wolfram23 :
isn't it purely logical that more cores = more productive?
I think this is up to the individual person and what they are doing. Most apps will not take advantage of multiple cores, so whatever your main app is would run about as well on a single core machine. Granted there are apps such as video processing that will use multiple cores, and there are other things going on in your computer. At one time there was a tradeoff in clock speed- you could run a dual core cpu faster than you could run a quad core. For instance I have a quad core at home running 3.4GHz and a dual core at work that runs 3.8GHz. For my apps that only use one core, the dual core is faster. And the other tradeoff, that we still have to some extent, is cost. The quad core will be more expensive than the dual core.
At work I run the dual core and it is plenty of cores for what I do. I can have apps running in the background doing file backups or background plotting and I can still use the machine without much slowdown, but sometimes I detect some slowdown. At home on my quadcore I can run a full virus scan and do other things in the foreground and never know the virus scan is running.
Based on my experience at home I would suggest getting quad cores whenever you can. For instance if it is just a matter of a slightly higher cpu cost, then get the quad core. But if you are buying a laptop and a preconfigured desktop and the one you select is only a dual core, then it may not make that much difference to you. I do feel strongly about at least 2 cores though. I wanted a netbook for a long time but didn't want a single core processor so I bought a 13" machine with dual core ultra low voltage cpu.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram