Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: December '09

[aford10]

This price list is a joke. The E8500 at $230. Are you serious?? It's $189 at newegg.

The i7 920 @ $350? It's $289 at newegg.

Not a single intel CPU was priced at newegg, where they are often the cheapest. But 1/2 of the AMDs were priced at newegg.

This whole article is based on the price of the CPU. = This article is complete crap.

 

[saint19]

[citation][nom]cyberkuberiah[/nom]yeah , merry xMas all of tom's hardware ![/citation]

---------------------

All those processors are SERVER PROCESSORS, and usually are installed in mobos with another processor next to him, and 16GB RAM or more, SCSI disk, in RAID system that support 45TB of storage (Dell PowerEdge 2900).

Don't exist comparation point, we only use "normal processors" for home use and gaming.

And...I think that i need change my X4 955 for an i7 or i5, but, i don't have the money for do it now.

 

[shubham1401]

I feel unlucky that I don't live near Micro Center !!

 

[shubham1401]

I wished I live near Micro Center!!

 

[gnesterenko]

[citation][nom]cyberkuberiah[/nom]what platform cost ? i am running a single 5850 on $105 gigabyte UD2 with i5 on 3.6 stock voltage . gskill ram , psu , case , hdd , dvdrw etc is the same price . and the i5 is only 5$ more than 965 "BE" .[/citation]

Two things you aren't considering. First, the amount of features you get for a $105 mobo on the two platforms. With 1156, its mostly just basic stuff without too many options, where as on the AM3 platform you can get an enthusiast-class mobo for that money that is a spectacular overclocker (ASUS EVO for instance is roughly that much).

The other part is the fact that Intel platforms are not nearly as friendly to incremental upgrades as AMDs. With 1156, you have some quads to look forward to, but not much else. Anyone getting an AM3 board now can drop in a hexa-core Bulldozer starting next year without needing to replace any other part of the system. Over time, this saves money, even though at outset the two might be on par in price and performance, you'll get more out of your system with AM3.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

 

[wickedsnow]

I always look forward to post/articles about reviews or suggestions from toms. While I find this article useful, it becomes a bit skewd for those that live near a microcenter (like myself) and can purchase just about any cpu listed for 20-40% cheaper. I do think web prices should matter, but where people lives matter too. What about any UK gamers? Prices are much different over there. I have a few friends that tell me the price of a 9800gt is still $220 us. (over there)

Additionally, Many of us are on a budget sometimes and getting something good and cheap is great! But what not many realize is the difference in say spending $150 on a cpu and say... $170, many times results in a 20% faster cpu. (not always) And to me, $20 bucks is a meal, or a movie. And if your going to have your machine for years, come on. The possible performance increase is worth $20.

Just remember this what picking out any computer part. People want 3 things from it. They want it good, cheap, and fast. PICK 2

good and cheap = not fast
good and fast = not cheap
fast and cheap = not good.

Lastly, It would be nice if charts or a rating system was attached to articles like this. If toms tells me that a certain cpu is the winner of $100 and another is at $120. What's there differences? Is the $20 worth the difference and why? How much more fps or performance am I getting for that? Winning the crown for a certain price bracket does nothing for me if I don't know why. Maybe these brackets should only be at $100/$200/$300+ ranges?

Anyways, sorry for the rant, I don't normally rant... but today, I've just had way too much coffee.

Keep doing what your doing toms! While sometimes it's hit or miss, the effort, research and dedication to your readers is very appreciated! From my side of the fence, I love ya!

 

[tapher]

This series of article continues to shoot itself in the foot with the opening OC disclaimer; we're not children. Evaluate the CPUs based on their established mean OC ability.

 

[superpowter77]

I just got my phenom II X4 965 140W locally for $199 plus tax, I overclocked it at 3.8 Ghz with stock cooler. My decision towards AMD instead icore 5 platform, was regarding flexibility and obviously price, I got a great mobo for $109 (gigabyte MA790X-UD4P which allows me to use my old memory DDR2-800(2x2Gb) and will fit my 2x 4890 vapor chill(crossfire) for a killer setup(gamer's budget) for only $310 plus tax. My PSU is a 1000W antec with 4x 6 pin pcie.

 

[sighQ2]

Yep = that's an upgrade path.

It amazes me that spintel's END OF LIFE SOKKET 775 junk is still allowed access to this list.

I would call that misguiding people.

Also the ongoing illusion that core i7 or i5 will outperform a Ph II 965 ignores the facts - at high rez typical of today's machines, the AMD WINS. i7 is only win at low rez - and if you think the i5 hakk is any better, then you must be paid or told how to think by those who are.

Thanks to whoever mentioned the superior features for less money on AMD MOBOS also. hahaha - esp. the onboard video models - no contest there. Spintel has no video by comparison.

The real picture requires people to learn what they get when the mobo and ram are included - big value difference at that point - and this is missing in action here.

misguiding - that's for the help - not. Consistently, the REAL WORLD picture is quite different = look at the big picture, the whole system cost.

No I don't get paid for this - I just can't tolerate peeps being hosed by the king of antitrust.

 

[nickb64]

living 11 miuntes from Micro Center, but having no $$$ for components = ftl

Stuck on Pentium D 3.4GHz, 6600LE, and 1GB DDR PC3200 also ftl

 

[nickb64]

Living 11 miles from MicroCenter but having no $$$ is ftl

I'm stuck on a Pentium D 3.4GHz, 6600LE, and 1GB DDR PC3200 until at least January.

 

[caamsa]

AMD Athlon II X3 425 Rana 2.7GHz $76.00 on NewEgg free shipping.

