1: No, there is no reason to buy Ph II anymore, between Trinity and the 4300, there's no reason to go with the outdated hardware.
Why would you go with trinity? Phenom X4 + 460 is cheaper than trinity, AM3 is cheaper than FM2. Maybe if you had a problem with used hardware or geeks.com but with such a cheapo build it'd be silly to buy new anyways. And 4300 instead of a Phenom x4, is that a joke? Phenom X4 crushes the 4300 in multi-threaded applications in the same way that it crushes the i3. The only reason you'd buy AMD over i3 or Pentium is specifically because of how strong AMD is for the same price point at multi-threaded tasks.
You can't stream on an i3, but you can on a Phenom X4. But no a 4300 though... Games, general applications, i3, 4300, phenom ii x4, fx 8350, are all pretty much the same in performance, but the phenom x4 is cheaper than all of them. Especially when you consider a high quality am3 board is cheaper than am3+/fm2.
2: A Pentium and Athlon II also won't last long.
And yes, an Enthusiest gamer would be able to tell the difference, stop making things up.
Not going to respond to the rest, because even you know it's crap.
A pentium and athlon ii will both last a long time for gaming. Are you going to tell me an fx 4300 is going to last longer? Yea right. Enthusiast gamer playing his Counter strike or whatever game isn't going to notice. There may be a few games they'll notice, like BF3 64 man or Crysis 3, but besides the newest and most intensive games, like the millions and millions of people who play less intensive games - starcraft, lol, dota, hon, wow, rift, counter strikes, etc ad nauesum, no, they will not notice.
It is not crap, I would appreciate it if you kept the argument civil instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks. If you can explain to me how an i5-3570K at 5ghz is going to be appreciated by someone playing WoW or the thousands of games on steam marketplace, please, tell me. Even the most intensive games like Crysis 3 are more about the GPU than CPU anyways.
HD4000 can't even keep up with Llano, I guarantee you Haswell is not catching up to Richland (now), Kabini (summer), or Kaveri (winter). Plus, even at is stands now, the cheapest chip with HD4000 is $144. Trinity's biggest chip is what, $130 on newegg? And you don't even need an A10 to kick intel out of the park.
AMD's APUs are great for size-conscious small power builds, of course. And haswell will be far ahead of AMDs APUs for CPU power, so there will be plenty of cpu-intensive games that make haswell better than APU. This isn't something I don't think anyone has any disagreement on though. If you can manage to fit a GPU, I think a cheap AMD CPU + cheap GPU like a 4850 is a better way to go than APU though.
: No one cares what you got your system for if no one else can duplicate it, but as it stands you can get a 8320 and 970a-UD3 (new) from MicroCenter for $210. That's cheaper then just a 3770k from the same place. You can knock that down to $170 if you get the board openbox, which makes it even cheaper then just a 3570k also from MicroCenter.
i7-3770k is absurd, you would be silly to buy that for gaming, which is not why I got my i7. My Athlon II system was more than powerful enough for my needs (and I did things way more intensive than gaming, I do tons of streaming), this i7 system is simply an investment and less of a logical purchase for my needs and more of a money maker.
You can get the i5-3570K for $180, than get a motherboard for $80 on sale, if not much cheaper, from microcenter. The problem is that the FX chip might be a bit cheaper, but the i5 is going to double it in performance in most applications. Suddenly there is no 'budget' or value in the FX chip.
Now the Phenom is a great budget buy, it's something like half the performance but 1/3rd the price, so that's a great value.
Of course, if you got all your parts second hand, then why don't you compare the cost of the FX chips second hand?
Weren't you just talking open box? And nothing in my build is second hand except the RAM, which I bought for a higher price than brand new.
The rest is just you having no idea where anything stands if you think Intel can OC higher or that Ph II can even pray to match FX, so there's really no point in trying to convince you. It would be nice if you stopped spreading misinformation though.
I never said Intel can OC higher. I said Intel can OC better. An 8ghz overclock is useless if you are talking single core (a reference to both FX and Celeron). Intel overclocks much better than FX in the sense that 4.5-5ghz on Intel is much stronger than 5ghz+ on FX.
Phenom ii more than prays to match FX, it beats it in some applications, which is sad.
You can go on and on about how these benches are inaccurate and terrible but the fact that the chips come so neck and neck so consistently makes it insane to buy the FX for double price of Phenom for anything other extremely niche, price conscious, professional applications used on a professional level.
Because they don't. He's just either outdated, still thinking of BD, or has an agenda.
Because they do. FX has a lot of potential but not anywhere near the price it's being sold for currently. This is coming from someone who has owned FX, Phenom, and multiple Intel chips, and has built many more systems with all of them.
Like I said, both chips have their place, it is not so black and white as people make it out to be. But people like you who claim that FX is just a better buy, or Intel just the better buy, are the one with an agenda and total bias. There's a place and price for everything, but when it comes to gaming, general usage applications, and overclocking, Intel destroys FX and Phenom II cleans up anything left.
BF3 is one of the few games that FX might have a leg to stand on vs Intel though, but I haven't seen any proper comparisons when both chips were overclocked, which throws a wrench in everything and pretty much makes all the available benches useless.Edited by Belial - 3/16/13 at 11:31am