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

[savagesoulxx24]

even at 40 fps your doing good I am sick of hardware buffs you need an i7 ect....... bull crap

Everyone has a different definition of how good is good enough so this is one area where people need to learn to agree to disagree and just leave it at that.

I'm still using a HD5770 (reused from my previous PC) and while half the people here would probably call me crazy for sticking with such an ancient GPU, that is still good enough for me. Same goes with people who preach overclocking... for me, a 10-20% bump makes no meaningful difference (if performance at stock speed is unacceptable, a 20% bump simply makes it 20% more tolerable) so I much prefer leaving the $100+ difference between OC-oriented i5/i7 hardware and non-OCable hardware in my bank account for a more significant upgrade further down the line.

but i don't get it ? if the game runs awesome and the graphics are great what is the problem ? oh I know people have forgot about the game to become hardware buffs that have to baby everything

 

[savagesoulxx24]

well while you boys baby your games I am gonna enjoy Mine there is no arguement if the game runs smooth no lag and great graphics no complaints from me who cares about 100+ FPS like I would notice anyways the camera turns smooth in my games hen I walk it is smooth no lag and I get graphics that a console cant touch

 

[savagesoulxx24]

What games do you play?I doubt you are maxing out very many with a 7770 @1080p.

I'm pretty realistic about this stuff. I have a 7770, it's overclocked nicely, but i'll be the first person around to say it's not some super gpu.

That said i can play the games i play in 1080p and ultra graphics settings and max it out at 60fps. Its plenty of gpu for my needs (mass effect 1, 2, 3). I was even able to get 50fps out of it for tombraider, with some graphic tweeking. Of course tressfx had to be off, but really all i did was set it to high, and clicked off a few settings i couldn't even tell what they did. (looked the same to me).

Now as i said... this isn't some super/magic gpu... but it's also quite capable at 1080p. I played civ5 on full ultra settings in 1080p (i got like 15fps, but in civ 5, apparently 15fps is good enough to look smooth as silk... not enough animations for it to look choppy).

I think the other member misunderstood what i meant.The R7770 is a decent enough card to game with that being said i was curious what games they played as i know a R7770 cannot max out 1. Crysis 2-3, and Crysis Warhead
2. Metro 2033
3. ARMA II.
4. Batman
5. STALKER Clear Sky, and Call of Pripyat
6. Far Cry 3
7. Alien VS Predator
8.witcher 2
9.BF3

lol the games you mentioned are exactly what I was talking about Bad design Does not count lol that is the developers fault I know games with better graphics that run better lol

 

[bigcyco1]

What games do you play?I doubt you are maxing out very many with a 7770 @1080p.

I'm pretty realistic about this stuff. I have a 7770, it's overclocked nicely, but i'll be the first person around to say it's not some super gpu.

That said i can play the games i play in 1080p and ultra graphics settings and max it out at 60fps. Its plenty of gpu for my needs (mass effect 1, 2, 3). I was even able to get 50fps out of it for tombraider, with some graphic tweeking. Of course tressfx had to be off, but really all i did was set it to high, and clicked off a few settings i couldn't even tell what they did. (looked the same to me).

Now as i said... this isn't some super/magic gpu... but it's also quite capable at 1080p. I played civ5 on full ultra settings in 1080p (i got like 15fps, but in civ 5, apparently 15fps is good enough to look smooth as silk... not enough animations for it to look choppy).

I think the other member misunderstood what i meant.The R7770 is a decent enough card to game with that being said i was curious what games they played as i know a R7770 cannot max out 1. Crysis 2-3, and Crysis Warhead
2. Metro 2033,Metro: Last Light
3. ARMA II.
4. Hitman: Absolution
5. STALKER Clear Sky, and Call of Pripyat
6. Far Cry 3
7. Alien VS Predator
8.witcher 2
9.BF3 /quotemsg]

lol the games you mentioned are exactly what I was talking about Bad design Does not count lol that is the developers fault I know games with better graphics that run better lol

I can tell you like to argue no worries I'm pretty much done, but to be absolutely CLEAR:Not really those games run fine for me.

 

[savagesoulxx24]

What games do you play?I doubt you are maxing out very many with a 7770 @1080p.

I'm pretty realistic about this stuff. I have a 7770, it's overclocked nicely, but i'll be the first person around to say it's not some super gpu.

That said i can play the games i play in 1080p and ultra graphics settings and max it out at 60fps. Its plenty of gpu for my needs (mass effect 1, 2, 3). I was even able to get 50fps out of it for tombraider, with some graphic tweeking. Of course tressfx had to be off, but really all i did was set it to high, and clicked off a few settings i couldn't even tell what they did. (looked the same to me).

