Have you taken a look at the re-designed architecture? You can use far faster memory with the i7 because there isn't a FSB bottleneck. Even though the 1:1 ratio stops at the 1333MHz standard it still gives you more room to use an unbalance ratio at a relatively stable level. The re-designed cache relationship allows for a quicker response from the respective cache.
None of this really matters for me. In the end of the day, the i7 offers me nothing more the Q9650 does. It is faster on paper and its features are more advanced, but in real-life use it doesn't give me anything that would justify spending all that money.
Additionally, if you're a gamer than you know you quad-cores aren't ideal for gaming. You should have gone with the E8600.
That's true and not true at the same time. Quad cores are starting to be used a lot in the newer games. GTA 4 uses the extra cores for sure, and it shows. I remember going through a few benchmarks where the extra cores on the quads really gave a good FPS advantage over the duo cores in the newer games.
The older games do rely on 1 and 2 cores, but that won't be a problem even for the quad cores if you have a good GPU. In the older games even a 2.3 quad core will work for you if you have a strong GPU.
Also, the same way you can OC a C2Q you can OC a i7 for better performance. And watch out that i7 have great OC'ing potential...could be relatively higher than the C2Q...
The idea, for me anyways, is that there is not supposed to be an i7 in your possession to overclock. The money does not justify the extra speed. The i7 offers me nothing the Q9650 offers.
It's just a waste of money to get the i7 at this point unless you're doing some gaming on mad resolutions with maxed out graphics or you're doing some very resource intensive tasks such as video encoding where everything counts.