Demonking

There is no processor that AMD offers that can compare to Intel's core performance. You would need to buy a FX-8350 (you will need it binned) and disable every other core to turn it into a "true quad core". Then you will need to overclock it like crazy to even begin to effectively catch up to the core performance of the i3-4130. If you're looking to game, the i3-4150 is the best budget gaming CPU right now in my opinion. Dump the rest of your money into a discrete GPU as the i3 will not bottleneck any single budget card. The same goes for typical daily tasks, the i3 will beat out any chip AMD offers simply due to the fact most software runs on very few threads. AMD took a server architecture and tried making it a desktop architecture, it didn't work out too well for them other than thread heavy workloads.

What's your point? I've had such cpu loads when I had 2 cores & HT only enabled and still getting much higher gpu loads & fps than what you had with your extreme yolo 24/7 overclock on your evo 212 8350 futureproof beast cpu. BF4 can't even go higher than 72% load anyways on a octacore so you're not that far away having your cpu hitting its limit. I'm mostly at 30% orsomething when the max is 50% which is very rare to see.
We all know your cpu wasn't enough for a 780 and because you went with a 8320 over the i5 you wasted an extra 200$ because you would have identical fps with a 760 in BF4 since youre cpu bottlenecked.
  Then you're wrong;
1. http://vr-zone.com/articles/amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-core-i7-3770k--4.8ghz--multi-gpu-gaming-performance/17494.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+vr-zone+(VR-Zone+%7C+Coolest+Gadgets+for+Men%2C+Geek%2C+Nerd%2C+Overclockers+and+Enthusiast)
2. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7189/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-september-2013/8
3. http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2013/09/SC2HotS-pcgh.png
At 6:33 2x more fps in Arma 3
At 15:31 2x again in Planetside 2
It only happens in games that dont take advantage of more than 4 cores. Such as BF3 that takes advantage of 6, the i5 cant be twice as fast anymore except a 3930K. Most benchmarks you'd see today, you would only see a 30-50% at best average because AMD is being cpu bound and Intel gpu bound.
Watch at 7:12 - thats complety gpu bound for both and you'd only see 8 threaded games from consoles only and they never really have a huge player count in multiplayers so theyre mostly going to be gpu bound. That 5% difference you claimed is pulled from a gpu bound benchmark which are mainly the gpu's performance variation, gpu's don't perform consistently the same. Massive multiplayers are always cpu bound/lightthreaded and noticing that you have a R9 290 and being gpu bound everywhere, well a 4300 would have done its job as good as your 8350
 
  Yeahhhhhhhhh rightttttttttttt.
 
  Why the hell do you even recommend 8320's then? Games that are currently gpu bound don't need a hexa or octacore. Apparently singlethreaded performance will make no difference but your sexy 35% multithreaded performance makes a world of difference.

The computer below costs 280 for motherboard and CPU combined WITH TAX. Deal goes to that price (tax not included) often at Microcenter. Can match with Staples Online and I have heard some have price matched with NCIX. Temps included. 24/7 machine that renders. Was with my old GTX 260 216C GPU when I bought it. Wanted a R9 card. Lite coin miners wouldn't let me have one.
 
BTW something is missing from the score you posted. SINGLE CORE PERFORMANCE. I find it very interesting that you chose to do all tests but single core. That would be the reason many of us buy the I7. We actually like games and many of the games we play? We don't think 15 FPS is awesome in games like Guild Wars 2, WoW raids, Day Z, Rust. If you like single player games and console port shooters? AMD is fine. If you don't? AMD is worse than an I3 THAT is why we buy Intel's. Not because we are fanboys. In the past AMD was ahead. We bought AMD's. I had an AMD before Duo Core. Then AMD started to suck on single core performance and Intel was way ahead. AMD hasn't been competitive in a long time on single core, or computer exclusive multiplayer games, with a lot going on for some time. You can blame optimization, or whatever. In the end? We can't control that. We are FPS fanboys. You do not need an expensive motherboard with an Intel. You DO to OC an AMD and have it run Stable and LAST. The people hitting high clocks on AMD's A) mostly have chips before 9xxx came out. B) have Sabretooth's. C) Have water cooling.  
 
