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

Page 13 - 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.


They only recommend them at the lowest end then in the next line suggest a dual core cpu. As for crysis 3? I've seen some benchmarks where the 8350 destroys the i5 and i7 in the fps benchmarks. But those are generally only in games that let the cpu stretch its legs. And as for benchmarks? www.anandtech.com has quite a few other charts and such as does http://cpuboss.com just to name 2 with different testings.

And just to add that with more games utilizing more cores is it not best to go with more cores despite them being slightly weaker then the quads? Especially considering the 1155 is now a dead socket for all intents and purposes. While the AM3+ socket has at least 1 new architecture and possibly 2 coming to it? And yet with none of this information put forth in the article itself how is some one to make an informed decision? Especially when on one page they recommend quad core cpu's yet the next they recommend a dual core?

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.
Click to expand...

It is some thing i saw Onus posted and kinda book marked it to check out. And yet you are to use this review as a bible when considering a cpu? I see far more factors missing here then in the spreadsheets i posted.

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.
Click to expand...

Yes it is the one you posted.
 

Well, they only end up recommending a dual core because it includes hyperthreading, so its performance ends up somewhere between a dual core and a quad core. Plus, of course, those cores are fast.

LGA 1155 may be a dead socket, but I honestly don't really think that matters. I'm thinking AM3+ will die after Steamroller, and it would be a waste of money to upgrade from Vishera to Steamroller. It's usually not worth it to upgrade from one generation to the next.
 


Again very confusing as many suggest upgrading from sandy to ivy do they not? The 6300 beats the i3 in a lot of benchmarks as well as games at stock. Over clocked it crushes the 3220. So again i see no reason to have the i3 3220 on the recommend where it is especially when the 6300 is a better choice. http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/23/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-fx-8350-vs-i5-3550--fx-6300-vs-i3-3220

The 6300 when over clocked behaves as a quad i5 in a lot of performances. At stock it is at and slightly above the 3220. And its socket is far from dead. The next line if it improves as much as the new fx line did over the previous line then they will be almost in perfect line with the i5's. The intel line is always a high cost cpu as are their motherboards. They rarely come down in prices. A good example is the pricing of the ivy and sandy bridge lines and how their costs were almost the same.

I think it matters as when later on if you go to upgrade your cpu the am3+ will have more to offer over the 1155 at a cheaper point. I've seen many intel cpu's die off with their sockets at high price points while the amd line gradually get cheaper as they phase out. Can you say the same for intel's line? We have at least steamroller coming from amd and not confirmed yet on what socket but excavator is also coming. Now i do not think it has been confirmed or denied whether or not excavator will be am3+ or not but if it is does that also not reflect the am3+ better as a build recommend?

I have looked and so far it looks like the excavator will be am3+ but again its not been fully confirmed or denied. But if it is that is just all the more reason to continue on the am3+ platform for a while longer. There is a lot of speculation that the excavator cpu's will be a whole new socket type. But they said that the excavator apu will supposedly fm2 if that follows through then there is a good chance its fx equivalent will make it to am3+ as piledriver did the same.

Again i say it was a bad move to suggest a 3220 cpu over the 6300 and the 3350P over the 8350. Both of these are very capable and competitive cpu's in their respective price points. And not having them in the under $200 recommend is really not being fair or accurate. The 6300 has far more to offer over the 3220 as does the 8350 over the 3350P. And i do not and can not understand why those two made it to this list while the 6300 and the 8350 did not. Especially when you are better off with a quad plus core cpu especially considering the upcoming ps4 ports will be able to utilize a octo core.
 

If people recommend upgrading from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge, they're crazy. Unless we're talking about replacing an SB Celeron/Pentium with an IB Core i5/i7. The performance difference between equivalent processors is, what, 5%? That's not worth doubling your investment over. Not even close.

The FX-6300 may indeed outperform the Core i3-3220 in gaming when overclocked, but this article specifically excludes overclocking, with an exception made for the Core i5-3570K. You might complain about the criteria used, but not the outcome by those criteria.

As for motherboards, a motherboard for overclocking an FX-6300 will cost a lot more than a motherboard for a Core i3-3220 (where you can go with a cheap B75 mATX board and lose no performance whatsoever).

A year from now, Steamroller will be available for an AM3+ board, but upgrading from Vishera generally won't be worth it.

As for the 8350, it makes no sense when you're also counting overclocking performance. The 8320 is where it's at for price/performance in that case. If you don't count overclocking performance (as this article generally doesn't), then the Core i5-3350P is a better deal.
 


