Crysis doesn't really use four cores. There was a big thing on that a while back on how it was pitched by Crytek as being that way, but initial benchmarks proved otherwise.
Okay, maybe I was a little sensationalist with that, but it is kinda true. The Athlon II X4 is like 110 dollars and it is clocked at 2.6GHz, and can overclock to 3.6GHz possibly higher. Plus it has unlockable L3 cache as well. The phenom II X4 series are simply whipping the fan favorite Core 2 Duo e8400 and e8500s in the same price range.
also, it wasn't just now that quads are being used effieciently. It's only just now for games. even running vista on a quad is noticeably more stable than on a dual core. And multi tasking has always been better, video encoders winrar and all types of other things have been using quads. It's just the games that have been slow to adapt and GTA 4 is the only game that shows huge benefits with using more than 2 cores.
No, it's not just games. It's the basic everyday stuff too. True, most of that doesn't use two cores either, but dual core CPUs still got a near immediate boost just for having the extra core for the extra resources. That may sound contradicting, because quad core CPUs have that over dual cores, but the reason that doesn't apply there is because not enough stuff uses enough cores to tax the CPU to that point. Sure, that statement isn't fully true, and is getting less true by the day, but my point is, it's not false enough to where you can dual core CPUs are dead. Most of the stuff that demands multiple cores is stuff like games and so on. WinRAR? Wow. Video encoding? That's a niche market. The big thing will be when more games start taking better use of four cores, and when more everyday stuff starts using more than one, then we'll see the switch. With this article stating the OS is doing it's job, and with the hardware side phasing them out anyway, it'll happen either way. Just don't expect the same kind of boost you saw going from a single core CPU to a dual core CPU. Anyone who's went from a single core to a dual core, and then a dual core to a quad core will most likely tell you the first was more dramatic.
I guess what I'm saying is, I agree with your underlying details, but you're really overdoing the big picture based on it.
Also, I'd like to see some reference to your claim that Windows Vista is less stable on dual core CPUs/more stable on quad core CPUs.
Personally, depending on my needs (or should I say wants, this setup will be fine for a while yet), come 2010, I may consider the upcoming 32nm Core i5/Core i7. I have to share Cheesus' concerns on the multiple socket types though. There will likely come a time where the extra pins will be needed, at least for the newer/better CPUs. I'll worry about that when it comes time, but if not then, I'll surely get Sandy Bridge. Since I doubt that will use LGA1156, but won't know if it will, or even if it'll use LGA1366, despite Core i7 finally starting to look better, I may just skip it for Sandy bridge as I initially planned.
P.S. Does anyone find it confusing that some of these new CPUs are called Core i7, and some are called Core i5, despite them being the same as one another, and different to the older Core i7s? Oh, I'm sure there's differences, but it's confusing nonetheless.
