Builds, based on CyberPower (AMD) vs. SBM (i7)

[Onus]

The existing formats of articles and reviews, though individually subject to calls of bias or misrepresentation, I think add up to a fairly decent source of information on how particular components will perform. Reading the Cyberpower "Gamer Dragon" vs. Core i7 SBM build article, and its ensuing comments, leads me to make an article-type request. A lot of articles work with a fixed budget, asking questions like "How much performance [in game "X"] can I get for $1000?" I would like to suggest an alternate approach. Please answer a question like this: "I require 40FPS average to enjoy game 'X', but the minimum can never drop below 28FPS, and settings must be 'high' or better, on my 1680x1050 monitor. What is the least amount of money I have to spend to get that?"
Although what constitutes "good enough" performance/appearance is very subjective, a measurement in dollars (or euros, or pounds, or...) is not.

Thoughts, comments?

 

[dirtmountain]

I'm not an uber gamer, as long as i get a consistent 40 fps in any game without hesitations caused by low fps spiking i'm happy. I don't even need ultra high settings as long as the gameplay is smooth and visuals acceptable to me. The most i've ever spent on a system at one pop, including the OS, is $750. I do leave the door open on most of my rigs for CPU/GPU or even a PSU upgrade when needed. I usually go higher cost and capabilities on motherboards/RAM/HDs. As i switch out components i put the old parts into budget builds and pass those along as low cost improvements to friends/extended family.
Considering that this is an enthusiasts site it seems to me we get many more questions about "budget builds" then the super uber $2,000+ builds. When a poster says their budget is $1,300 not including OS/monitor/KB or mouse then I usually (at this point in time) say "i7" as the best bang for the buck. If they had said $900 or $1,000 then that's about the line where an AMD solution may pay off in terms of price/performance. I always try to take what the poster says they want and give them the best advice so they can achieve the best system for dollar spent doing what they want to do with the system. I try not to inject my own opinions without marking them as "if it was me" or "if this was my system" or without backing them up with links to reviews or benchmarks or other sites for added information.
I think the SBM articles rely a bit too heavily on extreme overclocks. If you look at that cyberpower/SBM article you see that the SBM used fast RAM, and a substantial overclock on their graphic cards, RAM, and CPU, while the cyberpower only had a minimal OC (3.2GHz to 3.6GHz...claimed, no SS)on the CPU, none on the graphic cards and used high latency cheap RAM. The SBM build was posted in the forums, had much discussion and advice and was assembled using the best bang for the buck components that were then pushed as far as the platform could handle. It's being compared to an (at best) adequate retail system. Level playing field ? nope. I love the SBM articles, i think they're one of the best features here at Tom's, but I think they would have served their readers better with a bigger range of builds using components that they've never used in a SBM in the 6 months or longer since they've been out.