So I want to start up the simple (lol) conversation about more cores being better. I have yet to see a benchmark where a quad core with a slower speed can run games faster or even equal to a faster speed dual. Why do we care? Because quads (at least most of them) cost twice as much or more for the same speed as the duals.
Can we all agree that the tris and quads do not give you an advantage in games? That would be a big big step to get people to agree on that one first and foremost.
After that what kind of real difference is there for desktop stuff like video encoding, Widows 7, etc. etc.?? Does the diff of a 3.0 GHz dual and quad really justify twice or more the price?
Store24
The benchmarks you're looking at apparently are threaded for either single or dual core processors. The performance of quad core processors will only show over a dual core if and only if the benchmark or program being run is able to utilize all four cores.
I haven't seen here or even heard of anyone claiming that quad core processors give an advantage in games. I've seen the question come up a few times here, only to be replied with dual cores with higher clock speeds will perform better for games.
If you want to know the what sort of difference a quad core has for things like video encoding, or OS performance, go look up some results for yourself, instead of trying to boast a superior knowledge about the topic, which you don't have.
As for the price being double or more - it's not really based on performance in my opinion.
Log in to comment