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

[spooky2th]

Here's a comparison between the i3-3220 and the FX-4350. They run neck and neck. The differences are hardly worth mentioning.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/353/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4350_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-3220.html

 

[Sakkura]

So you measured StarCraft and Skyrim FPS, two of the oldest, most single-core games out there that are still played, and FarCry 3, which is very multi-core optimized, and then you took a simple average of these three games to derive your results? What a terrible, Intel-biased methodolgy. Take FarCry3, Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3 and average THOSE three games and see what your results are. I can already tell you, that Core i3 would be buried by the FX-4350 and the FX-6300 and possibly beaten by that $79 Athlon II X4 750K. It's funny how everybody sh!ts on AMD CPUs, saying it's a sob story to point to the lack of multi-core optimization, yet somehow, with the newer multi-core gaming engines, AMD CPUs get FASTER as they get older...

BF3 is a terrible idea since it's 100% GPU-bottlenecked.

As for the other two - a Core i3-2100 edges out an FX-8350 in Far Cry 3, and a Core i3-3220 at least leaves Athlons and Phenoms in the dust in Crysis 3:

 

[Sakkura]

Here's a comparison between the i3-3220 and the FX-4350. They run neck and neck. The differences are hardly worth mentioning.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/353/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4350_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-3220.html

The Core i3 is 20% better in single-threaded performance.

 

[littleleo]

Why are you only listing Intel Gen 3 and not Haswell? Certainly there are gamers interested in the current technology.

I'm just not seeing a lot of gamers jumping on the Haswell band wagon so far. The increased performance isn't that much and the cost is higher. Their main claim to fame is the energy saving and most gamers don't care about that they want performance. The Haswells are just not moving that well so far. Most people that have been buying the Haswell is because the Ivy bridge Intel Motherboards are EOL so they have moved up to the Haswel if they want to buy Intel MBs. Those customers are business not gamers. Since this list is for models gamers will buy I'm not surprised to see them absent from it.

 

[spooky2th]

Here's a comparison between the i3-3220 and the FX-4350. They run neck and neck. The differences are hardly worth mentioning.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/353/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4350_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-3220.html

The Core i3 is 20% better in single-threaded performance.

Yup, you are right. I should have mentioned that. i3's run about equal to a FX-4350 in multithreaded games and kick ass in single threaded games. Cheaper and less voltage too.

 

[vertexx]

Here's a comparison between the i3-3220 and the FX-4350. They run neck and neck. The differences are hardly worth mentioning.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/353/AMD_FX-Series_FX-4350_vs_Intel_Core_i3_i3-3220.html

The Core i3 is 20% better in single-threaded performance.

Yup, you are right. I should have mentioned that. i3's run about equal to a FX-4350 in multithreaded games and kick ass in single threaded games. Cheaper and less voltage too.

Both $130 on newegg.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113326
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116775

And this Gaming CPUs for the money article only used 3 games.

Take a look at this article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-overclocking,3584-19.html

In a broader review of 8 titles, the 4350 comes out much more favorably. Also, if you do a game-by-game comparison with this article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487.html

Out of 8 titles tested, the 4350 wins 5, essentially ties 2, and only loses in the 2 year old skyrim (71 vs 69 FPS with the 4350 OC'd, big deal).

Where it counts, with the more challenging, lower FPS games, the 4350 comes out on top almost every time. This will be the trend. So, IMO, buying right now for a gaming PC, the 4350 wins hands down between the two. It is more than sufficient for older, single-threaded titles, and it is much better able to handle newer multi-threaded titles.

Even better, for $10 more than the I3, the 6350 approaches the gaming performance of an I5.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Not everybody plays brand new games though, especially those in the budget end of the market.

 

[vertexx]

Not everybody plays brand new games though, especially those in the budget end of the market.

The point is, the FX plays the single threaded games fine. Sure, the I3 is faster, but you're talking frame rates above 60FPS. In the lower range, where every FPS counts, having more cores definitely shows to be an advantage.

 

[Sakkura]

Out of 8 titles tested, the 4350 wins 5, essentially ties 2, and only loses in the 2 year old skyrim (71 vs 69 FPS with the 4350 OC'd, big deal).

The 4350 is more expensive if you overclock, because you need to get a better motherboard and cooler. The Core i3 beats the stock 4350.

 

[logainofhades]

Out of 8 titles tested, the 4350 wins 5, essentially ties 2, and only loses in the 2 year old skyrim (71 vs 69 FPS with the 4350 OC'd, big deal).

The 4350 is more expensive if you overclock, because you need to get a better motherboard and cooler. The Core i3 beats the stock 4350.

