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

[nokiddingboss]

k-10 is a dead horse. every last bit of juice that can be expunge from it has been scrapped clean by amd. they cannot possibly hope to raise the dead, can they? amd are not necromancers as far as i know. oh wait... FX... some brand names needs to die with dignity in tact. but at least the architecture is different.

 

[logainofhades]

Phenom II was better than Faildozer. Hence why I skipped it.

 

[ingtar33]

Phenom II was better than Faildozer. Hence why I skipped it.

technically thuban still is better then piledriver... though deneb isn't...

with a little luck steamroller will finally have AMD increase it's IPC over those Thubans.

 

[InvalidError]

I suspect intel is reaching that limit on their current core i structure.

I think it is more along the lines of simply reaching the practical limits of what is possible on many much more fundamental levels.

 

[ingtar33]

I suspect intel is reaching that limit on their current core i structure.

I think it is more along the lines of simply reaching the practical limits of what is possible on many much more fundamental levels.

who knows? for all we know they could get more performance from a different core design. perhaps new core designs are needed at these small die sizes to harness the computing power properly. maybe there are other bottlenecks in the system that still are holding the whole chip back. The way the core i series fails to show any real change in performance from faster ram (not counting the igpu) only seems to indicate there are "other" bottlenecks in the design which are hampering the ability of this cpu. not sure what they are. maybe it's just the fundamental design of the chip. it's built on a very old if ingenious design.

 

[Moonsfang]

I'm a budget freidnly gamer. I stock up on parts for the tasks I'd need it to perform and then steadily upgrade as needed. I just recently got a pretty good deal on a whole setup. Its not a complete custom but it'll work til i can recycle what i want out of it. Dell xps 435t/9000-new Gigabyte motherboard, i7 920, Radeon HD 6670 2gb, after market fans/heatsinks, 2x6gb ram, standard Dell p2210 monitor with undermount speaker. Its not gonna brak any records. But for $300 its not bad considering the only thing i really need is an SSD.

 

[nokiddingboss]

with a 920, you only need to upgrade your gpu with something that packs a wallop. the 6670 can barely throw a bitchslap. you'll be reaping the benefits of that bargain deal and appreciate it more. you'll probably need to change the psu though if you do decide to change your gpu but you already know that. an ssd is a nice "step 2" but should not be the "step 1".

 

[logainofhades]

I'm a budget freidnly gamer. I stock up on parts for the tasks I'd need it to perform and then steadily upgrade as needed. I just recently got a pretty good deal on a whole setup. Its not a complete custom but it'll work til i can recycle what i want out of it. Dell xps 435t/9000-new Gigabyte motherboard, i7 920, Radeon HD 6670 2gb, after market fans/heatsinks, 2x6gb ram, standard Dell p2210 monitor with undermount speaker. Its not gonna brak any records. But for $300 its not bad considering the only thing i really need is an SSD.

with a 920, you only need to upgrade your gpu with something that packs a wallop. the 6670 can barely throw a bitchslap. you'll be reaping the benefits of that bargain deal and appreciate it more. you'll probably need to change the psu though if you do decide to change your gpu but you already know that. an ssd is a nice "step 2" but should not be the "step 1".

I agree with new GPU over SSD. That XPS came with a 475w power supply. It should be good up to about a 7850 or GTX 650ti boost. The XPS's are a bit better component wise than than your standard dell's.

 

[Moonsfang]

with a 920, you only need to upgrade your gpu with something that packs a wallop. the 6670 can barely throw a bitchslap. you'll be reaping the benefits of that bargain deal and appreciate it more. you'll probably need to change the psu though if you do decide to change your gpu but you already know that. an ssd is a nice "step 2" but should not be the "step 1".

I see. I had thought statisticaly speaking the 6670 would be alright for what i wanted. Im not trying to overclock or play on maximum quality. the main games I play are skyrim, diablo III and then a few no name games. I was a console gamer for the longest. Mainly it'll skyrim and diablo and a test/all in one pc for me. I just needed something that isnt going to slow up on me for most everyday tasks. The reason I need the SSD is because the guy i bought it from went cheap and put an 80gb HDD in it. Unless I get an external drive I cant really put much on it and prefer not to have all my game files on the same HDD as my OS. I was going to get a 1TB HDD and a samsung 840 120gb SSD. have the HDD for my Bigger files and file backups and the SSD for the OS and things i want to load quicker. If I was going to have and spend the money right now to get a gpu though I might as well spend a little bit more and get a whole ne mobo and case so that i could overclock if i wanted. I mainly got it as a temporary fix until I get the money to do a full custom build and stocking up pars as i go along.

