werxen :
You need to seriously go lookup benchmarks if you think that is the case. Dual cores are not friggin quad cores that have been cut in half. Your argument is failed based on one simple premise: benchmarks. Look em up, fool.
The only difference between a quadcore and a dualcore is that the quadcore has two extra cores. If games only use two of the cores then both CPUs will be exactly the same. Now differences in cache and architecture will change that a little, but when overclocked the performance difference, however minimal it is, will be totally gone. That is only when a game uses two cores. When a games uses more, the quad will win easily, because it has more than two which the dualcore does not. There is NOTHING out there that supports your theory. The only positive points of dualcores are that they tend to overclock better, which is irrelevant now that almost all modern quadcores can overclock to 3.6 GHZ+. The other is that dualcores tend to have more cache per core, but that benefit is tiny to say the least. Give me one reason, one benchmark that proves otherwise. You can't because it is technologically impossible and doesn't exist.
Why don't you take a look:
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_e8400/8.htm
Go through those benchmarks, the only difference I see is 1-2 FPS going either way. Now remember these are all old games that do not take advantage of quadcores.
Look:
Compare the Q9650 and the E8400. They have almost exactly the same architetures and are at the same clock speed, 3.0 GHz
Interesting, the quad wins almost every time. This is likely a result of the background processes being ran on the third and fourth cores. All in all they are neck and neck and there is no dualcore domination or even victory, no matter how small.
How about these:
Hmm still not seeing it.
Next time you resort to immature name calling, make sure your at least CLOSE to be correct.