Well, when dual cores came out, some games included dual core support specifically. This turned out to be a bit silly when quad cores came along, since those games could still only use two of the cores. I think developers wised up then, so most of the newer engines should have true multi-core support now, meaning they will use all available cores, regardless of the number.

I don't see the practicality of this, unless you're a software developer. I mean heck, I'm using a duo core right now and it's served me very well. Granted, I haven't played many power-intensive games, but to my belief, gfx power is more important than CPU power most of the time anyway.

There have been 3-core ones as well. There's also the weird deal with 3GB RAM (because people wanted more than 2 but a 32-bit OS usually doesn't handle 4 decently), and the normal idea to follow up by doubling the amount (to the not-base-2 6GB).

Sounds more like a single core CPU with hyperthreading

I honestly don't see it as overpriced considering the tech and how recent the processor is. Also, it's a high-end version (EE) so that also adds to the markup.
As for what to do with it, I wouldn't mind having one for running my VMs under while also playing something for example.
I don't really get why people moan and bitch that games aren't optimized for multiple cores when that actually gets you more leverage to, you know, actually multi-task while playing (for example having a program recording your game as you play).
Sure, for that price-point I guess it's almost cheaper to build a dual-processor quad-core i7 rig but that brings some other problems when it comes to certain pieces of software.

It's just a rebranded 8800 GT. You're better off going for a 200 series now. It won't even cost you any more to do so.

We were taught to call these CPUs "asymmetric multiprocessors", i.e. a multiprocessor with non-identical processing units. The opposite is a symmetric multiprocessor, for example Intel's Core series of CPUs. A multiprocessor system that has all processing units on the same chip is a chip multiprocessor, which is what people usually call multicore. So I don't see symmetry as a requirement for using the term multicore.

Meh. I'll pass on these and wait until the 3D chips hit the market:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/news/frame.html?main=/news/news_single.html?id%3D11929

Just noticed that, the prices dropped on everything since I last looked at actual parts I want. Wonder what happened to the 9 series from GeForce, it's like the shortest lived I saw yet, well that and the 7 series. Thanks for letting me know.

3d physical architecture is actually nifty, but I'd rather they simplify it with cooling channels, not the micro-pores they're trying to go for. Oh well if it works I'll take it but those are super-computers, won't need it unless I am hosting Skynet all my lonesome.

I thought the exact same thing, and I think it every time I see an "odd" amount of storage on a hard drive or flash drive.

Thank goodness! I thought I was the only one!

110 = 6 in base 2 -- Sorry I was forced to do this by wierd looking midgets ;-)

Hmm... But aren't things usually in powers of 2, not base 2?
(And your quote-fu is weak! :-P )
EDIT: Okay, nevermind, the forum only lets you stack up to two quotes on top of each other... (I triple-checked my tags!)