Dual core is dead for gaming. Next gen (HA!) consoles have 8 cores, at least 6 of them will be in use. I wouldn't even use a plain dual core (sub i3) in an a daily office box now actually.
Those 8 cores have about as much throughput as an Intel dual core. Granted, there's probably some inefficiency to running 8 heavily loaded threads on a dual core, but I'd imagine a core i3 is more than enough to keep up with the consoles.
I think the bigger issue is just that DX12 isn't here yet, so games on PC have trouble making effective use of more than 2 cores. The draw call numbers one PS4 dev said they're achieving on all (6?) cores match roughly what 3 Intel cores can do under DX12 in the Star Swarm benchmark and beat what any number of Intel cores can do under DX11.
Still images always looked better than motion videos. There always seem to be latency of how much detail can be written into one frame at a time before the entire image is fully rendered when graphics are in motion.
Still images generally have AA and resolution pumped up to ridiculous levels.
Also, your monitor and your eyes blur images in motion. Get a better monitor / TV and you can significantly reduce the amount of motion blur. Plasma and CRT displays have innately low motion blur, and LCDs can achieve it with an Ultra Low Motion Blur feature, although I'd imagine LCDs are somewhat limited by pixel response time. Heck, even plasmas and CRTs have some amount of innate motion blur.
See this for examples:
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/10vs50vs100/
Most LCD screens have a severe amount of motion blur and poor resolution for anything in motion. Your eyes also do some amount of blurring, which is why a sequence of frames looks like motion to you instead of individual pictures.