I fail to see what a z97 mb (that you are recommending, seemingly based of the logic that AMDs MBs are dated) offers over the recommended 970's and 990's except for PCIE config and memory, which both have shown to have minimum/negligible performance difference for most users. The m.2 slot is nice, but that requires more expense again.
The recommended combos of yours will also increase someones budget from £182 (970 Gigabyte + 8320e) to over £250+ (based the i5 with the lowest priced z97 MBs which seems to negate some of the extra perks you are claiming you will get going intel.) The extra's a x99 offers also comes at the cost of even more expense.
Its a significant increase and it could be argued that the extra expense would be better put towards a better GPU for gaming.
I'm not trying to have an argument as it just my opinion and if I am missing what extra intel offers, please do explain. MB tech could very well become a very good reason to swap or go intel when x99 and ddr4 comes down in price, at the moment though, the only real reason I can see to go intel is for increased performance but at the cost of added expense, which is a perfectly valid reason for most people anyway, just not people on a tighter budget.
All hope on Zen being good, least it appears it will have the funding.
It's just about the extra performance a I5 would give you in games, compared to an AMD chip.
Even when overclocked to 4.7Ghz+, they are still slower than an I5 at stock.
See below as an example:
The top AMD CPU is an FX 9590 - which is running at 4.7Ghz. It's an identical CPU to the FX8320 - just with a higher stock speed.
FX9590 has a listed TDP of 220W, so it's safe to say that those overclocking their CPU's to 4.8Ghz or even 5.0Ghz are using at least 220W, most likely more.
That's a very hot CPU consuming a lot of power.
The alternative? I5 4670K, which is considerably faster in games than a 4.7Ghz+ overclocked FX chip. It has a TDP of just 84W, will run much cooler also (at stock, vs heavily overclocked FX).
Bear in mind that you can also overclock the I5 if you want to, which would give it even more of a performance advantage, though the temperatures and TDP would obviously increase from stock.
Also, the graph only shows the I5- 4670k, which is an older model. The I5 4690k is now available, which would be a few fps faster than it's predecessor (88W TDP, small increase from the 84W of the 4670k)
My point is, if someone is buying a new CPU/Motherboard today for gaming, then it's extremely worthwhile to save the extra £70 or £80 for a I5, as you'll get a much faster CPU in games, up to date motherboard technologies, cooler running and quieter system.
If someone really can't or doesn't want to spend the extra £70 then the AMD setup is viable, though I'd still recommend they just saveup for the I5.
