Intel vs AMD - a classic Q, which is better?

-Hello technophiles. This is a typical situation...

Getting a new system, using it for internet surfing and occasional CD / DVD burning with win7.



My question is; Is the Intel i3 a real (true) quad-core processor ?

Also is the Phenom X2 a real quad-core processor (using a AM3 motherboard) ?

Is this stuff just a bunch of techno-babble as in:

"so and so will make it a virtual quad-core even though It's really a dual-core...." and so on.



For my purposes, I could (probably) just get by with a Pentium/Athlon X2;

However using win7 and my experiences in the past with Microsoft OSes has tought me that - it's usually better to get a next-gen processor to begin with.



Looking for thoughts, comments and I do give credit to answerers that give links to prove their points.The Core i3 is a dual core processor, it doesn't have other hidden cores that can be unlocked. A Phenom X2 is a quad core processor with two cores disabled - these cores are disabled either to increase the number of X2 processors for sale, or because they are defective. If you're building a new machine then it's well worth considering the Sandy Bridge processors because they're quite a bit more powerful than the Phenom II series.Well the i3 had two physical and two virtual cores i think, so it's really not a true quad core processor but then it can outperform a true quad core like the AMD's quads.

Since Intel has always had the upper hand in terms or raw power over AMD it's pretty much expected for them to always outperform AMD.

Architecture is pretty much everything with CPU's, better architecture equals better performance.



For what you want to do, and AMD would work just fine, don't bother getting Intel if that's all you're going to be doing. If you're getting the AMD Black Edition II X2 3.2Ghz that is verry good for what you're doing.



If you can afford the Intel i3, or better, then get it i say. It's always better to be up to date or very close to what newer processors can do.