Imagine the following scenario:
 
I am working on a project that requires frequent rebuilds of several modules (j2ee based) and worse, oracle db rebuilds (build scripts - this one takes 1.5 hours on a P4 2.8 non-ht).
 
Ideally, I would love to be able to  
a) start building the entire project
b) simultaneously start building the db
c) listen to my music
d) surf the company intranet while doing all this
 
Would 2 cores work here? I dont know, i guess one core will be completely taken up with the project build and the other with the db build and i wont have enough cpu cycles to listen to my music or use firefox.
 
I haven't been able to test how well it would work on a dual core machine coz my comp is too cheap to give me a dual core machine lol - im contemplating on building my own dual core machine to see whether i can get more done in less time...
 
any thoughts about this? Does anybody have any experience with using a main stream dual core system like a 4400+ or E6300 doing tasks like what i described?

Apart form heavy users and the biggest gaming addicts, quad still seems a bit overkill to me. Single core isn't the way of the past, but more and more they seem to be relegated to budget and energy effecient models. Dual core is the best for the majority of people. It does what it has to do and it works well with your hypothetical situation and anything I might through at mine. For those that are using AutoCAD, Photoshop and encoding something in Divx, there I'd recommend a quad.
Besides that, to me atleast there needs to be more applications optimized for the quads before I jump to Kentsfield or Quaddaddy. Would I get one though? Yep.
They just feel more useful for a server than for home/office/gaming/programming just yet.
DaSick

To me it sound like you'd be fine with 2. Listening to music and browsing the internet are hardly cpu intensive if setup properly.
 
Some tasks are aided by more. I have a 4p 8-core Opty system that I have maxed out all of the cores at once and could probably max out what every number of cores you gave me (non-cluster because the interconnects are slow...).

I have an E6400 in my HTPC, as well as an E6600 for my main gaming rig.
 
My HTPC runs almost all the time, except when I put it on standby when I go to bed (it still records in standby).  I can have it run live TV in a window, as well as play music, and surf the 'net, but I usually don't do that.  I did try playing a DVD and have live TV on at the same time (had to open TV in media center window, and DVD in a seperate window).  Ran fine.  There was a time when it stuttered a bit, but that was when AV started its scan.
 
As for your question about multi-cores.  I look at it this way...
If a mutli-core (more than 4) costs just as much as a mid-range CPU does today, then even if it's overkill, I would get one.  To me, it's not so much processor power as much as it's how much processor power can I get for the price.

 
But would you consider energy consumption in this equation as well?

Depends on where you are, and what you're using. In a office, using a laptop, in a HTPC?

 
But would you consider energy consumption in this equation as well?
 
Power consumption is something I would consider if my power bill was enormous.  Right now, I use more in my AC than in my CPU.  So, no, I wouldn't really care about power consumption, unless it was a laptop or portable system.  Or, if I was running a server farm or something with more than 4 systems running.
 
I have 1 HTPC on most of the day, and 1 gaming rig, which isn't on all the time, so power usage isn't a concern.
 
If you're asking if multi-cores would create more demand in power, then I would consider it, especially if I needed a 1kW PSU to run just the CPU, and not the whole system.

 
Imagine if these things where related??

 
That's exactly my concern right now. the industry seems to be moving towards higher and higher power consumption levels. Agreed that intel came around with an awesome performance to power consumption ratio with their new core2duo line, but then again, with the introduction of the quad based versions, we have edged pretty high in the power consumption scale. Given the performance/power ratio might have remained the same (adding more cores consumes more power), however isn't it becoming a concern to the industry that 800+ Watt power supplies are becoming normal in the ultra high end? (Multi GPU solutions are to blame too).
 
To sum it up, I'm a little concerned that in the quest for higher performance, the ultra high end systems in the not too distant future might consume as much power as an A/C (ok thats over dramatization but u get the point)

 
Imagine if these things where related??
 
You would think, but being in the high desert of New Mexico, it's always kind of warm in the summer/early fall.
 
My house uses refrigerated air for cooling, so it's not constantly on, but I am assuming that just turning it on uses more AC than my computer, since it runs both the AC and fan.
 
But when I was running my 840EE, you could feel it in my computer room, slowly heating up the room.

Aren’t the mainstream Server Quad CPUs supposed to have a TDP of 80W, which gives them a much better performance per watt than the current dual core Woodcrest chips!  Quad 2.33 GHz at 80W versus Dual 3 GHz at 80W.

It falls on one thing.  It depends on what you use the computers for
 
1 quad cores will not run games yet.
2 Theres only a few games that run Dual core cpus.
3 The power is another view we need to look at.

I honestly believe, two cores at most in today's environment.
 
In future, four cores max. You start getting less benefit from more cores, even with multi threading when you realize that most of the cores do no work at all. After all there is a limit to how many thinks a person can do interactively.
 
In your case you may benefit from more cores, maybe more in the future as compilers and debuggers and such start to optimized for multi-core environments.
 
As for general users, four cores max IMHO, even everyday CPU intensive tasks like compression and decompression, makes little difference between say 1 minute or 30 seconds.
 
I think the multi-core architechture is "cheating" to get more performance when we should be looking at newer and better technology.

I think dual core is fine for most people, but for Video/Rendering type apps bring on the SMP Quad cores baby.    
HD Video editing of H.264 footage is very CPU intensive and scales well, so the more cores the merrier.
In terms of power consumption, once 45nm is released Quad cores should be attractive.

Personally I'd be much happier with a single core at 8GHz, but since that is not likely to happen with the current architectures, then I say gimme as many cores as I can afford, but gimme the software that takes advantage of it too! No point having expensive cores sitting there idling all day.

 
Just curious - what is Oracle db rebuild? (I ask because I have been developing oracle/c++ apps for last 7 years

 
 
I use a 4400+ for dev work and gaming and it's great. 4x4 is my next purchase. I would get Kentsfield but I like AMD. Dell has Dimensions with 4200+ - 5000+ for $500 with 17" monitor. Your builds will speed up tremendously as AMD does compile faster than NetBust.

C'mon Baron, where is this guy making reference that he's going to purchase a netburst-based cpu? He already have one and just wants to upgreade to better tech. He is clearly asking for advice between the X2 or Core2...Not that the advice you're giving to muharizj is bad, I acknowledge that any X2+ cpu is a great performer...Not meant at you to start flaming or anything, but I can understand why some members just start flaming your arse!    
 
You and I both know that a Core2 will compile code, will run programs and games faster. It's nice to see you around, it's been like more than 2 days since the last post I saw coming from you, just to see this post coming from you. Please man, don't make me hate you like some other members do.
 
Peace
 
Edit: Well, I didn't mean to hate you like in hating someone...but you do get the point, right?