Are you trying to build a "cheap and performing system",
mainly for single threaded applications ? Are you trying
to build a box for video editing, where the editor can
use multiple cores during rendering ?
Some programs, would get most of their benefit, from
a single core running as fast as possible. Fewer programs,
are multithreaded, and a multicore chip can blow away
the single core in that case. Many benchmarks you might
find in the Tomshardware charts, are going to emphasize the
multithreaded test case.
I can illustrate with my own choice. I bought a 2.6Ghz Core2
Duo. It isn't the fastest chip (because if you buy faster
off the shelf, you pay too much for it). You can overclock
chips, depending on how far an individual chip can be pushed.
So I could buy a 2.6GHz processor, and overclock to 3GHz.
I might pay $80 for the 2.6GHz processor, and through overclocking,
end up with the same performance as the $160 product.
The last application I used, that actually used the two cores flat
out, was Windows Movie Maker. A lot of the other stuff I do
(web browsing and the like), doesn't need four cores. It
would be "1.x" cores, with perhaps some benefit from a
second core. I can tell you though, while waiting for Windows
Movie Maker to finish outputting my sample movie, I'd pay
for a quad core to speed that up. I'm not seriously interested
in video, so no quad for me
If you know that the majority of your software is multithreaded,
or if you know you'll have a particular application running
in the background all the time (i.e. using a core all to itself
in effect), then more cores would help. Based on your own software
mix, you can choose a lower speed quad, compared to a higher speed
dual.
I checked the Newegg reviews, in the entry for the 9650 2.3GHz, and one
of the reviewers suggested this instead.
AMD Phenom II X2 550 Black Edition Callisto 3.1GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache
6MB L3 Cache Socket AM3 80W Dual-Core Processor $103
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16819103680
It is a four core processor, where two of the cores have tested good.
Depending on the motherboard and BIOS features, you can unlock
the other two cores. To me, even if the four cores did not all
work flawlessly, there is still the advantage of a dual running
at 3.1GHz or higher (as overclocking allows). So that is a product
you could play with, and get a little more out of it.
The 550 is in the list here, supported by BIOS F3.
http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Support/Motherboard/CPUSupport_Model.aspx?ProductID=3016
On the memory front, the AMD processors are limited to two slots
when pushing memory at the highest speeds. So if I was shopping
for memory, I'd be aiming for a two stick configuration as my final
configuration.
