New rig/pc suggestions

It may be so, but its not Intel and the op is on a 1200 budget so he has no reason to settle for less.

Still though, you should keep the price in mind. Besides I never liked how insane Intel and nvidia are for jacking the prices up.

It's because they rightly have confidence in their product.

As with most things in life, you get what you pay for.

That's still not a good reason to jack up the prices. If you have the better product, keep the prices low and more people will buy it.

i5-4690K / i7-4790K
GTX 970 / R9 290X
don't buy GTX 980 since there 980 Ti with 6BG

That's not how it works. Maybe in dreamland but not in RL.

I don't see mansions and Ferrari 's bring sold with that logic.

What Intel CPU beats my FX-6350 @4.5Ghz for the same price...the Intel Core i3-4130T?

Intel Core i3-4130T: Slighty faster at single threaded applications. Lower thermal design. Includes an on-die low end GPU.

AMD FX-6350: 4 cores instead of the i3's two cores. More overclocking headroom. Overclocking doesn't void AMD warranty. Faster in multithreaded applications. Supports higher memory bandwidth.

So let's assume you only have a budget of $120 dollars for a CPU(and yes....there are people in the world where all the money they have to purchase a CPU is only $120 bucks...who knew!)

If the only game you play is Planetside 2, and maybe a few older Source games, and that is absolutely positively the ONLY thing you do on your computer, then get the Intel Core i3-4130T for $120.

If you play a handful of games in addition to Planetside 2, and you do other things besides gaming on your computer, then you will want to get an AMD FX-6350. You would be wasting your money on the Intel Core i3-4130T at that point.

So to say "Never get AMD...ever....get an i3 before you get an AMD FX chip...period...even a Celeron would be better.....don't question me..." is kind of a stretch I would say.

If you have a budget of around $300 bucks just for the CPU, however, then yes...get an i5/i7!

For someone 20 fps is decent but for others its 50 fps.
As I said if you dont want to have problems with MMO's dont buy AMD.
Buy Intel and have steady fps on ultra. 1200 $ is enough money to buy good rig with Intel processor.
30 fps on Ultra with AMD fx8xxx or 60 fps on ultra with Intel i5. (96+x96+ fights).

Which AMD CPU were you running while only getting 20 fps on Ultra?

I can run PS2 on Ultra and hit frames as high as ~90 with dips to ~30, all on an AMD FX chip. Mine must just be magical.

Except that the op is not on a small budget. Therefore, Intel.

I never had problems maintaining 60fps on ultra with a 6350 before latest patch (the one that had low settings disabled for a moment) and that was with the cpu being reported as the bottleneck. Now it is always the GPU due to multithreading improvements...

really, kids, your claims are exaggerated. The only time you "OMG NEED!" an intel is if you have a 120hz monitor and want 120fps to go with it, I doubt that is happening with the budget we are looking at.

I hope this doesn't come off as patronising, but the haswell line auto turbos.

So you're CPU is fine.

Like I said, it hasn't ever really held me back. It limited me to about 60fps on ultra settings before they improved multithreading. Now I get a silky smooth 100fps consistently, though it can drop as low as 50fps in big fights.

My friend have 8350 with 680 gtx and getting 30 fps in large battles (medium settings). While my brother have i5 4690 and 760 gtx with 60+ fps almost constant with no dropping (ultra).
While I have phenom II x4 965BE with 650Ti and 20 fps in large battles on low.
Buying AMD is just waste of money if you want to play other online games with steady fps and ultra quality. I play 10+ mmo's where ppl constantly whine about their performance on AMD processors and they are right. AMD is not for gaming.

Intel>>>>>>>AMD

I never understood the stigma of maxing out your settings, I mean yeah it's impressive but does it really help game play?

Besides I get an easy 60 fps in 96 v 96 fights on medium settings. And that's good enough.

your first problem with the AMD set up there for a game like this is the quad core. NEVER EVER play Planetside 2 with anything less than a 6 core. ie Phenom II x6 1100t Black

Warning: Nerd rant incoming!

No, I'd go with the $129 i3-4170, which, according to Passmark, has 80% of the power of the 6350 despite having two cores versus the 6350's six. Dang.
This of course means that the i3 DESTROYS the 6350 in single-threaded performance and on anything that doesn't fully utilize 6 threads.

Single thread performance is what matters it 99% or real-life applications, games included.
The i3 will run planetside better because of this.
Lower thermals is always preferred. Means less energy consumption and less heat, meaning more overclocking potential.

Distributing power across more cores is actually detrimental to performance. When an application is limited to a single thread (and most games, even 'multithreaded' ones, rely on a single primary thread), the i3 will be able to use 1/2 of its total power. The 6350 will only be able to use 1/6th.

Source? The higher TDP would lead me to believe that this is not the case.
And AFAIK overclocking does not void Intel's warranty either.

Possibly for applications that can FULLY utilize all available threads, but this is about 1% of applications, games not included.

Sorry, but I would still say this, for the reasons aforementioned. For $120, I would absolutely have the i3. Sorry mate.

Dude for a 1200$ rig IT MUST play all on ultra (with i5). Buying AMD configuration for 1200$ and playing on medium is just waste of money.

Yeah and for that price you can still get an AMD based system that DOES play anything that the game throws at it on ultra. The point I was making was don't insist that AMD's suck at anything because they really don't. I got on your case due to your unfair bias for what ever reason.