Intel i3-3220 Processor $100, i5-3570K $200 +shipping

Quote from batotman : No problem. Pretty common mistake!

Too true. I have been in this industry for over a decade, and I still screw it up LOL!

Quote from Dillweed : The 2011 motherboards will upgrade every bit as well as the 1366 motherboards did. As in: nearly flawlessly. A 3820 can be had for $200. Ivy isn't as clocker friendly as Sandy was. Intel cheaped out on the construction. Sandy, Dozer and Driver however, ALL clock like mad. Ivy is plagued by CPU temps whereas Sandy was plagued by chipset failures. The more stable solution for Intel based setups is a Sandy CPU with an Ivy chipset. Buy better motherboards. Frankly, the MOBO matters as much as the CPU.

3820 is $230 at microcenter and $290 everywhere else. a 2011 mobo is $200 at least

a 990fx mobo is $120 for the cheapest

i can get a 1155 board with usb 3.0 header, pcie3.0 for maybe $50.

will the amd and 2011 mobo be better, absolutely, but the $50 1155 will function fine for the majority of non-oc users. that's why it doesn't make sense to up-purchase in the hopes that you can upgrade later. buy what you need now and hope it lasts. if it doesn't, you have the option to buy whatever you want, and aren't hamstrung to a certain upgrade path.

Quote from Dillweed : AMD rates the whole board. That makes the chip significantly lower.

Interesting...I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just would like more information about that--do you have a source? Everything I've read is pretty clear that Intel systems, in actual use, usually draw much less power under load, regardless of what the advertised ratings are.

Quote from Dillweed : No it's not, but I doubt you know why. Few people actually run just one application at a time --and reviewers are too stupid to bother installing CAPs or configure a machine properly...

Hmm...somehow I doubt that most of the reviewers out there are "too stupid" to perform a reliable review.

Quote from jamex : Don't forget Fry's PM's Microcenter.

What! since when?

What if there is no Microcenter in my state? Will they still PM?

Quote from AGpennypacker : 3820 is $230 at microcenter and $290 everywhere else. a 2011 mobo is $200 at least a 990fx mobo is $120 for the cheapest i can get a 1155 board with usb 3.0 header, pcie3.0 for maybe $50. will the amd and 2011 mobo be better, absolutely, but the $50 1155 will function fine for the majority of non-oc users. that's why it doesn't make sense to up-purchase in the hopes that you can upgrade latter. buy what you need know and hope it lasts. if it doesn't you have the option to buy whatever you want, and aren't hamstrung to a certain upgrade path.

By your own logic you should be buying FM2 then. Cheaper and for the majority of users it's fine.

Quote from elecrobento : Interesting...I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just would like more information about that--do you have a source? Everything I've read is pretty clear that Intel systems, in actual use, usually draw much less power under load, regardless of what the advertised ratings are.

Things have changed in the last 18 months.

Quote from elecrobento : Hmm...somehow I doubt that most of the reviewers out there are "too stupid" to perform a reliable review.

Read their methodology before you say that. They're stupid --I mean fail 6th grade science project stupid. OR they're funded by Intel --either way they aren't reliable.

I actually designed semiconductors before I went into the legal side of the industry. No review on the hardware actually discloses their hotfixes, drivers, driver patches, or even the version of the MS kernel or HAL. That's just stupid...

Quote from Dillweed : By your own logic you should be buying FM2 then. Cheaper and for the majority of users it's fine.

fm2 you can get a pretty good quad core and really good integrated gpu, so yea it is. although, if they do a lot of single threaded applications the 1155 will be better.

point being? lga2011 is in a different league and there are better cost effective mobo's than the 990fx. "upgradablitly" should be the last priority you consider.

Quote from Dillweed : Things have changed in the last 18 months.

Sure, but I asked for a source for your assertion that AMD rates their systems as you described and that in the real world AMD chips' energy use is "significantly lower".

Quote from Dillweed : Read their methodology before you say that. They're stupid --I mean fail 6th grade science project stupid. OR they're funded by Intel --either way they aren't reliable. I actually designed semiconductors before I went into the legal side of the industry. No review on the hardware actually discloses their hotfixes, drivers, driver patches, or even the version of the MS kernel or HAL. That's just stupid...

