i7, for no easier way to say it, brings HyperThreading back. (Ah, the good ol’ days… of 2000.) What does this mean? Well, it has four physical cores, and allows each of those cores run a second virtual core (kind of like a virtual machine letting you run two ’systems’ at once.)

Now, what does this all add up to? Well, it’s GREAT (and I mean GREAT) if you’re doing something that’s really scalar in terms of processor load, such as video/audio editing or encoding, photo manipulation or the like, or compiling code.

Sadly, however, almost every game out there doesn’t take advantage of more than two cores, let alone more than four, or even four physical and four virtual cores.

If you want to play games, it’s true that more is almost better. Will an i7 Extreme outperform anything? Sure. If you threw an i7 Extreme at any game on the market, it would probably come out on top. The question becomes not how much it’s on top, but at what cost?

Seeing as most games only USE at MOST two cores (All of Valve’s Source Engine games, for instance, only use one) you’re better off having a dual-core at a higher clock (Such as the Wolfdale E8000 series, such as the E8400 or higher).

In the end, the i7 may be slightly ahead by a few percent on the charts when it comes down to it, but to the average consumer, it’s going to be far more cost effective to spend 500 dollars on a 300 dollar processor and a 200 dollar LGA775 motherboard than 1300 on a i7 Extreme and a 300 dollar 1366 motherboard, not to mention more because of DDR3 being mandatory.

Then there’s simply the power savings. While to most it is a trifle, consider that a Core i7 is 130W TDP, while a 45nm Wolfdale is 65W TDP, meaning less power from the wall, a lower power bill, and a cooler and therefore quieter rig. This whole point is slightly nullified by the fact that most people with a Wolfdale overclock them. (Which I can’t fault, they overclock like a dream, and most people can get a 25% OC on air cooling with no trouble, higher on liquid cooling)

In addition, most games today don’t really load a processor all that much. A higher-end graphics solution, especially with physics support being offloaded to graphics cards more and more today (moreso by nVidia than ATi, I believe, correct me if I’m wrong.) is the real concern for gaming.

Bottom line: Yes, the i7 is the top dog, but putting it into a gaming rig shows you have more money than common sense.

You’re better off getting an E8400 with a solid motherboard, some aftermarket CPU cooling, overclocking it ~10-20% to ~3.5 GHz, (or leaving it stock if you’re not an overclocker) and a better graphics solution with that 7-800 USD you saved over going i7.

Now, before you go railing on me for ripping on your list, I’m not ripping on your list as much as you think. The i7 is indeed the top dog in terms of Top 5 intel processors. I only debate your claim that the i7 is the best for gaming, while Core 2 Duo’s are for people who are “… not into gaming and just want the basic all around processor.” The fact of the matter is: 95%, if not more of the games on the market today don’t even use two cores, let alone four, or eight.

While the claim that the i7 is best IS true the i7 Extreme, and for that matter all but the i7 920 (the lowest end i7,) is a classic case of the bleeding edge of technology being for people with more money than common sense, or simply a lust for 5% performance gains at a disproportionate cost.

Now, this will change by most likely mid-2009, when the Socket 1366 loses it’s enthusiast-only reputation, motherboard manufactures come out with budget boards, DDR3 drops in price. All of this will most likely also coincide with <200 USD i7 processors.