Sure I'd spec different cpus, here's some examples:
1) Wife needed a new machine. She will never game nor Photoshop nor transcode anything. She doesn't store photos, only her iTunes library and cookbooks. But she tends to open 4 or 5 browser windows to track bird cams and chats, then opens Outlook for email, while loading her audio books into iTunes . . . while cooking.
She doesn't need speed, nor many cores, because nothing is cpu-bound for more than a split-second. And there was no need to use anything other than onboard graphics. I gave her an i3 530, 4GB, Win7, and gave her an SSD because it was her birthday
It fits in a 12"x 12"x2.5" high case on her kitchen desk behind her 23" monitor, runs cool and quiet. She's happy. So I am at peace
2) For any PC that will be involved in gaming, I don't see much point in using less than an i5 750. Minimum entry price here is currently $285 for it plus a mobo, and realistically a few bucks more can be spent on the mobo. And if one wanted to prepare for 2xvideo cards, the price might climb to ~$350 (all extra spent on the mobo). I'm sitting alongside one now, it's my #2 PC and has an HD 5750 for gaming because my second screen is 1680 res.
That cpu won't run Autodesk as fast, but if you were careful it would come close because it overclocks itself when you don't stress too many cores. Also, it can be one-button-overclocked to 3GHz using utilities that come with Gigabyte/Asus mobos (but so could the dual core). I didn't sense you were willing to explore that level of complexity.
For gaming, it's in the top-tier of processors.
3) For a top of the line gaming system, where you are spending money in larger increments for smaller improvements in performance, I'd use an i7 930 and 2 vid cards appropriate to the screen resolution I'm using. These systems are more expensive, and perhaps more important throw off SIGNIFICANTLY more heat, using much more power. Most likely only "needed" if for some reason you choose to game at 2500 resolution.
Win7-64: I might try it myself for Autodesk. But I wouldn't recommend it to someone else, for exactly the reason you gave, when the 64-bit OS is not needed for some other observable reason. I didn't observe one from you.
SSDs: Worth the money? Very tough question. They are as fast as one can get, with the only complication being money. For those of us who are in a hurry to boot when we are late for a raid, or need to load a new zone, SSDs are worth the price. If you spend a lot of time using an application that thrashes the disk, an SSD is indicated. If you can afford one. You use it for the OS and the game or two, app or two that are currently important. All else goes on a second drive, which can now be large, slow, and greener a normal HD.
Why not i7? Answered above - HEAT, and a COST disproportionate to the gains for 99% of us. Oh, and electricity too.
Finally (yes this has an end lol), if you wanted to be prepared for stuff like gaming, I'd use the i5 750 and a better mobo, but I'd stick with the graphics card you have. We can probably get it to run Autodesk as well as the (stock) dual core, if you are willing to work at it a bit. You can game with that card at lower than HD resolutions (as you can with the dual core), it might well prove enough. If/when you exceed its capacity, a new graphics card, $230-$360, would be the next step, if your screen res is 1920x1080.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram