Advise

[SPS]

Well, I'll be the first to agree Intel blows AMD outta the water in a purely gaming machine, in most benchmarks and is better fold folding. But, for my purposes AMD does fine. Hell, I play Metro 2033 and Company of Heros on my current system with an Athlon 64 X2 2.20ghz and Nivida 8400 GS on medium settings with no issues. So, if I can do that along with everything else I do on that cpu a FX 6300 should do fine. besides, I've always been one to lean towards supporting the underdog.

But it's not like you're even saving money. A 650 is going to struggle running metro.

 

[WillSK]

I have to say mate you should really seriously consider what people are suggesting. Lose the water cooling kit unless you're thinking of really high overclocks and at least get a better card than the 650. If you insist on having nvidia I would suggest at least a 660ti . Remember the guys here at the forums want you to get the best pc for your money and if that means going intel than why wouldn't you.

Also as someone else said if you can squeeze an ssd in there you won't regret it!

 

[iBeInspire]

I'm like you, I've always preferred AMD (Something about the color red )

But seriously, a 3570K is the way to go.

If you're hell bent on going AMD, Go for the top of the range 8-core, or save yourself some money, go for the FX-4300, overclock it like hell and be happy for a year or two

 

[iBeInspire]

And also yeah, If you go for the 4300, you'll have extra funds for a better GPU, and maybe fit in a 60gb SSD for Windows and your main game

 

[Bang]

But will still have a cpu that sucks.

I went from an Athlon X2, 6000+ @3Ghz running games like Sleeping dogs (with a GTX550Ti) at lowest settings.

Batman Arkham City, Lowest settings.

Switched to 3570k and 8GB of G.Skil@2133 but did not change GPU.

Sleeping Dogs on high Batman Arkham City on Extreme, because I now have a cpu capable of feeding the gpu properly.

Do your research. Youll find that 2 AMD cores are worth only 1 Intel core. AMD memory controller is crap. AMD per core performance is vastly inferior to Intel per core performance.

Stick with AMD. Have fun paying those electricity bills and getting lousy performance in return.

 

[G-sus]

Do your research. Youll find that 2 AMD cores are worth only 1 Intel core. AMD memory controller is crap. AMD per core performance is vastly inferior to Intel per core performance.

That's because they're not full cores, lower per core performance shouldn't be such a surprise. An FX 8350 is still cheaper than a 3570k though. I'm still using a 3 year old AMD Phenom X4 965 and it runs newest games on ultra just fine, in this case it's my 4890s keeping it down.

 

[SPS]

That's because they're not full cores, lower per core performance shouldn't be such a surprise. An FX 8350 is still cheaper than a 3570k though. I'm still using a 3 year old AMD Phenom X4 965 and it runs newest games on ultra just fine, in this case it's my 4890s keeping it down.

The point is, your phenom is 3 years old, why upgrade to something of that standard now?

 

[G-sus]

Because the 8350 is a lot faster than my phenom and it's more than enough for a gamer.

 

[Bang]

Right, but if one has to upgrade motherboard too, it might as well be an Intel board.
The 3570k is $6 more than the 8350 and is a superior gaming chip. If someone is that worried about $6 they probably shouldnt be considering a computer upgrade to begin with.