Originally Posted by Roadkill95
Originally Posted by junkerde
that is true also, AMD is really good for the money with a budget, you can't beat them in that. I do agree the i3's don't perform as well as AMD at that price point. I myself wouldn't even consider an i3 for a small budget, I would go AMD if that was the case.
IMO the 8350 doesn't necessarily beat a 3570K, they're different CPUs geared towards different tasks. The Intel is a bit better overall in gaming ( in a CPU bound scenario) but the FX is more flexible, offering noteworthy performance in multi-threaded applications. It really depends on what you want to do with your rig.
The only thing holding i3s back is the fact that they're locked ( seriously, I can't stress this enough). They're zippy little processors, but the fx gets the edge because it's unlocked.
read though my post, I said that the i5 does a bit better in some games (although 8350 does better in BF3 just saying) it's just MO that that 1-5FPS in %10-15 of games doesn't make up for how well the 8350 is in multithreaded. even better then the i7 in most cases (8150 was about equal) but since the i7 is close, with the higher IPC I would say the i7 is a better proc if not a better deal. but for the i5 I don't feel that way. I'm biased though, I'm not a gamer and the few times I do push my CPU past it's 800MHz power save it's on all four of it's cores
have an X4 but would buy an 8350 if I had the money.
I can't think of a quad core that's not 'decent' provided it's above 2.5GHz, maybe 3 for a bulldozer
basically for a standard, good system today you should have 8GBs of ram, any desktop quad core, and at least a TB of 7200RPM space. a gamer will toss in a GPU and if you have the money some toss in SSD's, but quad/8GB/1TB is a standard respectable config.Edited by jrl1357 - 1/12/13 at 8:21pm