It is not. The point is when dualcores first came out games was not optimized for them. Name a game from 2005 that was. Not even Battlefield 2, which had kinda steep requirements, was that. It was the same with quads and now it's true for hexas. There is, as you say, some impact in one game, but that impact is as you say "nothin big".
Now you want a quad for hardcore gaming, but four years ago (lga775 quads) games didn't use it as much as today.
Yes, but when the Conroe dual cores first came out, they performed head and shoulders above all the pre-existing single core competition and within 18 months, were a statutory requirement for high end gaming. Likewise, when the quad-cores first came out, a fast clocked dual core CPU would whip its ass in gaming everytime but 2-3 years down the line the quad core became statutory to those adverse to losing frames in thier high end gaming.
Bearing all this in mind, anyone looking to upgrade thier base PC today with a view to the next few years ahead (I had my E8400 almost 4 years and it is still more or less adequate for full on eye candy gaming) would want to move up from Quad core to Hex/Octo core. Had I splashed out on a Q9900 (more than double what I paid for my E8400) I would have had all those years of having a superior PC to what I have had and would not have had to accept compromised frame rates in my gaming (post BFBC2) for the past 18 months or so. Indeed, I may not even have the need to upgrade for another 12-18 months.
In short, I don't buy the argument that dictates that someone should never buy the latest tech just cos the present software doesn't make good use of it.
In relation to the SB-E, looks very underwhelming which dissapoints me somewhat as i have been holding out on an upgrade for almost a year now and looks as though the 2600K (which I could have had ages ago) might just have to do the job afterall........unless Bulldozer is something much more special than it seems like it is going to be.