well im building a system in January with the i7 920 which is supposed to be bad ass...i think im gonna go with the 1366 mobo and the 920 to prepare for the future and whatever it holds....to each his own though...the 1366 is a bit more expensive depending on what board you buy but the i7-920 is just as cheap as those other processors....if i were you id go with the i7 simply cause its new and it does handles some apps better im sure GOOD LUCK BUDDY

It's because of the age.  The processor itself is actually fairly new, although in no way does it compare to the 860 due to the older architecture.  It will be more expensive due to that, production volume will have a lot to do with it, but there's a fair bit of desperation involved as well.  That's an upgrade line, for people too poor to buy a new Nehalem based system and need more life out of an older 775 board.

It's some old school tech from the Xeon line.  The processors have faster switching capabilities, they're more efficient at running multiple threads on the same core than a standard processor is.

Unfortunately, due to inadequate utilization by the software, this can actually be a performance loss, so I recommend disabling it in the bios for a quad core.  If you were doing serious work with multi-threaded applications that could tax the cpu, it would be a very nice bonus though.  Most of the enterprise development software is set up very nicely for it, the typical game gains absolutely zip.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3641&p=2

These benchmarks should tell you pretty much all you need to know.  In the absolute best case for the Core 2 possible, the 3 GHZ version of the quad runs about even with the i7 860.  In the worst situation (basically anything involving floating point calculations, like 3D effects) the Core 2 falls behind by up to 25%, which will be more since the one you're looking at is 2.83 instead of 3.0

Pretty much a no-brainer when the cost is identical.

I don't know how Intel does their hyperthreading, but I did read AMD's patent for how they do it.  In the Phenom II and Bulldozer series, basically what they do is mirror all the registers in the CPU and multiplex them depending on which thread you're running.  That basically means at 2 threads-per-CPU, you're basically incurring ZERO cost for switching between threads.   It's actually pretty obvious, now that they mention it.   But since AMD holds the patent, I have to assume that is not what Intel's doing.   But when you're talking AMD vs. Intel, you never know.   I can tell you that patent is worth MILLIONS.

However Intel recognizes threads in their microarchitecture, the point is that they're handling threads in the microarchitecture--not making the OS handle it.  When you run a program at 2.8 GHz, the program is stalling all the time; be it for a missed branch assembly instruction, or waiting on the L2 cache to return a value--let alone waiting on main memory or disk I/O.  If you wait just 25 milliseconds for a disk I/O at 2.8 GHz--you do the math.   25ms is forever.  You want to run the other thread that is NOT stalled when that happens.  The problem is, you're incurring a penalty when you context-switch; and if the OS is doing it, guess how it does it:  by reading in all the old register values from the L2.  Defeats the purpose.  The other thread is going to end up stalled out anyway just trying to context switch.  Hyperthreading (however they do it) is getting the CPU to handle the context switches directly, so that you can take advantage of that free CPU time when the other thread is stalled out waiting on a memory access.  It's going to be faster.   But to take advantage of it, you have to have more than 4 threads running (1 per core).

I guess that he (as many other non-computer literate people) believe them to be the best because of how it was in the old days of the AMD K.6-2 when AMD were crap. I know people I gamed with not wanting AMD simply because they have had bad experiences with their previous cpu generations.

That has lived on until today though some (can't even guess how many) understand that AMD is just as good if not better then Intel today.

Good question, didn't think of that. I checked and both have heatsinks and fans. Didn't seem to be that much different.

I currently have an AMD Athlon X2 (I think) and so far works great.

Since 2000, I have built 4 computers with AMD processors, and for each build I would buy one of the newest most powerful processors AMD had at the time.  Result was satisfying.

I have just finished my latest rig, and after very extensive research, went with the Core I7 920 (2.66Ghz).  Result was AMAZING, blows my mind everyday.

The Core I7 architecture is the biggest jump for processors since the Pentium came along.

It is absolutely awesome. Benefits include... 4 cores/ 8 threads, EEEEasily Oc'd (it took me 20 minutes to figure out how to get it up to 3.6 Ghz stable, on air w/ aftermarket cooler.), I have run 3 HD videos simultaneously, and still not get to 65% load. 

