Is the quad core worth it?

[mashinhead]

As everyone is i'm really interested in the new imacs, but i want to know: quad core or not to quad core. Obviously i know, its better and I kinda know why, but I want to know: Is it PRACTIACALLY worth it. I use Adobe pro software, pro photo software, and pro music software, and some light video editing stuff. And to my knowledge the quad core is great, but no software takes advantage of it. So its useless, for now, but i want to know a) am i wrong about that and b) if not when will we start to see software that takes advantage of it. I mean if that kinda stuff is like a year away i would probably spring for the quad, if its like 2-3 maybe not.

Anyway thats the only thing thats stopping me from getting one, so anyone that can give a practical opinion on the real world usage differences i'd love to know your take.

 

[Eidorian]

Dual core is so 2006. It's 2009 now.

 

[zedsdead]

If you use any pro software (which you indicated), get the Quad.

 

[MTI]

Snow Leopard's "Grand Central" would be a good reason to choose more cores.

 

[aaquib]

If you're asking, you can afford it. Go with the quad. More and more apps will begin taking advantage of multiple cores, and Grand Central will even use it in day-to-day work scenarios to speed up the entire machine.

Like mentioned, it's 2009. Quad cores are the future.

 

[MTI]

Or one can wait for Intel's six core microprocessor chip