AMD equivalent to i5 4590?

[QuadRings]

Hello! I'm putting a Matx steam box together, and since I'm on a budgt, I'd like a substitute for my 190 dollar i5. Any AMDs that work as well? I'm doing as heavy gaming as Linux can take, and possibly (not likely) things like Skype and Recording. Any help? I'd probably OC the AMD afterwards...


Edit: I should point out I am running an r9 280x sapphire Vapor card, the blue triple fan version. Hope that helps!

Edit 2: here is my part list
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4590 3.3GHz Quad-Core Processor ($172.78 @ Micro Center)
CPU Cooler: Arctic Cooling Alpine 11 Plus Fluid Dynamic Bearing CPU Cooler ($9.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock Z97M Pro4 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($76.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory ($48.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Corsair Force LS 60GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($39.99 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($51.82 @ Best Buy)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 280X 3GB Video Card ($191.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec ISK 600M MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($51.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: Antec High Current Gamer 620W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply ($64.99 @ NCIX US)
Optical Drive: Samsung SN-208FB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer ($16.99 @ Amazon)
Wireless Network Adapter: Gigabyte GC-WB867D-I 802.11a/b/g/n/ac PCI-Express x1 Wi-Fi Adapter ($28.98 @ OutletPC)
Case Fan: Cooler Master Blade Master 76.8 CFM 120mm Fan ($7.95 @ OutletPC)
Case Fan: Xigmatek CLF-F8254 32.6 CFM 80mm Fan ($8.99 @ Amazon)
Case Fan: Noctua NF-F12 industrialPPC-3000 PWM 109.9 CFM 120mm Fan ($23.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $796.40

I'll obviously change the cooler and motherboard if I have to...

 

[Sandstorm3000]

FX 8350 has similar or even better performance than a 4590, the 4590 does have better single core performance.

 

[InvalidError]

To match the i5-4590's gaming performance with an AMD chip, you would need to look either at the FX9590 or an overclocked FX8320.

In other words, there is no AMD chip worth "upgrading" to since the only things you would "gain" from it is twice the TDP.

 

[bignastyid]

For gaming amd doesn't have an equivalent. In some games the 8350 and even the 9590 gets beat by an i3, due to amds weaker core performance . With an matx build stay with intel, the matx am3+ boards are not good matches for the 125w 8 core fx, their vrms are too weak and have a habit of throttling the cpus.

 

[bignastyid]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

 

[maddogfargo]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

You have to take these charts with a grain of salt. Tom's is an intel shop and still uses old 1-2 core games in 2/3 of the CPU benchmarks. 😉

As for i5 4590 equivalent, it depends on the game.

Older games that only use 2-3 cores you won't get the single core performance you need out of an AMD CPU. Maybe overclocked to 5.0GHz, but this is very hard to do.

But the good news is, in most modern games optimized to use 4+ cores you'll be fine. with well threaded games, it's something like this:

FX 6300/6350 = i5 4440/4460
FX 8320/8350 = i5 4590/4690k

Those will match each other in most modern games.

The thing to remember is you need a good motherboard with solid power regulation if you plan to overclock a 6 core, or run an 8 core even at stock. Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P is the 970 board I recommend, good for a single high end GPU. If you plan to crossfire/SLI, you need a 990FX board, but I'd recommend you stick with the best single GPU you can afford.

However, for a small form factor steam box, it will be easier to fit an i5 into your power/thermal envelope without a big cooling solution. So all things considered, I'd recommend you stick with an i5 build for this kind of PC.

 

[SherbetAddict]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

You have to take these charts with a grain of salt. Tom's is an intel shop and still uses old 1-2 core games in 2/3 of the CPU benchmarks. 😉

As for i5 4590 equivalent, it depends on the game.

Older games that only use 2-3 cores you won't get the single core performance you need out of an AMD CPU. Maybe overclocked to 5.0GHz, but this is very hard to do.