Good and Bad... runs on (requires) DDR3 RAM.  Fast and a bit expensive these days, all RAM prices have gone up dramatically in the last few months. 

Check out NEWEGG or TIGER DIRECT... read some reviews, try googling CORE I7 reviews, you'll find some good information.

Gone to check some reviews on CORE I7 860...

I'm back,

Yes... the 860 wipes the floor with the Phenom X4, even the CORE I5 beats it in 25 out of 27 tests run by Anand Bench.

Get the 860, or if you can... get a 920 (better cache and more memory bandwidth).

My next build will be the i7 920, for sure.  I figure that with a bit of saving and prices coming down some, I'll be able to afford it around April/May 2010.  However, instead of trying to purchase everything in the one go, I'll pick up the case, HDD's, ROM's, sound and graphics cards along the way.  That way it'll just be the CPU, RAM and mobo when the time comes/I've saved enough.

This really is not a good way to buy a computer.  Prices on everything for computer components trend downward over time.  If you pick up a graphics card (say, a GTX 260) right now, but pick up the rest of your computer four months later, chances are that the very same graphics card you purchased will be significantly cheaper by the time you actually build your computer.

Assuming you aren't the kind of person that will just blow money being saved, it is (almost) always vastly superior to save whatever your budget is, and then spend it all at the same time.

The only exceptions being one-time style deals (If you can get a GTX 260 for half of street price today, then do it!)

My 'upgrade' was an entirely new machine.  There was no option for adding to the old components as it was a quantum leap in upgrade.....

Lian Li PC-A6010 case [black]

Antec TruePower Quattro 1000w PSU

ASUS P6T-se  X58 i7 MoBo

Intel i7 920 2.66Ghz LGA1366 CPU

OCZ 12G-Triple [6x2G] PC12800 Gold Ram

CoolerMaster V8 CPU Cooler [that bloody big thing]

Vantec EZ2 Sata hot-swap racks x2

1TB Seagate Sata2 7200 HD x2 [for backup/data]

250G Seagate Sata2 7200 HD x2 [for secondary/alternate OS installs]

OCZ Summit SSD 60G [for OS]

ACR-105 Multi card reader

LG Sata DVD-RW x2

XFX 1G GTX285 Black Edition [vid]

Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit RTM.

Yeah, you're probably right.. particularly when it comes to the graphics card price.   The GTX295 is running at around $595 to $665 AUD at present, and it will come down in price by the time I'm ready to build, so I shall hold off of getting that until I'm ready to purchase the CPU, mobo and RAM.  However, the other components (case, HDD's and ROM's, etc, are fairly much static in price here, unless there's a special, so I will still collect those along the way.  I use PriceSpy to keep an eye on things, so I can pounce on really good deals when they're available.  For example, I saw a Creative X-Fi Xtreme Gamer Pro on special for just $75 AUD the other day... I paid around $135 for mine, which is still about the going price, normally.

I realise that, Jafo, but my comparison was moreso to demonstrate what I could afford at the time... which was just a partial upgrade of a better processor, a higher rated PSU and some extra RAM.  I was able to do that because of the Phenom II's backward compatability.  Therefore it was the most economical way for me to access greater power than what my AMD Athlon x2 6400 gave me.  Had I been able to go with a complete new build at the time I most definitely would have gone with the i7 and forgot entirely about doing a piecemeal upgrade.

Now that entirely depends on what you'd be upgrading from, doesn't it??  I went from a dual core 6400 @ 3.3 to a Phenom II quad @ 2.88, and the difference is significant and well worth it.  So anyone on a lower rated AMD CPU  is going to notice a distinct power and speed improvement.  That is not to say, however, that anyone with a low-end Intel dual or quad core would benefit from a Phenom quad.  By the time they paid for a new mobo to match it, they'd probably be better off going for a same socket upgrade, something like an Intel Core 2 Q9650 @ 3.0ghz, perhaps.