Well by that time I might even be able to afford one of those new Intel cpu's, they are meant to be 37% faster and use 50% power so they sound like a great investment.

I'll hold off until then, it just sucks I only have 2 cores and 4 threads when I could have 8...I want to do the most I can do as I am crunching for a cure for cancer.

It will take a good showing from AMD's Bulldozer from a marketing and performance perspective -- to exert pressure on Intel to lower the price of its chip offerings more than what Intel might have originally wanted. Thus, the success of the AMD Bulldozer would also be good for Intel fans. Conversely, a failure of AMD would hurt Intel fans, if only with the sure-to-follow high prices. The irony of markets? No, it is rather the consistency of the good arising from healthy competition!
;

Regarding new CPU's (2nd generation core7) from Intel, reducing power consumption is a major effort, and that is excellent, I would love to have my overclocked 980X (six core) at 4 Ghz to just burn 55 or 60 watts. Speed on a per clock basis has also improved a little. But I am unhappy about what seems to be a lack of effort from Intel towards multiple core CPU's, I mean 8, 10, 12 physical cores. A lot was said about the Larrabee processor with 80 cores etc.. I agree that 6 cores is more than enough for normal use and gaming. But for crunching we need much much more.
I would love a 10 Core CPU overclockable to 4Ghz and running at 60 Watts all for 500 bucks. Cm'on Intel show us you can achieve that

Bulldozer should bring in some larger multicore chips, but not at 60 watts. The prices should be fairly reasonable too. Just need to see the benchmarks when released in the near future. If what I have been reading is accurate, my next build will be AMD. Shouldn't be to long of a wait.