It is completely valid to complain both about the criteria and the results based upon that criteria. That is the basis for constructive criticism, and quite frankly you can go anywhere and find people that will back an Intel product even it was manufactured by AMD and had an Intel label smacked onto it, vice versa.

Why was the 3570k given an overclock exception?
 

Sure, it's "valid". You can complain about anything. It just isn't necessarily constructive when you're plain wrong.

The 3570K was probably given an exception because diminishing returns kick in (at stock clocks) once you reach the Core i5s. Going past the Core i5-3350P either means getting something with a much worse price/performance ratio, or overclocking. But you could argue that it should only be an honorable mention since it breaks the criteria.
 


Ah, I see thanks for clarifying.

 


I've seen many recommend that as well as from an i3 to an i5 and some from an i5 to an i7. Is it logical? No. Does it still happen? Yes it does frequently. Even with those with an am3+ board asking for upgrade advice i see people suggest an intel build of some sort. It happens every day go visit the forums under systems to see the many topics i'm mentioning.

And the 6300 keeps right up with the 3220 at stock speeds with the 3220 only having a 5%-15% better fps in certain games over the 6300 at stock. Again why no mention of it? Yet a honorable mention for the 4300 only and a dual core i3 cpu recommend over a 6300? Really?

The motherboard may be more expensive to over clock the cpu but not to run it at base speed its not. And that over clock puts it leaps and bounds above the 3220 when over clocked and slightly behind i5 performance. And the increase in cpu power would be indeed worth it a few years from now from say a 6300 to an octo core steamroller. And it will be cheaper and still around unlike intel cpu's that just vanish suddenly from the market.

And you do not have to count overclocking to show similar performance between a 8350 and the 3350P. With them both so close in performance the 8350 is still a better recommend over the 3350P. At stock the 8350 is very similar to the 3350P. And i wish you luck to have tomshardware show it though. I could not find any charts specifically on the 3350P at all let alone compared to the 8350. Yet they recommend a cpu that they have not really tested over the 8350 they have tested repeatedly? Really?
 
getting a good OC MB for a fx6300 isn't hard. they can be had for 70-100... you don't HAVE to buy a 990FX chipset, the 780, 880, and 970 chipsets all have great oc motherboards which will oc a 6300 just fine..
 

$70 is still more than you'd pay for a budget B75 board.
 
b75 is locked. you can't overclock it. so entering that into a discussion about overclocking mbs is pointless. I can talk about cheap AMD chipsets like A55 too. But there is no point as it won't do what we're talking about. overclock a fx6300 up to and over an i5's base performance.
 
Why are you so butt hurt over some stupid cpu test?Just buy what works for you some prefer amd some prefer intel that's just the way it is no point in getting upset over it.

 

That's not what the discussion was about. We were comparing the FX-6300 and the Core i3-3220, and overclocking was brought up. Sure, overclocking adds performance for the FX-6300, but it also means the motherboard must cost more than what you could get away with for a Core i3-3220.
 


I have to acknowledge that the x4 is not the greatest but if you want my personal opinion the 8350 Vishera will put a I5 done and out it's easy to overclock it has an 8 core setup and you can push it way further than the I5 or I7 for that matter. I do acknowledge the frequency isn't as great for hyper threading and such But if you take a look at the benchmarks they are extremely similar if not better across the board and you get four more cores for less money. Beat That

 

Unfortunately most games have no idea what to do with the extra cores, so a Core i5 does tend to perform better than the FX-8350. You can overclock each, but while Intel charges a premium for the K, AMDs chips draw more power meaning you may have to spend more on the cooler (and theoretically even the power supply).

Plus I think the 8320 is probably more deserving of an honorable mention, if overclocking is included. It should be able to reach pretty much the same clocks as the 8350, barring any major binning difference.
 


http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/698?vs=697

the 8350 is far better especially if you add in overclocking and well worth the $15 difference in price. And the coolers are almost all the same price so not sure why you are trying to throw cooling prices into the mix. It may draw more power then intel's line but most would not notice the increase in their power bill. Any over clocking you do you need a great after market cooler regardless of the cpu. And i still disagree on the i3 being better then the 6300. The 6300 is the better choice over the i3.
 

Those numbers are at stock. The only difference between the 8320 and the 8350 is the stock speed. You can overclock the 8320 to the same clocks as you can overclock the 8350 to. So if you're going to overclock, the 8320 is just as good but cheaper.

