Uh, I think you mean processes going on in the background. And no, that would result in maybe a 2-5% increase in performance in favor of the Quad-Core.
I myself can have MP3 and MPG decoding at the same time I play a high-end game on my old Pentium 4 3.0Ghz and see no difference in performance pretty much.
I can't even begin to explain how bullshit that claim is. It's almost like you're trying to refute every single thing I'm saying just because you don't like me, despite the fact that you have absolutely nothing to say..
But in any case.. 5 minutes is NOTHING. If you edit your project in an hour and a half and then render it in 10 minutes instead of 15 minutes, and then claim that in those 5 minutes you can visit TPU and thus it's worth it, then I have nothing left to say to you.
If you want to waste your money for 5 minutes, please do.
Yeh, I know it was said about Dual-Cores, and guess what? It true! The only thing that Dual-Core CPUs or HT is good for is multi-tasking. And if that's your turn on then please go right ahead and buy the Q6600. Just realize that you would have to have 4 DVD burning sessions in the background to scratch that CPU while I can have 2 and I only need one.
So you're saying that 3.9Ghz temps were IDLE?
If so, then this is only testiment to how horribly tatty can explain things
Well, from personal experience I can still say that, logically, I doubt that 3.9Ghz STABLE is even close to being possible.
No, thats absolutely not true.
For a program to benefit from more than a single thread, it needs to be coded for it. Thats why almost all programs will run better on the higher clocked Dual-Core.