To be honest I have gripes about the whole idea that "more cores are better."
1.) Right now most people have two cores, and for 90% of the users out there, we use around 5% (20% at peak) of its power doing daily work, surfing and watching movies. For the gamers, having four cores is absolutely not better than two, because of one simple fact: games prefer higher clocks. simple fact two: future games will be GPU reliant, ie. Cry engine. Currently most games that are "optimized for two cores" have most of the work running on one core, and then the leftover work for the second core (ie. loading music). Is that really full utilization of your cpu AND money?
2.) Now we have eight cores. Just how many of those cores are going to be idle 90% of the time? Vista is said to spread the workload over all cores, and even in this case your asking your cores to work at under 5% its capacity. And ask yourself this question: was it worth the price tag to buy a machine that just idles itself and is never used like how it was intended to?
3.) Power consumption. I know its 45nm and even OCing those cores would likely come under 1.3v from what i hear, but still there are eight cores in here, and most people won't stop at that. They want 3 GPU's, 4 Hard Drives, 6 Fans, and God knows what else. In the future of computing shouldn't we be looking for more efficient computing solutions? I dont want my computer running like a small oven drinking 1000W of electricity every hour adding to my electricity bills!!! All to do what exactly? Play Crysis 2? Ridiculous!
So for these reasons I'm against the whole octo-core movement (unless you genuinely need it to run your business servers) because for the general public, we don't need them. Buy into them if you must, call me a hippy but I'm looking forward to a much cleaner more economically friendly CPU to power my computers.