Regarding all this talk of overclocking; you can't compare overclocked to stock, it's not reasonable. Someone who is willing to overclock an AMD chip will be just as willing to overclock an Intel chip, all other things being equal.
I would gladly OC the Intel Core i3 but Intel was so nice they completely locked the CPU from any form of OC. The user of an i3 may be willing to OC but
Intel believes that you need to spend $200+ for an unlocked CPU. Not only that but you have to spend more money for a P67,Z68 or Z77 Motherboard as well in order to be able to OC that $200+ CPU.
So,we can compare an OCed CPU vs a non OCed CPU at a similar price point no cheating here. What strikes me the most is people whining about comparing OCed CPUs against Core i3 and they have accepted that they need to spend more than $200 for a truly OCed Intel CPU.
Sorry guys but i will like to be able to OC even a $50 CPU
You're guaranteeing overclocked results and comparing them to the competition at stock, and that's just wrong. But even more telling, you say that you can get certain clocks out of specific AMD chips, yet you're running a watercooling rig on your own OCed chip (as is MentalIllness, the other member posting his OCed AMD results). How much does a watercooling set-up run? $100 or so? Now you're comparing comparably priced chips but adding a $100 watercooler and OCing one and running the other on stock clocks/voltages/cooling. Well if a $300 watercooled rig isn't 50% faster than a $200 rig, isn't the price/performance ratio STILL in favor of Intel?
You have to read my review (link in my sig bellow) to see that i have OCed with stock heat-sink. No need to buy extra cooling to OC the FX CPUs from 3.6GHz to 4.2GHz.
I'm not a fanboy of any hardware, but from all objective standpoints, Intel chips are superior for use in gaming computers. They use less power, they are more efficient and they deliver higher FPS in every comparable scenario (OC to non-OC does not count as comparable as it's a broken comparison to begin with). Couple that with the fact that they are virtually indistinguishable in price, and there is really no good reason to choose an AMD chip right now in a gaming machine (unless you get a killer deal like the Microcenter deal, which they also offered for the 2600K, a far superior gaming chip to any of AMD's offerings).
Most people will believe im an AMD fanboy, they clearly mistaken. But there is no point in making them understand that. Most of the users here can and they are willing to spent more than $200 for a CPU. By all means thats fine by me and you will not read me recommend any AMD CPU above the $200 mark.
But bellow the $200 mark, AMD CPUs are very price/performance competitive when OCed like it or not and that's a fact.
Supporting a company is fine. But don't be dishonest about why you're doing it. If you like AMD more than Intel as a company, it's a subjective judgment, and it shouldn't affect which chip is objectively better. For the purposes of building a gaming rig, there's a reason every reputable tech site on the internet is currently suggesting Intel as the CPU, and it's not because they're biased.
Even before the
price cuts AMD CPUs when OCed were and still are very competitive for gaming. The reason hardware sites recommend only the Intel CPUs for gaming is from my perspective wrong.
They base their recommendation on data taken from measurements not reflecting real life gaming.
When playing a game with a Mid/high-end GPU gamers will try to raise the IQ as high as possible. That means high ultra settings with AA/AF filters enabled. Most of DX-11 games will be GPU limited at 1080p and above with those settings and no matter if you have a Core i3 or Core i7 you will get the same performance from your GPU. Yes there are exceptions to that like BF3 MP and some DX-9 games like SC2 and Skyrim.
What im trying to communicate is that hardware sites and mostly Gamers should start to reevaluate the way they recommend CPUs for gaming. Just because a $200+ Core i5 2500K at 4.5GHz is faster than FX8150 at 4.7GHz in a few games at real life gaming settings that doesnt make every FX CPU not competitive against Intel.
Let me show you what i mean from Anandtechs IvyBridge 3770K review
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/7
Are you seriously going to recommend a CPU for games taking data from 1024x768 medium settings for today's desktop gaming PCs ???
Are you seriously going to recommend CPU for gaming from the fist graph or the second ??
Are you going to recommend a faster CPU or a faster GPU from the HD5870 they used in the Review for the Metro 2033 ?? Is it better to spend more in the GPU than your CPU for that game ??? Taken the data from the first graph i would recommend buying the best CPU possible. But taken the data from the second graph i would recommend a faster GPU even with the Phenom II X4.
Im not saying to only bench at high resolutions and high IQ settings, what im saying is bench both in order to see if the CPU bottlenecks the GPU at the settings we are going to actually play the game.
It is pointless to bench a game at 1024x768 and recommend a CPU taken that data when the game will be GPU limited at the actual IQ and resolution you going to play it. 
Facebook
Twitter