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

[Sakkura]

How come there's no Haswell?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-performance,3461-8.html

Long story short, probably not the chip you want if you are going to overclock and the addition of better on-chip graphics doesn't matter as much if you are running a discrete GPU as most gamers do. Plus you need to upgrade your mobo for the new socket.

The motherboard upgrade doesn't apply if you're building a new system or coming from an older platform (LGA 775, 1156 etc). So I'd say Haswell is irrelevant for anyone on Sandy or Ivy Bridge, but for others it's a viable option.

 

[logainofhades]

How come there's no Haswell?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-performance,3461-8.html

Long story short, probably not the chip you want if you are going to overclock and the addition of better on-chip graphics doesn't matter as much if you are running a discrete GPU as most gamers do. Plus you need to upgrade your mobo for the new socket.

The motherboard upgrade doesn't apply if you're building a new system or coming from an older platform (LGA 775, 1156 etc). So I'd say Haswell is irrelevant for anyone on Sandy or Ivy Bridge, but for others it's a viable option.

If you plan not to upgrade your CPU for 2-3yrs, then Ivy is a better idea. If you intend on building now and getting the successor to Haswell when it comes out, then Haswell makes sense. That would be the only reason to get Haswell right now.

 

[Sakkura]

If you plan not to upgrade your CPU for 2-3yrs, then Ivy is a better idea. If you intend on building now and getting the successor to Haswell when it comes out, then Haswell makes sense. That would be the only reason to get Haswell right now.

I don't see how Ivy Bridge is a better idea. Costs slightly less, runs slightly slower and with some minor features sacrificed. I would say either is fine.

 

[logainofhades]

If you plan not to upgrade your CPU for 2-3yrs, then Ivy is a better idea. If you intend on building now and getting the successor to Haswell when it comes out, then Haswell makes sense. That would be the only reason to get Haswell right now.

I don't see how Ivy Bridge is a better idea. Costs slightly less, runs slightly slower and with some minor features sacrificed. I would say either is fine.

Ivy overclocks better, making up that small performance difference. Haswell is a poor overclocker compared to SNB or Ivy.

 

[jrstriker12]

Plus you need to upgrade your mobo for the new socket.

Upgrading to the new motherboard socket is the primary reason to pickup Haswell over Ivy if you are building a new system. The new boards bring more to the table than the CPUs.

Might want to wait until the revised 8-series chip sets come out later however... http://www.techpowerup.com/187392/motherboards-with-revised-intel-8-series-chipset-to-show-up-by-september.html

 

[slomo4sho]

Might want to wait until the revised 8-series chip sets come out later however... http://www.techpowerup.com/187392/motherboards-with-revised-intel-8-series-chipset-to-show-up-by-september.html

I already own the Z87 Extreme6. My PC runs 24/7 and I have the lower sleep states disables. The USB bug is not an issue for me

 

[Shawna593767]

Because you express the I7 3770k for its high thread count, at least put the AMD FX 83xx in there for its high threads at a low cost. I think Crysis 3 justified it, and with the upcoming consoles being highly threaded it can only get sweeter.

 

[ingtar33]

Because you express the I7 3770k for its high thread count, at least put the AMD FX 83xx in there for its high threads at a low cost. I think Crysis 3 justified it, and with the upcoming consoles being highly threaded it can only get sweeter.

only 3 games are used for this ranking.

civ5, skyrim, farcry3. Crysis3 is not used as a point of measurement in this article. furthermore, civ5 and skyrim both rely heavily on x87 code which amd does not support... as a result it's cpus underperform in those two games. You won't see an 8 core AMD in this lineup until the games used for the ranking change or the price drops.

 

[Aeronautics]

I won't get an athlon CPU if I were you, there not so powerful. might get an i3 instead of that.

 

[spooky2th]

I don't see the Athlon II X2 270 in the list. I built two builds in the last month with this CPU, for a couple of friends that wanted a cheap, basic computer and I was impressed with it. At 3.4GHz, it is fast and snappy and more than enough for a basic web surfing comp.

 

[flgt12]

FX-83xx processor's need to be ranked a bit higher imho, i am an Intel fan and user i have a i5-3570k with an 212 evo running @ 4.2GHz, but since more and more games are actually using more than 2 threads/cores, the gaming performance of the FX-8350 has gone up almost on-par with the i5-3570k (depending on the game of course,like BF3 the performance is similar) ,for that reason i think that the FX-83xx and FX-95xx should be on the highest tier. just my 2 cents, i know i will receive ALOT of hate/flame for this comment but it had to be said.

 

[Onus]

Spooky, you're absolutely right, for the purposes for which you built those PCs. Gaming benchmarks, however, consistently show the Athlons at or near the bottom; this article is about gaming CPUs.

 

[buzznut]

I recently grabbed an X4 965 for $80 and its one of the best CPUs I've ever used. Running at 4.0Ghz 24/7.

 

[Aeronautics]

the I3-540 should be included on that list

 

[pyro226]

I don't see the Athlon II X2 270 in the list. I built two builds in the last month with this CPU, for a couple of friends that wanted a cheap, basic computer and I was impressed with it. At 3.4GHz, it is fast and snappy and more than enough for a basic web surfing comp.

This article is the "Best Gaming CPUs For The Money" The very first page of the article reads:
Some Notes About Our Recommendations
This list is for gamers who want to get the most for their money. If you don’t play games, then the CPUs on this list may not be suitable for your particular needs.

