der.hans wrote:
> I'm wanting to do some virtual machine testing.
[snip]
> With this box, though, I'd like something that'll handle well for
> virtualization stuff, but not be a power hog.
> 
> I would generally prefer something from AMD. Would the Intel quad core
> CPUs make a huge difference?

You just said one of the (very few) magic words that can actually be 
used to justify a quad-core CPU -- virtualization.  Quad-core chips are 
massive (mostly unused) overkill for 99% of the people who get them, but 
for those that have CPU bound apps, they can be a boon.

This, of course, is assuming that you will be doing mostly CPU intensive 
stuff in the VMs.  VMs are pretty poor at I/O bound usage patterns, in 
any event.

Quad-core CPUs also excel at development.  I was doing a bit of 
development on a quad-CPU system (pre "core" CPUs) for a while and was 
in heaven very time I did a compile.

To skew this a bit closer to reality, though, you might want to consider 
just how many VMs you will be running simultaneously.  If it's only one, 
then quad-core isn't worth it.  Go with a faster dual-core for the same 
money... it'll be far more useful.

One final thing: while I completely understand the urge to go with AMD 
vs Intel (I have the same tendency), I don't know that it's easy to 
justify that right now.  The Intel Core2 chips are amazingly fast for 
about the same price as the AMD chips.  They whip even the latest and 
greatest AMD chips on not only the top-end, but bang for the buck.

Kurt