I just want to get people's thoughts on this as  buddy of mine asked me to help him build a gaming/multimedia PC for around 1000 dollars. After looking around at prices and his needs and thinking about it, I realized that I have a slight debate on my hands.

Which is a better platform to use to build a ~1000 dollar or cheaper PC right now? AMD's AM3+ or Intels 1155 socket.

After a few days of thinking about it I came to my conclusion: AMD AM3+

Resonining why I think so:

1. Price

You've done your research well. I think you're making the right move here.

It makes sense, the FX-8350 is actually a really good CPU that was on sale at Newegg for 185 just a few days ago, it might not be the best for games all the time but it's very good for heavy multithreading or running xsplit with. The motherboards also cost way less in general that offers more features. Not having PCIe 3.0 is not exactly the best thing for future proofing single card solution setups but that's about it.

Yeah I was thinking about that and realized while true, compared to 1155 socket, it really doesn't make a difference.

1155 socket motherboard has a maximum of 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes going to the CPU (16X single slot or 8x, 8x dual). AM3+ has dual 16X, 16X options and even higher at higher prices. Since PCIe 3.0 is 2X faster than 2.0, there really is no performance difference between AM3+ at 16X, 16X and Ivy Bridge at 8x,8x

Also, we have hardly saturated PCIe x4 bandwith wise let alone x16, so for the next 5 years I don't see this being an issue.

I don't think it will have a problem in 5 years either, at least not for general purpose, the question is really how much difference it will be when Maxwell comes out.

You do see a *massive* difference in performance with PCI-E 3.0 x16 in compute scenarios. Think: Folding@Home.
It was one of the many reasons I upgraded from an AMD FX to my Socket 2011 3930K.

As for AMD and backwards compatibility... More often than not it is true.
However, if AMD pulls another AM3+ move you will have to buy a new motherboard for Steamroller, no way around that, never buy into a platform thinking you can endlessly upgrade it. :P

Now onto the Intel vs AMD.

If he is playing games like StarCraft 2, Sins of a Solar Empire or any lightly threaded demanding game, go Intel, even a dual-core, as Intel will dominate in those games.
If he is playing games like GTAIV, Battlefield 3, Civilisation IV, go AMD.

If you are bent on going AMD, then the FX 8320 is a wise choice, they will overclock to around 4.2-4.4ghz on stock voltage, some chips higher. But keep in mind you still need a 500mhz core clock advantage just to match a Phenom 2 in single threaded situations.
Heck, if you are going to be overclocking anyway you could also consider the FX 8120 and overclock that, hence saving some money to put towards a beefier GPU for overall better gaming performance.

Today though, because hardware is so far ahead of games and software, either platform will be fine.

You've come to the right conclusion. I haven't had an Intel PC since the P4 days and my gaming rigs have always played the best games without breaking a sweat.

I do want to mention that you don't NEED an SSD. It's nice and loads stuff fast, but it's not a must. a 7200rpm or faster Western Digital Black drive costs considerably less and does the job just fine. If you absolutely must load Photoshop in 3 seconds instead of 15 seconds than the SSD is great, but I wouldn't rule out a standard drive, especially if you want lots of space.

I have a fast 512GB SSD and I love it, but it cost the same as 4TB drives. I have a few standard drive to store data and have even installed some of my larger games on to avoid filling up my SSD.

So if money is a concern don't think you have to spend a good portion of it on an SSD. I'd put that money to RAM or CPU or Video and figure I can always install an SSD later as their prices come down or go on sale.

Well one advantage is that both Durango and Orbis are going to use >6 hardware cores so for the next generation of titles the Bulldozer architecture may do comparatively well compared to IVB.

I believe AMD won't release anything more for the AM3 socket (not confirmed or denied). I think the non-APU Steamroller is dead.

I agree on your premise, but I still think it'd be worth spending the $100-200 extra to get an Intel setup. If you can't do that then OK.

Yeah, regarding PCIe 3.0, I agree if he was to do folding@home...but he probably doesn't know what that is nor does it interest him to do such a thing. The bottom line is when you get to crossfire and SLI which he will probably think of doing within a year, AMDs PcIe 2.0 is equal to Intels 1155 4.0 if the AMD mobo is x16, x16.

From what I've seen Piledriver offers noticable difference over Bulldozer (15-20%), but the price of 8120 isn't more than 10% less so I figure 8320 offers slightly better value, not to mention less heat and better power consumption.

I doubt he is going to be shtting everything down when gaming...he'll probably have torrents running, antivirus, software RAID0 amongst other things...so those extra cores on the FX processor should come in handy.