 

[Moonsfang]

I'm a budget freidnly gamer. I stock up on parts for the tasks I'd need it to perform and then steadily upgrade as needed. I just recently got a pretty good deal on a whole setup. Its not a complete custom but it'll work til i can recycle what i want out of it. Dell xps 435t/9000-new Gigabyte motherboard, i7 920, Radeon HD 6670 2gb, after market fans/heatsinks, 2x6gb ram, standard Dell p2210 monitor with undermount speaker. Its not gonna brak any records. But for $300 its not bad considering the only thing i really need is an SSD.

with a 920, you only need to upgrade your gpu with something that packs a wallop. the 6670 can barely throw a bitchslap. you'll be reaping the benefits of that bargain deal and appreciate it more. you'll probably need to change the psu though if you do decide to change your gpu but you already know that. an ssd is a nice "step 2" but should not be the "step 1".

I agree with new GPU over SSD. That XPS came with a 475w power supply. It should be good up to about a 7850 or GTX 650ti boost. The XPS's are a bit better component wise than than your standard dell's.

Thanks for letting me know how much the psu puts out. Yeah it was a pretty high level machine back a few years ago. Ill look into those GPUs. They're pretty good compnents from someone like dell. I wouldnt of even got the pc if it wasnt for the 920 and the monitor with the whole rig already ready to go. If im going up to a video card like that will the monitor i have be sufficent enough to be paired with it?

 

[logainofhades]

I would still buy a GPU. Use the 80gb for OS for now, and pick up a 1tb to hold everything else. You can pick up the SSD later. D3 will probably be OK, my i5 750 with a GT240 was able to play it at default settings @ 1680x1050, but you will want a better GPU for Skyrim. You don't need a whole new case or motherboard. Even an HD 7770 would be a far better card even than what you have now and still stay within limits of the PSU.

 

[nokiddingboss]

with a 920, you only need to upgrade your gpu with something that packs a wallop. the 6670 can barely throw a bitchslap. you'll be reaping the benefits of that bargain deal and appreciate it more. you'll probably need to change the psu though if you do decide to change your gpu but you already know that. an ssd is a nice "step 2" but should not be the "step 1".

I see. I had thought statisticaly speaking the 6670 would be alright for what i wanted. Im not trying to overclock or play on maximum quality. the main games I play are skyrim, diablo III and then a few no name games. I was a console gamer for the longest. Mainly it'll skyrim and diablo and a test/all in one pc for me. I just needed something that isnt going to slow up on me for most everyday tasks. The reason I need the SSD is because the guy i bought it from went cheap and put an 80gb HDD in it. Unless I get an external drive I cant really put much on it and prefer not to have all my game files on the same HDD as my OS. I was going to get a 1TB HDD and a samsung 840 120gb SSD. have the HDD for my Bigger files and file backups and the SSD for the OS and things i want to load quicker. If I was going to have and spend the money right now to get a gpu though I might as well spend a little bit more and get a whole ne mobo and case so that i could overclock if i wanted. I mainly got it as a temporary fix until I get the money to do a full custom build and stocking up pars as i go along.

fair enough. its your system. you are free to do as you like 😀
imho though, after you've gotten that ssd, you can just upgrade your gpu next and you'll not need to do a full on system rebuild. the 920 is still capable of great things. there may be faster options out there but for gaming, it ain't as bad as its age especially with your chosen games. besides, oc is always an option to squeeze a little more juice out of it (it has plenty left).

 

[Moonsfang]

I would still buy a GPU. Use the 80gb for OS for now, and pick up a 1tb to hold everything else. You can pick up the SSD later. D3 will probably be OK, my i5 750 with a GT240 was able to play it at default settings @ 1680x1050, but you will want a better GPU for Skyrim. You don't need a whole new case or motherboard. Even an HD 7770 would be a far better card even than what you have now and still stay within limits of the PSU.

I'll probably try to go with one of your original suggestions of a 7850. If I'm going to get another one I might as well go ahead and get the next step up for a little more. and the 1TB HDD isn't much to get anyway so it wouldnt be difficult to pull both of those off. Should I get a 7200rpm or for what it will be for would it even make any difference whether a get a cheap low rpm drive or not?

 

[Moonsfang]

with a 920, you only need to upgrade your gpu with something that packs a wallop. the 6670 can barely throw a bitchslap. you'll be reaping the benefits of that bargain deal and appreciate it more. you'll probably need to change the psu though if you do decide to change your gpu but you already know that. an ssd is a nice "step 2" but should not be the "step 1".

