Conclusions
The Core i7-965 Extreme is, by far, the fastest processor we've ever tested, and it seems clear the Core i7 architecture brings with it a general performance increase over the 45nm Core 2 processors it succeeds. We've seen that increase in everyday desktop applications, including the WorldBench suite and several of the latest games. In part, the Core i7's performance gains come from higher clock frequencies due to the "Turbo mode" mechanism. When the Core i7-965 Extreme is operating at 3.33 or 3.46 GHz, it's going to be somewhat faster than a Core 2 at 3.2GHz. That's why I've been I've been hesitant to talk about clock-for-clock performance gains for Core i7, as you may have noticed.

Yet in some cases, the Core i7 undeniably delivers clock-for-clock performance increases over Core 2, along with dramatic gains in absolute performance. We saw the biggest improvements in some specific sorts of workloads, including 3D rendering, scientific computing/HPC applications, and nearly any application that could spawn up to eight threads. More than once, a single Core i7-965 Extreme outran our dual-socket "Skulltrail" system by a considerable margin. This new system architecture pushes the performance frontiers forward in places where progress had previously been rather halting.

Such things aren't exactly the material of everyday futzing around on the PC, but we're long past the point where Microsoft Office is a prime target for performance optimizations. In fact, for the average guy, the secret hero of our test results was the Core 2 Duo E8600. If your main reason for wanting a fast computer is to surf the web and play games, you're probably better off getting a fast dual-core like the E8600 than you are picking up a Core i7-920 or any quad-core processor. Game developers keep threatening to really make use of more than two cores, but it just hasn't happened yet.

Even so, one has to appreciate what Intel has accomplished here. The Core i7 is another solid step beyond its last two product generations, the 45nm and 65nm versions of Core 2. As our power testing showed, the larger Core i7's power draw at idle is similar to a quad-core Penryn's. Although its peak power draw is higher, the Core i7 can use less energy to complete a given task, as it did in our Cinebench rendering example. And the new system architecture established by the Core i7 will likely be the basis for Intel systems for the next five years, at least. On all fronts, progress.

One question that remains: Has Intel now built an insurmountable lead over AMD? Almost seems like it. But one never knows. AMD's 45nm quad cores are coming soon. Perhaps they'll have a few surprises in store for us.