I have no intention of arguing with you about numbers, percentages and what more, but those graphs show how the GPU in those games become the bottleneck, not how much a multi-core increases performance in those games.
As said using a Q6600 or a Core 2 Duo 6600 to run Crysis makes a lot of difference. I could list many many more games in which I've experienced myself that it matters, but I feel it would be pointless.
Auf Direct3D-10-Unterstützung muss man aber verzichten: Call of Duty 4 setzt noch alleinig auf den Vorgänger Direct3D 9.
As far as this game is concerned.. it's obvious it's not optimized for quad cores, but more so for single or dual cores... so yeah, doh, not much benefit of quad cores there. It's still pretty likely that the game will run better on a quad core still as background processes could run on different threads and so on.
You now can think of getting a quad now if you want to keep it for quite a while (under the presumption you'll mainly use the PC for gaming). On the other hand you won't really have a huge advantage from that as your graphics card will limit you way sooner in coming games. So from a gamer's point of view it makes more sense to switch to a Dual Core with high clock and spend the money into a better graphics card like a HD4870...
A good quad core really isn't all that expensive anymore. A good 3D card will easily be far more expensive if you choose right.
So why is my recommendation of around 450 watts not enough or not appropiate.
Because it won't run.. simple as that. A HD2900XT, Core 2 Duo and 350Watt power supply WON'T boot. I know this, because I've actually thought the same thing, tried it and found out I had to buy a bigger PSU. You're pretty stubborn aren't you?
Also, why else do you think that Nvidia and AMD/ATI both recommend much higher PSUs, especially with Quad Core high-end PCs and multiple graphics cards... even for single card setups the bare minimum is about 450Watt,
Cheers
