retro77 :
Then why do we continue to scale up in the amount of cores we are using if the applications we are running aren't designed to take advantage?
Seems like we are all falling prey to the industry hype to by these quad core monsters that aren't really going to benefit us.
Grats!
Desktop operating systems, starting with WindowsXP, are becoming multi-processor compatible. Take Vista for instance, it's such a resource hog that you practically need at least a dual core in order to have it run somewhat smoothly.
Also, it was realized a few years back that gighertz is not an reliable/accurate indicator of performance. The Athlon runs 500-1000MHz slower than a comparible P4 and the P4 gets spanked. As a result, everyone realized it was the uArch that makes the differences with how well a cpu performs as well as having more cores making multi-tasking more efficient and effective.
Quad cores are not entirely hype, just as dual core were not entirely hype when they were first released. Just like everyone aasking what they needed two cores for, some folks are now asking what they need 4 cores for. What are these folks gonna say when Intel and AMD release an 8 core processor with discreet GPU built in. Think about it though, you can get a quad core Phenom for less than $200, so why not buy a quad core.
If anything, having the choice of 1, 2, 3, or 4 cores allows for system builders and enthusiasts to choose which processor will meet and match their computing needs and habits. I think it's a great time to buy and build a machine given all the various hardware combinations available. You can build a single core sempron or celeron system to power a NAS, a nice E2160 ro 4800+ for a great HTPC or linux box running a firewall and routers services, an E8400 or 5000BE to make a great gaming machine, or either a Q6600 or Phenom as a 3D rendering and A/V editing workstation.