Dual vs. single core (advice please)

[bum]

I consider myself a multi-tasker and for a long time I was sure I'd get an Amd dual core processor, but now I think its more of a luxury. The way I see it, Dual core would only be needed if you are actively doing something in two programs at once. Now I run multiple programs at once, but The only time I can think that dual core would really be needed is when I run a virus scan or something to that effect. SO, my question is: is dual core the way to go or would a faster single core get me more bang for my buck. The main thing that I'm considering is dual cores have larger L1 and L2 caches so would that mean better processing for non multi tasking? Also, in less technical terms, do both cores in a dual core combine to process single tasks or is it just one core works the other takes a break until you give it something to process?

Why pay for two cores if only one of them is working 90% of the time.

 

[Nitestick]

dual cores can work on a single task but the application in question needs to have SMP (Symettric-Multi-Processing) support.

 

[bum]

How commom are SMP's (like in terms of games)? obviously older games won't but is this something new or has it had time to mature?

and thanks, I appreciate it.

 

[Trifid]

Quake 4 is the only one to my knowledge that supports it (needs the update.)

I find my self wanting a dual core processor quite a bit now (doing photoshop, converting films to individual frames to edit them, and it would also be nice to run gamecam in the background (recording what I am doing) with a frame rate that is decently playable. It is up to you though, a dual core processor will have long 'future proofing.'