[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by Lexander

So true ... I have a dualcore and I never see it go above 30% use on either of the cores. It goes up to 40ish on each core when quake 4 is on ... but that's the most stress my computer ever gets.

I could have waited a good 6 months to get this chip.

So what I got is:

1) high scores in pointless synthetic benchmarks
2) about twice the processing I'll ever need

I am running the x2 3800+ at 2.7, but I realized it's something I could have done with a single core at only half the price. I just don't need that second core.

VIDEO ENCODING.
I have the same processor as you have, but not OC'ed (yet). Gaming usually uses 100% of one core (not that I game often...). Encoding stuff, however... x264 uses 70-90% total with 2 threads (more doesn't raise the CPU usage or improve performance). Lossless to XviD uses 100% of one core plus one or a few extra on the other, which means you can do two at a time, or run one encode and do something else CPU-intensive (like encoding audio or something) at the same time. Avisynth script with filtering -> XviD can easily go past 70% total usage, as well.

Dual-core isn't for everyone though - for most people, the CPU waits for the human MUCH, MUCH more than the human waits for the CPU, and even more so with dual-core. However, if you're someone who likes to do CPU-intensive stuff and actually use the computer in the meantime, dual-core is for you.