Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: January 2012 (Archive)

[Sakkura]

This is so old. Why repackage something with a new title and depict it as new? The 8350 is doing far better now with Crysis 3 and other games released. This is certainly not a solid list for April. Also the criteria of a cpu to establish itself as a gamer is rather vague and Intel-centric. The 8350 is for sure on par with the i5 3570k, the review just hasn't been edited since January... The i7's are where they should be, but the 8350 definitely deserves a bump up. I've run my own tests parallel with my 3770k

The 8350 was outperformed by the i5-3550 in the Crysis 3 performance article. Of course, overclocking would enable the 8350 to overtake the 3550, but it wouldn't catch up to the 3570K.

On the other hand, putting it a tier below all SB and IB Core i5s is a bit harsh.

 

[logainofhades]

The FX 6300 and FX 8320 deserve honorable mentions as well. Overclocked, they would both outperform their closest competitor price wise and neither of those competitor chips are overclock friendly.

 

[Onus]

As stated on page 1, the recommendations generally do not include overclocking (with the visibly obvious exception of some of the honorable mentions). The chart is for stock performance, but I suspect that most people willing and able to OC understand that they will gain a tier (or perhaps two) by doing so.

 

[logainofhades]

Well, the 3570k is consistently recommended due to its ability to overclock unlike the 3350P, and rightfully so. I have one and I love it. I just find it a bit unfair that closely competing chips price wise are not given at least an honorable mention for the same reasons.

 

[ingtar33]

Well, the 3570k is consistently recommended due to its ability to overclock unlike the 3350P, and rightfully so. I have one and I love it. I just find it a bit unfair that closely competing chips price wise are not given at least an honorable mention for the same reasons.

I've come full circle with this over the past few months. as recently as last month i was raising these same complaints. The problem is STOCK the FX chips barely outperform 3 and 4 year old Phenom II CPUs... overclocked they really perform well if you invest in the right motherboard, but they won't match an i5 or i7 using it's factory standard mb controlled turbo mode overclocking. So the result is, you're left with a need to rank the chips, and simply put, the i5 and i7 (any one of them) is a better and faster chip then the FX

The real phrase in this article that tells you all you need to know however, is the one at the end that said roughly any chip within 3 teirs of another will perform basically the same. The FX chips are within 1 teir of the high end intels... anyone owning one of those fx chips won't really be able to tell the difference between it and the i5 or i7.

This isn't 2004, where a p4 was perceptibly inferior to an AMD athlon 64... where, either stock or overclocked you could feel and see the difference. In this day and age, the top end chips are so insanely powerful, unless you use a stopwatch when unraring gigabyte sized files, you'll never be able to tell the difference between the fx 8350 and i7 3770k. And that chart says precisely this, the i5 is faster, but you won't be able to tell.

which in my real world experience is pretty much my experience with those chips.

 

[bigcyco1]

I'm really dumb. its 4 cores. windows lists as 2 cores 4 threads so that is properly scheduled u nubs.

What's nubs? :lol: I know what you mean just messing with you. 😉

 

[zolton33]

We acknowledge that there are other factors that come into play, such as platform price or CPU overclockability, but we're not going to complicate things by factoring in motherboard costs.

To me this reads more like they do not wish to put in the extra effort to inform people. As such why not have a separate article 1 for AMD and 1 for Intel? This way you have a recommended point from each side that can not be read as being biased. And would better give a comparison between the cpu's own manufacturer. If need be the top 3 from each side could be put head to head if need be for comparisons between the manufacturers. A bit more work i know but a lot more informative.

With modern games able to take advantage of more than two processing cores, AMD's old quad-core chips, such as the Athlon II X4 and Llano-based A6 and A8 APUs, look better now compared to Intel's dual-core models than they did before.
As a result, I cut the Pentium G860 from our recommendation list. The Athlon II X4 640 takes its place.

That seems like a dark contrast to you recommending the Intel Core i3-3220 which is a dual core and not even recommending the FX-6300 that is about $9.99 more then the i3. If more cores are being utilized and boosting performance then the 6300 would seem a better cpu build then the i3 at that price point as the i3 is only a dual core.

And then you list the option of a faster cpu upgrade later on to a higher 1155. But then do not do the same for the FX series? And then no recommendations of the 8350 at all? Yet you recommend a intel i5 that has a lower clock speed, less l2 cache, a lower turbo clock, less cores, less threads, less l2 per core and lower over all performance scores then the 8350 in the many other reviews i've seen?

To me that does not make much sense especially with a price difference of only $20. And that extra $20 gets you a socket that is not yet dead and has some new architectures on the way. As well as pretty decent cpu at its price range. And if more cores do improve performance as what you stated earlier then the 8350 and the 6300 both should have been on this list and i am disappointed by not seeing them here. It just seems like you are contradicting your own findings and recommendations.