But the good news is, in most modern games optimized to use 4+ cores you'll be fine. with well threaded games, it's something like this:

FX 6300/6350 = i5 4440/4460
FX 8320/8350 = i5 4590/4690k

Those will match each other in most modern games.

The thing to remember is you need a good motherboard with solid power regulation if you plan to overclock a 6 core, or run an 8 core even at stock. Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P is the 970 board I recommend, good for a single high end GPU. If you plan to crossfire/SLI, you need a 990FX board, but I'd recommend you stick with the best single GPU you can affors.

A 6300 is more akin to an i3 4160.
Only reason for FX is multithreaded work and OCing the hell out o f it.

 

[maddogfargo]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

You have to take these charts with a grain of salt. Tom's is an intel shop and still uses old 1-2 core games in 2/3 of the CPU benchmarks. 😉

As for i5 4590 equivalent, it depends on the game.

Older games that only use 2-3 cores you won't get the single core performance you need out of an AMD CPU. Maybe overclocked to 5.0GHz, but this is very hard to do.

But the good news is, in most modern games optimized to use 4+ cores you'll be fine. with well threaded games, it's something like this:

FX 6300/6350 = i5 4440/4460
FX 8320/8350 = i5 4590/4690k

Those will match each other in most modern games.

The thing to remember is you need a good motherboard with solid power regulation if you plan to overclock a 6 core, or run an 8 core even at stock. Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P is the 970 board I recommend, good for a single high end GPU. If you plan to crossfire/SLI, you need a 990FX board, but I'd recommend you stick with the best single GPU you can affors.

A 6300 is more akin to an i3 4160.
Only reason for FX is multithreaded work and OCing the hell out o f it.

There's no debate here. I've already explained single core performance AND done my research and know you're wrong... Most i3s are too weak for anything current.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hmNltwUUsc FX 6300 @ stock matches an i5 4440 in modern games...like I said above.

And the $$$ you save gets you a better GPU. Case and point...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZHlo0DAI38 FX 6350 @ 4.8 GHZ (easy/common OC) on GTX 970 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3pCWzro4ZE ...faster than a stock 4770k with a lesser GPU. So GPU > CPU

 

[InvalidError]

Older games that only use 2-3 cores you won't get the single core performance you need out of an AMD CPU. Maybe overclocked to 5.0GHz, but this is very hard to do.

But the good news is, in most modern games optimized to use 4+ cores you'll be fine. with well threaded games, it's something like this:

Most games make meaningful use of only one core with a little bit of background work getting done in some extra threads. This includes 90% of games released in the past two years. Install Process Explorer on one display, run a couple of games on your main display, open the thread property pages, most games will show one thread pegged at 1/Nth of CPU usage (one core at 100%) and the remaining threads may sum up to about one more core equivalent. For example, Tomb Raider on my i5 shows one thread pegged at 25% and the sum of all other threads averages around 10%.

Games that make significant use of more than four cores, like BF4 on massively multiplayer games, represent less than 1% of games released in the last year.

 

[SherbetAddict]

Older games that only use 2-3 cores you won't get the single core performance you need out of an AMD CPU. Maybe overclocked to 5.0GHz, but this is very hard to do.

But the good news is, in most modern games optimized to use 4+ cores you'll be fine. with well threaded games, it's something like this:

Most games make meaningful use of only one core with a little bit of background work getting done in some extra threads. This includes 90% of games released in the past two years. Install Process Explorer on one display, run a couple of games on your main display, open the thread property pages, most games will show one thread pegged at 1/Nth of CPU usage (one core at 100%) and the remaining threads may sum up to about one more core equivalent. For example, Tomb Raider on my i5 shows one thread pegged at 25% and the sum of all other threads averages around 10%.

Games that make significant use of more than four cores, like BF4 on massively multiplayer games, represent less than 1% of games released in the last year.

Correct. Just look at the benchmaks.

