blckgrffn
Diamond Member
I wont argue with you about the hex core deal being a good one. But I dont really see that single thread performance will ever become "negligible". What is a quad core or even hex core? 4 or 6 single threads. If you can make those threads faster, the multi core processor will be faster as well.
And for the needs of he OP, I dont think a hex core is at all necessary. If he is able to overclock and willing to pay for power for cores he doesnt need, then the deal you stated could be a good one I guess. Personally though, I would prefer a faster dual core or quad core to an AMD hexcore, especially since the 2500 outperforms the AMD hex core in all but a few specialized applications while using less power. And I will stand by the i3 2100 recommendation for the OP. I am just saying if you insist on having more cores, I would prefer the i5 2500.
I meant that five or six years from now arguing the speed of a Phenom 2 core versus a Sandy Bridge core will largely academic. Six cores versus two cores is unlikely to be as an academic difference.
Software is growing more and more parallel in response to decreases in single thread performance.
Getting a dual core now for the long haul, even one with HT, is pretty silly in my opinion. Go quad+ - really, we are spoiled by how cheap these things have become.
