Quad to me is of course not worth the money right now. But realistically if it costs a couple hundred more and means a solid couple years more life out of the pc then I'll take it. We've had a nice jump in hardware tech recently and now it's almost the software that needs to catch up. I recall not too long ago when the games hitting the market were capable of more than the hardware and now it's much less the case. So my interest isn't in the fact that I'm going to utilize 4 cores today, but tomorrow. There are plans for 8 cores already from my reading a few months ago.
My computer has always been a central point of the home as well. It controls my media, tv, allows me to create mixes, etc...basically regular computer plus a bit more. In no way do I usually stress the processor or memory like some of the servers I've setup. But there are times when I do push some limits.
And I think most of us here can't name a single program we use that will put a massive stress on our pc's. It's that I want to have my flight simulator running along with winamp, zone alarm, torrent downloads, objectdock, 5 web pages still open in the background, WinTV running, spybot scan, and defrag at the same time. I can do most things as well as todays machines but the difference is that to get into the same ball park by my definition, in terms of performance I gotta shut this down or that down, and tweak this or that to hit that frame rate I'm looking for or that compression speed, or whatever else. My computer acts fine as a computer...it needs to act well as a multi tasker though and that's why I look at the future processors.
On the plus side, the processors are not really the focus either. After all the GPU is doing it's own processing, my PVR which I can record and watch tv on has it's own thing, and the 2 or 4 gigs of ram on todays system also help tremendously with things like loading and running programs. So perhaps it's not as big of a deal as I think?