- Joined
- Jun 21, 2002
The integrated graphics on Intel would actually be significantly worse than your current card. The integrated graphics on the AMD APUs would be marginally better, but not enough to justify choosing it if you can get a better CPU with your budget.
In the range you're discussing with the 8600k, I would prefer the 2600x for price to performance. It is $60 less expensive with theoretically lower performance but probably not noticeable in actual use. Overclocking may widen the gap a bit, as the 8600k has 5ghz potential, but I am unsure if that happens at the $99 motherboard price point, as I have not done much research on Intel platforms. However if you prefer Intel for other reasons the 8600k is a great chip, just not the direction I would choose if I were trying to maximize a small budget. With AMD the non X chips are also unlocked, so if you are into manual overclocking you have 4ghz potential and 6 cores with the 2600 for $165.
In other words, if you're willing to bend the budget a bit and want to get into a more recent generation system, there are a ton of possibilities
In the range you're discussing with the 8600k, I would prefer the 2600x for price to performance. It is $60 less expensive with theoretically lower performance but probably not noticeable in actual use. Overclocking may widen the gap a bit, as the 8600k has 5ghz potential, but I am unsure if that happens at the $99 motherboard price point, as I have not done much research on Intel platforms. However if you prefer Intel for other reasons the 8600k is a great chip, just not the direction I would choose if I were trying to maximize a small budget. With AMD the non X chips are also unlocked, so if you are into manual overclocking you have 4ghz potential and 6 cores with the 2600 for $165.
In other words, if you're willing to bend the budget a bit and want to get into a more recent generation system, there are a ton of possibilities