I'm making the case that the best value is a $70 chip. You're saying that a more expensive quad core (actually, a dual module chip, specifically, which is not the same thing as a quad core) will somehow bring an enormous about of death, murder, and destruction to this $70 option. I want to make it clear that you are advocating that the OP spend more money to achieve better performance in hypothetical applications, not the use desired.
In the price class of the G3220, the 750k would be AMDs closest competitor. Performance wise, the less expensive intel chip is up to ~25% faster in single threaded performance, and up to ~25% slower in parallel workloads than the 750k. Either chip would be a fantastic solution to a minecraft build. There is no "murder" or "death" taking place there.
Comparing to the FX-6100 is actually very revealing. Even with 6 cores, AMD only manages a 75% parallel compute advantage over the less expensive to buy and less expensive to implement dual core pentium chip. The Pentium Haswell chip, is over 40% faster in 1-2 threaded workloads. These are all reasonable trade-offs to consider, and there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. Again, there is no "death" or "murder" taking place towards any chips here. Everything is well within the same playing field in this price class. I maintain the position that the Haswell dual core meets the needs of the build best at the lowest possible price. When you try to characterize the intel option as some sort of pathetic useless suggestion, you reveal a lot of obvious bias.
Furthermore, most people start threads in the AMD forum looking for advice about budget builds because it is the stereotype. I'm sure the folks from AMD marketing department would appreciate the position that all other chip options are off limits here but I'd venture to guess that this forum is not run by that department, and that the folks who start threads here are every bit as interested in learning about their cost effective intel options as Intel thread starters are interested in hearing about their AMD options.
People who start threads in "Intel general" are often very receptive to hearing about the alternatives from AMD. More often than not, they are in the same sort of "boat" that someone starting a thread here is in. They are following a stereotype that they are familiar with but may not have any idea what AMD has to offer them for their needs.
Last but not least....
I just installed minecraft on my Wife's A10-6800K machine with the iGPU and RAM overclocked, 2GB of RAM dedicated to the iGPU, with a 256x texture pack loaded and at a resolution BELOW 1080P I was getting 12-19FPS. It's "painful" but playable at that sort of frame rate. CPU cores were trading hands at fluttering around the 30-40% utilization mark.
With a 512X pack it would be useless.
I URGE you not to listen to these APU build suggestions. They are a total waste of your time and money for minecraft. If you want to build on the AMD platform do a Vishera chip on AM3+ or one of the Trinity or Richland based Athlon X4's on FM2/FM2+. Don't waste a dime on the integrated GPU from AMD (unless you want to get an estimated <10FPS with high quality texture packs at HD resolution). The little $70 Pentium chip covers the need for minecraft on the CPU at the lowest possible cost. The $80 and $90 Athlon X4 options are very good contenders.
Edited by mdocod - 11/14/13 at 3:52pm