A few frames for a couple hundred bucks. Once you pass the FX threshold, into intel territory, you start getting massive diminishing returns on the price/power ratio. AMD seems to have hit a sweet spot for most of their FX lineup.
Oh, and 280 bucks for that 8-core 4.7Ghz monster is a great price. If OP wants AMD, OP will get AMD :D
for $280 you can get an Intel Core i7-3770K and blow the FX processor out of the water
Pretty sure 8 weak cores isn't as good as 4 great ones.
Please, define "weak". Yes, intel makes far more efficient chips, and their high end i5 series are best bang for buck, but an FX 4130, a 100 dollar cpu will without a doubt outperform any intel chip of similar price.
Besides, 8 cores humming at 4.7Ghz stock more than makes up for the less efficient architecture.
You're correct about the FX 4130 because AMD is perfect for budget builds and at its price is unbeatable but I'm not sure about the 8 cores @4.7GHz making up for the inefficiency.
for gaming and photo editing, its a complete beast.
maybe look here? http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4130-vs-AMD-FX-4130
yes thew FX is $25 cheaper but the i3 has built in video. compare the real world progs (word/ editing video etc) that they use and the i3 is a better value chip.
Check the single threaded comparisons and the i3 is a beast (faster than the FX9590 in fact) Unless you want to game haha oh yeah who is going to game with a $100 cpu and no video card.
My comment was for the intention of budget gaming, in case you decided to leave topic. yes, the 4150 has no integrated GPU, but in conjunction with a GPU, an i3 cant keep up due to fewer physical cores.
Oh, and no i3 can beat a 9590 at single threaded applications. The only way that will ever happen is if you clock them the same, and in that case, why would AMD exist?
Edit: Don't you dare throw CPUBoss in my face. That website has no merit in terms of ACTUAL GAMING PERFORMANCE. All it's used for is to compare numbers. That's it. Numbers, not performance.
AnotherEdit: I assume you're gaming on HD4600 graphics? you poor guy....
I'm not sure if you are a (rather poor) troll or just someone who has been on the Intel bandwagon so long that he doesn't even know what he is saying. Plenty of gaming builds use an FX-4xxx. I'd much rather throw one into my machine than an i3. Why not look at some REAL benchmarks.