How is that dismissive. The processor is from an older socket with a noticeably worse CPU for a better GPU, which is something I'd agree is often something that should be done.
I think that that processor is eh compared to the i3, so I said "ew." The rest of the build I actually agree with, (just saying, you can't take the ODD from an older computer if it is too old to use SATA cables).
Now he said a $500 budget. Yes, he's on a budget, but that doens't mean go $80 below his budget! If he's willing to spend $500, then he should, because he will a decent performance boost with $80 more.
Ok, while I was typing this, 3 new replies.
The i3 is definitely better than the Athlon, no question.
Intel CPUs have a much better per/core performance than Intel chips on average. AMD compensates for this by increasing the core clock and adding more cores.
More and more games are starting to use more cores, but it's still better at the moment to have 4 good cores rather than 8 eh cores.
FOR EXAMPLE. With Blockland: Blockland only utilizes 2 cores, so having a crappy core x8 in an 8 core AMD CPU won't do you nearly as well as a 4 core Intel with better per-core performance. Not every (in fact most) applications and games will not be able to utilze all 8 cores of an 8 core CPU.
ALso, don't pay very much attention to core clock except for between almost identical CPUs, because Intel CPUs don't need as high a clock vs and AMD CPU. It's completely relative, and not a good way to determine if a CPU is better than another. My FX-4130 clocked at 3.8 GHz (4 cores) is nowhere near as good as my brothers i5 clocked at 3.4 GHz (i think that's the clock anyway).
Poll