...
The problem is they counted the "CPU core" as just the integer execution unit. There are two of them, but there's still one floating-point unit and one instruction decoder/dispatcher:
...
That's the essence of the whole controversy. Some people say that because the modules share resources they're not really a 4 core CPU but a 2 core CPU. That seems specious to me since all multi-core CPU's share resources to some degree...if nothing else some caches are shared for instance. That's why the Windows' scheduler was changed to be aware of CPU architecture so not to move processes to cores with unshared resources and introduce unnecessary lag.
At any rate, as with most controversies it comes down to poorly defined terms. Some just define it differently than others.
But that's all immaterial now: to OP's question I agree it's a poor CPU choice for serious content creation involving video editing and rendering. It's way outdated and was a weak 4 core CPU even in its time. It was really only ever suitable for light 720p/1080p gaming (it did have a fairly good iGPU for the time) and desktop office apps (email, word processing, spreadsheet, etc.). That made it a darling for inexpensive pre-builts targeting business and home users, but never content creators, graphic artists or serious gamers.