You want a quad-core processor if you're the type that likes to keep 150 browser tabs open while you check your IM, email, Twitter, and Facebook simultaneously, and then want to do photo editing work in Photoshop or play 3D intensive games on top of that. If all you're doing is puttering around the Web and don't expect anything strenuous from your PC a dual-core processor is sufficient.

As Zep notes, you do not necessarily need a quad core processor for your modest needs.

Assuming your new computer will be 64 bit then you might well go for 6 or even better 8 gigabytes of RAM (memory) because memory has never been so cheap as it seems these days. Regarding the hard drive I would doubt many are made any more with less than 500 gigabyte hard drives.

That tech gave you the PC equivalent of a car with a 4.0 liter engine, low profile wide tires, and a performance suspension.

For the uses you describe, a 2 or 3 core processor with 2-4 GB of RAM is likely all you need. These are kind of entry level/least expensive specs these days, so you won't need to look too hard to find something along these lines. If you don't do a lot with media files (photos/video/music), you won't come close to using even 100 GB of hard drive or the full capabilities of the multiple processors.

Good luck. If your current PC is older, you're likely to find a new one screaming fast. It's all relative.

Do not go with 2 to 4 gigs of RAM if the computer is a 64 bit machine - as most seem to be today. You will be very disappointed and as I mentioned above, RAM is at give away prices these days. I checked the first link for laptop RAM at Tigerdirect and as you will see it is under $48 for 8 gigs, extremely reasonable.

Perhaps others will jump in on this issue to bolster or refute by opinion.

I had xp, 32BIT dual core with 4 gigs of memory.
I now have Vista, 64BIT quad with 8 gigs of memory.

Go with the Quad 64BIT and Never look back!

Hmmm "I am impatient and if it speeds thing up I am for it."

That would kind of indicate you would like a quad core.. which usually will have more features, more state of the art.
Faster when you do have that virus scan or back up running while surfing the web. Higher end processors usually will have better graphics. Plus it will Last longer before its outdated with newer technology. Runs cooler if you don't really stress it with lots of the photo, spreadsheet, cad, etc programs. Do you need it No.. would you like it better,, of course.

Same with ram.. 4gb is minimum probably to keep you happy for most people on a 64 bit system. Generally more makes things faster. and if low on memory.. oooh you wont like that.
If graphic card shares memory.. it will perform better with lots of ram... ups your WEI.. Windows Experience Index.:)

How big is your hard drive now.. is it looking low on free space ? That should give you an idea about how big of a hard drive you can live with. I'm seeing a lot of solid stare SSD hard drives for the C drive = really fast boot and shut down and program startups,,, combined with a normal hard drive for basic storage.
If quad cpu,, might as well at least consider sata3 hard drive with the 6gb/s speed rating... and is latest hdd technology, basicaly twice as fast as todays 'standard 3gb/s sata2 hdd.

Maybe you don't need a quad core for your current needs, but needs have a way of changing unexpectedly. If a quad core won't stress your budget, why not? Should you ever decide to sell the machine to someone else, a quad core would make it more attractive to a potential buyer.

Thanks everyone!

This may be the last computer I buy so I guess I will look for the best price on the quad. It does irk me that my old Dell, because of the crash, has recently cost me almost $200. I do want to get a tower with Windows 7 (I don't think all the changes and diferences in 8 are for me) so I will shop now rather than wait to see what is available around Christmas time. It'll be an early Christmas gift to myself.
Nancy

Depending on where you shop and the sales you can often get a quad core for the same price as a dual core. But it doesn't all end there it really is what is the processor, is it old technology or latest technology. It gets near impossible to keep track.
However if you plan on using this pc for a few years and have it keep up to date and up to par with things a few years down the road go with a quad core with the most memory you can get (memory is cheap) and a good size hard drive.
The one I just bought was newer generation quad core with
10GB RAM memory and a 1TB 7200RPM hard drive. It is an excellent machine and should carry me easily on for several years.
One thing that is always important to me is user reviews so I go to sites that have lots of user reviews to check those out first.
This is the one I bought you can look at the specs on it and see how it would compare to what you may need. I bought mine on sale at Staples for much less than this Amazon price. You should check Staples they have some very good prices right now.
HP Pavilion p7-1240 Desktop

Spend the money to get RAM it is cheap and it is one of the best ways to help speed up a pc. For a 64bit system definitely do not go under 4GB, personally myself I would not go under 6GB, as you can see I got 10GB.

Desktop Computers
there are the specials at Staples currently as you can see there are some quad cores in the $300's range.
the p6-2120 is a quad core with 6GB memory and a 1TB hard drive for only $379.99.
So as I said depends on where you shop and the current sales.
If you just can not afford a quad core you should still be fine with a dual core if your needs remain the same but I still urge go for the RAM.

