I can't comment on the USA Prices but UK wise with cashback the 6100 is cheaper than the i3's all of them.
It's under half the price of the 2500k which is a great CPU..
But do you get half the performance?
This Dutch/review benchmark shows the 6100 outdoing the 2500k for video encoding.http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/2382/18 ... o-encoding
I suppose it depends where you find your benchmarks doesn't it. I try and avoid Tom's hardware for obvious reasons (they are hugely Intel biased and have been for many years)
Other points are..many games are using multi cores so the use 2 core processor debate is firmy debunked and has been for a number of years now.
FX6100 being much much slower for video work I would have to say that is clearly not the case.
Even if it's slower and in some it might be, it's not half as slow for half the price. That is where things get interesting..you pay a LOT less for a CPU that is yes slower than the i-5 ones, but it's much cheaper, and probably has a good two thirds of the performance.
Office pc it's overkill? Where did you pull that one from? I could use a sempron for an office pc any CPU is overkill above a budget or £45 or so. Throwaway argument if I ever saw one..and applies to i-3's too overkill for light users!
I've ordered a few for some builds and I'll give my honest thoughts on the CPU next week. If I think it sucks I'll say so, but I suspect it will turn out to be a great CPU for the price. That point is important, "for the price"
Last year I would not have touched an FX CPU with a barge pole..right now though they are a LOT cheaper and that makes a big difference.
I wonder if AMD had called the FX 4/6/8 range 2/3/4 core CPU's folks might have been saying amazing things about them..I mean if you look at it like that you've got some very interesting ways of slanting things! Right now the price is good..and the i-3's are in need of an update they're not good enough in multi core applications (the exact reverse of AMD's problem)