I have used the cheapy Intel boards, never again. Also a 4350 is pointless when you can get an FX 6300 for less that will easily bump up to a 6350 speed with any 125w capable motherboard. FX 6350 is just a FX 6300 with a multiplier bump causing the TDP to go higher.

 

[Wisecracker]

Current price points ...

FX6350: $140
FX4350: $130
FX6300: $120 (before $10 promo code)

That's a lot of jam for $110, and 95w, too.

 

[Onus]

Two rather different observations:
On the absolutely tightest budget, I'd get the i3; if the budget is that tight, the power savings over an overclocked FX-43x0 may actually matter. If the budget isn't so tight though, I'd go for the FX. Although they are valid, I would discount the points Sakkura made about the mobo and cooler because I'm going to be buying a quality mobo anyway, and $20-$25 for a Xigmatek Gaia is not a big chunk out of the total build budget.

If there will be no Steamroller AM3+ chips, it does look like a FX-63x0 or FX-83x0 are decent upgrades over a 970BE.

 

[vertexx]

Two rather different observations:
On the absolutely tightest budget, I'd get the i3; if the budget is that tight, the power savings over an overclocked FX-43x0 may actually matter. If the budget isn't so tight though, I'd go for the FX. Although they are valid, I would discount the points Sakkura made about the mobo and cooler because I'm going to be buying a quality mobo anyway, and $20-$25 for a Xigmatek Gaia is not a big chunk out of the total build budget.

If there will be no Steamroller AM3+ chips, it does look like a FX-63x0 or FX-83x0 are decent upgrades over a 970BE.

Agreed. Also, for a mini-ITX gaming build, the I3 is a great choice. I run one with a GTX 660 in the living room HTPC. Heavily modded Skyrim (textures, ENB, realism mods) plays great with that setup and looks great on the big screen. It sits there in the media center, looking good in a Silverstone SG08, and I never need to touch it. Perfect application for the I3.

For budget gaming setups, the Phenom II X4 965 has been my go-to CPU, especially when I've been able to pick that up for as little as $75. It seems like there should be a nice sending off for that CPU because it's been a true stalwart. With the final retirement of the 965, you have the Athlon II X4 750k at that low price point, but that seems to be a step back from the 965. Next step up you have the I3 or FX-6300 options. I think in most configurations except SFF, I will be going with the 6300 as the go-to CPU for that price point.

 

[logainofhades]

For a mini-itx rig, Intel does make sense unless budget is so low that a 750k is necessary. It will be interesting to see if the 760k performance will be much improved over a 750k.

 

[pauldh]

So you measured StarCraft and Skyrim FPS, two of the oldest, most single-core games out there that are still played, and FarCry 3, which is very multi-core optimized, and then you took a simple average of these three games to derive your results? What a terrible, Intel-biased methodolgy. Take FarCry3, Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3 and average THOSE three games and see what your results are. I can already tell you, that Core i3 would be buried by the FX-4350 and the FX-6300 and possibly beaten by that $79 Athlon II X4 750K. It's funny how everybody sh!ts on AMD CPUs, saying it's a sob story to point to the lack of multi-core optimization, yet somehow, with the newer multi-core gaming engines, AMD CPUs get FASTER as they get older...

1) AFAIK, the ranking isn't based on those three specific games. If it were, then a Pentium G2120 would be tops in value!.

2) FX-4350 doesn't beat Core i3-3240. At best it trades blows with i3-3220 in a well-threaded gaming suite. OC'ed to 4.7 GHz it surpassed 3.3 GHz Core i3 Ivy Bridge.

See here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-overclocking,3584-19.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-2.html

Same card, drivers and tests as the Intel part (if you want to compare specific games). FC3 and Crysis 3 both went to Core i3 (only by a tiny margin). And the FX-4350 took a slight win in Tomb Raider and Borderlands 2.

FX-6300 is IMO the steeper argument against i3. They will excel in different games.

 

[Ryan Klug]

Why are you only listing Intel Gen 3 and not Haswell? Certainly there are gamers interested in the current technology.

I'm just not seeing a lot of gamers jumping on the Haswell band wagon so far. The increased performance isn't that much and the cost is higher. Their main claim to fame is the energy saving and most gamers don't care about that they want performance. The Haswells are just not moving that well so far. Most people that have been buying the Haswell is because the Ivy bridge Intel Motherboards are EOL so they have moved up to the Haswel if they want to buy Intel MBs. Those customers are business not gamers. Since this list is for models gamers will buy I'm not surprised to see them absent from it.