 

[CTurbo]

AMD does not have a GAMING equivalent to the i5 4590. As mentioned above, the 4th gen i3 beats the 8 core FXs in a lot of games. The 4th gen i3 beats the FX6300 in almost every game, and the weakest 4th gen i5 beats the entire AMD lineup in almost every game.

 

[synphul]

I'm curious as to which games the fx 6350 is comparable to an i5. Where are all these future multithreaded games amd is supposed to be so much better at? If and when an fx 6350 comes close to an i5, even an i3 will do so apparently the games aren't that cpu intensive. Games like sleeping dogs and tombraider, there's very little difference. Ac4, cod ghosts, arma 3, starcraft 2, bf4, gta v, witcher 3, skyrim...the fx falls behind (meaning both the fx 6350 and 8350/9590) the i5's and i7's and the i3 comes closer to the 8350's. The only game where the fx 6350/8350 come close to catching up to the i5's is metro last light. Even then an oc'd fx 8350 @ 4.5ghz can't quite catch up to a locked i5 4570.

http://www.hardwarepal.com/best-cpu-gaming-9-processors-8-games-tested/
http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-performance/page6.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

By the time you add an aftermarket cooler and a decent enough motherboard to overclock the fx 6300 in a failed attempt to get it anywhere close to an i5, you may as well have bought the i5.

Just to entertain that youtube vid where the fx was almost as good as the stock 4460 playing far cry 4, this is what's wrong with youtube vids. The systems were gimped by a middle of the road gpu. The gpu was holding things back. Case in point, even a gtx 970 smokes a 770.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1355?vs=1037

Now let's see what happens on far cry 4 with a gtx 980 (you already know how far the 770 used lags behind a 970). The fx 8350 couldn't keep up with an i3 much less an fx 6350 keep up with an i5.
http://www.techspot.com/review/917-far-cry-4-benchmarks/page5.html

The other games tested were shadow of mordor, ryse son of rome.. aka they cherry picked every non cpu intensive game to try and make the fx 6350 look competitive. They could have used an i3 for those games. Oh look, at 5mph my bicycle can keep up with a ferrari, therefor my bicycle must be just as fast. Those are some seriously flawed and weak comparisons, sorry.

Case in point, shadow of mordor - and fx 4xxx and i3 do just as well.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/shadow-of-mordor-performance,3996-4.html

Ryse, same thing.
"Our simulated dual-core system was able to push 50fps, while our simulated quad-core system performed similarly to our six-core machine (and ran the game with 100fps)"
http://www.dsogaming.com/pc-performance-analyses/ryse-son-of-rome-pc-performance-analysis/

It's not really worth going on and on, would be here all day long. Bottom line, if the fx 6350 can keep up chances are so can an i3. Fx chips play some games well, i5's and i7's play all games well. When an fx is paired with an aftermarket cooler and mobo designed to handle an overclocked 125w tdp chip, it's maybe $20 cheaper than a locked core i5. That $20 isn't going to buy better a better gpu, if it can I'd like to know where.

If I were going to save any money on that build, I'd cut out the $40 ssd that won't do squat for gaming since even on a linux box not many games are going to fit on a 60gb ssd. With the size of some of the games, maybe 1, if there's room to cram it in with linux with the ssd stuffed full. I'd also just use the stock cooler, aftermarket coolers are typically better but not at the $9 price point. An easy $50 saved that won't make enough difference to justify it.

 

[QuadRings]

The SSD is for the OS and things like pictures/A little Music. That's it. It was about 5 dollars more than a 30gb ssd (my original intention) so I went with that. The HDD is for games. The ten dollar cooler actually only cools a degree cooler than the stock cooler, but is quieter. Although I have just realized the Noctua Industrial exhaust might drown it out anyway...
for performance, I need streaming to run in the background while I'm gaming. Or recording software. So the extra cores will mostly (probably not all of them still) be used on an 8320. And while it is an older socket, that CPU is kind of future proof because of games increasing the amount of cores utilized, isn't it? I know it's not that much cheaper, but gaming isn't all I'll be doing. Should I still go with Team i5?

