Another question about buying a new system

[blackllotus]

As I posted in a thread a little while ago I stated that I will be buying a new system in the middle of July on the 15th or so (that specific date because thats how my schedule plays out). In the old thread the AMD 3200+ processor was the recommended one, however I'm reading everywhere about the switch to dual core processors (and eventually quad core and beyond). I want my computer to last for atleast 2-3 years, and I'm worried that a single core processor might get outdated faster than a dual core processor since companies are going to start making their applications and games multithreaded.

Anyways my question about the processor was whether a Pentium D would offer sufficient performance. I know AMD is generally better for games and such (which would be one of the uses of the system), but I am hesitant to fork over $500 for a processor. Will a Pentium D (probably the cheapest or second cheapest) perform better in 2-3 years than a single core AMD 3200+? If so I may consider that. I don't need the ultimate performance in gaming (hell I play half life 2 on my xp 1800+ and it doesn't lag too bad), and I doubt the Pentium D is a terrible chip.

Another possibility, although more remote, is forking over the cash for an X2 (4400 seems to be the recommended one). I would only do this if I could get the X2 + motherboard + 1 gig of RAM + 160 gig hard drive for under $1000, and even then I'm not positive I would do it. I was hoping to spend under $700 or $600 for my new system, but I don't want to have to replace it too soon.

Are my worries about the "invasion" of dual core processors valid? If so would the Pentium D be perfectly fine? Or would I really have to push for the X2?

 

[Deinonych]

The nice thing about buying a 3200+ today is that you can upgrade to a dual-core later (they use the same socket). With Intel, you have to buy a completely new board. AMD procs are not only faster for games, but they also run cooler than their Intel counterparts. So, you can build a fast system that uses less power, generates less heat and can run quieter.

But, if you really want dual-core today on a limited budget, Intel is probably the way to go.

 

[gnomepunk]

*peeks into his crystal ball*

YES!!eleven!11!!!1 Dual Cores will save the future world!

Honstly (aka. imho) I didn't buy into the dual core hype. I just rebuilt my box a few weeks ago and upgraded from a XP 3000+ (@2.3) to my current venice. I really think you will be fine for the next 2-3 years w/o a dual core. If you haven't found a reason to upgrade to a multi-cpu setup up til now, then you might not need one. I would let the market get over the hype and see how fast applications/games are coming out that will benefit from dual core. Yes yes, you can play HL2 and encode Divx at the same time on a dual core, but unless you really have a need for a dual core chip, pricewise you'll do much better going for an A64.

 

[blackllotus]

Ok thanks for the help! I think I'll stick to my original plan of a 3200+ (though i may opt for the 3500+ since I don't oc, I'll see how it fits in with my budget).