If the cores for both CPUs were the same, would that be the only advantage?
More specifically, I plan on getting the AMD Phenom II X3 710, but it just occured to me that all I would be using my computer for would be basic gaming, and basic video editing. It's not like I woul really be able to do those both at the same time right? Maybe I would listen to iTunes at the same time of surfing the web, playing games or editing, but not much more multitasking. So I figured maybe it would be more practical to get the Phenom II X2 550, which is the same price but has stronger cores. What do you think? Thanks in advance for the help.
If you do stuff like convert a lot of dvd's to other formats, get more cores, if not then it wont make a big diff. If you run a lot of virtual machines, more cores is good, if you don't, then not really.
something else that should be pointed out about quadcores. core2quads dont work so great as quadcores. yes, there are 4 cores, but it exceedingly difficult to write code to get multithreading working properly past 2 cores. stems from the design, 2x2, not an actual quadcore.
Maybe I would listen to iTunes at the same time of surfing the web, playing games or editing, but not much more multitasking.
There is more going on than that in your computer. Pop up Task Manager and look at all the processes loaded or running in the background. As soon as you have a multicore CPU, CPU utilization rates become less important.
OK, since I havnt seen it mentioned yet, everyone is bypassing what really the true potential of 2 vs 4 can mean. Multi threading is more important to any particular single app alone, and having more cores will help there, as well as multi tasking