My primary reason for interest in dual core systems isn't gaming. I appreciate the fact that games must be optimized a great deal before we will see any benefit, and I suppose we are getting our chicken with the new breed of processors, and that we will get the egg with next gen games or at least some time into the future.
I do a whole lot of Photoshop work, and my workflow includes batch processing of a lot of RAW imagefiles as well application of various filters to batches. This absolutely kills my CPU. In some cases I have had to set the batch routines to run when I am away, or overnight, like people do with their 3DSMax or Maya renders..
To be able to use my computer for report writing, viewing TV, Timeshifting TV or webbrowsing/newsreading without severly degraded performance while letting one core chew numbers wuld be a dream come true..
I also currently have my CD-collection digitally archived as FLAC-files. Storage space is not an issue, but transferring music to my mp3player requires some conversion. I currently keep a cache of my most frequently used music files in mp3 format on the harddrive, but I often have to convert a lot of files over a short period of time, and there dual cores would help again..
However, if the first dual core processors sacrifice a LOT of "gaming performance" to get their advantage, I'd probably hold out one more generation to get a more optimized, better performing CPU. I don't upgrade very often as it is
I read the Inq's rant with great interest. There are a lot of valid points there, although their total write-off of dual core processors seems like a bit of a hasty conclusion.. That we as consumers need to be a bit more critical to what we hear (and what we don't) from the largest review sites, is a point that needs to be taken seriously. I won't throw any rocks, but I don't find it unthinkable that certain early review samples come with some "instructions" to the reviewer.. I'd prefer the whole truth
K