I see. I had thought statisticaly speaking the 6670 would be alright for what i wanted. Im not trying to overclock or play on maximum quality. the main games I play are skyrim, diablo III and then a few no name games. I was a console gamer for the longest. Mainly it'll skyrim and diablo and a test/all in one pc for me. I just needed something that isnt going to slow up on me for most everyday tasks. The reason I need the SSD is because the guy i bought it from went cheap and put an 80gb HDD in it. Unless I get an external drive I cant really put much on it and prefer not to have all my game files on the same HDD as my OS. I was going to get a 1TB HDD and a samsung 840 120gb SSD. have the HDD for my Bigger files and file backups and the SSD for the OS and things i want to load quicker. If I was going to have and spend the money right now to get a gpu though I might as well spend a little bit more and get a whole ne mobo and case so that i could overclock if i wanted. I mainly got it as a temporary fix until I get the money to do a full custom build and stocking up pars as i go along.

fair enough. its your system. you are free to do as you like 😀
imho though, after you've gotten that ssd, you can just upgrade your gpu next and you'll not need to do a full on system rebuild. the 920 is still capable of great things. there may be faster options out there but for gaming, it ain't as bad as its age especially with your chosen games. besides, oc is always an option to squeeze a little more juice out of it (it has plenty left).

Definetly. I'm excited about it for sure I thought for hte longest that i wouldnt have a decent rig til i got out of college and sure enough a deal slapped me in the face. I love the 920. Ever since I first saw the technology in 09 and researched it I knew I wanted a pc with an i7 like that. Of course back then it was around $600 xD I also like the factthat the pc has dual bios because ive been wanting to get into Linux and play around a bit and see if I can learn some stuff from it. What I have should do me at least until I have my BA in computer engineering and my main career to afford to go big.

 

[InvalidError]

I think it is more along the lines of simply reaching the practical limits of what is possible on many much more fundamental levels.

The way the core i series fails to show any real change in performance from faster ram (not counting the igpu) only seems to indicate there are "other" bottlenecks in the design which are hampering the ability of this cpu.

What is hampering ILP is conditional branches and instruction inter-dependencies: you cannot execute "c=a+b" or anything downstream that depends on 'c' if the computation of 'a' or 'b' is still pending. This is a fundamental limit that no amount of core architecture tweaking can ever overcome.

Haswell looks up to 192 instructions ahead to find stuff to fill its pipelines with while data dependencies are being resolved coupled with rearranged execution ports with one or two extra to help push more instructions through faster when that many eligible instructions are available yet that only translated into a ~7% gain vs Ivy Bridge which looks "only" 160 instructions ahead. I do not remember what this number is for AMD but it is much lower... somewhere between 96 or 128 I think.

So the biggest obstacle to higher performance is data dependencies in the code and instruction set themselves. If you want more computational throughput, you have to eliminate branches and data dependencies as much as possible.

 

[wayfarer1]

Intel is way overpriced for what you will get, go AMD... i3- one real core, i5- 2 real cores, amd A10 6800k- 4 real cores @ 4.1Ghz, turbo - 4.4 Ghz, mine Overclocks to 4.7 easily.. Now tell me there is lag in any game on ultra high settings and I will laugh..

 

[daswilhelm]

Intel is way overpriced for what you will get go AMD

not really.

 

[InvalidError]

Intel is way overpriced for what you will get go AMD

That is relative. Intel's CPUs deliver better per-thread performance than AMD platforms using ~100W more power. That carries its own cost over time and for people like me whose computer rarely runs at less than 50% load, the ~$60 up-front extra cost with Intel is recovered over 2-3 years through lower power bills. In the meantime, I also get to have a quieter system that does not put as much strain on my AC during summer.

 

[ingtar33]

I think it is more along the lines of simply reaching the practical limits of what is possible on many much more fundamental levels.

The way the core i series fails to show any real change in performance from faster ram (not counting the igpu) only seems to indicate there are "other" bottlenecks in the design which are hampering the ability of this cpu.

What is hampering ILP is conditional branches and instruction inter-dependencies: you cannot execute "c=a+b" or anything downstream that depends on 'c' if the computation of 'a' or 'b' is still pending. This is a fundamental limit that no amount of core architecture tweaking can ever overcome.

Haswell looks up to 192 instructions ahead to find stuff to fill its pipelines with while data dependencies are being resolved coupled with rearranged execution ports with one or two extra to help push more instructions through faster when that many eligible instructions are available yet that only translated into a ~7% gain vs Ivy Bridge which looks "only" 160 instructions ahead. I do not remember what this number is for AMD but it is much lower... somewhere between 96 or 128 I think.

So the biggest obstacle to higher performance is data dependencies in the code and instruction set themselves. If you want more computational throughput, you have to eliminate branches and data dependencies as much as possible.

i think you're getting the bit size of the math processes confused with it's memory management techniques.

