cadder :
I think this proves again that AMD dominates this sector in processing power & performance.
Right now the cheapest Intel quad-core is around $170 and it probably won't run any faster than the AMD in this build. But step up another $30 for the i5-750 and you pick up a big increase in performance. So yes Intel is pretty much left out in the low end of CPU's beyond 2 cores.
While I agree with the last part, there is a slight flaw in what you said... I say that because the i5-750 isn't anywhere near the Athlon II X3 435's price. You mentioned the cheapest Intel Quad cost being $170, with the i5-750 being $30 more. The AMD CPU in this build is less than
half the cost of the initial $170 cost of "said" quad. Having to spend $125 more to find an Intel CPU that offers a noticeable performance increase, while keeping on budget, is quite likely out of the question. That is, unless you're willing to sacrifice GPU prowess doing so. You are right, though: Intel cannot compete with AMD here. But, what about overall performance-per-dollar?
Since you brought up the i5-750, maybe instead we could compare the differences between the $180 AMD 965BE and a $200 Intel i5-750, since they're much closer in price?
Did you see the Intel i7-980X hexa-core article? In that comparison, the AMD 965BE system actually won a few portions of the
gaming tests, while coming in a close 2nd or 3rd in the vast majority of them. Yeah, it got spanked in the workstation/productivity portions of the test. I'll concede that. But, when it comes to gaming, the two makers are
far closer in performance than you may realize.
When building a system on a tight budget with the primary purpose of that system being gaming, AMD holds it's own, and then some.