 

[chrisafp07]

This is so old. Why repackage something with a new title and depict it as new? The 8350 is doing far better now with Crysis 3 and other games released. This is certainly not a solid list for April. Also the criteria of a cpu to establish itself as a gamer is rather vague and Intel-centric. The 8350 is for sure on par with the i5 3570k, the review just hasn't been edited since January... The i7's are where they should be, but the 8350 definitely deserves a bump up. I've run my own tests parallel with my 3770k

The 8350 was outperformed by the i5-3550 in the Crysis 3 performance article. Of course, overclocking would enable the 8350 to overtake the 3550, but it wouldn't catch up to the 3570K.

On the other hand, putting it a tier below all SB and IB Core i5s is a bit harsh.

Yea, you are right Sakkura, I guess your second point (putting it a tier below) was where I was going.

 

[zolton33]

Still baffled as to why the 3225 beats a fx-6300. ?!?!? Overclocked, the 6300 kills the 3225.

This list isn't about overclocking, that's why.

yet the overclockable intel chips are ranked higher then the non-overclockable chips. it's a valid question, when an FX 6300 can be overclocked easily within a whisker of stock i5-2500k performance numbers why it's rated lower; especially since no one buys an
AMD with the intention of using it at stock speeds.

The chart for the I7-3770k on the "$200 and up" page, shows the 3770k as having no hyperthreading:

4 (4)

It should show: 4(8).

ugh... when HT translates into more then 20%-30% improvement in performance over a single non HT core in ALL applications (as it famously usually results in poorer per thread performance in most gaming situations) we can start to talk about a 4 core intel CPU with 8 threads.

As it stands right now an i7 is basically a 4(5)... 4 core CPU with 5 full thread performance in some aps.

This is for those who don't know what a cluster core is.....Windows 7 and 8 doesn't officially tell you how many cores you have for AMD FX Series. FX Series is using cluster cores. Cluster core are multiple cores within a processor. FX-8350 will show 4 cores on Windows 7 pro.....but remember, each core has 2 cores. 4 cluster cores(bulldozer) x 2 native cores/per cluster = 8 cores.

you're not helping in any way.

They're called modules, not cluster cores.

+1

The overclocking chips are not ranked higher than the non-overclocking CPUs in the hierarchy chart unless there's more of a difference than the overclocking itself. The overclocking CPUs in the recommendations list are only in there because at their point, overclocking is the only way to get a realistic performance gain over the previous non-overclocking recommendation.

It really isn't a valid point to interpret this in any other way than what it is. If you wanted to ask for a similar article that's truly based on overclocking and that the top overclocking CPUs be moved from this list to it, then that would be a valid suggestion/recommendation. However, in the article's current state, those CPUs are where they should be.

I would agree. A new list being created with the over clockable cpu's put on it would be an awesome idea. And would clear up the confusion on recommendations. While some build pc's and over clock others surely do not. As the over clockable cpu's cost a bit more then non over clockable cpu's having one for those who do over clock and one for those that do not would be quite beneficial. Although that in itself would bring up a question of which path is better when comparing over clockable cpu's at base to non over clockable cpu's unless you leave the over clockable cpu's on the non over clockable hierarchy as a base reference.

 

[Sakkura]

That seems like a dark contrast to you recommending the Intel Core i3-3220 which is a dual core and not even recommending the FX-6300 that is about $9.99 more then the i3. If more cores are being utilized and boosting performance then the 6300 would seem a better cpu build then the i3 at that price point as the i3 is only a dual core.

And then you list the option of a faster cpu upgrade later on to a higher 1155. But then do not do the same for the FX series? And then no recommendations of the 8350 at all? Yet you recommend a intel i5 that has a lower clock speed, less l2 cache, a lower turbo clock, less cores, less threads, less l2 per core and lower over all performance scores then the 8350 in the many other reviews i've seen?

To me that does not make much sense especially with a price difference of only $20. And that extra $20 gets you a socket that is not yet dead and has some new architectures on the way. As well as pretty decent cpu at its price range. And if more cores do improve performance as what you stated earlier then the 8350 and the 6300 both should have been on this list and i am disappointed by not seeing them here. It just seems like you are contradicting your own findings and recommendations.

The Core i3-3220 isn't just a plain dual core like the Pentium though, it adds hyperthreading which clearly helps in games that rely on more than two threads.

Comparing the clock speeds between FX CPUs and Core i5s makes no sense. And having a bit more L2 cache doesn't help when the cache is slower. Plus Tom's benchmarks put the Core i5s ahead of the 8350 in practically all games. Even Crysis 3, which loves extra cores, did better on a Core i5-3550 than an FX-8350.

