JAYDEEJOHN :
Granted, at the same price points a quad is better if you dont want the best speeds. A sacrifice, which others seem to just let go as if its nothing, here on an enthusiast site. Unbelievable. OK, NOT having the fastest rig is desirable?
Like I tried to point out many times (but probably failed), fastest is relative. Bragging rights for the best overclock, go dual core. That certainly helps in games. For those who do more than games, then a quad that's clocked slower can still be faster.
My wife's an example. I can still put a B3 quad or triple core on her ASUS 690G and she'll see benefits immediately because she uses 3D modelling and other graphics programs that use more than two cores. She often uses those programs while also downloading anime torrents. When she takes a break, she'll play Morrowind, HOMM 3, 4 or 5 or Fate (her game requirements aren't as vigorous as mine).
I'm not sure I'll see benefits since I mostly play LOTR Online, The Witcher, Oblivion, some Morrowind and the same Heroes of Might and Magic games she plays. I'll sometimes burn a data DVD or download anime to my system too, but she's the one with several terabytes of space for video files, not me.
If I played Supreme Commander, or Microsoft Flight Simulator X, then I'd benefit from a quad core. It would be faster than many higher clocked dual cores. I've often said that games that benefit from 3 or 4 cores will be out between December 2008 and December 2009, but that's based on hopes that Spore, the next Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3 or the next Might and Magic or HOMM will be optimized to benefit from quads. I've also assumed that newer FPS that other people play will use more cores in 9 months when Nehalem and Deneb arrive.
My assumptions on when games will benefit directly from quad cores might be off by a year, it might not happen till December 2010, but I still think that if anyone wants a system to last for the next 3 years, then a quad core is the best choice, unless they really only play games and don't do much in the background. Then, I still think they'll benefit from a quad in 2 years, so their fast dual core now will not only be no longer fast, it will be lagging during it's last year of use because it doesn't have those two extra cores.
As is, I don't think even a Q6600, 9750 or 9850, let alone the Penryns, will lag as much as even a 3.0 Wolfie in 3 years. If I'm wrong, then I'll be surprised that developers are so lazy that they won't take advantage of what's becoming a large segment of the PC market (and not just enthusiast market either).
Maximus_Delta :
Two very good points above:
Extra heat output, extra power input of the quads. Present issues being waved in favour of (distant) future promises.
Granted, B3's are 125 watts, and Q6600's are either 105 or 95 watts, but what's 95 watts vs. 65 in a real world situation? What's the thermals for Penryn? As is, if someone does a temporary dual core build today, and then goes Deneb or Nehalem this time next year, I think they'll both be in the 65 watt range. We really are in a transition period, where quads are delivering performance and not just showing a future promise -- except in most games out now that started development 3 years or more ago.