No, an X4 965 or i5 750 for similar prices will be faster, because games don't use more than four threads well.

I would shift the CPU-GPU balance a little and get a more expensive GPU (5850 or GTX 470) and less expensive CPU (Core i3 dual or Phenom II X4 945).

While the i5 is certainly a faster chip (tho overpriced) you obviously know littled about AMD's socket support. That is where AMD more than makes up the difference. Intel is the king of forced mobo upgrades just to bilk the faithfull.

If money is no option right now you want a nice i5 or i7 they are FAST. But if longterm (or frankly even middleterm) upgrades and being able to upgade in phases is more important- it's AMD without a doubt.

That being said AMD hasn't presented a less compelling value proposition in a very long time (2001?). They still beat Intel for gaming(price/performance) , but the margin is slim. If the AM3 were any older I would hesistate to recommend them in all honesty.  Of course who hasn't been burned by the neverending Intel upgrade mill? I really wish IBM would start making x86 chips and set both of these companies in their places.

Intel has the most compelling lineup in a decade (never forget Prescott), and it's still kind of a ripoff (sans video-editing), while AMD is selling chips that are just refined versions of dated tech with more cores and higher clock (and lots of heat). Take your pick. I for one avoid mobo lock-in as a first priority, because as any honest person will tell you the next major upgrade could be a winner  for either brand, but alteast you have a chance of not needing a full system upgrade if you go AMD.

intel process here costs like 4x the price of a AMD one. why pay so much more for a little bit of gain?