Quad Cores really worth it?

With your current configuration....your CPU isn't bottle necking you so there isn't much point in upgrading. Most games today still only utilize a couple cores although more and starting to become more prevalent.

a nice i3 is more than enough for most single GPU systems for most games. If that's all you are doing, and you are not experiencing a bottleneck, I see no reason to suggest an upgrade.

Some games I play take advantage of CPU horsepower and threads. GTA IV and BF3 (multiplayer) are my primary examples. I also do a lot of rendering work. Nothing too heavy, but multiple threads help. It isn't because people are delusional or blind in what they purchase, it's just that quad cores are a standard nowadays for PC users with "higher priorities" than the majority of PC users. Technology moves quickly; some just chose to move with it. If a dual-core satisfies you, then there is no need to upgrade ATM.
Edited by AbdullahG - 7/3/12 at 4:19pm

Because I fold with my machine as well.

That is true, but I imagine you have certain settings turned down and like I said, an i3 will handle any single GPU just fine even a 7970 depending on settings.

As far as quads being "stardard" that is certainly true. I5s are becoming more standard consumer mid-level systems. Heck, even my chromebook has an i5, lol. That's just what it is.

And yes, your i3 has 4 threads but only 2 physical cores. So there is that as well.

You're on a 2nd gen i3 and you're only using a GTX 460. Even a multi-threaded game wouldn't benefit much from more than an i3 because of your GPU. The dual core vs quad core dicsussion is much more relevant when talking pre-i7 dual cores. Further, your particular i3 has HT, so it behaves somewhat like a quad, having 4 threads despite only having 2 cores even though HT isn't as good as having more physical cores. It's probably 1.5 - 2 times as fast as a similarly clocked E8x00 which was the best dual back in 2008 when the i7's came and the core 2 architecture was being phased out. In fact I'd wager that your dual core i3 is as fast as a stock C2Q in a game optimized for 4 threads (and I'd be right), simply because the i3 architecture is superior.

Now, if you had a better graphics card (like a GTX 680 or GTX 460 SLI), yes, a quad core would EASILY be worth it. As you double your GPU performance, your CPU will have to work almost twice as hard to keep up. In that case, an i3 that was used 80% before suddenly won't cut it (not even close for some games).

Of course, there's also a difference between games. A Blizzard game will only be optimized for 2 cores (as evidenced by any tests in SC2) so an i3 that has the same IPC as an i5 (when clocked the same) will perform the same. Meanwhile, recent BF games (which have been proven to use at least 4 cores) will take advantage of the extra 2 cores in the i5 and will most likely run 25% better on an i5 compared to an i3 (pulling numbers out of my butt here).

Once people move into GTX 680 SLI or similar, an overclocked i5 or better is required to get the most out of the GPU's. You could make it with a stock i5 (it would bottleneck in some games, not in others), but to get the most out of your GPU's in a game like BF3 or SC2, you'd need an OC'd i5 (in SC2 for the ability to increase the clock speeds of the two used cores compared to a locked i3, in BF3 for that and the extra cores).
Edited by B!0HaZard - 7/3/12 at 4:42pm

I got my 2500k on a discount bundle with a z68x-ud3h-b3 and against the bundle of an i3...it was a $20 difference so I opted for the 2500k.

 

Real world scenario excluding gaming...I'm a heavy Adobe user, I deal mostly with Flash, AE, C4D, Encore, Audition, Premiere, PS and AI and I'd have to say there is a significant decrease in rendering times may it be for video, audio conversions, 3d or vector based designs that I do.

 

Coming from an Athlon ii x4 630, increased productivity due to faster performance was the goal of the upgrade and it did just that without breaking the bank.

 

In gaming, my old cpu bottlenecked my 6950 2gb, i don't play FPS but I do play SC2 from time to time and the performance hits I got before the 2500k was significant, I didn't need to lower game settings that were based on the cpu.

 

So at the end of the day, my reasons for getting the 2500k and spending the extra $20 IMHO is justified.

I'll just leave this here.... http://www.overclock.net/t/1231254/retail-gtx-680-vs-7970-benchmarks-i3-cpu/0_100