Well, how many programs out there could actually even take advantage of 4 cores simultaneously? It'd be fairly useless in the majority of applications. In fact, I'd say, pretty much every single application I run would likely show no noticable speed increase in going from 2 to 4 cores. Maybe if I was doing heavy 3D rendering all the time that would make sense.
I actually think a hyperclocked FX is more likely than a quad core CPU...because I doubt a quad core CPU would help AMD retain the gaming crown. Heck, most games don't even benefit from the 2nd core, dropping 4 cores all of a sudden is going to be fairly silly if AMD wants to affect benchmarks. But if they cherry pick out a few hundred magic chips out of the millions that they're making, they might be able to squeeze out enough superFX chips to keep competitive in benchmarks.
Of course, like the Intel people say, the millions of other people out there are just going to go and buy Conroe anyway.
Come to think of it, pretty much any overclocker would go with Conroe because it's *not* being pushed to the very limits of it's architecture...there's plenty of overhead to work with based on preliminary results.