Now as i said... this isn't some super/magic gpu... but it's also quite capable at 1080p. I played civ5 on full ultra settings in 1080p (i got like 15fps, but in civ 5, apparently 15fps is good enough to look smooth as silk... not enough animations for it to look choppy).

I think the other member misunderstood what i meant.The R7770 is a decent enough card to game with that being said i was curious what games they played as i know a R7770 cannot max out 1. Crysis 2-3, and Crysis Warhead
2. Metro 2033,Metro: Last Light
3. ARMA II.
4. Hitman: Absolution
5. STALKER Clear Sky, and Call of Pripyat
6. Far Cry 3
7. Alien VS Predator
8.witcher 2
9.BF3 /quotemsg]

lol the games you mentioned are exactly what I was talking about Bad design Does not count lol that is the developers fault I know games with better graphics that run better lol

I can tell you like to argue no worries I'm pretty much done, but to be absolutely CLEAR:Not really those games run fine for me.

of course they do bad design requires more power than should be needed lol just like gta 4 did and omg farcry3 was so badly designed lol

 

[InvalidError]

but i don't get it ? if the game runs awesome and the graphics are great what is the problem ? oh I know people have forgot about the game to become hardware buffs that have to baby everything

It depends on your definition of 'awesome.'

For casual gamers, "awesome" might be 30-60fps at 1080p.
For some people, "awesome" is 60fps at at 1080-1200p
For others, "awesome" is 60fps at 5760x1080p
And for yet others, it may be 144fps at 1080p
Etc.

There is no universal definition of "awesome" so each gamer has to decide what that means for themselves.

Same goes for the "ideal" screen resolution or PPI: some people want 4k on 10" screens, others are happy with 1080p on a 24" and for me, 1600p on a 24" would feel just right.

Everyone has different Goldilocks zones.

 

[lunyone]

I could care less what the FPS is, if:

* My game plays smoothly w/decent settings (I don't need all of the eye candy).
* Doesn't cost me too much to implement.
* Works with existing hardware.
* Plays at a decent resolution.

 

[savagesoulxx24]

I could care less what the FPS is, if:

* My game plays smoothly w/decent settings (I don't need all of the eye candy).
* Doesn't cost me too much to implement.
* Works with existing hardware.
* Plays at a decent resolution.

right on man that is my point people over exaggerate hardware demand like i said if your game is smooth as butter and the graphics are looking great and way better than console what does it matter because if you see the game running fast and smooth what more is 144 ps going to do ? I'll enjoy My games while people spend a lot of money and time jerking off to more hardware and the guy above said your only a casual gamer if you get 30-60 fps lol what do they expect 60 fps puts the icing on the cake doesn't it lmao

 

[daswilhelm]

I could care less what the FPS is, if:

* My game plays smoothly w/decent settings (I don't need all of the eye candy).
* Doesn't cost me too much to implement.
* Works with existing hardware.
* Plays at a decent resolution.

right on man that is my point people over exaggerate hardware demand like i said if your game is smooth as butter and the graphics are looking great and way better than console what does it matter because if you see the game running fast and smooth what more is 144 ps going to do ? I'll enjoy My games while people spend a lot of money and time jerking off to more hardware and the guy above said your only a casual gamer if you get 30-60 fps lol what do they expect 60 fps puts the icing on the cake doesn't it lmao

so why not just play on a console?

 

[savagesoulxx24]

I could care less what the FPS is, if:

* My game plays smoothly w/decent settings (I don't need all of the eye candy).
* Doesn't cost me too much to implement.
* Works with existing hardware.
* Plays at a decent resolution.

right on man that is my point people over exaggerate hardware demand like i said if your game is smooth as butter and the graphics are looking great and way better than console what does it matter because if you see the game running fast and smooth what more is 144 ps going to do ? I'll enjoy My games while people spend a lot of money and time jerking off to more hardware and the guy above said your only a casual gamer if you get 30-60 fps lol what do they expect 60 fps puts the icing on the cake doesn't it lmao

so why not just play on a console?

Did you not read what i said ? plus a console could not do what my pc can i get way better graphics

 

[nokiddingboss]

lo and behold. the collective hatred of the glorious pc gaming master race. if it ain't running max settings + max AA/AF and shooting rainbows out of its ass, you ain't part of the master race, you are merely a pc/console hybrid dwarf.

 

[Onus]

^BINGO. I've noticed that, and even tended to go a little overboard myself with upgrades a few years ago. While sometimes still curious about how a game might look on UltraMaxOhWOW settings, I've realized that even "Medium" looks pretty good in most games, and "High" looks great.

 

[nokiddingboss]

The hatred for people wanting the best hardware they can afford is just as bad.

nay. it is too cruel to hate people that makes questionable financial decisions. always wanting the best and buying the most expensive bling all the time is torment enough on its own especially for those who made a habit out of it. which is why this article is called "best gaming cpu for the money" - to help us make the right choices and not splurge any more unnecessary expenses for trivial gains. more power to you mate. peace.