Gamers aren't going to upgrade from a Sandy- or Ivy Bridge to Haswell, no. But for the EOL reasons you site, gamers coming from consoles or a Core 2 will go for the Haswell chips, whether they're i3, i5 or i7. Future-proofing an investment is worth spending an extra $30 for the current-gen chips. (10% more cost for 10% more performance plus improved Z87 mobo connectivity options and reduced power consumption mean added value).

 

[logainofhades]

I still don't think Haswell is worth the investment even for those coming from Core 2's. For a gaming rig, GPU matters more most of the time. I would rather save money on CPU and Board by going Ivy and spending it on better GPU.

 

[daswilhelm]

I still don't think Haswell is worth the investment even for those coming from Core 2's. For a gaming rig, GPU matters more most of the time. I would rather save money on CPU and Board by going Ivy and spending it on better GPU.

not worth it when coming from core 2? cmon get serious. haswell and ivy price is within 5% of each other.

 

[Ryan Klug]

I still don't think Haswell is worth the investment even for those coming from Core 2's. For a gaming rig, GPU matters more most of the time. I would rather save money on CPU and Board by going Ivy and spending it on better GPU.

So stick with your Core 2 and buy a GTX 780. For $650 you have an incredible gaming PC. But since this article was about "buying" a CPU for gaming, I wouldn't recommend anyone get a previous generation.

Personally I just upgraded from a Core 2 Quad Q6600 3.0 GHz with a GTX 670 (that ran everything at 40-60 FPS on high settings). I bought a i7 4770k because it's 3x faster than my old CPU. Yes, a 3770k is also about 3x faster, but... no, not to save 30 bucks when I'm also buying a new motherboard and memory and everything else. Gaming performance is "only" 20% better, if you're just looking at framerates, but everything else is 300% better.

 

[logainofhades]

Problem is, when overclocking is taken into consideration, a Hasfail chip is slower than Ivy. Most seem to hit a wall @ 4.3. Ivy clocks higher, runs cooler and has a lower TDP. Hasfail is a disappointment not seen from Intel in a long time. 4770k gets beat by a Sandy-E 3930k. That is almost as disappointing as Bulldozer 8 core vs PhII x6. Sandy arch is 2 gens old now. Hopefully Broadwell is much better. I doubt this chart will see Hasfail until either there is a price drop, or Ivy finally dries up. Nobody buying Ivy today would need an upgrade till at least skylake, if that.

 

[daswilhelm]

Problem is, when overclocking is taken into consideration, a Hasfail chip is slower than Ivy. Most seem to hit a wall @ 4.3. Ivy clocks higher, runs cooler and has a lower TDP. Hasfail is a disappointment not seen from Intel in a long time. 4770k gets beat by a Sandy-E 3930k. That is almost as disappointing as Bulldozer 8 core vs PhII x6. Sandy arch is 2 gens old now. Hopefully Broadwell is much better. I doubt this chart will see Hasfail until either there is a price drop, or Ivy finally dries up. Nobody buying Ivy today would need an upgrade till at least skylake, if that.

and sandy oc's higher than ivy, so? if the step from ivy to haswell give you 10-15% more per clock, than whats it matter that it doesnt oc as high. you stated it wasnt worth the upgrade from a core 2, which is laughable. if someone is building new now, and its intel, using 1155 is a bad choice.

 

[Ryan Klug]

Problem is, when overclocking is taken into consideration, a Hasfail chip is slower than Ivy. Most seem to hit a wall @ 4.3. Ivy clocks higher, runs cooler and has a lower TDP. Hasfail is a disappointment not seen from Intel in a long time. 4770k gets beat by a Sandy-E 3930k. That is almost as disappointing as Bulldozer 8 core vs PhII x6. Sandy arch is 2 gens old now. Hopefully Broadwell is much better. I doubt this chart will see Hasfail until either there is a price drop, or Ivy finally dries up. Nobody buying Ivy today would need an upgrade till at least skylake, if that.

Overclocking doesn't do much for games, which is the point of this review. Recently I saw a chart that posted 71 fps for a Haswell CPU at stock 3.5 GHz, and 79 fps for 4.5 GHz. 10% gain in frame rates for 30% more clocks, and crazy amounts more watts and heat. (Wish I could reference that article, sry).

Here's another thread that discusses the lack of impact of OC'ing on games that is pretty standard for the subject:

http://www.giantbomb.com/pc/3045-94/forums/is-overclocking-your-cpu-worth-it-for-gaming-569190/

I've also seen posted that for the Haswell efficiency gains, a 4.2 GHz overclocked Haswell gets the same performance as a 4.6 GHz Ivy. That's 10% right there, and an Ivy will be hotter and use more electricity in the comparison.

