|
The only reason not to get dual-core for a workstation system is because you found a screaming deal on a closeout single-core.
The argument about software not taking advantage of dual-core is a sorry analog of the anti 64-bit arguments. Dual-core is a completely different technology. There's no basis for waiting besides price. Perhaps, if you only run one single-threaded application, and never try to do something else at the same time, then you may not see a benefit from dual core. (Single-threaded benchmarks can make it look this way.) But I don't see users besides absolute beginners who use their systems that way. For multimedia apps and a desktop replacement dual-core is a no-brainer.
As for which to buy, pick your point on the curve. You'll find any of the dual cores will be much better than the single if you load up and use a combination of apps. I would peak at the 4800 given the FX60 price jump. Just be sure to buy enough memory. Another core won't help your system page to disk any faster. Put another way, not having enough memory means twice as many cores are waiting for the disk I/O so they can get some work done.
__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195
|