collegeguy :
You have some good suggestion ,but I believe you have missed one point ,he said he is interested in video encoding which in my point of view can use the extra power of the i5
Proof:http://www.anandtech.com/show/2832/12
"The 955 is not far behind the i5 760, and in games you won't see any difference. "
If you continue reading Anandtech article you can see that there is difference between the i5 and the 955 in gaming .
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Core-i5-vs-Phenom-II-X4-CPU-Review/819/10
They 955 is beating the i5 by a frame.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Core-i5-vs-Phenom-II-X4-CPU-Review/819/11
The i5 beating the 955 by 3 frames.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=109
Fallout 3, Crysis and Left 4 Dead they are identical. The i5 seems to perform better in one scene of Far Cry 2 though, but its seems to be a weird result to me.
In terms of video creation and image burning the i5 does beat the 955, but is only ~10 seconds over a 2 minute time period. Let's be serious - who buys a quad-core CPU and ONLY does one task? If you're browsing the net, watching youtube etc. while doing other CPU intensive tasks you aren't going to notice these few seconds.
It's worth saving the extra $$$ so you can invest in a GPU a tier higher, or squeeze those SSD's into your budget, THAT is where you will see a larger performance difference.
If your budget permits, I would recommend the i5 over any AMD CPU, but fact is @ $900 you can spend your money in wiser ways. Couple all this along with a better upgrade path with the AM3 socket vs. 1156 and I think thats the gamebreaker. Some people REALLY don't like AMD though so personal preferences could factor in, but objectively speaking I think it makes more sense to go with them here.