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

[dstigue]

I really don't think they are going to cut the x3's anytime soon. You have to remember these are crippled x4s. What would they do with the dead core chips then? Throw them out. I don't think they would take that loss. They have a good system now. If they L3 is dead Athlon x4. If one core is dead Phenom II x3. I wouldn't worry about competition in this area as you have stated they all fit different needs.

 

[Guest]

I just picked up an X3 720 BE for $70+tax. It was "in store" deal at Fry's Electronics. This may indicate that the 720 is not long for this world.

 

[cleeve]

E6500 is a bad choice. You should either go to 7--- or 6200.

Not $100 CPUs, read the title.

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.

I've already said we're going to follow-up with an OC article, so there's a bit of a gaping hole in your paranoid theory there.

The simple truth is that I didn't have enough time to overclock and get the article out.

Nice conspiracy theory, tho. I have more proof for you... If you take the first letter of every paragraph it spells out H-E-C-T-O-R-R-U-I-Z. The Illuminati are also involved! lol

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?

I'd say, honestly, most of our readers don't overclock.

That's not to say I think overclocking is useless, but I do think the majority of our readers don't overclock.

As I said tho, I agree that overclocking results are important in this price range especially, and that's why I'm writing a follow-up...

 

[mapesdhs]

jtt283 writes:
> I'd limit the OC to what can be achieved with stock voltage only,
> and/or using the stock cooler.

Although that would provide info which is not really useful for
making a purchasing decision (since using a better cooler will
be the more common scenario), it would certainly be interesting
to see this info anyway, namely what is possible with the
supplied HSF, since then we could tell whether a 3rd-party cooler
was worth the extra cost, ie. do the OC tests with both the
supplied cooler and a 3rd-party model.

Note that launch articles for the 620 already showed the CPU
reaching 3.25 with the retail AMD cooler, though such articles
probably didn't use the same gfx card so be careful of direct
comparisons to the results here.

Anyone have any suggestions for a reasonable but not costly
cooler for the 620 on an AM2+ mbd? My brother's existing
system using an XP-90, would be nice to reuse it if possible
(no reply from Thermalright when I asked about compatibility).

Ian.

 

[Guest]

I'd like to see those budget CPUs overclocked just out of curiosity. However, seeing how I'm not planning on upgrading to any of those CPUs, it's not a big deal if time is spent on something else.

 

[1ce]

It would be interesting to see what overclocking results can be obtained on stock cooling only. If you were to use a $40 or $50 aftermarket cooler, that's half the cost of the CPU itself, and you could easily buy a superior CPU.

 

[grimjester]

Good article and the OC followup is going to be interesting. Intel will likely be leaving the sub-$100 market until they release cheaper i3/i5 processors. However:

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]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.[/citation]

I realize you want to keep things fair between AMD/Intel here and a bad mobo might affect the results a lot. Still, for the price of going to motherboards costing $50 more you could get C2Q/Phenom quad processors instead. Is it worth it?

 

[cleeve]

I realize you want to keep things fair between AMD/Intel here and a bad mobo might affect the results a lot. Still, for the price of going to motherboards costing $50 more you could get C2Q/Phenom quad processors instead. Is it worth it?

Well, I want to keep things realistic grimm, so I ask myself: if I were looking to overclock on as little money as possible, would I buy a $45 mobo? Probably not. An overclocker is realistically going to up the ante on other parts -- at least a little bit -- in order to squeeze as much performance as possible from the CPU.

I'm probably going to go for a Coolermaster HyperTX2 aftermarket cooler... only $15.00, but does a very good job, especially compared to stock.

Motherboard selection is going to take a lot more thinking and looking around to pick something cheap that has a good rep.

 

[lashton]

[citation][nom]TheCapulet[/nom]The Pentium DC can effortlesly overclock to 3.6, giving it a steep clock edge. And under good air cooling can easily hit the 4Ghz mark. With quality air cooling getting so cheap these days, it's not hard to imagine budget gamers buying great cooling while skimping on the processor budget because of overclocking. This article would have been perfect if it included the OC information and a few quick benchies to show the results. The OC potential makes ALL the difference in the world at this price point.[/citation]

you obviously know nothing about the Phenom II 550 reaching OVER 4.1 GHZ
so Phenom II 550 OC > pentium DC OC

 

[lowguppy]

YES. Explore overclocking. To me, most of the value of a sub-$100 is in the ability to get higher end performance out of it by overclocking (that's most of the fun too). I've been running an E2160 stock 1.8gz at a modest 2.7ghz overclock for almost two years. (I ran it at 2.9-3.2 for a while but toned it down so I could lower voltage and save watts and CPU life). For me, stock speed performance is only relevant as a baseline for comparison, or if you're trying to build an ultra-quiet system for specialized audio or home theater applications. For gaming, crank 'em up and blow as much air over them as you can.

