AMD Or Intel: Which $100 Gaming CPU Should You Buy?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I like this article, It is geared specifically for someone like myself, who does not overclock. It is not that I don't see the benefits, as it is clearly documented.. It is just I never wanted to be bothered with the whole overclocking thing. I usually upgrade every couple of years and buy the CPU I think I need at that point in time. So kudos for sticking to stock performance on this write up.

That said.. I think you left out an important part with overclocking and a good amount of people buy on the cheap, then try to get the most out of that particular piece of hardware. For those people, I can understand how they would view this article as lacking.

I like the idea of writing two different articles.. one like this one, sticking strictly to stock. This will appease people like myself. Then write a second followup article, focusing on overclocking. That article will appease the overclocking crowd.

This way, each article can focus on the performance of the components, based on how the consumer will look to be using the hardware. A person who likes to run stock can go straight to the stock write-up without having numbers in the conclusion skewed due to overclocking numbers thrown in the mix. The people who care only about how far they can push their new piece of hardware, can skip over the stock write up and go straight to the overclocking article.
 
I just put a system together using an AMD II X2 250. I picked this chips since power was 65 watts vs 80 watts for the X2 550. I compared them using the CPU DivX chart. They appeared to be fast in comparision with other chips on single threaded applications. My X2 250 overclocked to 3825 without raising any voltage and only raised chip temperature a few degrees. I love it.
 
This was a very well written article, not too short, or long, and sweet. Would be nice though to include the same thing with Overclocked numbers. I would really like to see how the AMD X4 does (if it overclocks at all) and see if the Intel can make a comeback.
 
"The Athlon II X4 and Phenom II X3 stay close to each other, but it is interesting that the Phenom II X3 manages a consistently higher minimum frame rate--perhaps the result of a higher base clock speed versus the Athlon II X4."

Um, both of those CPUs have the same clock speed???
 
[citation][nom]lavacon[/nom]You ran benchies with the POS known as G41. This was an article based on CPUS's for value gaming and such. An appropriate chipset should have been taken into consideration. How could you in good conscience recommend G41 for a value minded gamer? [/citation]

Once again, are you saying that the E6500 will magically demonstrate better performance on a P45 or X38 vs. a G41?

Are you suggesting the G41 chipset automatically reduces CPU performance because it senses how much the board costs?

If not, how can you in good conscience suggest it's a bad move to save money and buy a G41?

Please provide evidence of this mystical performance decrease, because I'm calling BS on that one. 😀


 
$100 CPUs suck. I would not game with a $100 CPU.
I use the pins on the these $100 CPUs to scrub my BBQ with.
If you're gonna game, for a few more bucks get something
in the mid to upper price range. With technology moving so fast nowadays,
these $100 CPUs will be at the bottom of the list in 6 months along with the AMD Duron and Intel Celeron.
 
Where are Street Fighter IV, Wolfenstein, Need for Speed, Call of Duty World at War ?
 
[citation][nom]p4l1ndr0m3[/nom]I don't understand how you guys can casually write about overclocking, yet unlocking cores is taboo... Both are YMMV. Did AMD make you sign an agreement not to talk about it? Will you not get your review samples if you do? Enlighten your readers![/citation]

Because, plain and simple, unlocking doesn't always work.

I'm loathe to boast about how great a potential feature is when it's far from guaranteed. If you win the core unlocking lottery, that's awesome, but I don't want people to go out of their way to buy an X2 based on a hope they read on Tom's.

Having said that, I'm not trying to hide it either. AMD hasn't ever complained about unlocking to me or my colleagues as far as I know. But really, IMHO if you want extra cores, buy an X3 720 or an Athlon II X4. The prices are so low it's hardly worth buying a CPU just because it might core unlock.

I do hear your point though, it deserves a mention and I'll probably say something in the follow-up.
 
If you are going to follow up with an OC article are you going to use stock heatsinks....or aftermarket....and are you going to consider them in the overall cost of the CPU?
 
[citation][nom]FoShizzleDizzle[/nom]Steep clock edge? Sorry Intel fanboy, as much as you'd like to spout out lies to make your boys in blue look like heroes, it's it's not true. Tom's did an article on overclocking with a locked multiplier where the Phenom II 710 reached 3744Mhz. So 3.6 shouldn't be too much of a problem for that CPU, either. The 550 has an unlocked multiplier and is known to reach up to around 4GHz, too. So you're halfway right, there is a steep clock edge. But it's in favor of the Phenom II.Here's that article btw, chalk it up: http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,2396.html
Comparing the crappy, blurred textures and mediocre models of OFDR to the stunning and clearly superior Fallout 3? FO3 is universally applauded for it's amazing graphics. On the other hand one of the biggest weaknesses of Dragon Rising, as most reviews will mention, are it's terrible graphics that are akin to something from Playstation 2. There's really no contest here.[/citation]
You really should try and understand what you're talking about before you go trolling other people. FO3 uses low poly models and low rez textures. And because of the lack of grass and trees in the FO world, they were able to get away with very very little shadowing and shadow rez. All of that equates to a very low memory footprint. OFDR instead has full foliage, large areas of tree coverage, and a lot of shadowing with a 1024 (at max) shadow rez to go along with it. (About 4x FO3) They had to make sacrifices to make it playable on the low power consoles. So they went with very low poly models and a lack of bump mapping. Both have strengths and weaknesses, but both look incredible on their platforms (including PC) because of a great use of art. (Color tones, lighting, level design)

Oh, and coincidentally, I've personally had the e6500 at 4.4 GHz on air. And with a clock vs. clock advantage known universally to lean towards Intel, it would be a very fair matchup.