 

[g-unit1111]

Wow, I'm amazed that the Phenom II still holds up well even though Toms uses low end Pentiums in its' System builder rigs.

 

[kitekrazy1963]

I still love those Phenom IIs. I use a 955 for most of my gaming.

 

[zolton33]

That seems like a dark contrast to you recommending the Intel Core i3-3220 which is a dual core and not even recommending the FX-6300 that is about $9.99 more then the i3. If more cores are being utilized and boosting performance then the 6300 would seem a better cpu build then the i3 at that price point as the i3 is only a dual core.

And then you list the option of a faster cpu upgrade later on to a higher 1155. But then do not do the same for the FX series? And then no recommendations of the 8350 at all? Yet you recommend a intel i5 that has a lower clock speed, less l2 cache, a lower turbo clock, less cores, less threads, less l2 per core and lower over all performance scores then the 8350 in the many other reviews i've seen?

To me that does not make much sense especially with a price difference of only $20. And that extra $20 gets you a socket that is not yet dead and has some new architectures on the way. As well as pretty decent cpu at its price range. And if more cores do improve performance as what you stated earlier then the 8350 and the 6300 both should have been on this list and i am disappointed by not seeing them here. It just seems like you are contradicting your own findings and recommendations.

The Core i3-3220 isn't just a plain dual core like the Pentium though, it adds hyperthreading which clearly helps in games that rely on more than two threads.

Comparing the clock speeds between FX CPUs and Core i5s makes no sense. And having a bit more L2 cache doesn't help when the cache is slower. Plus Tom's benchmarks put the Core i5s ahead of the 8350 in practically all games. Even Crysis 3, which loves extra cores, did better on a Core i5-3550 than an FX-8350.

Are you not aware that the 6300 the 4300 and the 8350 also have hyper threading? So again there is a contradiction. It is said that more cores the better and hyper threading for games and the 4300 6300 and the 8350 contain these yet the 4300 is only added as a honorable mention? Yet the i3 3220 receives a full recommend? Even though the 1155 is to not receive a new cpu architecture as Intel has decided to move onto a new socket style?

And how exactly does it not make sense to compare the base speeds and more cores to less cores and a lower clock speed? Because the Intel line has better single threads? The 3550P has 6MB cashe L3 the 6300 has 8 as well as the 8350. Now the L2 the 3350P has 1MB of L2 cache the 8350 has 8MB as does the 6300. So again the 6300 and the 8350 by your admission of L2 cache increasing performance with claims of slower L2 cache which is untrue of the 6300 and the 8350 makes no sense. The 3350P has much slower L2 cache and L3 cache. As well as lower clock speeds and less cores.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3350P-vs-AMD-FX-6300

That compares the 6300 Vs the 3350P

http://cpuboss.com/cpu/Intel-Core-i5-3350P

That compares the 3350P to the 8350

As for Crysis 3? Look at this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

See any thing wrong? I do its weird to me that the 8350 beats the 3350P in max FPS 49.5 versus the 49.2 yet some how is almost half the minimal....... being 21 min compared to the 3350P 31 to me it seems more issues were in play out side of the cpu performance. And it shows also in the i3 3220 getting 17 fps min and 41.7 max while the Phenom II X4 965 gets 19 min and 32.8 max.

Now the 6300 was not even in that comparison at all. Now most games do not even fully utilize quad core cpu's. So of course the 8 core will do worse if the cores seem weaker then the 4 core intel is offering. But what if games become more compatible with the 8 core cpu's? We know the ps4 will utilize a 8 core cpu so many of the ps4 ports to pc will be better to utilize more cores. So would that also not mean a better future for amd 8 core cpu's? The stronger 4 cores will then be more strong armed by the 8 cores despite 4 of its cores being weaker then the quads intel offers.

And every gamer should know that games are starting to use more cores with some games now starting to use quad cores more efficiently. When i built my older pc many years ago i bought an amd athlox 64 x2 4400+ cpu. At that time i had to install a limiter on my cpu as it caused sever speed up in some games. The games at that time utilized 1 core mainly so the other was acting as a huge boost. Now that has since changed with dual cores being a minimum for some games.

And now the quads are being a better performance boost. So i'm wondering if amd is not yet again being ahead of the software with the 8 core cpu's.

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

Shows the 8350 out performing the Intel i7 3770k

Now with a cpu release there are reviews written and then generally not revisited. And we have that here with the 8350. With more and more games capable of taking advantage of more cores the 8350 and the 6300 seem to increase quite a lot in performance as the stronger intel cores then become less important. And some who have benchmarked the 8350 in games like crysis have shown that the 8350 fairs well when more of its cores can be utilized.

