Just wondering, will I see much improvement with a quad core vs. a dual core under the following situation: I do not game. I rarely encode A/V. I do primarily business apps, backup utility, defrag utility, spyware utility. I realize these are not the sort of apps that have a huge benefit from a quad core, but as I understand it, Win XP Pro does recognize 4 cores. Will I see enough of an overall speed boost from OS running under 4 cores vs. 2 cores to justify the 9450? Or will that be negligible? My system has 4 GB of DDR2 800 speed RAM. I would add that I already run SuperSpeed RAM caches on my drives and that my pagefile and IE 7 temp files are offloaded to a 4GB GigaByte i-Ram RAM disk. I am currently running the E8400 but can swap that to another CPU if the 9450 is justified. Needless to say, the SuperSpeed caches and i-RAM pagefile disk make a huge difference. I have also set the registry to keep core XP services in RAM, though I doubt that matters a whole lot since the pagefile is in RAM as well. Anyway, any thoughts would be appreciated. Short of going to 64-bit OS, which I would rather not, I can't up my RAM anymore. Bottom line question is, does XP Pro benefit enough from the 2 extra cores to make a difference? Thanks for any help. I will post this in the CPU thread as well, not sure where it really belongs. Thanks.