Suggestions for a logical step up from old system

If you want a AMD system, there is no point in buying one now, wait till Bulldozer is released, should be very soon.

I looked for the price range for those, but haven't found it yet. Do you know the range?

http://www.guru3d.com/news/amd-bulldozer-llano-pricing-...

I think they will actually be cheaper than listed here.

1) It is not clear to me if you have any apps where multi cores will be particularly helpful. For games two or three cores is sufficient, and the faster the better.
Where amd shines is in many low cost cores, but not with speedy cores. I expect bulldozer to be good with many cores at a reasonable price, but not the fast cores most suited for gaming.

2) If you are a amd shareholder, I understand your like for amd. But, the current sandy bridge cpu's simply do much more per clock.
The anandtech bench shows the i3-2100 @3.1 to be approximately twice as effective as your current cpu. $100 at microcenter.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/31?vs=289

If you get the $220 2500K, you will get a quad that can be easily overclocked past 4.3. It is as good as it gets for gaming.

3) Add a $100-$130 motherboard and $50 for 8gb of ram, and you have $250 to $400 for the guts of your system.

4) For gaming, pick the graphics card first. That will determine what psu you need.
If you only do casual gaming, then the integrated graphics will be fine, and a 350w psu is all that is needed.
A 6950 or GTX560ti will be in the $200-$230 range, and will be good for fast action gaming @ 1080P. Fir these, you will need a psu in the 500w range.

Typical fanboy response.

He said he prefers AMD cpu's and he doesn't want to overclock, and you suggest an unlocked Intel cpu. Wow.

What you expect from Bulldozer has no relevance or importance, your just guessing about the performance of something you have no facts about.

To assume that everybody lives near a microcenter is just ridiculous, and for your information there are more and more games coming out that use 4 cores or more.

1) Yes, I like Intel, at least right now, they are stronger for computing.
I see by your rig, that you agree. That is just about what I would suggest to the OP.
The OP prefers amd, but did not insist on it, and I tried to explain why he might look at Intel.

2) I have no more info about bulldozer than anybody else. And, true, my opinion will not alter any facts, whatever they might be. There seems to be no information out about performance yet. I find that strange. If performance was strong, I would expect to see some leaks and early samples. Instead, we have not seen anything delivered yet. LLano was a good announcement for graphics, but not for cpu. I am, right now a skeptic on bulldozer, but if amd can beat Intel, then good for all of us.

3) I suggested 2500K as a top end build basis that was well within the op's budget. Even without overclocking, it is a winner today.

4) I do not assume that anybody lives near a microcenter, or even in the usa. But, if you do, they have some good deals.
I do not assume that anybody is a student, but if you have a .edu e-mail, then you can get windows 7 cheap.
Just pointing out a good deal when I see it.
5) If anybody knows that they run an app that is many core enabled, or, if they play such a game, then 4 or more cores will certainly be appropriate.
Today, that is the exception, not the rule.

Well by reading your original post, you seem to be stuck on gaming. The OP listed his usage as gaming last, and he has a X1900 video card currently.

Any AMD cpu would be fine for him, regardless of how it performs against an Intel cpu. I take the users wishes into account when making suggestions, which is why I suggested he wait for the release of BD.

The first revisions of BD were not as good performance wise as AMD expected, a bit under 2500K, hence the delay. The newest revision is much more promising and I've hear that it turbo's well over 4ghz, which would be more than anyone needs for gaming uses.

By the way to answer your #5, where your stuck on gaming again, I never suggested anything over 4 cores.

I'm not at all opposed to Intel, it's just that AMD was the best choice last time around. I really just want to be sure I'm building up from my old system, without spending more than I have to. The i3-2100 @3.1 sounds good, especially at that price. What would the AMD equivalent to that be?

A reasonable tool to compare cpu's is the anandtech bench:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/289?vs=102

Using the AnandTech tool, my initial research shows that the AMD equivalent is the AMD Phenom II X4 980 BE - 3.7GHz - 2MB L2 - 6MB L3 at approx. $200. It had an overall score of 215, same as the i3-2100. I'll do more comparisons, but so far Intel's in the lead.

At the $200 price point, the 2500K will beat anything out there. More so with an easy OC past 4.0.

The 955BE will run same speed as the 980BE for $119.

Unfortunately the 2500K is in the $220 pricepoint.

Sorry can't really help you anymore since you've completely changed your mind about everything your original post stated.

So - any recommendations for a video card?  

If your gaming is limited, then you could try the integrated graphics first with a Z68 motherboard, and later decide how strong a video card you might want. The integrated graphics is fine for surfing, movies etc. The integrated is not good for fast action games like first person shooters, but might be OK for strategy games like civ4.
If you want a very good card in the $200 range, the GTX560ti is good for the common 1080P resolution.