Also, that cooler actually costs about 20/25 bucks, it's just cheap on Newegg...

 

[CTurbo]

Here you go. Problem solved. If you need to cut costs, drop the 60GB ssd.


PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($242.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: ASRock H97M Anniversary Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($51.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($45.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Corsair Force LS 60GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($39.99 @ NCIX US)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.99 @ Best Buy)
Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R9 280X 3GB Video Card ($191.98 @ Newegg)
Case: Antec ISK 600M MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($51.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: XFX TS 650W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: Samsung SN-208FB/BEBE DVD/CD Writer ($16.99 @ Amazon)
Wireless Network Adapter: Gigabyte GC-WB867D-I 802.11a/b/g/n/ac PCI-Express x1 Wi-Fi Adapter ($28.98 @ OutletPC)
Case Fan: Cooler Master Blade Master 76.8 CFM 120mm Fan ($7.95 @ OutletPC)
Case Fan: Xigmatek CLF-F8254 32.6 CFM 80mm Fan ($8.99 @ Amazon)
Case Fan: Noctua NF-F12 industrialPPC-3000 PWM 109.9 CFM 120mm Fan ($23.98 @ OutletPC)
Total: $809.79
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-07-14 20:25 EDT-0400

 

[bignastyid]

Here's an $800 build that uses a Xeon. The Xeon its a quad core with hyperthreading like an i7, but has no integrated graphics. Iy also has a r9 290 instead of a 280x.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Xeon E3-1231 V3 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor ($242.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-GAMING 3 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard ($52.39 @ Newegg)
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($45.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Sandisk SSD PLUS 120GB 2.5" Solid State Drive ($39.99 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($47.99 @ Best Buy)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R9 290 4GB Double Dissipation Video Card ($239.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Fractal Design Core 1100 MicroATX Mini Tower Case ($38.99 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: XFX TS 650W 80+ Gold Certified ATX Power Supply ($49.99 @ Newegg)
Optical Drive: LG GH24NSC0 DVD/CD Writer ($14.89 @ OutletPC)
Wireless Network Adapter: Gigabyte GC-WB867D-I 802.11a/b/g/n/ac PCI-Express x1 Wi-Fi Adapter ($28.98 @ OutletPC)
Case Fan: Cooler Master Blade Master 76.8 CFM 120mm Fan ($7.95 @ OutletPC)
Case Fan: SilenX EFX-09-15 42.0 CFM 92mm Fan ($6.87 @ OutletPC)
Total: $817.01
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-07-14 20:42 EDT-0400

 

[synphul]

There's nothing future proof about the fx cpu's. If it were amd wouldn't be doing a complete restructure using zen, they would just rehash the fx like they have the past 5+ years. The xeon builds would be a much better option for streaming and gaming. Linux isn't quite as bloated as windows but last I checked it still took 3-4, sometimes 5 partitions. That's a lot of chopping up of a 60gb ssd, anymore 60gb really just isn't big enough. Even 120gb ssd's are getting to the point they're on the small side even for os/programs. Ubuntu 14.04 generally takes 3 partitions and since it's what play linux (gaming distro) is based on I would assume it's similar. Sparky gaming linux (debian based) is similar, 2-3 partitions - depending on which version, the 'game over' edition recommends a 30gb root partition with a small swap partition and the rest can be set up as a home partition. That's over half the usable space consumed on a 60gb drive (keeping in mind ssd's don't run well crammed full, need to leave some empty space on the drive). Not saying you couldn't get away with a 60gb ssd just that for the money/benefits it's going to be quite cramped most likely.

 

[QuadRings]

Here's an $800 build that uses a Xeon. The Xeon its a quad core with hyperthreading like an i7, but has no integrated graphics. Iy also has a r9 290 instead of a 280x.

