So I'm building a new system after xmas. I've already made up my mind on the video card being the XFX 7800GT since it's price/performance is right where i'd like it. I'm getting 2x1gb of Corsair XMS, as overclocking isn't important to me, and the Asus A8N-SLI base board since i can't see how the $50 to upgrade to the Premium is founded. What I'm hung up on is the processor. Currently the 3700+ Sandiego (2.2ghz, 1mb L2) is $233 @ the egg, and the 3800+ X2 Manchester (2.0ghz x2, 2x512kb L2) is $322. I mostly use my computer to game, process some video and for general media. I.e. nothing substantially huge mathematics wise. My logic is as follows: I don't think I would notice a difference between a 2.0ghz single core and 2.2ghz single core. I've read some threads that claim under windows xp32 that the first core does most of the work, leaving some apps to the other core. So in essence, some claim the x2's to work 80% of the time as single core processors. I feel like, if that's true then I'll still see a benefit when the second core kicks in...and only for $90 more. While when it doesn't, i won't notice a performance drop. I.E. the dual core would always have the potential to perform better than the single core. Logically. Does this make any sense? I'm I a fool or what? Is the extra core worth the $90? Does anyone think that application support will ramp up for dual cores, making my purchase worthwhile? Thanks to anyone that can set me straight.