 

[savagesoulxx24]

[quotemsg

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

He was defining awesome is subjective, you are no different referring to people jerking off with hardware. Some people want all the game has to offer, playing with reduced setting may be smooth but is sacrificing something

[/quotemsg]

Intel is way overpriced for what you will get go AMD

That is relative. Intel's CPUs deliver better per-thread performance than AMD platforms using ~100W more power. That carries its own cost over time and for people like me whose computer rarely runs at less than 50% load, the ~$60 up-front extra cost with Intel is recovered over 2-3 years through lower power bills. In the meantime, I also get to have a quieter system that does not put as much strain on my AC during summer.

lol omg dude really ? lol I run my pc all the time and play games all day until I fall asleep watching netflix which my computer then goes into sleep mode after a while of inactivity but in any case my PC only cost me no more than 20 a month to run and my total power bill is 70 with a 515 watt 5,000 BTU air conditioner going 24/7 and your preaching about power consumption AMD vs Intel lmao you can afford that Intel so why not the bill lol amd fights for Price to performance ratio saying you gotta have an Intel is like saying I gotta have a Mac that is way over priced Intel had better get rid of the sacred cow ego and jump on the competitive pricing band wagon because AMD is moving up Trial and error but they are actually getting the Idea of Marketing better than Intel and I am impressed with them lately

 

[InvalidError]

i think you're getting the bit size of the math processes confused with it's memory management techniques.

The depth of the instruction scheduler which holds a sequence of micro-OPs awaiting their turn or dependency resolution for execution and reorder buffers from which the CPU tries to pick uOPs in the most efficient sequence possible through a mixture of prioritizing instructions with high dependency counts, instructions that are overdue and jump conditions has absolutely nothing to do with "mathematical size" of instructions and memory management.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

[quotemsg

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

He was defining awesome is subjective, you are no different referring to people jerking off with hardware. Some people want all the game has to offer, playing with reduced setting may be smooth but is sacrificing something

Intel is way overpriced for what you will get go AMD

That is relative. Intel's CPUs deliver better per-thread performance than AMD platforms using ~100W more power. That carries its own cost over time and for people like me whose computer rarely runs at less than 50% load, the ~$60 up-front extra cost with Intel is recovered over 2-3 years through lower power bills. In the meantime, I also get to have a quieter system that does not put as much strain on my AC during summer.

lol omg dude really ? lol I run my pc all the time and play games all day until I fall asleep watching netflix which my computer then goes into sleep mode after a while of inactivity but in any case my PC only cost me no more than 20 a month to run and my total power bill is 70 with a 515 watt 5,000 BTU air conditioner going 24/7 and your preaching about power consumption AMD vs Intel lmao you can afford that Intel so why not the bill lol amd fights for Price to performance ratio saying you gotta have an Intel is like saying I gotta have a Mac that is way over priced Intel had better get rid of the sacred cow ego and jump on the competitive pricing band wagon because AMD is moving up Trial and error but they are actually getting the Idea of Marketing better than Intel and I am impressed with them lately [/quotemsg]

power bills are a lot more expensive in Australia, i pay about $600-$700 a quarter, it would probably make a difference in other countries too. having said that, most people dont run their computer at 100% load all day every day, more like an hour or two a day, but having higher power consumption components in a build also requires you to spend more on the psu and cooling. The fact is AMD would have their cpu priced higher and make more profit like intel if they could, but they cant because they don't perform as well for mainstream apps or games, it only performs well for highly threaded apps. If you want to really get into price/performance, a $1000 intel i5 build would compare to a $970 AMD build (about the price diff from an 8350 to 3570k, reduced psu cost also as the intel build has lower psu requirements). If you can afford $970 i dont see why you couldnt spring for $1000 if your playing games for a benefit there...so i dont see any price/performance benefit for amd over intel, but they each excel in their own niche ways. no need to get narky about value comparisons, dont think AMD is a saint, they would charge more to make more profit if they could. they just dont because noone would buy their product if it wasnt priced according to it's performance.

 

[logainofhades]

Good to see the FX 6300 at least getting an honorable mention. I still wouldn't consider an i3 or an FX 4300, though. FX 6300 is pretty much the minimum CPU I would consider at this point for a capable gaming rig unless the budget was so low, that a 760k was necessary. Honestly, I think the 1230 v2 deserves an honorable mention for those wanting i7 gaming performance, but do not want to overclock. At $235, that chip is a steal for non overclockers. The 69w TDP is a nice bonus as well for those that care about heat and power consumption.

 

[Raheel Hasan]

so FX9590 = i3 2100

 

[de5_Roy]

so FX9590 = i3 2100

no. the tiers act as general guidelines, not an absolute measure of performance.