Moral of the story: Overclocking doesn't do much for gaming. And don't buy old gear.

 

[vertexx]

Problem is, when overclocking is taken into consideration, a Hasfail chip is slower than Ivy. Most seem to hit a wall @ 4.3. Ivy clocks higher, runs cooler and has a lower TDP. Hasfail is a disappointment not seen from Intel in a long time. 4770k gets beat by a Sandy-E 3930k. That is almost as disappointing as Bulldozer 8 core vs PhII x6. Sandy arch is 2 gens old now. Hopefully Broadwell is much better. I doubt this chart will see Hasfail until either there is a price drop, or Ivy finally dries up. Nobody buying Ivy today would need an upgrade till at least skylake, if that.

Overclocking doesn't do much for games, which is the point of this review. Recently I saw a chart that posted 71 fps for a Haswell CPU at stock 3.5 GHz, and 79 fps for 4.5 GHz. 10% gain in frame rates for 30% more clocks, and crazy amounts more watts and heat. (Wish I could reference that article, sry).

Here's another thread that discusses the lack of impact of OC'ing on games that is pretty standard for the subject:

http://www.giantbomb.com/pc/3045-94/forums/is-overclocking-your-cpu-worth-it-for-gaming-569190/

I've also seen posted that for the Haswell efficiency gains, a 4.2 GHz overclocked Haswell gets the same performance as a 4.6 GHz Ivy. That's 10% right there, and an Ivy will be hotter and use more electricity in the comparison.

Moral of the story: Overclocking doesn't do much for gaming. And don't buy old gear.

This "Best Gaming CPUs" article would have you think that, but take a look at the below linked article and its Intel companion linked on the first page of this one.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/piledriver-k10-cpu-overclocking,3584.html

The linked article and it's Intel sister article tests out a broader set of newer titles. In both cases, overclocking makes a difference, especially with more challenging titles where every FPS counts.

 

[RedJaron]

Overclocking doesn't do much for games, which is the point of this review. Recently I saw a chart that posted 71 fps for a Haswell CPU at stock 3.5 GHz, and 79 fps for 4.5 GHz. 10% gain in frame rates for 30% more clocks, and crazy amounts more watts and heat. (Wish I could reference that article, sry).

Here's another thread that discusses the lack of impact of OC'ing on games that is pretty standard for the subject:

http://www.giantbomb.com/pc/3045-94/forums/is-overclocking-your-cpu-worth-it-for-gaming-569190/

I've also seen posted that for the Haswell efficiency gains, a 4.2 GHz overclocked Haswell gets the same performance as a 4.6 GHz Ivy. That's 10% right there, and an Ivy will be hotter and use more electricity in the comparison.

Moral of the story: Overclocking doesn't do much for gaming. And don't buy old gear.

Too true, which is why I rarely bother with it. Professionals and users who can completely load every CPU thread will see much better gains than the average gamer. I only find OCing useful when my gear is right on the cusp of smooth gaming and I want to push it over the hump for a better experience. Once it's that old, I figure I've got six months before I need to upgrade to a new platform.

And staying on a C2D at this point means you're OCing it just to hit performance comparable to bottom-level IB i3s ( running a lot hotter, noisier, and on more power. ) That not to mention running DDR2 RAM and you don't have hardware CPU support for things like AES, AVX, etc, Those may not mean much to some people, but others need/want more.

 

[Sakkura]

Overclocking doesn't do much for games, which is the point of this review. Recently I saw a chart that posted 71 fps for a Haswell CPU at stock 3.5 GHz, and 79 fps for 4.5 GHz. 10% gain in frame rates for 30% more clocks, and crazy amounts more watts and heat. (Wish I could reference that article, sry).

Here's another thread that discusses the lack of impact of OC'ing on games that is pretty standard for the subject:

http://www.giantbomb.com/pc/3045-94/forums/is-overclocking-your-cpu-worth-it-for-gaming-569190/

I've also seen posted that for the Haswell efficiency gains, a 4.2 GHz overclocked Haswell gets the same performance as a 4.6 GHz Ivy. That's 10% right there, and an Ivy will be hotter and use more electricity in the comparison.

Moral of the story: Overclocking doesn't do much for gaming. And don't buy old gear.

Overclocking does benefit gaming quite a lot. It's just that with the newest CPUs, a lot of games are going to be GPU-bottlenecked instead. But that won't be the case a few years down the road, which is when the overclock will make more of a difference because newer games require more CPU performance.