Hi guys. At the moment, as we all know, dual core processors are much
more expensive than their single core counterparts.

My question is whether it is worth getting dual core processors, even
IF they were in a similar price range to single cores. For example,
take a look at the benchmark results below. Even though the Athlon 64
X2 4800+ beats the Athlon 64 4000+ CPU, it only does so by a small
margin. Considering the X2 is 4800+ rated and the single core is only
4000+ rated, shouldn't a single core 4800+ beat the X2 4800+ (assuming
you could get a single core to that speed by overclocking)

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2005...chmark_results

IMVHO, it would only be worth getting a dual core if it was much
cheaper. The price/performance ratio of X2 CPUs isn't as good as a
single core CPU at the moment.

You are, after all, losing CPU cycles in the overhead to maintain
parallel processing. Isn't the whole point of parallel processors their
lower cost?