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

[littleleo]

Those are all APUs, I don't recommend those for gaming rigs.

In case you may have missed AMD's developer conferences earlier this month, AMD is betting the farm on APUs and HSA. With that sort of commitment, it is likely safe to presume AMD will be going APU across the board with its next batch of new designs.

Yes, I know as do most the gamers out there, that is why more gaming rigs are going Intel instead of AMD then ever before. If you looked at the "Best Gaming CPUs for the Money" article chart you won't seen a APU anywhere near the top or middle. They are all at the bottom not a good sign for gamers who like AMD. I used to sell lots more AMD then Intel 4 to 1 easy, however since they are mainly doing APUs now it's flipped 3 to 1 to Intel and as FXs become stale I expect it to get worse for AMD.

 

[InvalidError]

Yes, I know as do most the gamers out there, that is why more gaming rigs are going Intel instead of AMD then ever before.

The main reason gamers are going Intel is because the bulk of games out there tend to heavily favor single/lightly-threaded performance and AMD is a fair distance behind Intel there, APU or not. Practically all of Intel's mainstream chips are "APUs" too.

 

[SessouXFX]

As for AM3+, it's not going to surprise me if they go with nothing but refresh chips. If you think back to the original Phenoms, they were much like the Piledrivers. Errors, the TLB Erratum, bad performance, blah, blah, blah, they went back, fixed the issues, and then had the Deneb change over to Zosma and Thuban... Basically, the Phenoms had a run of about 4-5 years before the change to FX . I suspect the Vishera to hang around a while longer yet and eventually change over to AM4...

But they'll fall back further if they don't have something on the table by 2015. Hell, they may be out of business if they don't come up with something half as good as Intel at that time. Kaveri may just be that next big thing for them. But Intel's map is looking BOSS at the moment. May be time for AMD to Double step and try to catch up...

 

[wayfarer1]

Amd A10K 6800 in combo with Gskill 2133mhz Ram and a GTX 650Ti , Battlefield 4 on ultra settings

 

[ingtar33]

Those are all APUs, I don't recommend those for gaming rigs.

In case you may have missed AMD's developer conferences earlier this month, AMD is betting the farm on APUs and HSA. With that sort of commitment, it is likely safe to presume AMD will be going APU across the board with its next batch of new designs.

Yes, I know as do most the gamers out there, that is why more gaming rigs are going Intel instead of AMD then ever before. If you looked at the "Best Gaming CPUs for the Money" article chart you won't seen a APU anywhere near the top or middle. They are all at the bottom not a good sign for gamers who like AMD. I used to sell lots more AMD then Intel 4 to 1 easy, however since they are mainly doing APUs now it's flipped 3 to 1 to Intel and as FXs become stale I expect it to get worse for AMD.

except according to AMD this isn't right. Their APUs are the majority of their chip sales right now, and the majority of their $$. They're not bringing steamroller to the FX lineup because of the smashing success of their APU side of things.

according to AMD their APUs make up 7 out of every 8 chips they sell on the desktop right now; and is every mobile or small form factor they sell as well.

AMD is leaving the FX lineup behind because it didn't sell. You want to know why intel is devoting so much to their hd graphics? because they're seeing the same thing. the AIO cpu/gpu is selling right now.

 

[wayfarer1]

They didn't even list the AMD A10 6800K must a been to much for the Intel i5

 

[logainofhades]

They didn't even list the AMD A10 6800K must a been to much for the Intel i5

Because for a true gaming rig, a 6800k, even on a very low budget, is pointless. You can get a 750k/760k and an HD 7750 for roughly the same price and have a better gaming setup and don't need to buy more expensive/faster ram either.

 

[slimething]

I've stuck with AMD setups since 2000. This time I went for i7 4770k w/280x and thus far am thoroughly pleased. BF4 runs smooth as silk on Ultra/HBAO/4x MSAA on 64 player servers. According to FRAPS the FPS avg. on Operation Locker (the most intense for graphics) was ~75 over 5 rounds measured for 10 minutes playing time. Min was ~46, max >100. No tweaking was performed, this was straight out of the box on AMD beta drivers with Windows 8.1 Pro.

The article is quite old and the i7 was considered a non-contender then. Has that changed? I can't imagine going for an i3 or i5 would exceed my results.

From my limited testing, Win 8 seems to outperform Win 7, and blows away Vista. My old 965BE Vista rig really came to life on Win 8, except for the memory lead that plagues 6xxx video cards. Has that been addressed yet?