*Jaw hits ground* Those, are some excellent finds! An 290 for the price of an xfx 280x? 120gb SSD? You sir, are awesome. That build is excellent. But I'll have to switch the case (my brother hates Fractal for some reason...) and the fans (it's really hot in that corner, and I don't wanna risk air pockets or anything) back to the way before.

Not saying you couldn't get away with a 60gb ssd just that for the money/benefits it's going to be quite cramped most likely.

Oh, I know it'll be cramped. I'm not entirely sure I'll grab one. But it'll be good to factor it into price until then to see. Fast OS boots are what it's for, along with some music and pictures. Everything else goes on the HDD.

Sorry if my quotes didn't work, it's my first time using them...


Also, not trying to get off track, but does anyone know of anything that'll fit in a slim drive bay besides a DVD player? I don't know if steamos needs it, but empty drive bays bother me for some reason. I guess it's the fact that they're useless unless filled...


EDIT: I just found out that moderately over clocked on max load, the r9 290 uses 500W of power. Will a 650W PSU be enough?

 

[InvalidError]

Not saying you couldn't get away with a 60gb ssd just that for the money/benefits it's going to be quite cramped most likely.

Oh, I know it'll be cramped. I'm not entirely sure I'll grab one. But it'll be good to factor it into price until then to see. Fast OS boots are what it's for, along with some music and pictures.

Put your computer on standby instead of shutting it down, then your "boot" time will be less than five seconds even without SSD. If you absolutely want to turn the computer completely off, hibernate is another possibility and it takes my PC about 20 seconds to restart from hibernation not counting the BIOS screen.

 

[bignastyid]

Here's an $800 build that uses a Xeon. The Xeon its a quad core with hyperthreading like an i7, but has no integrated graphics. Iy also has a r9 290 instead of a 280x.

*Jaw hits ground* Those, are some excellent finds! An 290 for the price of an xfx 280x? 120gb SSD? You sir, are awesome. That build is excellent. But I'll have to switch the case (my brother hates Fractal for some reason...) and the fans (it's really hot in that corner, and I don't wanna risk air pockets or anything) back to the way before.

Not saying you couldn't get away with a 60gb ssd just that for the money/benefits it's going to be quite cramped most likely.

Oh, I know it'll be cramped. I'm not entirely sure I'll grab one. But it'll be good to factor it into price until then to see. Fast OS boots are what it's for, along with some music and pictures. Everything else goes on the HDD.

Sorry if my quotes didn't work, it's my first time using them...


Also, not trying to get off track, but does anyone know of anything that'll fit in a slim drive bay besides a DVD player? I don't know if steamos needs it, but empty drive bays bother me for some reason. I guess it's the fact that they're useless unless filled...


EDIT: I just found out that moderately over clocked on max load, the r9 290 uses 500W of power. Will a 650W PSU be enough?

If you dont mind a bigger case the Corsair 100r or the NZXT Source 210 are good budget options.
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/corsair-case-cc9011075ww
http://pcpartpicker.com/part/nzxt-case-cas21w2b1
The r9 290 cannot draw 500w. Most draw 250-300w there are some super oced that draw more but with its power connectors 2 8-pin(150w each) and the 75w the pci-e slot delivers is still only 375w and that's the max the card has access to. A good 650w PSU is plenty for those specs.

 

[QuadRings]

Just making sure as some guys with MSI Afterburner told otherwise. And I'm going with an Antec ISK600M. It's really compact, but fits Vapor 280Xs with no issues.it also cools fine and looks pretty good

 

[bignastyid]

Just making sure as some guys with MSI Afterburner told otherwise. And I'm going with an Antec ISK600M. It's really compact, but fits Vapor 280Xs with no issues.it also cools fine and looks pretty good

Sure they weren't talking about the 295x2? That monster can draw 500w.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-radeon-r9-295x2-review,12.html

 

[QuadRings]

Thank you all for the help!

 

[teknobug]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

You have to take these charts with a grain of salt. Tom's is an intel shop and still uses old 1-2 core games in 2/3 of the CPU benchmarks. 😉

As for i5 4590 equivalent, it depends on the game.