And with the 6300 so close to the 3220 i do not see why it was recommended over the 6300. The 6300 offers far more then the i3. And gaming wise they are also close only in games that do not utilize all the cores of the 6300. So i look to see since more games are going to start utilizing more cores that the FX 6300 and the 8350 are just going to increase in better performance in games while the i3's and other dual cores are going to be gradually fazed out.

AMD has already started this process by concentrating on quad+ core cpu's. Gaming wise the 6300 and the 8350 should both be on here. And i'm saddened to not see them any where. And we only get a 4300 recommendation? To me that does not seem ballanced or right and definitely not informing consumers who would read this recommendation and follow it blindly with no research of their own.

It seems wrong to me that build costs as well as over clocking are not added into the mix. As the point of these articles is to inform a consumer on the best cpu for their money. But if that were even remotely true then the cost of a mother board plus its cpu should have been factored in at the very least. While not every one over clocks cpu's all want the best bang for their buck yet these reviews do not show that.

What good is a $130 recommend when you need a mobo that costs a lot more on average compared to lets say a 6300 that the mobo is much cheaper and offers the over clock option? I would think you would want to be complete and thorough. But sadly its not when the basic cost of mobo plus cpu is not factored in with the cost of a build. Which is why many look here for the price of the best cheapest build within their price range.

 

[Sakkura]

Are you not aware that the 6300 the 4300 and the 8350 also have hyper threading? So again there is a contradiction. It is said that more cores the better and hyper threading for games and the 4300 6300 and the 8350 contain these yet the 4300 is only added as a honorable mention? Yet the i3 3220 receives a full recommend? Even though the 1155 is to not receive a new cpu architecture as Intel has decided to move onto a new socket style?

And how exactly does it not make sense to compare the base speeds and more cores to less cores and a lower clock speed? Because the Intel line has better single threads? The 3550P has 6MB cashe L3 the 6300 has 8 as well as the 8350. Now the L2 the 3350P has 1MB of L2 cache the 8350 has 8MB as does the 6300. So again the 6300 and the 8350 by your admission of L2 cache increasing performance with claims of slower L2 cache which is untrue of the 6300 and the 8350 makes no sense. The 3350P has much slower L2 cache and L3 cache. As well as lower clock speeds and less cores.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3350P-vs-AMD-FX-6300

That compares the 6300 Vs the 3350P

http://cpuboss.com/cpu/Intel-Core-i5-3350P

That compares the 3350P to the 8350

As for Crysis 3? Look at this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

See any thing wrong? I do its weird to me that the 8350 beats the 3350P in max FPS 49.5 versus the 49.2 yet some how is almost half the minimal....... being 21 min compared to the 3350P 31 to me it seems more issues were in play out side of the cpu performance. And it shows also in the i3 3220 getting 17 fps min and 41.7 max while the Phenom II X4 965 gets 19 min and 32.8 max.

Now the 6300 was not even in that comparison at all. Now most games do not even fully utilize quad core cpu's. So of course the 8 core will do worse if the cores seem weaker then the 4 core intel is offering. But what if games become more compatible with the 8 core cpu's? We know the ps4 will utilize a 8 core cpu so many of the ps4 ports to pc will be better to utilize more cores. So would that also not mean a better future for amd 8 core cpu's? The stronger 4 cores will then be more strong armed by the 8 cores despite 4 of its cores being weaker then the quads intel offers.

And every gamer should know that games are starting to use more cores with some games now starting to use quad cores more efficiently. When i built my older pc many years ago i bought an amd athlox 64 x2 4400+ cpu. At that time i had to install a limiter on my cpu as it caused sever speed up in some games. The games at that time utilized 1 core mainly so the other was acting as a huge boost. Now that has since changed with dual cores being a minimum for some games.

And now the quads are being a better performance boost. So i'm wondering if amd is not yet again being ahead of the software with the 8 core cpu's.

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

Shows the 8350 out performing the Intel i7 3770k

Now with a cpu release there are reviews written and then generally not revisited. And we have that here with the 8350. With more and more games capable of taking advantage of more cores the 8350 and the 6300 seem to increase quite a lot in performance as the stronger intel cores then become less important. And some who have benchmarked the 8350 in games like crysis have shown that the 8350 fairs well when more of its cores can be utilized.

And with the 6300 so close to the 3220 i do not see why it was recommended over the 6300. The 6300 offers far more then the i3. And gaming wise they are also close only in games that do not utilize all the cores of the 6300. So i look to see since more games are going to start utilizing more cores that the FX 6300 and the 8350 are just going to increase in better performance in games while the i3's and other dual cores are going to be gradually fazed out.

