They are very close in gaming performance, but there are a few benefits to more cores, depending on what you are doing. For gaming it prob doesn't matter. For others -they may prefer "an engine with more cylinders" so to speak. I am usually doing a lot of things at once.. so if one app is eating up a lot of cores, i like having some cpu power left over when possible. Its just a preference. Maybe these charts I snagged from here and there might help people decide.
Remuxing video. Their test was done on 720p, not 1080p files, and is only a 30sec clip.
" Tech Arp's recent development of the x264 HD Benchmark takes a 30 second HD video clip and encodes it into the x264 codec with the intention of little to no quality loss. The test is measured using the average frames per second achieved during encoding, which scales with processor speed and efficiency. The benchmark also allows the use of multi-core processors so it gives a very accurate depiction of what to expect when using encoding application on a typical full length video."
-------------------------------
"Video transcoding is well suited for systems that have more CPU cores. Encoding/transcoding to x.264 format is one of the most intensive tasks a processor can perform. As such this is one of the better tests in the entire review. We encoded an h.264 DTS 1080P trailer of 150 MB to Matroska x.264 with 5.1 channels AC3. "
"The displayed number is the number of frames rendered per second averaged out over the encoding process. The higher the number, the faster the performance is. It's exactly in applications like these where processors with more cores really shine as they are all utilized to the maximum."
"This simple integer benchmark focuses on the branch prediction capabilities and the misprediction penalties of the CPU. It finds the solutions for the classic "Queens problem" on a 10 by 10 sized chessboard. "
-------------------------------------------
3D content creation: "test scenario uses all of your system's processing power to render a photorealistic 3D scene (from the viral 'No Keyframes' animation by AixSponza). This scene makes use of various different algorithms to stress all available processor cores."
World Of Warcraft:Cataclysm multi-core and gpus
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm-directx-11-performance,2793-5.html
"And how about processors? After all, games are impacted most forcefully by the power of your GPU. WoW, it appears, bucks that trend to a large degree. Without question, we see the best performance on Intel CPUs with remarkable scaling from 100 FPS down to 60ish frames per second with a GeForce GTX 480 at 1680x1050 (Ultra quality) as you shed clock rate, cores, and cache. "
"Keep in mind that this benchmark is just a flying sequence and not an actual raid environment and/or capital city during peak hours. While there are some zones in cata that are pretty intensive on both cpu/gpu, they just don't compare with big battles and capital cities."
Very cpu limited......
But......
Blizz did enable multiple cores in a patch recently. Apparently, two cores IS all you need to "dedicate" to this game at the moment though(if you have a fast processor).. Good to know.
I'd really like to see 1920x1080/x1200 compared, and then 1920p windowed+maximized compared, to see if the 2 to 6 core "cieling" spread is any different in those cases.
GPU comparison ..................
I'm not sure I agree with the ~ 40fps results on gtx 285-285 in the busiest areas with the shadows, texures, and view distances maxed. I do run WoW at 1920x1080 on a gtx260 though so the results would be different. The cpu results showing a considerably higher frame rate were run at 1680x1050. If you run WoW "in a window" + maximized, so that you can move your cursor off of it to one or more other monitors in a multi-monitor setup while you are playing, your framerates would be much worse, just from it being in windowed mode, then figure in the higher rez too.
Personally I'd go with the top end of this chart if I was upgrading my gpu, due to the aforementioned reasons making my fps much lower.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-2500k-and-core-i7-2600k-review/14