Depends how "slow" your current video editing is. I think you're unlikely to see much of an improvement in other areas. Certainly not £500 worth of improvement. If you've got money to burn, I'd be tempted to look at monitor perhaps. I'll be more everyday/useful upgrade.

From the review I read the new AM3 cheaper and faster then the i7 920

and from reading some thing else the AM3 when over clocked is just as fast as i7

but like most review I have come across the years they tend to do test and results that favor on over the other

Dennis review and test are so Intel leaning

Taken from:

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?i ... 49&page=12

could not pass the table - please use the link:

The benchmarks and normalisation

The first, HEXUS.PiFast, helps us to understand single-threaded performance, which still makes up the throughput of a large number of applications. Secondly, we've taken account of POV-Ray, as it provides near-perfect scaling with cores and threads, such that the performance in this benchmark is with the processor working at close to 100 per cent: an ideal scenario. Thirdly, we look at gaming at 1,680x1,050, to see how the chips fare when the IQ is set to a decent level. Lastly, we look at DivX performance with a QuickTime clip in the foreground - a kind of multi-tasking, if you will.

We then derive an averaged normalised figure based on the four results, with the leading chip set to 100 at all times. In effect, we're looking at the percentage performance of any chip when the fastest chip is locked to 100. So, for example, if the Intel Core i7 920 is the fastest in a particular benchmark and scores 150fps, a chip scoring 75fps would receive a normalised score of 50 marks. Analysis

The average normalised performance shows how well the CPUs have done on a cumulative basis. The closer the score to 100 the better they are in each benchmark, which is weighted the same. Using this rationale, the Intel Core i7 is the best chip, winning two benchmarks and finishing very close to the leader in the other two. In particular, it wins the POV-Ray benchmark easily, pushing all other chips' ratings down.

The AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE and Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 benchmark (comparatively) in very similar fashion, and the Phenom II X4 940 BE brings up the rear. However, if we then evaluate the average normalised performance with price, by stating how many marks each one receives on a '£100 basis' - an arbitrary figure - we see that, at current pricing levels, the Core i7 920 and Core 2 Quad Q9550 perform about the same. AMD's Phenom II X4 955 BE does better, because it's around £10 cheaper than the Q9550, but performs, on these benchmarks at least, the same. The slowest of the quartet, AMD Phenom II 940 BE, does best of all, because it now ships with an excellent etail price of around £167. Phew!

Long story short, Intel's Core i7 920 is the fastest CPU of this particular bunch. Take value and normalised performance into account and the two AMD chips look better.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?i ... 49&page=13

AMD's new 45nm process has enabled higher clocks and the AM3 form-factor's given them a degree of additional flexibility. Couple this with now-sensible pricing on triple- and quad-core chips and we'd call AMD and Intel's sub-£300 CPU-and-motherboard combinations a draw right now: either is damn good value. Intel's quad-core Core i5 may well upset the <£200 CPU market. Until then, based on current pricing, AMD's Phenom II or Intel's Core 2 Quad are both quality CPUs.

Bottom line: The £200 AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition AM3 CPU brings the fight to higher-specified Intel Core 2 Quads and knocks on Core i7's door. Core i5, when launched, should put it back in its place, but the AMD price-chopping machine may well be called into action again. The X4 955 BE is a good buy at £200 but a mediocre one if priced at £250.

Also from review the AM3 over clocks better better than the i7 chips but currently due to being ill I am giving up on another search

Mark

I've currently got the QX9650 overclocked to 3.3Ghz which is OK but still seems slow when video editing.

Monitor is fine - Samsung SyncMaster 206BW.

I'll see if I can find a good deal re. i7 965 if not then I'll wait until the i7 975 comes out in June/July and hope the 965 drops in price - or wait until a dual-cpu board comes out for the i7 like the Skulltrail did for socket 775.

Skulltrail was socket 771 - essentially a workstation board tweaked for consumer use.

If you're interested, there are some i7 workstation boards out right now. However, I don't think they'll offer much (if any) overclocking potential for a tasty i7 CPU.

Seems like you're looking for an excuse to spend money
I know the 206BW personally, no qualms with that. Why not get another?!

That said if a 3.3ghz quad-core ain't enough, only i7 will do. That's the bottom line.

Your QX9650 should do 4GHz no worries at 400x10 1.35v
I've had mine up to 4.8GHz (although that required water)

I'll be building a Core i7 system soon. But I am upgrading from an Athlon XP2200 which I have had since that processor came out. Which is a loooooooooong time.

Palomino core?! Jeepers! I thought my X2 3800+ was old. Glad everyone here isn't a 4Ghz freak, I was beginning to feel a little left out.

I can beat that ! XP2100+ processor. Runs like a dream........ Y'know, those dreams when you are trying to run from danger or through knee deep mud