AMD has already started this process by concentrating on quad+ core cpu's. Gaming wise the 6300 and the 8350 should both be on here. And i'm saddened to not see them any where. And we only get a 4300 recommendation? To me that does not seem ballanced or right and definitely not informing consumers who would read this recommendation and follow it blindly with no research of their own.

It seems wrong to me that build costs as well as over clocking are not added into the mix. As the point of these articles is to inform a consumer on the best cpu for their money. But if that were even remotely true then the cost of a mother board plus its cpu should have been factored in at the very least. While not every one over clocks cpu's all want the best bang for their buck yet these reviews do not show that.

What good is a $130 recommend when you need a mobo that costs a lot more on average compared to lets say a 6300 that the mobo is much cheaper and offers the over clock option? I would think you would want to be complete and thorough. But sadly its not when the basic cost of mobo plus cpu is not factored in with the cost of a build. Which is why many look here for the price of the best cheapest build within their price range.

The FX processors do NOT have hyperthreading. I don't know where you're getting such nonsense from.

Comparing clocks is meaningless, because the IPC of different processor architectures varies. It's like rating an engine on its RPM.

As for the cache performance:

 

[Cataclysm_ZA]

Are you not aware that the 6300 the 4300 and the 8350 also have hyper threading? So again there is a contradiction.

There's no contradiction, AMD's FX processors don't have Hyper-threading. Bulldozer and Piledriver have separate integer cores and are recognised within Windows 8 as separate cores. The only thing they really share is a floating-point unit and L3 cache.

 

[mousseng]

It seems wrong to me that build costs as well as over clocking are not added into the mix. As the point of these articles is to inform a consumer on the best cpu for their money. But if that were even remotely true then the cost of a mother board plus its cpu should have been factored in at the very least. While not every one over clocks cpu's all want the best bang for their buck yet these reviews do not show that.

What good is a $130 recommend when you need a mobo that costs a lot more on average compared to lets say a 6300 that the mobo is much cheaper and offers the over clock option? I would think you would want to be complete and thorough. But sadly its not when the basic cost of mobo plus cpu is not factored in with the cost of a build. Which is why many look here for the price of the best cheapest build within their price range.

The reason motherboard costs aren't included is because they're entirely irrelevant. Every user has different needs, and those needs will dictate the cost of their mobo, not the platform they choose: AM3+ boards range from $42 to $220 at the time of writing, and LGA1155 boards range from $43 to $450. There is no "basic cost" of a mobo, because "basic" changes based on what someone is looking for.

 

[ingtar33]

the MB argument is a nonstarter... you can run a 6300 just fine on a 760G, 970 or any chipset in between... and some of those are very strong overclocking mbs that you can have for 70-80 bucks. You don't NEED to buy a $200 mb to get 8+2 phase / overclocking monster board... you can find 8+2 overclocking monsters from asus in the bargain bin with older chipsets.

for example, an ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3, can be had "new" for like 70 bucks... and it will overclock an FX 6300 chip like a champ.

 

[andy5174]

FX-8350 is higher than i5-750 in GAMING hierarchy???

 

[zolton33]

Are you not aware that the 6300 the 4300 and the 8350 also have hyper threading? So again there is a contradiction. It is said that more cores the better and hyper threading for games and the 4300 6300 and the 8350 contain these yet the 4300 is only added as a honorable mention? Yet the i3 3220 receives a full recommend? Even though the 1155 is to not receive a new cpu architecture as Intel has decided to move onto a new socket style?

And how exactly does it not make sense to compare the base speeds and more cores to less cores and a lower clock speed? Because the Intel line has better single threads? The 3550P has 6MB cashe L3 the 6300 has 8 as well as the 8350. Now the L2 the 3350P has 1MB of L2 cache the 8350 has 8MB as does the 6300. So again the 6300 and the 8350 by your admission of L2 cache increasing performance with claims of slower L2 cache which is untrue of the 6300 and the 8350 makes no sense. The 3350P has much slower L2 cache and L3 cache. As well as lower clock speeds and less cores.

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-3350P-vs-AMD-FX-6300

That compares the 6300 Vs the 3350P

http://cpuboss.com/cpu/Intel-Core-i5-3350P

That compares the 3350P to the 8350

As for Crysis 3? Look at this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-3-performance-benchmark-gaming,3451-8.html

See any thing wrong? I do its weird to me that the 8350 beats the 3350P in max FPS 49.5 versus the 49.2 yet some how is almost half the minimal....... being 21 min compared to the 3350P 31 to me it seems more issues were in play out side of the cpu performance. And it shows also in the i3 3220 getting 17 fps min and 41.7 max while the Phenom II X4 965 gets 19 min and 32.8 max.

