If it's any consolation to those chaps at all, as the one respondant has pointed out, the i7 920 @ 2.66 will perform as well if not better than a Core 2 Quad @ 3.2 Ghz in a number of areas.
A review of the available literature doesn't seem to support that conclusion
when it comes to playing computer games like flight sims. In regards to the new part(s) and gaming, some patterns appear to have emerged regarding i7 technology:
1) Clock for clock, compared to Core2 technology, the parts are clearly superior at low resolutions in many games.
2) Clock for clock, at higher resolutions, 1600x1200 and above, that superiority evaporates and in many cases is reversed in games.
3) Gaming applications coded to take advantage of multiple cores, FarCry2, for instance, benefit greatly from i7 technology.
4) Gaming applications that can exploit multiple cores, when combined with i7 technology and Nvidia SLI tech, can generate vastly superior fps relative to older Intel and AMD chipset/processor combinations.
So, from a gamer's vantage point, a bunch of stuff has to come together for any of us to reap the benefits of this new technology, notably items #3 and #4 above, (or, egad, we can play the game at lower resolutions).
Sooner or later, i7-like technology may well rule the graphics-intensive, computer gaming world, at least temporarily, although I suspect that it'll come in a less workstation-oriented package, such as the P55/socket 1160 parts from intel, or something even more modest from AMD.
In the meantime, the available i7/X58 combination brings to mind equally heralded (and expensive), "gotta-have" or "future-proof" technologies like
Willamette,
Camino and
Granite Bay, all of which experienced a shelf-life considerably less extended than those who purchased them anticipated.
