7 on 7: The ultimate in desktop computing?

There has been much positive feedback about Windows 7, both the public beta released in January and interim builds that have leaked since then. A great deal of the praise centers on performance, and perhaps the most important difference between Windows 7 and Vista is that the former can be installed and will running satisfactorily on low-powered systems such as netbooks. In fact, there have been many reports of people installing Win 7 on their EeePCs. You can find instructions for installing it on the 1000H model here:
How to: Install Windows 7 on an eeePC 1000H - OnSoftware

I can attest to the fact that Win 7 is less of a resource hog than Vista. The Vista installation on my Dell XPS uses about 63% of RAM at startup, with no applications open. The Windows 7 installation on the same computer, with the same programs loading when the OS boots, same gadgets, etc., uses only about 52% of the RAM at startup.

I think it's great that Win 7 will run adequately on computers that aren't top of the line. But personally, I want more than "adequately." What I'm looking forward to is running 7 on 7: Windows 7 on the Intel Core i7 processor. That will be a little like driving a Bugatti Veyron on the autobahn (253+ mph, 0-60 in 2.5 seconds) and a whole lot less dangerous.
YouTube - Top Gear - Bugatti Veyron top speed test - BBC

The Core i7 is the desktop incarnation of Intel's new Microarchitecture, code named Nehalem, and that's a subject in which I've been deeply immersed for the past two weeks. When you start reading about Nehalem, you hit on a bunch of technical terms such as 45nm manufacturing and second-level branch predictor and translation lookaside buffer and it all sounds mightily impressive, but what in the world does it mean? In a word, it means "fast."

In the processor world, when it comes to nanometers, smaller numbers are better. A nanometer is a unit of length that's equal to one thousand-millionth of a meter). Previous generation processors used a 65 nm manufacturing process. These 45 nm chips cram roughly twice as many transistors into the same space - 400 million transistors or dual core processors and over 800 million for quad cores. These tiny transistors deliver a 20 percent plus improvement in switching speed, which translates into better performance.

I've always been a bit of a hardware junkie, so I'm fascinated by this stuff. The Core i7 processors were the first members of the Nehalem family released by Intel, in November of last year, and they replaced the Core 2 family of processors. To me, the coolest part of the new Microarchitecture is something called QuickPath Interconnect. This replaces the old familiar front side bus. The FSB was the connection pathway between the actual CPU and the motherboard chip called the memory controller, or sometimes referred to as the northbridge. This chip handles the communications between the CPU and the RAM (and also, typically, the AGP or PCI Express video card).
HowStuffWorks "Bus Speed"

FSB speeds have gotten faster, increasing from 200-300 MHz up to 800-1000 MHz, but as processors have become faster, the connection pathway between CPU and memory had begun to create a bottleneck, especially with multiple processors or multiple cores. Quick Path Interconnect can deliver up to 25 GB per second of total bandwidth, which is 300 times that of FSB technology. It does this by creating direct point to point connections between processor cores. Core i7s are quad-core processors.

Another improvement in the new Nehalem-based processors is the integrated memory controller, which puts the memory controller on the same die as the CPU. Previously, these communications had to go across the FSB. The four cores use this interconnection to communicate with each other, as well as with the memory. Core i7 also supports triple channel memory (DDR3). This increases the bandwidth of the bus from 128 bit to 192 bit. That's the reason you're now seeing systems with 6 or 12 GB of RAM. The triple channel RAM is installed in banks of three instead of two. However, you can also use less expensive DDR3 dual channel RAM if you prefer. In fact, some tests suggest that you don't lose a lot of performance by doing so:
Intel Core i7 Memory Analysis – Can Dual Channel Cut it? :: TweakTown

Now, before all you AMD fans write to tell me that company did these things first, yes, I know. There was a time when AMD was ahead of the game, but these days, it's playing catch-up. Their new Phenom II finally brings them into the 45 nm race, but Intel is already working on its next-gen 32 nm designs. And the Phenom is a DDR2 only platform. That keeps costs down, but it also sacrifices performance. Except for its highest-end Black Edition 940, the quad core Phenom's perform similarly to Intel's dual core models:
AMD Phenom II vs Intel Core i7: the full bechmark results - iTNews Australia

The latest builds of Windows 7 are already out-performing both Vista and XP in many informal tests reported on the web, and that's generally on mid-range hardware. Put 7 on top of 7 and you can expect your system to fly. So what's the down side? As always with the current top of the line technology, you'll pay a premium. Although the cost of the Core i7 is actually not much more than that of the Core 2 Q9550 quad-core processor, you'll need a new motherboard and DDR3 RAM, which is a bit more expensive than DDR2.

The price for Core i7 processors at NewEgg ranges from $279.99 for the 920 (2.66 GHz) to $999.99 for the Extreme Edition 965 (3.2 GHz). All have an 8 MB L3 cache and 4 x 256KB L2. Compare that to the Core2 Quad, which ranges from $189.99 to $399.99 (however, the 3.2 GHz Core2 Extreme goes for a frightening $1549.99). 3 GB of Kingston DDR3 triple channel RAM can be had for $119.99 to 154.99.

Is it worth the extra cost? That depends in part on what you plan to do with it. If you're a gamer, or you do video editing or run a CAD program or other processor intensive application, you'll see big benefits from the new, faster processors. But even if you don't, knowing you have all that power at your disposal is nice. On the streets and freeways of your hometown, you might never get that Bugatti's speedometer up over 80 mph, but it's still nice to know that you could outrun every other car on the road if you wanted to.

Tell us what you think. Are you lusting after a Core i7 system? Or are you looking forward to being able to install Windows 7 on a low-cost, less powerful computer? Are you willing to pay a little more to have the very best? If money is no object, do you prefer to rush out and buy the top of the line system, or do you think it's smarter to wait a while and let prices come down before you upgrade? Do you still have faith that AMD is going to come from behind and overtake Intel? Does the whole subject of hardware bore you? Let us know your opinions and experiences .