 

[Memnarchon]

I've stuck with AMD setups since 2000. This time I went for i7 4770k w/280x and thus far am thoroughly pleased. BF4 runs smooth as silk on Ultra/HBAO/4x MSAA on 64 player servers. According to FRAPS the FPS avg. on Operation Locker (the most intense for graphics) was ~75 over 5 rounds measured for 10 minutes playing time. Min was ~46, max >100. No tweaking was performed, this was straight out of the box on AMD beta drivers with Windows 8.1 Pro.

The article is quite old and the i7 was considered a non-contender then. Has that changed? I can't imagine going for an i3 or i5 would exceed my results.

From my limited testing, Win 8 seems to outperform Win 7, and blows away Vista. My old 965BE Vista rig really came to life on Win 8, except for the memory lead that plagues 6xxx video cards. Has that been addressed yet?

It seems that BF4 might benefit from better Lx caches. i7 had always more and thats might be the reason of this:
Multiplayer Shangai 64player map. Win8.1
Also newer architectures have faster Lx caches too.

 

[InvalidError]

You want to know why intel is devoting so much to their hd graphics? because they're seeing the same thing. the AIO cpu/gpu is selling right now.

Exactly what many elitist enthusiasts do not want to hear... the vast majority of systems shipping these days do not have nor need discrete graphics because they are not going to be used for any sort of serious graphics work or gaming. All they need is something to push desktop pixels out of.

 

[Sakkura]

49.5fps vs 41.7fps = 19% faster
21fps vs 17fps = 24% faster

considering according to the reviewer the i3 wasn't even playable at those numbers i'd say it's a big difference.

That's a totally different benchmark. The FX-6350 gets much higher FPS in it than the FX-8350 does in the other benchmark, so you cannot compare them. The Core i3-3220 was significantly faster than the Phenom II x4 965 in the other benchmark, so in that one it would be pretty close to the FX-6350.

The reviewer states that he recommends at least a Core i5 for Crysis 3, not an FX-8350.

 

[RedJaron]

Amd A10K 6800 in combo with Gskill 2133mhz Ram and a GTX 650Ti , Battlefield 4 on ultra settings

Logain already told you why this is a bad idea. I'll add some numbers too. Your proposed components are around $435 ( I figure $75 for a good mboard, but didn't include a CPU cooler. )

Similar cost will get you a 750X, ASRock Extreme4, 8GB 1600 RAM, which leaves $200 for a GPU. That's 7870/270X territory, maybe even a 760 or 7950 if you can find a good deal. I think the GPU might outstretch the CPU in this particular example, so let's try something else.

Personally I'd go for an i5-4440, ASRock H87 mboard, 8GB 1600 RAM, and 2 GB 7770 ( or 7750 depending on promos and discounts. ) It drops a little graphical muscle, but the 7770 is still adequate from some good 1080p gaming. The i5 means you have a true quad core with excellent single-thread performance, meaning any game will fly on it for years.

But if we want to go for true gaming balance around $450, try a FX-6300, ASRock Extreme4, 8GB RAM, and a 7870/270x.

 

[artk2219]

Random Bits of info for anyone interested, Microcenter has the I5 3570K back at $149.99, the FX 8320 is at $99.99, and the FX 4130 is at $69.99. It seems like these prices are good until at least the end of Friday, granted they're no I7 4770K for $199.99 but they're still good deals if you live near a Microcenter. Also the FX's come with a 10 dollar Gigabyte motherboard option, it comes with a 10 dollar mail in rebate, or the I5 and FX's both come with $40 dollars off of whatever board you want to use with them. If you get the gigabyte board and sell it then thats a further price reduction on the FX's.

http://www.microcenter.com/category/4294966995/Processors-CPUs

 

[Onus]

Oooh, a FX-8320 for $99 sounds like a great upgrade from my 965BE. I hate the idea of shopping on Friday, but may need to do it this time.
That's not what I see in the ad though; just a FX-6300 for $109.

 

[artk2219]

Oooh, a FX-8320 for $99 sounds like a great upgrade from my 965BE. I hate the idea of shopping on Friday, but may need to do it this time.

You dont have to, that price is good right now! 😀

 

[artk2219]

Oooh, a FX-8320 for $99 sounds like a great upgrade from my 965BE. I hate the idea of shopping on Friday, but may need to do it this time.
That's not what I see in the ad though; just a FX-6300 for $109.

Yeah I changed the link so that it's just microcenters general processors page, you actually have to add the FX 8320 to cart to see the $99.99 though.

 

[littleleo]

Yes, I know as do most the gamers out there, that is why more gaming rigs are going Intel instead of AMD then ever before.

