as setup that uses
core i5 - 760 - ( 2.8 Ghz ) 4 cores / no hyper-threading / 45 nm => mid range price
OS : XP SP3... maybe W7 later on
perenially running Apache with php / MySQL
almost always run Eclipse PDT ( runs on Java ) , as well as MySQL gui tools
with all 5 browsers perenially on ( IE / Opera / Safari / Chrome / FF ) with multiple tabs at any given time
some CS3 - test flash development
some VirtualBox - [ test some 3 os simultaneously Debian server, Ubuntu Client, Windows XP Client ]
maybe play some tomb raider underworld
the i5 setup costs close to twice that of the i3, ( but will it have that 2X performance edge over the i3 ? )
also, what does the 32 nm vs 45 nm imply ( given the applications i'll be running )
The i7 980X costs 5 times that of the i5 750 but surely wont bring 5 times the performance to the table.. Now for the recommendation, its i5 760 all the way.. If you are budget restricted though, you can start with the i3 for now and upgrade to the i5 760 or better sometime down the line (provided it is available then)..
i do agree that i5 is better than i3, but is it really much better?
i mean, from what i see, the i3 has 2.93 ghz vs i5 2.8 ghz, the 32 nm seems better than the 45 nm ( although i'm not really sure what that means other than less heat ), and with the i3's hyper threading...
it does not appear like the i5 has a sizeable advantage ( of course, i may not have a good idea of what this all mean )
0.13 GHz difference is too less a number.. Especially considering that those chips can easily be overclocked to much higher numbers.. The 760 is a true quad core and this is where its main advantage is.. Hyper-threading is mostly useless.. As for the nm difference, its just based on newer manufacturing tech.. Architecture wise, they are basically the same.. And yes, 32nm by the virtue of a narrower gate leads to lesser leakage which leads to lesser heat.. However, the i5 too is not that hot a chip..