Okay, so I had the following desktop computer:

Core i7-2600 (up to 3.8GHz) with 8 processing threads (remember, threads are like cores)
Overclocked GTX 570
8GB RAM
1920x1080 resolution
etc.

Then I sold it and got an Acer V5-573PG-9610 notebook with;

Core i7-4500u (up to 3GHz) with 4 processing threads
Geforce 750M
8GB RAM
1366x768 resolution

Okay, so there are some distinct differences. The processor in the notebook pretty much works like a desktop Core i5 in performance and has half the raw horsepower of the desktop processor.

The only time I have noticed a difference from having 8 threads, which was in the desktop, was when doing rendering in photo-editing software.

Two, the GPU of the notebook is half as powerful. To get similar gaming performance, I had to get a notebook with a low resolution. 1366x768 has about half the pixels of 1920x1080, which results in better gaming performance.

One would think I am losing graphics fidelity in games at this lower resolution (1366x768). However, my desktop monitor was a TN panel, and this notebook has a panel with IPS qualities it seems. Either way, the increased quality display of the notebook makes up for the resolution difference of the desktop monitor.

I am also using Windows 8 and a touchscreen on the notebook. The desktop had no touchscreen ability and Windows 7. I very much like having a touchscreen. It's not only accurate compared to a notebook touchpad for dragging files, it's fun to use.

tl;dr:

You really have to have the intention to be coding something for 8 threads/cores to take good advantage of them right now
Although resolution is important when selecting a display or monitor, there is also the actual quality of it which is important
If you are stuck with a weak GPU, and shopping for a monitor, maybe consider getting one below 1920x1080 resolution but with a really good display quality
Touchscreens can be cool

I am also using Windows 8 and a touchscreen on the notebook. The desktop had no touchscreen ability and Windows 7. I very much like having a touchscreen. It's not only accurate compared to a notebook touchpad for dragging files, it's fun to use.

Welcome to the clan

On-topic, there are some reasons why people would want to develop in an 8-cores system as opposed to a 4-cores system, though of course it's based solely on your needs. The one reason I see people use is build time. Like I said, not everyone needs this.

As for the monitor, I prefer size over resolution. I'd rather have a large 21-inch 1080p monitor, than a 15-inch 4k one. My eyesight is getting worse, and having a large monitor certainly helps. My current laptop is 14-inch, and I have to squint to be able to look at some texts now, but if I use larger fonts, then it'd take too much real estate.

I use a surface pro 2 for everything. at home, i dock it.

it's a dual core at .. 1.6ghz? (overclocking as needed to 2.4ghz or something).

it beats in usability-performance every desktop i see (it really boots in 8 sec to online.. most desktops are still doing it's bios thing at that point..).

there's a point of diminishing returns. after that, higher performance gains you nothing.

the only point where it would matter to me is when i'm coding my raytracer.

it beats in usability-performance every desktop i see (it really boots in 8 sec to online.. most desktops are still doing it's bios thing at that point..).

i don't know what desktop motherboard your using where the bios takes 8 seconds to do a post....but stop buying that brand.

it beats in usability-performance every desktop i see (it really boots in 8 sec to online.. most desktops are still doing it's bios thing at that point..).

When I want to test that code I'm writing is multiplatform, I have VMs running OSX, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Vista, and XP simultaneously. I can do this while playing videos and having a couple of games running in the background.

When you can do this on your surface pro, we'll speak again.

P.S. I really don't care how long it takes my machine to boot as I only turn it off once a month or so.

it beats in usability-performance every desktop i see (it really boots in 8 sec to online.. most desktops are still doing it's bios thing at that point..).

Any desktop with an SSD + windows 8 should boot in about the same time.

Desktops are also much better in the price/performance ratio. My $500 desktop kills a $1200 Dell latitude as far as performance is concerned.

I also can't stand the cheap plastic on most inexpensive laptops, it makes me shiver.

I use a desktop + dev laptop + surface 2 pro combo at the moment. All of them boots Windows 8.1 in below 10 seconds.

it beats in usability-performance every desktop i see (it really boots in 8 sec to online.. most desktops are still doing it's bios thing at that point..).

Any desktop with an SSD + windows 8 should boot in about the same time.

Desktops are also much better in the price/performance ratio. My $500 desktop kills a $1200 Dell latitude as far as performance is concerned.

I also can't stand the cheap plastic on most inexpensive laptops, it makes me shiver.

will always be that way. still, do you GAIN from that performance? in my case, i about never do anymore.

and on the other hand, i have my full pc where ever i go, i can use it with touch, it has good battery life, screen is great, etc..

you get many things you don't get from a $500 desktop.

it replaces my desktop, my laptop. my ipad, my pen and paper. all in one package. means no synching crap needed. no multiple apps for different devices needed. etc. all in one place. just dock at home/work and have it all big and comfy, or take it with you and have it flexible and mobile.

for all that, the price is actually very cheap.

diminishing returns. all you gamedevs should know it. premature optimisation follows that same law.

and yes, it's less good to game on it. it still runs crysis, though :) so there's that. good enough to dev my game for sure.

I switched from a desktop to 17" laptop two years ago, and although it's a big heavy one, I much prefer now being able to lounge about on the sofa. (I still keep a desktop around for file storage though.) The laptop however was a better spec to my desktop in every way other than screen size.

I still have a separate ultra-portable - previously a Samsung N220 netbook, now the Asus T100. I have wondered if I could get away with a single medium sized laptop, but for portability, I like having something as small and light as a 10" device (and the tablet portion of the T100 is significantly lighter than the larger Intel Core tablets/convertibles). Atom Bay Trail devices are still limited in performance, but that's not the only issue - I like being able to sit on the sofa at home with a 17" screen and full sized keyboard (or at least, something bigger than the ultra-portable laptops).

A combination of remote desktop, One Drive and a USB stick means syncing between the two isn't much of a problem.

I too find I use the touchscreen surprisingly often on my T100, it works well in conjunction with keyboard and touchpad. I think it probably works better on more mobile devices, i.e., the closer the screen to your hand, the better.

My most common use for multiple cores / fast CPU is converting videos to different formats.

Hi,

To me, using a notebook or laptop screen is like watching an HD big screen in my living room because the screen is only at arms length from my eyes. If I want, I can plug the notebook into the big screen, but I rarely do that and only when I need to share with other people.

As for performance, there are notebooks/laptops with good gaming performance for as low as about $1,000 (USA) if you shop around the internet. They can be almost as good as a desktop once you get in the $1,500 or more range.

I LOVE the portability, multi-tasking, and having many thousands of applications and software available to me on the fly with my laptop, almost anywhere I want to go. Working on games is very convenient because of the portability.