Older games that only use 2-3 cores you won't get the single core performance you need out of an AMD CPU. Maybe overclocked to 5.0GHz, but this is very hard to do.

But the good news is, in most modern games optimized to use 4+ cores you'll be fine. with well threaded games, it's something like this:

FX 6300/6350 = i5 4440/4460
FX 8320/8350 = i5 4590/4690k

Those will match each other in most modern games.

The thing to remember is you need a good motherboard with solid power regulation if you plan to overclock a 6 core, or run an 8 core even at stock. Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P is the 970 board I recommend, good for a single high end GPU. If you plan to crossfire/SLI, you need a 990FX board, but I'd recommend you stick with the best single GPU you can affors.

A 6300 is more akin to an i3 4160.
Only reason for FX is multithreaded work and OCing the hell out o f it.

There's no debate here. I've already explained single core performance AND done my research and know you're wrong... Most i3s are too weak for anything current.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hmNltwUUsc FX 6300 @ stock matches an i5 4440 in modern games...like I said above.

And the $$$ you save gets you a better GPU. Case and point...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZHlo0DAI38 FX 6350 @ 4.8 GHZ (easy/common OC) on GTX 970 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3pCWzro4ZE ...faster than a stock 4770k with a lesser GPU. So GPU > CPU

You've done your research yet you are incorrect? And what's with the cherry picking in the last two links?

I came from using AMD and I have to agree that FX 6300 is = i3 4160, you need to own one to see the other side rather than call someone wrong. But I'm probably wasting my time with a blind AMD fanboy.

 

[SherbetAddict]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html

You have to take these charts with a grain of salt. Tom's is an intel shop and still uses old 1-2 core games in 2/3 of the CPU benchmarks. 😉

As for i5 4590 equivalent, it depends on the game.

Older games that only use 2-3 cores you won't get the single core performance you need out of an AMD CPU. Maybe overclocked to 5.0GHz, but this is very hard to do.

But the good news is, in most modern games optimized to use 4+ cores you'll be fine. with well threaded games, it's something like this:

FX 6300/6350 = i5 4440/4460
FX 8320/8350 = i5 4590/4690k

Those will match each other in most modern games.

The thing to remember is you need a good motherboard with solid power regulation if you plan to overclock a 6 core, or run an 8 core even at stock. Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P is the 970 board I recommend, good for a single high end GPU. If you plan to crossfire/SLI, you need a 990FX board, but I'd recommend you stick with the best single GPU you can affors.

A 6300 is more akin to an i3 4160.
Only reason for FX is multithreaded work and OCing the hell out o f it.

There's no debate here. I've already explained single core performance AND done my research and know you're wrong... Most i3s are too weak for anything current.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hmNltwUUsc FX 6300 @ stock matches an i5 4440 in modern games...like I said above.

And the $$$ you save gets you a better GPU. Case and point...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZHlo0DAI38 FX 6350 @ 4.8 GHZ (easy/common OC) on GTX 970 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3pCWzro4ZE ...faster than a stock 4770k with a lesser GPU. So GPU > CPU

Why i7? there is no reason to spend more than a 4690k as there is no performance above that.
That cash can then be spent getting a better GPU

 

[crispytheone]

OK I have an FX-8350, and love it, but for gaming the 4690k is probably a better choice, an I7 is not

the 6300 is a fantastic budget gaming CPU, I would choose it over an I3 for future gaming just cause its multi-core architecture even though the I3 currently beats it in many games available now, I just like the flexibility of the 6300, it does more than gaming well, oh, and its damn cheap.

If your looking for the closest in just raw power to the I5, its the FX-8350, no matter what any of the fanboys say, its still pretty powerful, especially on multithreaded applications, but temper expectations with the fact that the chip is OLD, like 2012 old, and it really has been outclassed by the newer more modern Intel chips,

.....

Can't wait for Zen