@ Warhound: I beg to differ. It also really depends on what you do with your pc. If I had the time and inclination, I could selectively choose benchmarks that favour either cpu to prove one is better than the other, and Anandtech is probably the worst (best?) example of Intel bias there is on the ‘net.
I did spend a fair bit of time reading up before deciding, and one of the articles that made up my mind was this one:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1210060/f...chmark-results (although it degenerated into an argument that needed to be locked – sound familiar?
) This showed how close the two were overall when overclocked to the same speed.
I also have the benefit of being able to do a direct comparison between my son’s Core i5 2500k and mine, using whatever benchmark I choose. I therefore do not have to rely on finding a website that may compare programs relevant to me, as I can do this myself. Currently my performance matches his in everything I have tested, but needs a higher frequency to do so (except for CloD, where having 8 cores does provide an advantage). Since the 2500k is widely considered to be the best gaming cpu you can buy (or its 3570k replacement, which is no faster), having an AMD cpu that matches it means that I have the best gaming cpu money can buy (not bad for a ‘budget pc’)
The other aspect to consider is that you do not need a very fast cpu for a game station, just one that is adequately fast. You get far better value by spending more on a fast graphics card than a fast cpu, as most games are gpu bound. It certainly isn’t detrimental having a fast cpu, it’s just not as beneficial as some would have you believe. A Core i3 2130 with a GTX680 will run every game you try faster than a Core i7 3770k with a HD7950, and cost the same (just as an example).