 

[Onus]

That's true too, or perhaps resentment. Still, there are a lot of people who think you "have to have!!!" some truly high-end components just to play games, and that is certainly not the case.

 

[logainofhades]

I am a cheapskate myself, most of my rigs were built using clearance deals and used parts. Microcenter is a big help as well. I would much rather get the most out of my money than have the best of the best at any cost.

 

[nokiddingboss]

That's true too, or perhaps resentment. Still, there are a lot of people who think you "have to have!!!" some truly high-end components just to play games, and that is certainly not the case.

they are a minority (but a very loud and vocal minority). lots of them whom will jump and attack you the moment you say "i enjoy playing (insert game) at high 30 - 40fps with a (insert entry/mid range) card" as if it was crime and that your enjoyment suffers. that the only way to play a game is max-all. i have a pretty capable rig but i don't bash other people with it (both metaphorically and literally) nor do i tell them that they aren't enjoying the game if there aren't extra sparks that fly whenever they shoot a unicorn in the face. heck, whenever they aren't rubbing their ginormous "graphical setting ego" they are arguing even about the most minute things. if you browse the previous pages of the comments you'll even see people bashing each other with power consumption... with freaking bills of all things. my goodness. peace out bro.

 

[logainofhades]

Yea the power consumption arguments always make me laugh. :lol:

 

[Onus]

I'm not sure it's worth an argument, but I do keep an eye on power consumption. After all, things change, like power costs climbing. One thing that brings me back to earth is the effect of faster task completion on power consumption, although that doesn't apply to games. I doubt the actual power-saving ability of the "S" and "T" processors in non-gaming workloads, and I suspect their gaming performance will be visibly lower than their standard and "K" equivalents. Considering their performance does not justify their prices, I really don't consider them anymore, regardless of their placement on the charts.

 

[logainofhades]

For a gaming rig, power consumption means little to me. Now if I were building a rig for actual work, say like F@H, then power consumption would matter quite a bit more.

 

[Onus]

I don't have any problem using however much power is needed to accomplish a goal, even if that goal is just playing games on great settings. Wasting power, that is paying for power that is accomplishing nothing useful (e.g. heating one's workspace in summer) is another matter. I'd rather use 500W, than waste 100W.

 

[bigcyco1]

That's true too, or perhaps resentment. Still, there are a lot of people who think you "have to have!!!" some truly high-end components just to play games, and that is certainly not the case.

+`1

 

[m0f0martian]

Thumbs up on the AMD FX4130... being 30$ cheaper in where I live, I opted for it over the FX-6300, despite the higher power draw and lower L3 cache.

Good news for tuning enthusiasts tho:

I've been able to overclock it to a stable 4.62 Ghz at stock Vcore, putting it neck and neck with the Intel i3-3220 in the benchmarks and physics scores. By raising the voltage, I wouldn't be surprised if I could push it up 5Ghz... but it's plenty speedy for now.

It handles everything i've thrown at it so far, and for a low end CPU, that ain't too shabby.

 

[nokiddingboss]

Thumbs up on the AMD FX4130... being 30$ cheaper in where I live, I opted for it over the FX-6300, despite the higher power draw and lower L3 cache.

Good news for tuning enthusiasts tho:

I've been able to overclock it to a stable 4.62 Ghz at stock Vcore, putting it neck and neck with the Intel i3-3220 in the benchmarks and physics scores. By raising the voltage, I wouldn't be surprised if I could push it up 5Ghz... but it's plenty speedy for now.

It handles everything i've thrown at it so far, and for a low end CPU, that ain't too shabby.

the bad thing is that at 4.6ghz, it is merely just neck to neck vs an i3 3220 based on your words. an oc'd fx6300 nips at the heels if not equal that of a low end i5 in heavily multi-threaded games like crysis3 which isn't shabby at all.

 

[Matt0871980]

i'll say it now and for quite some time AMD drop this FX crap and revamp your phenoms , i quit buying AMD after the Phenom 965BE and the 1090T six core they are the last good cpus amd made until amd quites this BS with these 220 watt watercooled 850 dollar cpus that can barely compete with a 300 dollar 77 watt intel cpu then i'm INTEL from now on

 

[ingtar33]

the problem is the k10 architecture hit a dead end. they did a die shrink on the k10 for the Stars cored APU, got just a 6% boost in IPC over deneb (which is slower then Thuban). in short, it's a spent structure. I suspect intel is reaching that limit on their current core i structure. It's been viable since the Pentium M, and core2duo was introduced... that's a long run... longer then the k10 lasted... yet if you look at the increases in performance, there almost is none to be had even with die shrinks. Its probably at the end of it's rope too.