johntiger1 :
So..gaming only? I read somewhere that some games are optimized for single or dual core, so having four, less powerful cores actually decreases performance.
i don't know where you read that single/dual core info, but i can assure you that is either one really old article or a badly written one with half a truth in it.
http/www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120.html
http/www.tomshardware.com/reviews/diablo-iii-performance-benchmark,3195-6.html
http/www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skyrim-performance-benchmark,3074-9.html
http/www.tomshardware.com/reviews/deus-ex-human-revolution-performance-benchmark,3012-7.html
http/www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html
dual cores are playable enough at the highest settings, especially in single player games like Arkham City, Deus Ex, BF3 campaign, Skyrim etc. there are a few exceptions, the current most notable being BF3 online maps; the more players there are, the more your frames per second falls drastically @Ultra with a dual core. RTS like starcraft 2 usually favors more cores, though still pretty playable with two.
however, as you can see, adding an extra 2 cores can make quite a difference, hence a better optimization at 4 cores. and getting 6-8 cores at the moment for $50-100 more will only yield a very small increase in performance (if any at all), and just isn't worth it for gaming alone. while others may argue 6 cores is the future especially with the next gen consoles getting near, it doesn't mean 4 cores will become obsolete for gaming, not in a long time anyway.
johntiger1 :
Why doesn't Intel just make i3's and i7's (ie average user and heavy user) processors? (and similarly, A4's and A8's for AMD) Is an i5/A6 never a good idea/worth the extra money? (My logic of course being, if you really needed that extra processing power, only an i7 would be sufficient)
the right balance of price and performance. games now DEFINITELY don't use the full potential of an i7,hence a waste of cash and an i3 while good enough, just doesn't bring out the full potential of some games, hence you have the i5. and even then, why spend $200-250 when you have little to exactly zero interest in overclocking, and are on a budget, when you can spend on a locked $180 i5? hence the large number of choices.
let me also assure you a CPU is simply more than just clock speeds and the number of cores; a 2.8ghz Quad core can perform better if not equally against a 3.3ghz dual core in some games, while the dual core may win in a few games. it really depends on how the games are coded; some will see higher performance with 4 cores than 2, some will rely on higher clock speed, some may not even care about your CPU at all.
my advice; NEVER take a CPU at face value. again core clock and no. of cores means little to nothing. if you look at my first link, you can see how a near $200 4-core, 3.1ghz FX-8120 performs equally if not less than a $90 or so dual core Pentium G840 at 2.8ghz. the only thing you can trust are benchmarks from multiple sites.
again, to reassure you; the Llano are good for every day use. don't expect anything too amazing gaming-wise at 1080p or more.