hmm, will having the quad core make a major difference? as i do want this to be as future proof as possible so i'd rather spend an extra £20 now then waiting a year and spending ~100 on a new processor. thats why im sticking with the 4870 over the 4450 even though it wont make much difference with my 22" widescreen, but i may change my monitor in the future.
ive read around and dual cores are better for games as quads arn't supported in most games, but that doesn't mean this won't change? as im sure the games will be supported by quads in the future.
anyway, do i stick with the dual core? or buy a quad?
OK, I thought long and hard about getting a Q6600 or a faster clockable E8** series. Conclusion I came to is that most games, with the odd exception, are GPU bound, and don't really see the benefit of the faster clock. Therefore I went for a quad, because like yourself, I want it to be a tad future-proof, if such a thing exists.
I know that if I bought a dual instead of a quad, I'd be kicking myself when games like Alan Wake come out, which will really run a lot better with four cores.
Also I got mine off MM which meant it was a lot cheaper!