What is with all the trolls today? There must have been a field trip to the computer lab today.
 
[citation][nom]caamsa[/nom]If you are going to follow up with an OC article are you going to use stock heatsinks....or aftermarket....and are you going to consider them in the overall cost of the CPU?[/citation]

I'll probably try something realistic for a budget gamer - an aftermarket heatsink, not too expensive though. And I'm going to look for some boards that might be a little more expensive and offer better overclocking features but stay under $100. This might mean I'll be moving the AMD's to an AM3 board with DDR3, and put the Intel on a P45.

As far as cost, yes, the goal will be to keep things on an even keel.
 
Although I'll add my voice to those wishing to see OC numbers, in the budget segment where people may not have the funds to risk their hardware, or may be inexperienced primates spending Daddy's money, I'd limit the OC to what can be achieved with stock voltage only, and/or using the stock cooler.
On the existing charts, did you determine what difference it made if you adjusted the priority in AVG for its scan? I'd like to know if setting it to the minimum still has a big performance hit.
 
In this market segment, which is Budget/Value Gaming, OCing is EXTREMELY important. The CPU's are bought on the basis of their Overclockbility AND their performance once OC'ed.
Recently I purchased the E5300, not the E6300, because it has a higher multiplier and therefore better for OCing.
It would be greatly appreciated if you would run a "Part II" to this article after OCing all the CPU's to a similar HIGH clock speed, such as 3.6 Ghz.
Thank you.
 


While I agree the E6500 will probably clock notably higher than a Phenom II, I don't think the Dual-Core Pentiums have demonstrated Intel's usual clock-for-clock performance advantage based on these results. The E6500 needs more cache to claim that birthright.

The Phenom II X2 550 had an almost insignificant 170 MHz advantage compared to the E6500, but I think it beat it by a substantial margin.

I do think the E6500 has the potential to clock a lot higher though, and will likely make up for the clock vs. clock deficit.

It'll be a good follow up article. :)
 


Hmmm. Well, if you're looking to overclock you're probably going to increase voltage as much as your temps can handle it. And you're probably also going to get an aftermarket cooler if you can afford it. I won't be considering expensive models, but something under $30 is fair game I think.




I'm leaving everything at default settings to simulate a real-world scenario for most folks. Messing with the priority might be more of an AVG test than a multithreading test, do you know what i mean? There's all kinds of techniques to deal with these kinds of things, but I'm looking for a baseline "this might happen to you" test and I think the default settings best represent that.
 
Athlon II X4 620 for me. All these CPUs have playable frame rates but what seals the deal to me is framerates while playing a game & running a virus scan at the same time. How may time have you had your PC crawl due to a virus scan. I've lost on stocks,ebay bids ect just having to wait on an open window when i had many things going at once. This CPU will save me money.
 
To do an overclocking test properly, you need a good sampling of CPU's (of the same model and motherboards probably) as from my experiences not all CPUs overclock the same. This is even a bigger concern if you are going to start unlocking cores on the AMD processors and overclocking them.


 
I'd definitely like to see the OC compared for these CPU's, low cost CPU's can achieve some aggressive overclocks; it would be interesting to see how they fare overclocked.
 
I know the point of the article was $100 cpus, but if you're actually going to build a budget gaming system, spend $20 more on the X3 720 Black. It is an unlocked CPU and a piece of cake to overclock.

There's an earlier article here on Tom's that shows 4 cores doesn't really buy you anything in games so you're better off with 3 faster cores. In other words, it's easy to overclock the 720 to 3.4Ghz or higher just by adjusting the multiplier and that is a lot better for games then 4 cores running at 2.6Ghz.
 
Given the Phenom II X3's larger Deneb foundation and price point dangerously close to the Athlon II X4, don't be surprised if AMD decides to stop manufacturing these chips in the near future. From an economics perspective, it simply doesn't make sense for the company to continue selling these more complex processors when it has a potential winner in the L3 cacheless Athlon II.
Click to expand...
But then what would they do with the Phenom II x4s that had a bad core that could be disabled? Trash it?
 
E6500 is a bad choice. You should either go to 7--- or 6200.

Like everyone else said, OC is all the difference. I am surprised it was omitted. It was probably with the purpose of pleasing the AMD fanboys, who have taken a lot of beating recently. They picked the best AMD processors in the lower range, and a bad intel CPU for the money. Then they didn't overclock. Obviously they put a lot of effort into putting AMD forward for once.

While I grant you that the article is useful for someone who doesn't overclock, come on now, really, how many of Tom's reader don't overclock at all?
 
[citation][nom]dheadley[/nom] The rest of us build new rigs from time to time, but we look at sites like tom's and try to come up with the best bang for the buck when we do so. We rarely by the top of the line gear, we buy the look for the 90% of the performance for 60% of the price models that are a much better buy. [/citation]
If you bought a lower priced computer and did not over clock, you are not getting the best bang for your buck. You are getting less performence for your buck. You only get the best bang for your buck when you overclock.

An example: You and your son buy the same exact parts for a low priced computer for the same exact price. Your son overclocks by 50%, but you do not. Your son is getting a better bang for his buck than you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom