Question : Problem: Quad Core or Duo Core" Any simple anwers?

First, I am not a tech type or a super geek.

I need to replace a 4-year-old desktop and I'm looking at two desktops at my favorite local computer store, Micro Center. They are both store brands, Micro Spec models. One is a quad core and one is a duo core.

By the way, I am not a tech type of a super geek.

I run Windows XP and plan to continue to use XP. My main computer usage is standard programs (word processing, spreadsheets, etc.), other relatively simple programs, and a fair amount of Internet use, part of which involves using onlin applications for stock market analysis. I am not a gamer, and the most extreme thing I do is occasionally make DVD copies from VHS tapes, but this is definitely not a high priority.

I guess you'd call me an average computer user. I've looked at replies on EE and elsewhere and not being a tech type or super geek (did I mention that?), about the only thing I really understand is that quad cores run hotter than duo cores, and I can't infer if that's a real issue or not.

I just want to know, based on my usage, which of the two models would serve me best. There's about a $200 difference between the two, and I'd like to spend my money wisely.

So, experts, what do you think? Which machine would be the better investment for me? I do not expect my style of computer usage to change very much over the next few years.

Thanks in advance for your time and help.

Answer : Problem: Quad Core or Duo Core" Any simple anwers?

A couple of general guidelines ...

First, be sure the systems you're looking at use Intel CPU's => the Intel Core-architecture CPU's perform FAR better than AMD CPUs.   I presume that's the case already, but you didn't give specific model numbers, so I can't verify it.

Second, for the usage you've described there's no reason to buy a quad core system -- any good Core 2 based CPU will provide far more CPU "horsepower" than you need.   As you've already noted, the dual core CPUs run cooler than the quad cores -- a Core 2 Duo consumes up to 65 watts;  a quad consumes up to 95 watts (or more -- the high-end units are 120 watt).

I've built many quad-core systems for friends (typically using Q9450 or Q9550 CPUs); but selected an E8400 for my own use -- I like my systems to run cool and quiet ... with less heat being generated I can keep the fans at lower speeds & thus keep the system quieter (it's hard to even tell it's on).   I could easily swap my E8400 out for a Q9550 (or better) ... but have NO desire to do so.  I'm confident you'd have PLENTY of "horsepower" with a good Core 2 duo.

Having said that, a quad core does have a bit more "future proofing" potential -- clearly the more "horsepower" you have, the better you can deal with future, even-more-bloated, software.   But to really evaluate the relative systems, you need to provide the model #'s of the systems you're comparing.     To put things in perspective, a typical system of 4 years ago was probably based on a Pentium-IV at 3.2GHz.  This scores 496 on PassMark's CPUMark -- an excellent measure of CPU "horsepower".   A couple of typical Core 2 Duo's are an E7300, which scores 1728, or an E8400, which scores 2087.   A typical Core 2 Quad, the Q8200,  scores 3131.   Note that most systems use a VERY small percentage of their CPU's "horsepower" during normal usage -- so the difference in day-to-day performance you'll see is much less than these numbers might imply unless you're doing very CPU-intensive tasks (which you indicated you are not).   You might want to run Task Manager on your current system and observe the CPU % for a while, just to get a feel for how much you're using now.   A faster CPU WILL, however, notably improve booting and program initialization times (where the CPU is heavily utilized).

Bottom line:   A Core 2 Duo is PLENTY for your needs, and is what I'd recommend for you.   A quad will provide very marginal gains and will both use more power and run warmer.