Quote Originally Posted by TrevorPH View Post
You are using figures rather selectively there. I recently reused an old case, PSU and hard disk and put in an Intel socket 1155 H57 based motherboard and integrated graphics card, an i5 2500 (not K), a SATA DVD writer and 4GB RAM and it cost me almost exactly the same as it would have done to put in an AMD 1090T 6 core chip in an Asus motherboard (the cheapest one I could find with SATA 6Gbps) and the same RAM and DVD writer. According to google, the 2500 scores about 10% higher than the 1090T. The AMD system has a price tag of UK£310 and my Intel was £303.
Yeah, my point is that at the AMD high end (Intel mid-range), Intel seems to kick ass with this upgrade. A build like yours with the "K" version would overclock like crazy, according to this article. It seems like the difference after overclocking would be a lot higher than a marginal 10%

I think BlackStar's point is still valid at the very low end, particularly for people coming from an older AMD build, and just dropping something like an Athlon II X3 435 for about 70 USD (apparently it can OC easily to 3.5Ghz).

For any of you following the best gaming processors in the monthly analysis from Tom's hardware, I think Intel will take over everything but the very low end.

It's funny though. We are calling a triple core @3.5Ghz "low end" these days. Just 10 years ago that was pretty much a mainframe