 

[xtc28]

Hmmmmm........... Im getting sumptin here. Now what is it gonna be?

 

[whirlednews]

My quad core works great.

 

[Guest]

Why is AMD catching flak in the press for lagging behind Intel? If these recommendations are valid (and I don't see why they wouldn't be), AMD's processors are great. Yeah, they are outclassed by the i7 in the high-end segment but in the bread-and-butter segment AMD seems to be as good a choice as Intel, even a better choice according to Tom's Hardware.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]Some guy whos too lazy to register[/nom]Why is AMD catching flak in the press for lagging behind Intel? [/citation]

Because there are too many people out there won't or can't accept the idea that a company's product can still be worthwhile even if they don't hold the ultimate performance crown, unfortunately.

 

[pandemonium_ctp]

Nice review, as always. Keep it up!

One thing that's always missed, and I'm amazed it still isn't a selling factor with how critical benchmarking has become with computer components, is operational cost/performance as well as initial cost/performance. What good is to save $40 or even $5 on a power hungry CPU, GPU, PSU, etc. if that money is spent in the difference of the first month of operation?

I spent about 2 years on-off researching compoments until I finally had the cash available to upgrade and during that time power consumption gradually became a primary concern.

A quick run down to save operational costs that I've found:
- Smaller die chips will reduce power costs
- Compatable variable voltage regulation hardware and software

Additionally, and most people will find this biased, but alas it's what I found in multiple comparison charts, was performance/power: Intel (CPUs), ATI (GPUs), Corsair & Antec (PSUs), and Gigabyte (MOBOs) were over all other brands.

I digress. Regardless if you find or know the same, the point remains that operational cost > initial cost.

 

[pandemonium_ctp]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Because there are too many people out there won't or can't accept the idea that a company's product can still be worthwhile even if they don't hold the ultimate performance crown, unfortunately.[/citation]

Meh, Intel provides more solid of a product than AMD. I've personally seen more reliability from Intel chips than AMD chips. This isn't a bible for hardware, but if there's anything out there this would be it: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/market_share.html. The market shares will reflect the great divide that's been happening for the last 3 years and AMD had the lead in performance no more than 9 months ago if I remember correctly.

 

[Guest]

@pandemonium_ctp
In my experience all CPUs are equally reliable. System stability is influenced much more by the motherboard/chipset and memory. And I think there is really no reason for brand loyalty when considering CPUs. I simply find out what will provide the greatest performance boost for the money I want to spend. Usually that's something from AMD.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]pandemonium_ctp[/nom]I've personally seen more reliability from Intel chips than AMD chips.[/citation]

I test a lot of CPUs and in my experience it's extremely rare that either an Intel or AMD chip will die, I certainly wouldn't say one is worse or better than the other from a reliability standpoint.

[citation][nom]pandemonium_ctp[/nom]The market shares will reflect the great divide that's been happening for the last 3 years[/citation]

I'm not sure what you're implying with that in context with the rest of your comment.

Are you suggesting market share is a direct function of reliability? I'd say it's probably related closer to advertising budgets.

 

[pandemonium_ctp]

And no one happened to read the entire comments I made. You saw fanboi-like context and stopped right there to respond...

So what about the fact that operational costs are always overlooked in these cost comparisons?

I've removed tangented texts in this reply to stay in spirit with the topic.

 

[Guest]

@pandemonium_ctp
The operational costs are overlooked because mom and dad pay the electricity bill.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]pandemonium_ctp[/nom]And no one happened to read the entire comments I made. You saw fanboi-like context and stopped right there to respond...[/citation]

Not true, I read them. I simply don't have a quick answer for your previous comment.

I do have some experience as far as AMD vs. Intel CPU reliability though, so I answered that one.

[citation][nom]pandemonium_ctp[/nom]So what about the fact that operational costs are always overlooked in these cost comparisons?[/citation]

After a bit of thought I'd say operational costs are largely ignored in this monthly article as the focus is on gaming ability, not long-term costs.

When we write up a pure CPU review coverign all aspects, power usage of the platform is always considered. But IMHO, that doesn't fit well into a pure price/performance piece like this one. Electrical usage for the home buyer is a very small part of the overall cost even over an entire year unless there is a massive disparity and the CPU is under full load 24/7.

 

[pandemonium_ctp]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]When we write up a pure CPU review coverign all aspects, power usage of the platform is always considered. But IMHO, that doesn't fit well into a pure price/performance piece like this one. Electrical usage for the home buyer is a very small part of the overall cost even over an entire year unless there is a massive disparity and the CPU is under full load 24/7.[/citation]

Fair enough. I, however, don't agree to the general concept that operating costs are largely ignored. Energy efficient hardware is something that's growing rapidly with demand for a lot of the consumer industry; gaming hobbyists won't be able to ignore it for much longer. Such a review that would calculate kw/hour amounts comparing a computer specifically built for performance/operating cost versus a similar performance build but cheaper initial cost would be enlightening to see. Also, an extreme example of a performance monster build regardless of energy consumption would certainly open a lot of eyes to the evolving factor.

A future endeavor perhaps?

 

[a4mula]

Operational cost I think will become a much more considerable factor as the rising cost of energy approaches. Technology such as Eyefinity will see more and more everyday consumers running multiple monitors, simple software based overclocking is becoming common with motherboard companies.

I can say that it was a consideration for my new build. Less watts = less heat = greater overclocks = smaller energy bills. I had the budget to go either i7 920 or i5 750. At the end of the day I went with the i5 due to the much lower wattage required to reach 4ghz. It was the single swinging factor for me.