So yeah, you can go with cheaper if you don't plan to game. For games you will want at least 3, preferably 4 cores or an I3 with hyperthreading. Dual core models tend to sutter more when playing newer modern games.

 

[pyro226]

FX-83xx processor's need to be ranked a bit higher imho, i am an Intel fan and user i have a i5-3570k with an 212 evo running @ 4.2GHz, but since more and more games are actually using more than 2 threads/cores, the gaming performance of the FX-8350 has gone up almost on-par with the i5-3570k (depending on the game of course,like BF3 the performance is similar) ,for that reason i think that the FX-83xx and FX-95xx should be on the highest tier. just my 2 cents, i know i will receive ALOT of hate/flame for this comment but it had to be said.

BF3 is more a graphics limited game (specifically for the campaign mode). Even a Phenom X4 handles it fine. Crysis is the main game that comes to mind with taking as many cores as it can.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-13.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-13.html

 

[Onus]

Ah, you mean it isn't on the chart? Yes, I see that; point taken. It's just a little faster than the X2 265, so it probably belongs on the same tier with that one.

 

[ingtar33]

Ah, you mean it isn't on the chart? Yes, I see that; point taken. It's just a little faster than the X2 265, so it probably belongs on the same tier with that one.

I think the 6300's performance was left off the graphic performance/dollar chart (it's still the 4300); it's been labeled correctly, however the numbers haven't changed. I wouldn't expect them to change for skyrim and civ5, but i believe farcry3 can use more then 4 cores. (i could be wrong. if it can't then those numbers are 100% correct, as it should look pretty much identical with those 3 games to the 4300)

 

[spooky2th]

I don't see the Athlon II X2 270 in the list. I built two builds in the last month with this CPU, for a couple of friends that wanted a cheap, basic computer and I was impressed with it. At 3.4GHz, it is fast and snappy and more than enough for a basic web surfing comp.

This article is the "Best Gaming CPUs For The Money" The very first page of the article reads:
Some Notes About Our Recommendations
This list is for gamers who want to get the most for their money. If you don’t play games, then the CPUs on this list may not be suitable for your particular needs.

So yeah, you can go with cheaper if you don't plan to game. For games you will want at least 3, preferably 4 cores or an I3 with hyperthreading. Dual core models tend to sutter more when playing newer modern games.

I was just curious why it wasn't listed and some other lesser athlon cpu's were. The athlon ii x2 270, is an excellant dual core cpu IMO. I know it doesn't hold a candle to an i3. Just saying.

My i7 3770 paired with a gigabyte z68 board and a 500GB ssd does just fine for me. And my old gtx 295 graphics card ($520 new in 2009,) is still doing nicely too. Am thinking of upgrading it though.

 

[sarinaide]

This CPU of the month thread confuses the hell out of me like a girl getting her first period. It is not trite that every Intel beats all AMD CPU's nor is is trite that every Intel beats its older parts but it seems to me the hiarchy is very loosely formatted and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Toms even placed the 9590 without even knowing its performance. wowzers.

 

[worstnews]

Legit AMD x4s in front of i5s and i7s ahahah

 

[rojodogg]

Bought the FX-6300 for $109 that has to make it the best bang for the buck CPU for gaming out there.

 

[ballerslife]

Bought the FX-6300 for $109 that has to make it the best bang for the buck CPU for gaming out there.

Exactly

 

[maddogfargo]

I hate to say something bad about Tom's, because I love this site. But...this article's format is outdated and no longer usable. You guys (Tom's) need to update your approach.
Let me explain.
The Intel chips have a small advantage at low thread counts due to a more efficient core design. This advantage is exaggerated when benchmarked at low resolutions such as 800x600, 1024x768 or even 1280x720. And it is further improved in game titles where Intel partnered with the devalopers or invested heavily in the underlying engine/technology.
But as soon as you start throwing 4+ threads at a 1080p resolution at them, the AMD chips have the advantage. And more and more games are starting to use 4, 6 and even all 8 threads available on the AMD CPUs.
So I'm hoping you guys will look to updating this article format to include thread counts or at least a low and high thread categories. Because if you play Skyrim on an i3 and then decide you want to try Crysis 3 you'll be wondering where your performance went.

Resolution doesn't change things, except to make (some) games GPU-limited. Which would be stupid when you're testing the limits of CPUs.

You're right about Crysis 3 vs. Skyrim and multithreading though. I'm not sure splitting out performance on "low threaded" and "high threaded" would work all that well... but it's at least one way that the differences between AMD and Intel could be made more obvious than they are in the current system. It was particularly jarring when they switched from recommending Pentiums to Athlons and Phenoms. The Pentiums are still better in less threaded games, while the Athlons and Phenoms (quad core ones) were better in more threaded games all along.

Meh. Having a single list of best CPUs for the money is never going to be an exact science.

True.

Something I've started asking people who want to know which CPU would be good is what games they want to play? Depending on how many cores it can use I'll make a recommendation for an intel or amd. But it would be nice to see Toms, who have a huge database, update their testing and recommendations to reflect better on the current trend of multithreaded games.

Case and point: Looking at their CPU Hierarchy chart and seeing i3 in the same rank as Vishera series FX CPUs is ridiculous. Not updating this ranking system is going to put them behind other reviewers in the community, and can damage their reputation as an unbiassed and reliable source of information. Having read here for years, I do not want to see that happen.

 

[cheesyboy]

Re the 750k;
"We can't wait to show you what we've done with this one in an upcoming comparison of AMD processors"

I've been looking forward to this for 6 weeks now (since the June "best gaming CPU" update). Come on Toms - I'm getting impatient