AMD is generally a no no. The only decent option from their FX line is the 8350, and an i5 still beats it.

The reason Intel is so much more advanced is in the end, money. Intel has more innovation because they can afford innovation, while AMD is a bit behind when it comes to money and innovation.

Ghz can only affect a cpu so far. The performance on the i5 is almost double that of the 4100.

Bottom line, get the i5.

Comparing core clock speed on CPU's that are not the same CPU means almost nothing. It's all about CPU architecture.

As generation said, its the architecture of the CPU, not necessarily the clock speed, also the i5 3570k overclocks really well from what i've heard

FreeToPlayOnPC wrote As generation said, its the architecture of the CPU, not necessarily the clock speed, also the i5 3570k overclocks really well from what i've heard

Both the 3570K and FX CPUs overclock exceptionally well. With AMD, you need to be wary of the quality of your VRM, though, as an inadequate power delivery may result in VRM throttling and/or failure or destruction of hardware.

I would say the i5, I am pretty sure it puts the Zambezi to shame ?

Crocs wrote I would say the i5, I am pretty sure it puts the Zambezi to shame ?

Not as much as the fanboys or hype would have you believe. In games, it performs about as well (comparing the 8320 to the 3570K, which is fair), with streaming in games the 8320 performs better, and for many productivity tasks the 8320 pulls ahead in many tests as well. AM3+ is also a better investment than 1155 due to the fact that AMD still has another release scheduled before a socket change, unlike Intel (correct me if I'm wrong). The 8320 is also significantly cheaper and although Intel still destroys AMD on performance per watt, it doesn't matter very much. Both overclock very well.

If I was building my PC today, I would be strongly considering the 8320 over the 3570K.