Now the 6300 was not even in that comparison at all. Now most games do not even fully utilize quad core cpu's. So of course the 8 core will do worse if the cores seem weaker then the 4 core intel is offering. But what if games become more compatible with the 8 core cpu's? We know the ps4 will utilize a 8 core cpu so many of the ps4 ports to pc will be better to utilize more cores. So would that also not mean a better future for amd 8 core cpu's? The stronger 4 cores will then be more strong armed by the 8 cores despite 4 of its cores being weaker then the quads intel offers.

And every gamer should know that games are starting to use more cores with some games now starting to use quad cores more efficiently. When i built my older pc many years ago i bought an amd athlox 64 x2 4400+ cpu. At that time i had to install a limiter on my cpu as it caused sever speed up in some games. The games at that time utilized 1 core mainly so the other was acting as a huge boost. Now that has since changed with dual cores being a minimum for some games.

And now the quads are being a better performance boost. So i'm wondering if amd is not yet again being ahead of the software with the 8 core cpu's.

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked

Shows the 8350 out performing the Intel i7 3770k

Now with a cpu release there are reviews written and then generally not revisited. And we have that here with the 8350. With more and more games capable of taking advantage of more cores the 8350 and the 6300 seem to increase quite a lot in performance as the stronger intel cores then become less important. And some who have benchmarked the 8350 in games like crysis have shown that the 8350 fairs well when more of its cores can be utilized.

And with the 6300 so close to the 3220 i do not see why it was recommended over the 6300. The 6300 offers far more then the i3. And gaming wise they are also close only in games that do not utilize all the cores of the 6300. So i look to see since more games are going to start utilizing more cores that the FX 6300 and the 8350 are just going to increase in better performance in games while the i3's and other dual cores are going to be gradually fazed out.

AMD has already started this process by concentrating on quad+ core cpu's. Gaming wise the 6300 and the 8350 should both be on here. And i'm saddened to not see them any where. And we only get a 4300 recommendation? To me that does not seem ballanced or right and definitely not informing consumers who would read this recommendation and follow it blindly with no research of their own.

It seems wrong to me that build costs as well as over clocking are not added into the mix. As the point of these articles is to inform a consumer on the best cpu for their money. But if that were even remotely true then the cost of a mother board plus its cpu should have been factored in at the very least. While not every one over clocks cpu's all want the best bang for their buck yet these reviews do not show that.

What good is a $130 recommend when you need a mobo that costs a lot more on average compared to lets say a 6300 that the mobo is much cheaper and offers the over clock option? I would think you would want to be complete and thorough. But sadly its not when the basic cost of mobo plus cpu is not factored in with the cost of a build. Which is why many look here for the price of the best cheapest build within their price range.

The FX processors do NOT have hyperthreading. I don't know where you're getting such nonsense from.

Comparing clocks is meaningless, because the IPC of different processor architectures varies. It's like rating an engine on its RPM.

As for the cache performance:

I do not base my knowledge solely on how tomshardware reviews products. To do so is to not gauge a product completely. Some things are often left out especially on cpu's where they think how much power a cpu uses is more important then over clocking as well as total build costs.

As for the hyper threading? I stand corrected i had believed all of amd's cpu's supported hyper threading. Which was an incorrect assumption. And you do realize that the intel line is doing so well is simply because most programs and such do not utilize much more then 2 cores and at the max 4 right? Which is why the stronger 2 and 4 cores show increased performance on the intel sandy and ivy bridge lines.

I actually try to research things myself. The old tried and true motto of "Trust but verify" Trust the information you are told is true based on that persons knowledge but verify that it is. So i do not always post tomshardware reviews and such as most places agree that tomshardware has lately seemed to be a bit biased in their reviews towards the intel vs amd debate.

And on the forums its quite clear that there are many that read the reviews here only and as such are influenced towards almost every recommended build to be an intel one. And that seems to be all they recommend despite the higher cost and continue to recommend an 1155 build despite it now being a dead socket.

The higher clocks on amd processors are not being fully used. They came out long after many of the programs used to benchmark them. And as such most are not optimized to even recognize the power of the higher fx series. Hence why windows was trying to fix this with some window update hotfixes that while improved their function still does not fully use it.

So imagine the FX owners surprise when playing games that do push the FX series chips such as Crysis 3. And more games are set to come that do utilize more then 4 cores especially next year after the ps4 release and on games that are ported to the pc. But again that also is not mentioned in the reviews either as well as the dead 1155 socket. So i look forward to the cpu hierarchy being revised after this comes to light.