I'll cede to your apparent technical knowledge here, but some do disclose their hotfixes. In fact, here is a benchmark for the 8150 specifically detailing the effect of a hotfix: http://www.tomshardware.com/revie...,3119.html
Also, unsurprisingly, they also explicitly mention the drivers they're using, sort of defeating the idea that no reviews provide this information.

I wish AMD would come out with a Mini ITX AM3+ board. One can actually make a pretty decent Mini ITX gaming rig now adays.

I wanted to go AMD 6300 (as it's the best bang per buck in my opinion), but this i3 will fit the bill for me as there is no option for AMD. I'm pairing it up with a 2GB 7850 videocard and gaming at 1920x1080. I'll "MOST LIKELY" be videocard limited at the resolution, but it depends on the game.

I can always upgrade to a faster chip later and sell the i3 for a very little loss, or use it as a hand-me-down to my main htpc which is using in Ivy Bridge Celeron.

I don't get all the Intel/AMD hate going on around here. The price for the i3 is the best you can find online. If people want an i3, let them get their i3!

Quote from AustinPowersISU : I wish AMD would come out with a Mini ITX AM3+ board. One can actually make a pretty decent Mini ITX gaming rig now adays. I wanted to go AMD 6300 (as it's the best bang per buck in my opinion), but this i3 will fit the bill for me as there is no option for AMD. I'm pairing it up with a 2GB 7850 videocard and gaming at 1920x1080. I'll "MOST LIKELY" be videocard limited at the resolution, but it depends on the game. I can always upgrade to a faster chip later and sell the i3 for a very little loss, or use it as a hand-me-down to my main htpc which is using in Ivy Bridge Celeron. I don't get all the Intel/AMD hate going on around here. The price for the i3 is the best you can find online. If people want an i3, let them get their i3!

nice, what case? i wanted to do one with my lasst build but chickened out and went matx. i agree, i wish amd offerings on mitx werent limited to apu's.

Quote from AGpennypacker : nice, what case? i wanted to do one with my lasst build but chickened out and went matx. i agree, i wish amd offerings on mitx werent limited to apu's.

COOLER MASTER Elite 120 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Pro...Mini%20ITX

Seemed to be the best bang for the buck for Mini ITX

Quote from AustinPowersISU : COOLER MASTER Elite 120 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Pro...Mini%20ITX Seemed to be the best bang for the buck for Mini ITX

Nice. Great case and very reasonable.

Quote from elecrobento : Interesting...I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just would like more information about that--do you have a source? Everything I've read is pretty clear that Intel systems, in actual use, usually draw much less power under load, regardless of what the advertised ratings are.

I remember reading a review from Tom's Hardware when the Core series first came out, Intels finish the bench marks in half the time and sits there idling for the other half, while the AMDs are chugging along at max usage the entire time. So if you take a snapshot of an instance when both are at max usage AMD might be using less power, but Intels are much faster and use less power overall.

Quote from Dillweed : Read their methodology before you say that. They're stupid --I mean fail 6th grade science project stupid. OR they're funded by Intel --either way they aren't reliable. I actually designed semiconductors before I went into the legal side of the industry. No review on the hardware actually discloses their hotfixes, drivers, driver patches, or even the version of the MS kernel or HAL. That's just stupid...

If NO REVIEWS disclose that kind of stuff how did you figure out that AMDs' rate their entire system?

Quote from cuoreesitante : I remember reading a review from Tom's Hardware when the Core series first came out, Intels finish the bench marks in half the time and sits there idling for the other half, while the AMDs are chugging along at max usage the entire time. So if you take a snapshot of an instance when both are at max usage AMD might be using less power, but Intels are much faster and use less power overall.

I think that's the major power advantage of Intel. Their cores are generally much more powerful and sophisticated than the AMD cores and are therefore able to complete the tasks in a fraction of the time, greatly reducing the actual power usage.

Of course, I'm no apparent expert like Dillweed who can't seem to come up with any source for his controversial statement