What makes dual core better than quad core for gaming?

A few games can use more than two cores, like FSX and supreme commander. Those games will benefit from a quad.

If the price were the same, a Q9650 3.0 would be at least as good as a E8400 3.0.
But... the price is not the same, it is three times more.

Also, the 65nm parts, like the Q6600 are missing some minor enhancements that are found in the 45nm cpu's. The 45nm cpu's will be a bit better, clock for clock.

The Q6600 fans say that overclocking mitigates the clock speed loss, but the 45nm duo's can be overclocked even higher.

In the end, if your game is not quad optimized, any 3.0 duo or quad can drive the fastest vga card acceptably.

Ya, unless your into benchmarking, it is really pointless to have a 3ghz+ CPU, whether it be a dual or quad. I like the Q6600, because it is easily overclocked past 3ghz (eliminating bottlenecks), and its a quad (duh), so its more future proof than a dual.
Makes sense to me.

My advice is if you don't overclock, get a dual, due to the fact that you can get a 3ghz dual for the price of a 2.4ghz quad. Otherwise quad is effing sick.

I disagree... stats show that new Vid cards profit greatly from processor speeds upto 3.4GHZ. I notice on my machine (2.83ghz stock) a significant difference when OC'd to 3.4

Clock for Clock quads are better.
A 3ghz quad vs. a 3ghz dual core = quad is better as the 2 remaining unused cores can run other apps like music or anything else.

Sure a e8400 is faster then a q6600 in 99.9% of games... its clocked 600MHZ higher.

Comparing an e8400 to a q6600 is not proper in my opinion...This comparison is based solely on money.

Let’s compare an e6600 to a q9650...same thing and completely unrealistic.

Comparisons should be based on speeds, not price….Of course this is entirely just my opinion.

Quad to dual comparison is E8400 VS. Q9650… yes there is a large price difference however we are comparing 2 cores to 4 cores where there should be a price difference.

Please read the article in the link below. To summarize; dual core @ 3ghz is less then quad core @ 3ghz and is roughly = to quad core @ 2.4ghz. The article uses the GTX280 but there is also an article based on the 4870 x 2.

@ 1600 x 1080 it really doesn't matter which, dual or quad core. Anything higher and a dual core cannot max out the GPU except in rare circumstances.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=775

Quads are very good for multitasking, particularly with cpu heavy applications. Some applications are multi core optimized. Folding would be good for a quad.
Even with a non-quad optimized game running, the extra cores can reduce the interference caused by anti virus scans starting, or incoming e-mail. How noticeable? Your mileage will vary.

i can say that in my experience the quad core is better, even at a lower clock speed.

i recently upgraded a athalon 64 x2 5600 2.9ghz to a phenom 9600 2.3ghz and there is a noticible difference in game play on my fav game, the latest NFS. to check confirm my findings i took a look at windows task manager while playing the game and the dual core was maxed out on the quad core all four cores were being used at about 80-90%

fyi, vista 64 listed the dual core as a 5.5 and the quad at a 5.9