I've made threads before about my computer and my friend's build, but I've really gotten tired of the things he's said about my parts I used. I went for a value machine, using the FX 6300 and R9 270 with 8GB of RAM. His build was also made for gaming with value not quite in mind, with an i7, 16GB of RAM, and a 660 SC, all powered by a Platinum certified 750W PSU. According to PCPartPicker his build uses about 300W so that supply was a total waste since he has no upgrade plans. I've told this person countless times that he didn't need to buy an i7 or more than 8GB of RAM for strictly gaming and that his claims of his 660 being better than my 270 are straight up false. I have a better overclocking card as well as the smaller card, mine runs cooler and has two quiet fans over the one louder one on his card. I can match or beat his gaming performance with a card that cost me $20 less and he says his is better for reasons that piss me off. He says that the cuda benchmarks and other meaningless stuff mean that nVidia is better, that just because I can get similar every day performance doesn't mean I didn't waste my money on "AMD shit". His arguments are terrible. My CPU, as well, gets trash talk, since it can't compete clock for clock with Intel. Who cares? Its faster than it needs to be and I paid A THIRD for it over the i7 3770 non k he bought. Benchmarks might score better but he can't even best my setup that cost me less than $800 when his was $1300. His claims of Intel beating AMD are just idiotic bias and I want to know what you think. Had my friend spent $800 using Intel and nvidia vs my AMD build, who would have the better setup? Heat and power are only slight issues in my mind, since the difference in reality is laughable. I strongly defend AMD for better value (when the prices aren't inflated) and just better hardware overall and my friend is an incredibly biased person so I can't get any decent opinions from him. Please give me a rational opinion