CPU choices have finally confused me!

OK look, here is my system:

EVGA 680i
Corsair Twin2x2048 8500C5 (2GBs, 5-5-5-15, 2T, 1066MHz)
EVGA 8800GTS 640MB
E6300 OC'd to 2.33 (FSB @ 1333MHz)
19" CRT monitor @ 1280x1024, 32bit color-depth

The stock HSF are being replaced with the Ultra 120 Extreme with a Scythe SFF21F fan on Monday.

I am not SLI'ing, nor do I need to be at the bleeding edge of hardware specs. I don't play high-powered games except FSX. I don't think Quad-core support is where it needs to be (with the apps I run), and even with the soon-to-appear price cuts, I don't believe I need it.

I want to replace the E6300 with the 4MB cache version. Good call? Your opinions are welcomed.

If you were to upgrade, get a q6600 otherwise you are wasting your money.

TBH I think a dual core is plenty at the moment. A 6600 is at a pretty decent price and there are just starting to be apps than take advantage of 2 cores.

Thanks for ya'lls input on this question.

I have seen a lot of benchmarks of the E4xxx (OC'd and stock) vs the E6300 and the x6800 (both stock) and I was impressed. The total amount of heat and power draw though was a little disconcerting, but I guess that's what you get when you take a 1.80GHz and double its speed.

Something that I read that stuck in my head was that the E4xxx chip was held back in some of the benchmarks because of its smaller cache (vs the X6800). So, inexpensive dualie, 4MB cache, OC like hell > X6800.

While it's tempting to go quad, I still don't believe it's worth it yet. And please don't even mention Vista- I won't have it. The only app I run that will eat-up quads is FSX (but with my schedule, I haven't flown it but 5 times in the last 7 months!).