The main reason gamers are going Intel is because the bulk of games out there tend to heavily favor single/lightly-threaded performance and AMD is a fair distance behind Intel there, APU or not. Practically all of Intel's mainstream chips are "APUs" too.

AMD and Intel have had some sort of integrated Video support for years, however that doesn't make them all APUs. Yes Intel's integrated video is better but its not to the level of a discrete GPU. AMD take one of its discrete GPU cores and combines it with a CPU core and PRESTO an APU. Not the same thing as having integrated video like Intel does.

 

[MajinCry]

I suspect some foulplay in the aforementioned benchmarks; Intel's compiler and whatnot. The difference between SSE2 (the lowest common denominator) and AVX is around 50% in favour of AVX. Considering how intel's compiler would use 386 for AMD CPUs and SSE2 for intel's when SSE2 was the hot thing, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the compiler used for these games are crippling AMD.

 

[InvalidError]

AMD take one of its discrete GPU cores and combines it with a CPU core and PRESTO an APU. Not the same thing as having integrated video like Intel does.

Is there any real difference between a graphics core initially designed for discrete GPUs getting adapted to IGP applications and a GPU core designed for IGP application right off the bat? Both fulfill exactly the same role: provide baseline GPU capabilites. The only difference is the latter lacks a discrete variant but could be turned into one if Intel so wished.

Even AMD wants Intel to start calling their own CPUs APUs.

 

[Onus]

For anyone not playing the latest, most demanding games, and/or insisting they be on the highest settings possible (which is probably 80% or more of the home market, plus 99% of the business market), a high-end APU will meet their needs. AMD is banking on this volume market, and from a business perspective, I can't see this being the wrong decision, even if it disappoints enthusiasts. If it is successful, and gives AMD a little financial room to "play," they may then be able to throw the high-end market a bone. Let's see what happens over the next year or so.

 

[Sakkura]

AMD and Intel have had some sort of integrated Video support for years, however that doesn't make them all APUs. Yes Intel's integrated video is better but its not to the level of a discrete GPU. AMD take one of its discrete GPU cores and combines it with a CPU core and PRESTO an APU. Not the same thing as having integrated video like Intel does.

Intel could take their HD Graphics cores and put them in dedicated graphics cards if they wanted to. There's really no difference.

 

[littleleo]

AMD take one of its discrete GPU cores and combines it with a CPU core and PRESTO an APU. Not the same thing as having integrated video like Intel does.

Is there any real difference between a graphics core initially designed for discrete GPUs getting adapted to IGP applications and a GPU core designed for IGP application right off the bat? Both fulfill exactly the same role: provide baseline GPU capabilites. The only difference is the latter lacks a discrete variant but could be turned into one if Intel so wished.

Even AMD wants Intel to start calling their own CPUs APUs.

They are not APUs, I can understand why AMD would want to change the field since it would put part in their favor. However the iCore processors are CPUs not APUs.

 

[InvalidError]

They are not APUs, I can understand why AMD would want to change the field since it would put part in their favor. However the iCore processors are CPUs not APUs.

APUs are nothing more than AMD's name for CPUs with IGP, which is exactly what most Intel's mainstream CPUs are. The only reason Intel does not call their CPUs with IGPs APUs is simply because they do not want to.

 

[littleleo]

AMD and Intel have had some sort of integrated Video support for years, however that doesn't make them all APUs. Yes Intel's integrated video is better but its not to the level of a discrete GPU. AMD take one of its discrete GPU cores and combines it with a CPU core and PRESTO an APU. Not the same thing as having integrated video like Intel does.

Intel could take their HD Graphics cores and put them in dedicated graphics cards if they wanted to. There's really no difference.

Intel has attempted to get into the discrete GPU business before and failed miserably. These graphics units in the iCore CPUs are better then their past offerings however they don't perform as well as real discrete models. Intel doesn't have the interest to spend the money to make them into stand alone discrete graphics cards. Remember they are leaving the desktop motherboard market do you think they want to go into the discrete video card business and get into the battle with AMD and Nvidia in a field they have not had success in before, hardly.

 

[littleleo]

They are not APUs, I can understand why AMD would want to change the field since it would put part in their favor. However the iCore processors are CPUs not APUs.

APUs are nothing more than AMD's name for CPUs with IGP, which is exactly what most Intel's mainstream CPUs are. The only reason Intel does not call their CPUs with IGPs APUs is simply because they do not want to.

APU is a term AMD made up to describe their new line of Cpu + Gpu models. The are not a term that describes how Intel CPUs are modeled. Plus why would Intel want to saddle their CPUs with a the name a theses underwhelming APUs what are very poor performers. Why would anyone do that.