As for coolers, a Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo costs $30 while a Noctua NH-D14 costs $81. And no, you don't need as good of a cooler to overclock a Core i5 as you need with an FX-8320 or 8350.
 


http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-8320.html

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series%20FX-8350.html

To over clock the 8320 and compare it to the 8350 is kinda moot until you look at these. The 8350 has larger 500 clock then the 8320 so it can clock a bit higher as such it will be slightly better. And the $15 is not that huge of a larger price for the 8350 over the 8320 especially considering its a better cpu with lower volts as well as a higher clock enabling for a better higher more stable over clock. As example:

AMD FX-Series FX-8320

Low power P states
#1: 2900 MHz, 1.3V
#2: 2300 MHz, 1.1875V
#3: 1700 MHz, 1.0625V
#4: 1400 MHz, 0.95V

AMD FX-Series FX-8350

Low power P states
#1: 3400 MHz, 1.225V
#2: 2800 MHz, 1.125V
#3: 2100 MHz, 1V
#4: 1400 MHz, 0.875V

So slightly less power usage and a higher clock. And this is shown in the lower power states. So i would think the 8350 is the better choice between the 2 especially when the price difference is only $15. And about the coolers? Thats my point if you are going to over clock you are going to go with the best after market cooler within your budget regardless of the cpu maker so its not really a game changer. Unlike the cost of decent over clocking boards comparing them between the 1155 socket and the am3+ socket the am3+ socket boards are cheaper over all.

I personally do not over clock my cpu's. but i do like to buy the components to over clock but run it at base clock. Why? dependability. If it will work well under stress imagine how well it will work to keep things smooth and cool and last when not being stressed. Weird i know but its how i look at it personally. So i'm no huge expert in over clocking although i do know pretty much the basics. I personally see no point in over clocking to stress a cpu shortening its life span.

But then again i don't have cash to just fling out the window either so that is also a big part of it. As such i look for the best bang i can get for my buck. As such i see the 6300 and the 8350 as better alternatives to the i3 and the i5 recommended in the under $200 recommendation. For these reasons alone:

1.The socket is not yet dead
2.Equal to or surpassing i3 and i5 (6300 against i3 and 8350 against i5)
3.They beat the intel line that is in the price range as they are
4.cheaper better board options
5.The option of over clocking (i'm not a over clocker but to a over clocker a good selling point)
6.They not only are good for gaming but also deliver solid use outside of gaming
7.More cores meaning more better performance to be gained as more games are better encoded to take advantage of more cores.
8.Cheaper (intel cpu's do not go down in price much or very often)
9.Better cost versus performance
10.More upgrading options later on (the intel line ends at 1155 until haswell comes into play while the am3+ does have at least 1 more newer cpu architecture to be released)

If you have a lot of money to spend you are generally better off with an intel build especially if you are able to fork out the cash for a new cpu and motherboard every 2-3 cpu architect changes if you are purely into gaming (in which case you do not really have a budget). Although if you can not do that the amd line is another cheaper alternative. With the amd route you may not be able to max out every game and/or achieve the max possible fps. But you can game comfortably.

A budget wise build where you only have $200 to dedicate to a cpu i still think the 6300 or the 8350 are better ways to go over the i3 and i5 being recommended. But then again i see a lot more potential from the 6300 and the 8350 as more games start to use more cores. The intel line only really rule so well now as very few games utilize 2 cores and even fewer use 4 cores although that is beginning to change. And i look to more games using 4+ cores in the next year or 2.
 

No, the 8350 cannot be overclocked to higher clocks because it has higher stock clocks. It's the same silicon, so whatever clock can be reached with the 8350 should be reachable with the 8320 as well. Which means you get the same performance for a lower price.
 


bingo.

and anyone saying otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

the 8320 is the SAME chip as the 8350, the difference is the 8320 is UNDERCLOCKED and UNDERVOLTED natively. There are countless articles on the web demonstrating that the 8320 will clock up to the same numbers the 8350 will, and remain stable, with the same power draw and temps. In short, it's the same f-ing chip.

 
I would like to see tom'sHardware do a article on best bang for the buck CPU/GPU combo. We all read the best gaming CPU and GPU articles but which combo is the best bang for the buck paired together? Would like to see maybe three catagories.
 


My 8320 never could clock as high as my 8350 now, on the same mobo. Go buy both and test it for yourself, they definitely DO NOT clock as high as easily, I'm not saying it can't get there, I'm just telling you goodluck, it won't happen as easy as overclocking the 8350 if at all. BTW where are these so called articles you speak of? I want links, I've googled it and I can't find anything out there on the topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom