've got another thing coming son, there's also something called OVERHEARD. The cores are designed to handle separate applications rather than loading x amount of your CPU(one total CPU not core) on your entire CPU on one thread thus being more efficient. You're thinking, "hey I have two cars going at 100 mph, so 100x2 = 200" The cores DO NOT FUSE to produce double the frequency that's just not possible. Here's a pro tip, I recommend you look at Anandtech/Tomshardware/hardforum if you're really interested in learning something.
Send me your e-mail in PM, I have a build for you under $900 that kills that HP.
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz LGA 775 65W Dual-Core
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500GB 3.5" SATA 3.0Gb/s 32MB Cache
Antec Nine Hundred Black Computer Case
G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1000 (PC2 8000)
CORSAIR CMPSU-650TX 650W Power Supply
LG 20X DVD±R DVD Burner
OCZ Vendetta 92mm Ball CPU Cooler
ARCTIC COOLING MX-2 Thermal Compound
GIGABYTE GA-EP45-DS3R ATX Intel Motherboard
VisionTek Radeon HD 4870
$989 @ New Egg, I don't usually do prices for Americans (I'm Canadian) so these numbers can be a little high. Best thing is to usually look around in multiple places.
EDIT: If you want to go Quad-core feel free but the FPS gains/losses aren't worth it. Most benchmarks show the Quad-cores at a FPS disadvantage.
However, I took your advice, I went to one of those places you listed (I'm not saying which), and we'll see what happens.
Wasn't trying to be an ass about it, but the whole 1.7 GHz Dual-Core = 3.4 is just a marketing gimmick, just like the whole dynamic contrast ratio on monitors.
If some people are confused, this will probably confuse you more.
1.7x2 does not = 3.4
0.85x2 does not = 1.7
1.7x2 = 1.7
In processor terms, involving multi-cores in one casing.
You are partially incorrect in your first statement.
Let's say we take a Core 2 Duo E6600 (a Dual Core Processor) that runs at 2.4 Ghz. Now lets take another Core 2 Duo E6600 that runs at 2.4 Ghz and disable one of the two cores. Now we hypothetically have two identical processors as far as architecture goes (which makes a VERY big difference). Now, in single threaded applications, clock for clock they will perform identically. However, if you increase the core clock of the single core E6600 to 3.0 Ghz but leave the Dual Core E6600 at 2.4, then the single core will slightly outperform the dual core in single threaded applications.
Now, If you were to take that same dual core and increase the core clock to 3.0 Ghz and reduce the speed of the single core back to 2.4 Ghz, the dual core will outperform the single core in single threaded applications same as the other did at the same clock speed. It is all relitive to the speed of the processor when it comes down to them being of the same archetype.
Also, and this is a no brainer, throw a multi-threaded application into the mix and the Dual Core processor will win out by a large margin.
This is the "problem" so to speak with Dual and Quad cores. Most programs as well as upcoming programs are written and optimized only for Single and Dual core (or single threaded, and dual threaded) processors. What this means is if you have a Dual Core and it tires to run a single threaded application, it will run it only as fast as one of it's cores can push it through. However, the second core will attempt to break the application data into "two" in order to turn the single thread into dual threads in order to increase the processing speed, but because the application is not optimized for this, you will not see very much of a performance increase from this action.
Now, since there are very few programs that are optimized for Quad cores (except for industrial applications) you more often than not are having two wasted cores. Granted, Quad and more cores are the way of the future, it is not currently so for the present. If you took a 3.0 Ghz Dual core processor and ran a dual threaded application and took another 2.4 Ghz Quad core processor and ran the same program, the Dual core will outperform it by a slight percentage. And the same can be said for a single threaded application, however a new game like Diablo 3 will be optimized for more than one core. I can safely say this with no knowledge of the Diablo 3 requirements because it would simply be stupid to do otherwise.
Is it better to get a Dual Core over a Quad Core? Possibly. If all you plan to do is play video games, you will want the highest clocked Dual Core processor out. If you plan on doing more than video games, possibly video encoding, AUTO CAD, or some other intesive application, then you will want a Quad Core, however it would be wise to get the fastest Quad Core avalible if you go the Quad route.
Will your system be horrendiously slow because it has a Quad Core? Absolutely not! It will still be blazingly fast. Intel is the way to go right now in the Dual and Quad core processor markets. What matters more, however, is your Graphics Card performance. It's good to have a very fast Processor, but it is no good if you're running Integrated Graphics. I advocate a well balanced system. A good processor (Intel 2.66Ghz- 3.16Ghz), a good amount of ram (3-4 GBs), a decent sized hard drive (250-500 GBs), and an appropriate graphics card for your viewing screen.
Your Graphics Card performance will be capped and/or hindered by the size of your monitor. If you have a lower resolution monitor (1280x1024 or lower) then you will see no benifit from buying an expensive graphics card like the Geforce GTX280 because it will be limited by the size of your screen. The same applies for if you use a high resolution Monitor (1680x1050 or higher) because if you have a cheap little graphics card like the Geforce 9500, it won't be able to display the graphics at playable frame rates because it is having trouble keeping up rendering all those pixcils.
If you have a Low to Mid resolution monitor, I recommend getting one (1) of the following: (in order of cheapist to most expensive with each card faster than the next)
Nvidia:
9600GSO
9600GT
9800GT
9800GTX
ATI:
HD3850
HD3870
HD4850
HD4870
For High Resolution Monitors, you can either get one or dual or even tri and quad video cards (multiple cards via: SLI or Crossfire)
Again, each card is ordered cheapist to most expensive with the first card being slowist and last card being fastist
Nvidia:
9800GTX (can go up to tri-sli)
9800GX2 (dual cards for quad-sli)
GTX260 (can go up to tri-sli)
GTX280 (can go up to tri-sli)
ATI:
HD4850 (can go up to Crossfire-X which is 4 cards)
HD4870 (can go up to Crossfire-X which is 4 cards)
HD4870X2 (can Crossfire with 2 cards, not released yet)
I will not get into the pros and cons of multiple graphic solutions because this is a budget oriented discussion.
DarkMagicc, I highly recommend that you be VERY careful with what people tell you about computers. I assure you that a lot of people that think they know a lot about computers actually know very very little and are only telling you second hand, recycled information as well as some propeganda. Intel would very much want you to buy their brand new super-expensive quad cores even if all you want is a cheap yet well balanced and moderately performing system. If you want to be set right, I recommend checking out www.maximumpc.com and reading any of their articles on budgit PC's and attempt to learn as much as you can before you take the dive into buying a new computer, or possibly building your own computer.
If you have any questions, feel free to send me a Personal Message and I will attempt to do my best to set you straight with good knowledge.
Calling me son didn't help, I hate that
I've been looking over this, this and this for now.
I just always assumed the Dual Core meant that the 2 cores pretty much split the work evenly (obviously not 50/50 all the time). But I do have this which shows me what they're up to all the time.
Ill check the build Krauser listed, and thanks for the info Varth...I do have some significant knowledge of computers, being as my knowledge might be slightly outdated i posted this thread. Ill check on it soon. Like i said my budget is about $1100 + tax = total.