>>See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_core
>>
>>There is an advantages/disadvantages section down the page a ways.
>
>Thanks. I had looked at that page, and more specifically at the page for Intel Core 2 Duo, but now I re-examined especially the "disadvantages" part. One key sentence seems to be: "For example, most current (as of 2006) video games will run faster on a 3 GHz single-core processor than on a 2GHz dual-core processor (of the same core architecture), despite the dual-core theoretically having more processing power, because they are incapable of efficiently using more than one core at a time."
>
>Since gaming is probably going to be the most taxing job we'll give the computer. (Mainly for the kids. Well, perhaps including an "older kid" <g>.) So, I am currently leaning towards the faster, single-chip model.

Hilmar,

I will get to ordering a new machine later this month. My specs will be easy: either the cheapest Core 2 or Quad-Core. The Core2 4300/4400 series has relatively high multiplier for an FSB of 800MHz (intended as upgrade CPU for older boards). Make sure your board and memory can handle current FSB speeds and buy one of the better coolers. For most of the time you will have the machine running at 800FSB or even underclocked (which I do now since I first put XP mobiles im my boards) giving you nearly silent machines you can - if you need it - crank up a bit. Not even reboot necessary! All your other components will be up to the task, and most of the time the speed rating of Core2 CPU's has nothing to do with the abilities to run error-free. The Core 2 CPU's > 3.0 GHz-capable, you just have to give them the right environment. The true speed distribution is around 3.5 for physical/thermal reasons, and yes, the less capable CPU#s are the ones put into lower categories. But most of them are still able to come within 85-95% of median speed for the production type.

as for PIV: If this machine will be running each day for more than 1H the energy cost will offset the higher price of ANY modern (including AMD) CPU. If you don't consider overclocking, the bundled price of board and CPU of AMD is still competitive and they use less energy if running on idle. (I don't consider myself a "overclocker", as I don't spend much time there - I just set the technical values to point still considered safe to offset marketing hogwash, and also only for my own dev machines where time is more an issue<g>). We kept our production/datacrunching machines AMD (adding 2 this quarter), as they are 24H on and not overclocked.

DON'T buy a P IV! Buy an AMD first, if money is an issue. But the cheapest Core2 should cost around 100$ and is worth it.

regards

thomas