In 2 years? You might be able to make a legit argument for AMD for ALL PC gaming, when DirectX 12 is the standard API. Now? No. It is not close. Intel K's can almost double the fps in some games, and those are some very popular games. Add to that? I can't emulate Wii U on a 5ghz AMD. Hackintosh is a pain in the butt on AMD. Intel has advantages. It isn't all about price and a multicore score in Cinebench. We aren't "rich idiots" for buying Intel. We bought Intel for a reason. That doesn't mean we even like the company. We like what the CPU allows us to play/do.
 

He did. You're not going to put some superpi benchmarks up with the 8350 being 10 times faster than a 4770k and claim afterwards you didnt claim the 8350's IPC being better.

scroll through it,you find frostbyte,cryengine,all the things you want http://www.hardcoreware.net/intel-core-i3-4340-review/2/
 
Linus should do an i3 gaming benchmark vs other cpus
 
and since a lot of gamers plays mmos and rpgs...i3 wins there too .
 
this for me is not about fanboy and stuff,its about value. and dont talk about future games.i mean look at fx 8150 now

What @s3ns3 said is correct.  Even an i3 beats out any AMD processor for gaming.  Games like stronger cores, which is what Intel provides.  Even some games released in 2014 are relying on strong single core performance.  Yes, it looks like it is trending towards multi core optimization, but it just hasn't happened to the full extent yet, and even then, Intel is still winning the battle.
 
The fact of the matter is, i3 beats out A10 for gaming.

This is extremely disappointing.

Stop posting these threads please google search this we have enough of these 

Dude the difference between a 4300 and a 8350 is non-existent in most games, we only have a few games that advantage of more than 4 cores and thats BF4 & Crysis 3. If a 4300 bottlenecks a gtx 760 so will a 8350 because their IPC is exactly the same. IPC is the gamechanger, not the corecount.

Having "more" cores and the game being optimized for "more" cores may not mean better performance, always gotta take that into mind as well. Even if the game can use them, it may not need them.
 
 
@Midnitewarrior4 I'd get a 4670k, it will be better in a wider range of games, and intel's motherboards have many more features.

the fx 8150 has the worst single thread performance,which is the most important for gaming.

Get the I5 4670K better gaming CPU 

the 9590 is basically just you paying for an overclock, i dont think there is a need for it.

What about an FX8320 for £105? You can easily pop that to 4.4GHz and get good performance.

8320 for a little cheaper, get a decent CPU cooler and overclock the unit.
 
The 9590 is basicly a high clocked 8320 so that's a waste of money

Well said my friend! 100% agree.
Getting FX CPU, you consume more power, you need to overclock it high unless it's very weak & for good overlocking you also need good cooler which also costs quite big money & overall it seems you pay even more with AMD than with Intel, which is cooler, doesn't need high overcloking & high priced cooler, consumes less power & has better single core performance which shows it's benefit in 90% of games. Also AMD's architecture is outdated comparing to Intel. So, everything this makes an Intel simply the best option.

No they're not. AMD isn't even cheaper and theyre pretty much expensive for the performance you get. CPU gets their pricetag depending on its multithreaded performance. Multithreaded performance / price ratio doesn't apply to gaming. With Intel's IPC being up to twice as faster that just kills any AMD's value. 

8350 is not better value. 8320 is I agree.

Get the I3 or I5 i would choose the I5 the 6300 is nice but when it comes to gaming it doesn't beat the I3 or I5 superior IPC
 
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2013/06/12/intel-core-i5-4670k-haswell-cpu-review/5

No they are not, Have you used the latest i3 4130 or any of it's counterparts, sick of people like yourself spreading misinformation,
Why are they 'absolute trash', my i3 4130 will keep up with your 8350 in gaming, and absolutely destroy it in single threaded applications
Gaming wise the i3 4130 is a beast
Watch the video above where Austin pits it against a 4670k, only with a GTX 780 does the 4670k start to really pull ahead, so there is no way the i3 would bottleneck a GTX 760, Get yo facts straight son

This is basically just a flame war now. @LinusTech @Slick

Same performance? Same price? I'll take Nvida because of Shadowplay. 

That's why monopoly are bad.

spend the $35 for the evo and by then you'll understand the overclocking and theory
then you'll easily dial in the overclock on a AIO easier. always have a back up HSF.

I'm only replacing thermal paste if I'm taking the cooler out..