I am a .net developer (currently using Visual Studio 2008). I am looking to buy a new computer which I don't want to change for the next 3 years.
Among the choices I have, I am thinking whether a dual core 3 GHz machine will be better, or will a 2.4 GHz quad core machine be better?
Please help.
Update: This is what I got finally: Intel Q9550 (quad core with 12 M Cache) 4 GB RAM 10K rpm hard drive
Currently a higher-clocked dual-core system is probably faster for use with Visual Studio.
However, that could change over the next three years, and if you want to be able to test your own multi-threaded code the quad core system is probably the better choice.
I don't believe VS 2008 takes advantage of multiple cores so going with the GHz over the cores would be the solid move. On the other hand... You can run more instances on the other cores.
Given that I would still probably go for the GHz over the cores since not that many things take real advantage of the excess cores. Of course that is very likely to change in the future. :)
Our illustrious Jeff Attwood actually has a blog post on this topic:
However, I would get a quad. Might as well.
For programming tasks, Harddisk speeds is a bigger bottleneck than CPU clock speeds.
I believe Jeff has mentioned that during his Building a PC series as well as in Scott Hanselman's Ultimate Developer rig series
Those 2 series of blog posts provide loads of useful information you might want to take a look
I say go for the quad core. Then you can OC it to 3GHz. Then it's the best of both worlds.
Three years is a lot of time, I'd go for the quad core. The reason is: Today, Visual Studio won't use it, but in three years… you don't know. Given that you're aiming for a system that might last about three years, that would be, IMO, the wisest decision.
On the other hand, the speed difference between 2.4 a 3.0 on a single core could be noticeable. But as others have mentioned, get a 10.000rpm hard drive and you'll be happier.
Good luck with your system!
Max out your RAM. The linker is RAM-intensive, and so is Visual Studio.
Does anyone think the next version of VS will use less RAM?
I would definitely go with as many cores as possible even if each is somewhat smaller.
Most frustrations as a developer (and a computer user in general) come not from the time it takes to do an operation but rather with the slowing-to-a-churn of other things as a major operation is taking place, or with the jittery start-and-stops of fluent movement that occur.
Considering that most IDEs run a crapload of threads, and you are also probably using other applications, more cores are better and reduce the switching load on the computer.
For example, I typically run: 1) Eclipse IDE, which keeps the console for the program that is running 2) Another copy of Eclipse IDE or the application I am testing 3) A database server 4) Some other daemons.
I would much rather have all four run at the same time then have them run faster but have to switch.
Given the frustration I have with a two core machine and seeing high CPU usage, I think my blood pressure would rise less on a 4 processor box...
That and lots more memory.
Visual Studio is VERY disk intensive. That is your #1 concern. Plus, if you're using MSBuild, you can use as many cores as you want by compiling from the command line.
Tip 1: Get a Quad. Tip 2: Get a 10k RPM Boot Drive Tip 3: Put Windows and VS on one disk, and all your code on another Tip 4: Run 64bit Vista with 4+ Gigs of RAM.
This can all be done under $1000.