Clock speed vs. Amount of Cores

[GarbageDay]

Alright, so I'm looking to upgrade my computer. I have a whole new mobo, an ECS A780GM-A Black Series, and now I'm lookin at some processors. There are two that I'm looking at. One is an AMD athlon x2 7850 kuma clocked at 2.8Ghz. The other is an AMD phenom 9600 Agena quad core clocked at 2.3Ghz. Now, what I'm wondering is: Which is more powerful, Clock speed or more cores? I'm mainly a gamer, but I also do some video editing and alot of browsing and other generic stuff. So would I be better off with a dual core that I could probly OC to at least 3Ghz, or with a quad core that is most likely stuck at its stock 2.3Ghz?

Quad Core: Newegg.com - AMD Phenom 9600 Agena 2.3GHz 4 x 512KB L2 Cache 2MB L3 Cache Socket AM2+ 95W Quad-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops

Dual Core: Newegg.com - AMD Athlon X2 7850 Black Edition Kuma 2.8GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache 2MB L3 Cache Socket AM2+ 95W Dual-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops

 

[connor53]

Here is how it works.
The speed (Ghz) does not matter when you have multiple cores.

A dual core would be good for some gaming, and everyday use.
A quad core is for multitasking and intense gaming.

Any day a quad core over a dual core.

Example. a dual core CPU running at 2.5Ghz.

The 2.5Ghz is the speed at one core so theoretically it is running at 5Ghz.

But yes, although the cpu speed is lower the wuad core would be a better choice and out-perform a dual core.

 

[BoBBYI986]

Here is how it works.
The speed (Ghz) does not matter when you have multiple cores.

If the speed of your processor does not matter what's the whole point in overclocking your cpu and whats the point of aftermarket cpu heatsinks? lol what an idiot.