New PC: Q1 CPU

Still struggling over the spec for new PC, Current dilemma:

First question AMD or Intel?  I am happy with Intel, and it seems that Photoshop CS4 is written to take advantage of the Intel instruction set, so… Intel it is>

Next Question:
Do I Spend £180 and get a 3.1GHz dual core (E8500) or for an extra £100 get a 2.8 GHz quad core (Q9550)? 

Moving up the quad core speed list the 3.0 GHz Q9650 is about £460 – way too expensive.

The Core i7 CPU’s are the last option, with the 2.66 GHz version (i7-920) being available for about £240 (faster versions jump to £490/£880 for 2.9/3.2 GHz)

The article on Tom’s Hardware (CPU Charts Q3 2008)confirms that the dual core at a 3.1 GHz would be on average 35% faster than my current processor across a range of real world applications*, moving to a 2.8GH Quad core would, in most cases only give me a 20% improvement, and the 2.6 GHz i7 would be even worse at a mere 11%.

This is a only true, however, for those apps which currently are not written to take advantage of multiple cores (i.e. almost everything!)  For the select few that are (WinRAR 3.8, AVG antivirus) the improvement for the Quad Core averages 90%, and for the i7 130%!!

If software writers continue to be slow on the uptake of this multi-core technology, I think the 3.1 GH Dual core is the way to go.

* The benchmarks considered here were: 
Applying multiple filters to a large image in Photoshop CS3
Zipping up a large number of files with Winzip 11
Ripping a DVD in iTunes
Converting a large document in Acrobat Pro 9
Running a demo in Unreal Tournament 3.0
Scanning a collection of files with Grisoft AVG 8
Zipping a large number of files with WinRAR 3.8

Only the last two apps are ‘Multi-Core Optimised’