Regarding the CPU vs GPU debacle. I already see a fundamentally flawed recommendation in this thread regarding the "balance" between the CPU and GPU.
Any CPU and GPU combination can potentially be valid and well utilized if the workload created by the resolution and settings and game conditions and expectations of FPS all fit into place.
The i3-4130 is a perfectly valid CPU for a wide assortment of games and can be paired with ANY GPU configuration and achieve acceptable results and good utilization as long as the FPS goals and workload created by the visual quality settings are well matched to the bounds created by the CPU.
The R7 250 @ 720P, R7 260 @ 1080P, and the R9 280 @ 1440P will all produce about the same FPS if all other conditions are equal. The compute workload changes very little for the CPU between these 3 configurations, so there is no reason for the i3 to be any more or less well suited to run any of these GPU configurations. Whether or not the i3 sets the pace of FPS desired by the end user is an issue that will apply to ANY of these GPU configurations. If the User wants more FPS and the bottleneck is the CPU, sizing the GPU up or down can never "solve" that problem.
Point I'm making here, is that when people say "don't bother with more GPU than an R9 270, or GTX760 for your {insert weaker CPU here} configuration, they are placating to a from-the-hip set of mysticism about CPU and GPU matching that does not exist. Size the CPU to the compute workload created by the desired FPS and game conditions, then size the GPU to the render workload created by the desired FPS and visual quality settings. Don't try to "size" the CPU to the GPU, or the GPU to the CPU, it's a pointless endeavor.