With the discussion on 32nm quad in mind: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=190596 I'm still considering options for a new machine that will let me play ArmA II (amongst a ton of other things I'm dying to try!) and handle regular media/browsing duties, but also last a while. Given my current machine (a skt 939 dual core Athlon with 2gig of RAM) handles Win7 x64 and everything I need apart from gaming, I'm of the opinion that anything quad core is going to cope with my needs for quite some time. The only reason I'm thinking quad over dual, is for more demanding games in the future. I don't use anything else multi-threaded. It's literally gaming, ripping CDs, serving media and browsing. So...... i5-750 vs. i7-920. Everybody's favourite debate! But I want a twist on it, not just the usual. From what I've read here and elsewhere, the i5 is ample for my needs and still seems a fair bit cheaper than 1366. With the 32nm quad thread in mind - i5 with dual channel DDR3 would allow me to keep my RAM if I ever upgraded to 1155 or add another 4gig if I moved to 2011 with it's quad channel DDR3. 1366 with it's triple channel RAM would likely mean I couldn't carry the RAM over if I decided to upgrade in the future. However, you have a 32nm hex upgrade and even without that surely a 1366 system for somebody like me without extreme needs is gonna last bloody ages?? When I bought my XPS laptop nearly 4yrs ago, I spent £1500 because I wanted it to last. It has. Had I spent £500 it would've been no good for my needs a while back. I want to apply the same logic, within reason, to a new desktop build. Thoughts???