Intel Vs AMD Processor for gaming

get an i5 "k" and you're set
the money you save, add it to the gpu

Will say this very simple, AMD is not a good buy for any builds that aren't on a very tight budget. The AMD 9590 itself is one of the worst CPUs that has ever been sold.

For getting the best value for your money, the Intel i7 is normally best, sometimes an i5 is but it really just depends how much you have to spend.

Currently, for the most bang for your buck, you'll want an i5-4690K and overclock it to 4.5-4.7Ghz. DO NOT get the 8350 and especially not the 9590. If you're really wanting to save money on the CPU which I don't suggest, get the 8320 for most bang for your buck.

Also, DO NOT get an i7 as the difference in FPS against an i5 (1-2% in most cases) is NOT worth an extra $100, which can be better spent on a cooler for higher overclock, or an SSD for a significant boost in PC responsiveness.

Anyway, for the i5 overclocked, you'll need a good cooler like the Noctua NH-U14s or minimum a Hyper 212 Evo.

The best motherboard for the i5-4690K for its price is the Gigabyte Z97X-SLI. For $110, you get SataExpress, SataM.2, SLI, and Realtek ALC1150 capabilities usually only found on higher-end mobos.

The Z97X-SLI should support a 4.7Ghz overclock easily.

Hope this helps

An AMD FX-6300 (or FX-8320) will work just dandy with a GTX 660.

Check out the Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P AM3+ (or the GA-990FXA-UD3 if you are considering a future SLI)

I wouldn't even consider SLI with any AMD CPU. You'll encounter a major CPU bottleneck.

Besides, it's like buying a Toyota Corolla and putting Pirelli racing tires on it. You won't go any faster. And if you wanted the save money in the first place, why would you want to SLI?

Gee ...

An Intel guy attacking AMD. I'm shocked.

[not]

If the guys budget allows for only a gtx660 GPU with an Intel CPU then I'd personally recommend an 8320 with a more powerful gpu.
He's going to get a GPU bottleneck with a 660 whereas a 8320 will pair up with anything up to a 280x.
We all know Intel CPU's are superior for gaming but just sometimesvthe amd route makes sense when balancing budget with performance.

Not my fault AMD has been in the gutter for CPU architecture, performance, as well as sales for the last 5 years.

It's literally impossible for AMD to make a better CPU than Intel when Intel's annual R&D budget is a mind-blowing 11 Billion dollars. Just to put that into perspective, that's worth more than twice AMD's entire company including all its assets.

Get a i5 with a 'k':
http://www.flipkart.com/intel-3-4-ghz-lga-1150-4670k-i5-4th-generation-processor/p/itmdhsphuztjt7v6?pid=PSRDHSPKF9FPNWXV&srno=b_4&ref=470f56b5-9e41-4eef-83f8-a098acb83616

Mobo:
http://www.newegg.com/global/in/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157521

INTEL. No question. Also you DO NOT NEED AN I7! i5-4690k is perfect for all your gaming needs.

That's true, while the i5 has better price/performance ratio, the i7 has much better Frame Time Variance in games.

While I'd usually recommend an I5 4690k, in this case the op should go cheap on cpu and motherboard and put the saved money towards a better gpu. A 6300 fx would not limit a 660 gtx, but will become a bottleneck with a 770 gtx or above, so that would be okay if he just wants to save money.
Considering he has the budget for an I7 + 660, which is approximately $300 + $180 = $480, I'd split the money vice versa, put $300 on the gpu and $180 on the cpu. That would result in an I5 4460 (and a h97 board which saves a bit of money over a z97 one) and a gtx 970, which would absolutely blow the 660 gtx away.

Im sorry but AMD did invent 64bit

If it were me AMD and Intel both make good processors. now they both beat each other in different benchmarks. So if your low on budget go for an AMD and focus on other stuff but if you have the money i would look at a intel i7.

The i5-4690K is now a staggeringly cheap $179.99 on Microcenter! You should definitely hop on that.

http://www.microcenter.com/product/434177/Core_i5-4690K_35GHz_LGA_1150_Boxed_Processor

Amd has neither invented (lol) 64 bit processing nor released the first 64 bit cpu.

The original x86-64 instruction code was written by AMD.

True, but x86 (designed by intel) isn't the only architecture that uses 64 bit adress space.
Also, x86_x64 doesn't automatically translate into AMD64. There's also Intel 64 (or however you might want to call it), being very different from AMD64 (which is basically x86_x32 bit with more registers, some new sse instructions and what not).
If I recall correctly, x86_x64 is usually referred to code running on both, AMD64 and Intel 64 based cpu's.

Intel uses AMD x86-64, and calls it Intel 64. It's part of their cross-licensing agreement which is actually subject to expiration this week.

Feel free to dance around those simple facts to your hearts desire

Just a quick citation off wiki:

"Compilers generally produce executables (i.e.machine code) that avoid any differences, at least for ordinaryapplication programs."

"Recent implementations

Intel 64's BSF and BSR instructions act differently than AMD64's when the source is zero and the operand size is 32 bits. The processor sets the zero flag and leaves the upper 32 bits of the destination undefined.
AMD64 requires a different microcode update format and control MSRs (model-specific registers) while Intel 64 implements microcode update unchanged from their 32-bit only processors.
Intel 64 lacks some MSRs that are considered architectural in AMD64. These include SYSCFG, TOP_MEM, andTOP_MEM2Intel 64 allows SYSCALL/SYSRETonly in 64-bit mode (not in compatibility mode),[34] and allowsSYSENTER/SYSEXIT in both modes.[35]AMD64 lacks SYSENTER/SYSEXIT in both sub-modes of long mode.[36]
In 64-bit mode, near branches with the 66H (operand size override) prefix behave differently. Intel 64 ignores this prefix: the instruction has 32-bit sign extended offset, and instruction pointer is not truncated. AMD64 uses 16-bit offset field in the instruction, and clears the top 48 bits of instruction pointer.
AMD processors raise a floating point Invalid Exception when performing anFLD or FSTP of an 80-bit signalling NaN, while Intel processors do not.
Intel 64 lacks the ability to save and restore a reduced (and thus faster) version of the floating-point state (involving the FXSAVE and FXRSTORRecent AMD64 processors have reintroduced limited support for segmentation, via the Long Mode Segment Limit Enable (LMSLE) bit, to ease virtualization of 64-bit guests."

So while there are similarities (that I never denied) AMD64 and Intel 64 are different on architectural design and implementation. Especially memory adressing is very different between the two.

As for the cross licensing, wasn't that about intel allowing amd to use the initial x86 code for their x64 implementation (because it basically is an extension of it)? Aside of laying down law fights going on at that time (amd's claims that intel manipulated the market, amd breaking the 'x86 cpu's only by in house production' rule, etc.).

Dance, Monkey. Dance !!