The reason motherboard costs aren't included is because they're entirely irrelevant. Every user has different needs, and those needs will dictate the cost of their mobo, not the platform they choose: AM3+ boards range from $42 to $220 at the time of writing, and LGA1155 boards range from $43 to $450. There is no "basic cost" of a mobo, because "basic" changes based on what someone is looking for.

To utilize the cpu's fully and over clocking and such you can not settle for a cheap board. So on intel side you are looking for a 1155 z75 or z77 board of decent caliber which is on average higher then the 990 series mother boards recommended for FX series builds. And if you go for dirt cheap $37.99 is the cheapest am3+ board $239.99 is max as just checked on newegg. Intel is $39.99 at the lowest end and $1,646.99 at the highest end.

So you can buy the most expensive am3+ board and the highest cost FX series cpu and build a whole system for the cost of Intel's highest price cpu and highest price mobo. Yes you can go cheaper on each side depending on your own needs. But every pc person in the world knows intel cpu's are always more expensive as are their mother boards. No real secret there.

And there is a "BASIC" cost of a motherboard as what good is a cpu without one? An expensive paper weight perhaps?

the MB argument is a nonstarter... you can run a 6300 just fine on a 760G, 970 or any chipset in between... and some of those are very strong overclocking mbs that you can have for 70-80 bucks. You don't NEED to buy a $200 mb to get 8+2 phase / overclocking monster board... you can find 8+2 overclocking monsters from asus in the bargain bin with older chipsets.

for example, an ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3, can be had "new" for like 70 bucks... and it will overclock an FX 6300 chip like a champ.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AgN1D79Joo7tdE9xMUFlMEVWeFhuckJEVF9aMmtpUFE&gid=0

That shows what you should be looking for in an over clocking board. The 760G boards do not hold up well under stress.

And to all above. You still do not also factor in that the 1155 socket is now dead as intel has moved on to a new socket like they do quite a lot. If you have the money to constantly throw money at that dragon to try to stay current and max in all things pc more power to you. But most do not so when they build a system it has got to last a few years at the least.

The AM3+ board is backwards compatible in most cases accepting ddr2 and ddr3. This at times can save you the cost of getting new ram although ddr3 is quite a bit cheaper over all. And in some cases accept am3 cpu's (i know some do others do not same as some am3 boards will accept am3+ cpu's with a bios update). The 1155 is not as flexible though.

Yet you have not one not 2 not 3 not 4 but 5 intel cpu's. Only 2 serious amd cpu recommendations and 1 honorable mention of the 4300 with no mentioning at all of the 6300 and the 8350? Really? The 6300 and the 8350 both could have easily fit within the $110 To $200 recommendation. But instead we get an i3 3220 and the i5 3350P which the 3350P does not even have on board video requiring a video card at all times?

And yet with the 3350P they did not even think to factor in the cost of a cheapest gpu into the cost of it over the 8350 which would require an additional $29.99 for the cheapest pcie 2.0 bringing total costs to 209.99 well over the $200 recommendation it is categorized in. And i could not even find a comparison of the 3350 and the 8350 here but in other places they have the 8350 beating the 3350. Yet it is recommended without a chart on it? And has no on board graphics on it and many 1155 come with no on board graphics? Really?

 

[ingtar33]

the MB argument is a nonstarter... you can run a 6300 just fine on a 760G, 970 or any chipset in between... and some of those are very strong overclocking mbs that you can have for 70-80 bucks. You don't NEED to buy a $200 mb to get 8+2 phase / overclocking monster board... you can find 8+2 overclocking monsters from asus in the bargain bin with older chipsets.

for example, an ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3, can be had "new" for like 70 bucks... and it will overclock an FX 6300 chip like a champ.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AgN1D79Joo7tdE9xMUFlMEVWeFhuckJEVF9aMmtpUFE&gid=0

That shows what you should be looking for in an over clocking board. The 760G boards do not hold up well under stress.

the MB i listed is right there on your spreadsheet... it's one of them that you certainly can OC with.

I know what i'm talking about, it will easily handle a 6300.

Not sure who you're arguing with really. But you seem to be proving the saying that "a little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance."

 

[zolton33]

the MB argument is a nonstarter... you can run a 6300 just fine on a 760G, 970 or any chipset in between... and some of those are very strong overclocking mbs that you can have for 70-80 bucks. You don't NEED to buy a $200 mb to get 8+2 phase / overclocking monster board... you can find 8+2 overclocking monsters from asus in the bargain bin with older chipsets.

for example, an ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3, can be had "new" for like 70 bucks... and it will overclock an FX 6300 chip like a champ.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AgN1D79Joo7tdE9xMUFlMEVWeFhuckJEVF9aMmtpUFE&gid=0

That shows what you should be looking for in an over clocking board. The 760G boards do not hold up well under stress.

the MB i listed is right there on your spreadsheet... it's one of them that you certainly can OC with.

