Tom's hardware compares 4-Core, Dual-Core, Single Core CPU Performance @ 2.4GHz (AMD and Intel). This give an indication of efficiency per clock tick and the impact of multi-core on applications.

Of course, Core-2 wins. But given the competitive pricing of lesser CPUs today, presumably, one could pick the best CPU for the money for their uses. Here is a link to a couple pages of results:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/26/the_gigahertz_battle/page13.html#audio

Toms Hardware Site is a God send.

Even though I'm running a 3.8Ghz P4 Prescot, the CPU benchmarks convinced me there is some life in the old girl left

Probably just buy a new Dual Core once quad core release makes Dual Core cheaper. That will also mean Vista should be 'mature' by that time.

I noticed that for certain applications like audio decoding, video rendering etc, the Dual Core is about 40% faster than my current rig. But when it comes to the usual games benchmarks the difference isn't as great. I'll miss my old P4 3.8Ghz Prescot CPU, it's been a solid performer given it uses the NetBurst architecture, and it almost replaced my central heating over the winter months.

Ghostrider, from the benchmarks I've seen in my searches, even the lowly 1.86 Ghz Core 2 Duo E6300 is about equal to or faster than the best of the Netburst architecture cpu's in games. It's the main reason I chose the E6300 as a fairly inexpensive (under $200) processor to hold me over for a while.

As for upgrading, I see your lack of interest. There's no point in doing so if what you have is getting the job done. My old pc, however, is a 2.6 Ghz P4 barely covering "recommended" cpu requirements on some of the latest games, so an E6300 is an improvement by leaps and bounds.

I used to buy bleeding edge PC's and with UK prices that used to be a very silly thing to do.
After watching technology get ever faster every sim months or so, I adopted a new strategy.
I now wait nine months to a year after something ground breaking comes out. So I now buy the second fastest processor and GPU etc.

I've actually been very impressed with the P4 3.8Ghz Prescot. I did upgrade the GPU from X700PRO to a 7600GT and added another gig of RAM to get 2Mb. Probably the most demanding game I've bought is F.E.A.R. this PC runs it no problem 1024x786 32 Bit FSA Softshadows 72FPS average using FRAPS. Perhaps as I prefer 1024x768 compaired to the higher resolutions a lot of gamers prefer.

Still I am looking forward to my next PC which should certainly be more energy efficient that a Prescot CPU

I now wait nine months to a year after something ground breaking comes out. So I now buy the second fastest processor and GPU etc.

I do the same as I get older and wiser.

I upgraded last Friday from a P4 3.2, 4GB RAM (3.5 effective) and an nVidia 6800GT (which died, hence the upgrade). Went to a C2D @ 2.4, 4GB RAM (4GB effective) and an nVidia 8800GTS. Got 2x2s so I can add an additional 4GB if I need to :-)

Huge upgrade, huge boost in performance for Oblivion and Silent Hunter 4...I definietely don't regret this one. Also a good deal for me for the 64bit-ness and the Intel VT additions.

Sounds like a great Oblivion rig (I just loaded Shivering Isles yesterday), and I really want my next setup to be with the 64bit OS

Well, I'll be trying to hold out a few more months -- we'll see

Hey Rilex, just out of curiosity, which OS did you install on that nice new rig? XP or Vista?

Vista Ultimate 64bit. Required if you want 4GB RAM.

Running XP x64 here, and I just installed Oblivion + Shivering Isles this past weekend. Oblivion is an excellent game.