I bought a new major brand nettop a few months ago (it was cheap, under $275). I bought it for server functions. It has a dual core processor, 2 gb ram, and Win7 64 bit.

I find it quick and responsive, even with a pokey clockspeed processor. While running a constantly functioning background app, I opened 6 firefox windows, switched between them, and opened new web pages as quickly as I could. Performance on the 6th window was as on the first. The responsiveness showed no perceivable difference from a much more powerful PC with more RAM and a faster processor that I normally use. Internet responsiveness usually has nothing to do with a PC's processing power anyway. For a person looking to save money who only does internet browsing and does nothing else that's processor intensive, a machine with these specs is completely suitable to the task. If you want to spend more money, that's always a choice, I don't think your experience for the uses you describe will be noticeably different.

OP, if you find downloads to be sluggish, if your PC is functioning normally, the cause may be your internet connection.

My comments were based on a machine I own and use. Other than raven's recommendation based on her experience, are the other comments real or speculation?

I have seen way too often users spend needlessly for "speed".

For the "umteenth" time a system operating speed has minimal to do with Internet operation. The download speed is what it is. It is external to the system. The processing of the data packets delivered will be effected by the system's processor and memory to a degree. Once the process reaches the threshold nothing matters.

Multi-tasking, video and audio demands, and other resource demanding services are the deciding factors.

DA

My comments were based on a machine I own and use. Other than raven's recommendation based on her experience, are the other comments real or speculation?

Two of my computers
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Quad-core processor with 8 gigs of RAM, Windows 7 64bit
AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition Triple-core processor with 4 gigs of RAM, Windows 7 32 bit

Owbist,

You said "Do not go with 2 to 4 gigs of RAM if the computer is a 64 bit machine - as most seem to be today. You will be very disappointed.."

You disagreed with my recommendation. My comment was based on my actual experience with a machine with exactly the specs I recommended. I wasn't guessing, I was sharing my experience. Higher performance is fine, but the baseline I discussed is perfectly adequate.

Your PCs can't offer the experience I was describing. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, what are you basing yours on? Surely you're not saying I didn't experience what I described. Be surprised if you want, or even skeptical, but unfounded comments don't help people looking for advice.

My usage is probably similar to yours Nancy. 95% of the time I spend on this computer is spent browsing the Internet, checking email, shopping, and researching.

I don't play games except Mahjongg, which is not cpu intensive.

This computer does have a quad core but it just happened to be the cheapest on the shelf when I walked into the store to buy one. At the time, I was too impatient to shop around.

It fits my needs fine though. It's an Acer with a 3.1 GHz 32 bit AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 645 Processor, 4 gig ram and a 1 terabyte drive. It cost about $399(?) at Walmart without monitor.

My other desktop is used as a personal server. Using a high-def TV as a monitor, its time is spent mostly streaming videos from the net and playing my old TV/movie collection. It also runs a web server but it's mostly for my own light use. Such as serving video to my bedroom netbook-TV setup. It also serves a single public Shoutcast stream. It's an old(?) Compaq with a 2600 MHz 64 bit AMD Athlon(tm) Processor LE-1640. It does fine for what it's used for.

I suspect my bottleneck is my ISP so even though I run a cheaper computer, I pay for the fastest connection I can afford.

Personally, if I were looking to buy another right now, I'd probably be tempted by something similar to this. Not necessary that one but something along that line.

Snidely, the 'as most seem to be today' was in reference to the 64 bit architecture not the amount of memory. Lack of coherent typing skills on my part.

With RAM as cheap as it is it seems to me that having a bit in excess is not a bad idea. How often do super fast computers start to slow when all the software writers determine they must have their programs running in the background?

As Nancy has said she would buy a tower I went back to Tigerdirect and see they have 8 gigs of DDR3 Crucial memory of under $48 among other brands. Not having bought a computer for many years I do not know how they handle upgrading things like memory but one would hope there would be a slight allowance for the memory currently in a store bought machine which should reduce that $48 further, increasing the bargain aspect.

I agree 100% that we are each entitled to our opinions, my thoughts are stated above that the extra money on that item is money well spent.

As this computer will probably be in use for a number of years, I would buy the best that is easily affordable. What seem to be simple tasks now may grow to additional uses in a year or so, and as someone has pointed out, it seems that each time one installs new software, the developers see a need to have it running in the background, consuming memory. You might also decide to start working with some digital pictures, or taking old family photos and working with some of them. This would also require a "heftier" machine. If you were someone who buys a new computer every couple of years, my feelings on the subject would be different, and I'd think only of your present needs.

I buy the best that I can afford and it has been called over kill, but I love my over kill. In some things I buy medium priced goods, but not with my PC. I guess it's all about our personal priorities and what we can afford.