I know what i'm talking about, it will easily handle a 6300.

Not sure who you're arguing with really. But you seem to be proving the saying that "a little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance."

The 760G is listed there but also says that they are not good for over clocking. The 990XA-GD55 and up are suffested for over clocking. The cheapest i saw was $119 so you are way off.

 

[Sakkura]

I do not base my knowledge solely on how tomshardware reviews products. To do so is to not gauge a product completely. Some things are often left out especially on cpu's where they think how much power a cpu uses is more important then over clocking as well as total build costs.

As for the hyper threading? I stand corrected i had believed all of amd's cpu's supported hyper threading. Which was an incorrect assumption. And you do realize that the intel line is doing so well is simply because most programs and such do not utilize much more then 2 cores and at the max 4 right? Which is why the stronger 2 and 4 cores show increased performance on the intel sandy and ivy bridge lines.

I actually try to research things myself. The old tried and true motto of "Trust but verify" Trust the information you are told is true based on that persons knowledge but verify that it is. So i do not always post tomshardware reviews and such as most places agree that tomshardware has lately seemed to be a bit biased in their reviews towards the intel vs amd debate.

And on the forums its quite clear that there are many that read the reviews here only and as such are influenced towards almost every recommended build to be an intel one. And that seems to be all they recommend despite the higher cost and continue to recommend an 1155 build despite it now being a dead socket.

The higher clocks on amd processors are not being fully used. They came out long after many of the programs used to benchmark them. And as such most are not optimized to even recognize the power of the higher fx series. Hence why windows was trying to fix this with some window update hotfixes that while improved their function still does not fully use it.

So imagine the FX owners surprise when playing games that do push the FX series chips such as Crysis 3. And more games are set to come that do utilize more then 4 cores especially next year after the ps4 release and on games that are ported to the pc. But again that also is not mentioned in the reviews either as well as the dead 1155 socket. So i look forward to the cpu hierarchy being revised after this comes to light.

I don't base everything on Tom's reviews either, but in this case I only came across the cache performance of FX processors in Tom's review. It's a simple synthetic benchmark though, so I don't think other sites would have come up with different results.

I do realize that the reason Intel does so well vs. AMD is that many games rely mostly on the first 2-4 threads, which means Intel wins on higher per-core performance than AMD. But it's not like Intel gets demolished when games are able to utilize more threads. Crysis 3 is a good example; it's highly threaded (as you can see by the performance gap between Intel's Sandy Bridge-E and Ivy Bridge CPUs), but the Core i5-3550 still performs better than the FX-8350 at stock.

As for every recommended build being an Intel build, this very article goes against that assertion. They're recommending quad-core Athlons and Phenoms over dual core Pentiums.

 

[Candle_Power]

I wish to upgrade from an Intel 950 with £700 budget...any advises?

 

[ingtar33]

the MB argument is a nonstarter... you can run a 6300 just fine on a 760G, 970 or any chipset in between... and some of those are very strong overclocking mbs that you can have for 70-80 bucks. You don't NEED to buy a $200 mb to get 8+2 phase / overclocking monster board... you can find 8+2 overclocking monsters from asus in the bargain bin with older chipsets.

for example, an ASUS M5A78L-M/USB3, can be had "new" for like 70 bucks... and it will overclock an FX 6300 chip like a champ.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AgN1D79Joo7tdE9xMUFlMEVWeFhuckJEVF9aMmtpUFE&gid=0

That shows what you should be looking for in an over clocking board. The 760G boards do not hold up well under stress.

the MB i listed is right there on your spreadsheet... it's one of them that you certainly can OC with.

I know what i'm talking about, it will easily handle a 6300.

Not sure who you're arguing with really. But you seem to be proving the saying that "a little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance."

The 760G is listed there but also says that they are not good for over clocking. The 990XA-GD55 and up are suffested for over clocking. The cheapest i saw was $119 so you are way off.

you were looking at the MSI page. click over to the ASUS tab. Sidenote, that paper, isn't particularly accurate, not sure where you got it from, but i wouldn't use that as your bible when i can see a number of inaccuracies just glancing at it.

 

[Onus]

I can't see it at work, but that sounds like a spreadsheet I've often linked, typically to support a general assertion that [many | cheaper] MSI boards are not to be trusted for overclocking. The article from which I obtained the link also drives home that point.
In any event, I think when looking at the hierarchy charts, stock performance only should be considered. An overclocker knows what sort of performance improvement he's likely to get, and what [additional] it might cost to get there. This article is not a final word so much as it is a starting point, and IMHO it does a good job of that.