It is actually surprising (although this is only remotely related to the current topic) on how modest systems one can play games and get actually pretty decent experience out of it.
For example, AMD 1055 + AMD 6770 was actually capable of driving many games including some modern ones at payable frame-rates at 10 megapixels resolution. GFX settings were ofc somewhere in the "low" region and fps around 40, but still, a 100$ GFX card was actually
capable of driving a resolution that is 25% higher than 4K in a game. Including games like Metro 2033 (in DX 9 mode) and the like.
Then there is my take on at "250 EUR gaming PC" few years back:
That is AMD Sempron 140, unlocked to dualcore and having a mild OC + 4870 GFX card. 8 GB of RAM, some HDD, cheapest PSU + case. It was surprisingly decent back then at 1280x1024 in games like Unreal 3 and Source engine ones. Was done back then to show a point that the consoles are getting way too old if you can beat them with off the shelf parts by a wide margin at the same price-point.
I believe that AMD still is holding it's ground at the lower end gaming segment with their APU's and with the fact that some of their offerings can unlock still or overclock without having to pay for "k". It's when one is getting into ~700 EUR price range where Intel offerings start to look more attractive if you are doing the fresh build for gaming. I mean HSA is all nice and stuff but if you are building a gaming PC today you should go with best bang for buck today not with something that might or might not release in immediate future. HSA talk has been there for a while, same way as back in 2009 the GPU acceleration in most programs was supposed to be right around the corner. Which is still yet to happen. Or like MST hubs were supposed to be released back in 2010 when AMD released 6xxx series claiming that they can do 6 screen eyefinity with just 2 display-ports. These hubs released at last in the middle of 2013. So by all accounts one might be in for a long wait if going for "8 core" because games are supposed to utilize all 8 cores well in any near day now. Besides I still think that calling AMD module 2 cores is marketing same way as calling i7 two threads as two cores would be marketing. AMD does dedicate a bit more die space for their version of hyper-threading but I am running mostly floating point loads and there is only 4 floating point units in their "8 core" chips. In that regard i7's are similar for me, basically running 8 threads with my load gives me close to the the same performance as running 4 threads (which is the count of real cores in my i7).