 

[Proximon]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]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.[/citation]

I'm no fanboy Cleeve, but I think there is a kernel of truth to this. Tom's tests chipsets against each other all the time, as do other sites. If I knew of a benchmark on the G41 chipset, that might be different. We also see substantial differences in boards based on the same chipset.
So, you take a rather known and tested AMD board and pit it against an Intel board that I have never seen recommended for anyone's gaming build?
You are comparing $100 CPUs. OK then, compare them on similarly priced motherboards. 785G runs around 80 bucks, as does P43.
Saying the boards are similar because of IGPs that are not even being used makes no sense.

 

[cleeve]

785G runs around 80 bucks, as does P43.
Saying the boards are similar because of IGPs that are not even being used makes no sense.

I never said they were similar because of IGPs though.
I said "Budget-friendly boards based on either of these chipsets can be had for as low as $45 online." And when I wrote this, it was the case.

Right now I checked again and G41's start at $45, 780Gs start at $55, 785Gs start at $70. Some variances there, but we've proven the 780G and 785G chipsets show no performance difference, so are we going to split hairs about $10 between 780G and G41 performance?


All of this is moot, however, unless someone can prove that the G41 performs poorly compared to the P45. That's the point. You're suggesting it might make a substantial difference, and I'm suggesting it won't make a lick of difference.

Prove me wrong and I'll happily apologize, but it is my belief that there's no performance difference to speak of.

 

[lamb0fgod]

What about unlocking all the 550 BE's cores? that and overclocking... I think the 550 BE is a diamond in the rough, and takes the cake... (if you could unlock the cores that is) .... The multitasking bench was very interesting... I dont see myself recommending dual cores at all anymore...

I'm definitely interested in the overclocking, please update!

 

[curnel_D]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]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.[/citation]
Yup, totally looking forward to it. My first gaming machine was built on these principals, so I love seeing articles that take advantage of all of a platform's potential.

 

[dkev]

I oc'd my x2 550 to 4ghz with ease. The thing screams.

 

[dkev]

I oc'd my x2 550 to 4ghz with ease.

 

[dkev]

sorry I double posted

 

[Guest]

With stock clockings the amd silicon was faster. AMD fans should enjoy that small victory. But I am getting tired of hearing them say this silicon which is essentially the same in .45 Athlon's Phenom II's. Will OC 3.8. They don't, read your own forums. I'll see someone post an outrageous voltage and admmit it fails prime 95 but puts 4 gigaherts in their sig. Realistically they can run 3.6-3.7 max. I know they wil immediatly cry foul but all 3 variants on all different make boards with different coolers end up with the same results. No one out there is running 4.0.

 

[dkev]

Wanna bet?

 

[mapesdhs]

Cleeve writes:
> I'm probably going to go for a Coolermaster HyperTX2 aftermarket
> cooler... only $15.00, but does a very good job, especially
> compared to stock.

Is it really that good for just $15?

(I don't suppose you know if a Thermalright XP-90 could be used
with an AM2+ or AM3 mbd?)

Ian.

 

[dkev]

You can use it, but I see it has been discontinued. This one is a very good one.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835119091&Tpk=buffalo

 

[noob2222]

Hey cleeve, if you go with a more expensive MB, realize this is a $100 cpu. People who are buying these aren't going to spend money on a motherboard for overclocking. They want cheap, I suggest using the boards in this review and see what they can do.

If I am building an OC computer, I start with the dream MB, then buy the appropriate cpu to go with it. If I am building the cheapest thing, I buy the cheapest thing.

 

[megamanx00]

Well, when overclocked I'd think the 710 would come out on top thanks to its L3 cache. The 550 is already at a high clock rate so it's performance increase won't be as large.

 

[Guest]

I would really like to see you,
1. Overclock them as far as you can with a mid range cooler. (and keep 100% stable)
2. Use an AMD motherboard that allows you to try and unlock the extra cores on the phenoms.

I know not every X2 or X3 will unlock extra cores, but it would be nice to see you guys try and if you are going to overclock, any overclocker who gets these cpu's are going to try and unlock cores as well. And in my opinion unlocking them is just another form of overclocking and should be included.

Personally I think the best CPU out of them is the 550BE, if you unlock even 1 core on it, it will dominate the others and unlock 2 cores and the others wont even compete.

 

[cleeve]

My 550 BE sample doesn't unlock, I've already tried it.