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

Page 43 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.




THE
 

Here's a recent example, showing the FX-8350 just barely beating a Core i3-3220:

CPU-FR.png
 
of course that's with a game that's clearly 3 or 4 core optimized.

but you're right, the 8 core fx cpus can play in the same ballpark of an i5 or i7 in certain fields... but there certainly are many more situations where they lag behind.

 
Sakkura, your unmarked chart looks more "cherry-picked" than Logain's, which used eight games. Which game(s) was/were yours?
When one considers that in most games, the graphics card is the biggest factor, I think it becomes fairly clear that in actual use, AMD's Piledriver CPUs offer a solid bang/buck alternative to Intel.
 

I didn't say they weren't. I'm saying the FX-8350 is definitely not better for gaming than Core i7s and Core i5s. Far from it.
 

the reason the first chart (by logain) looks better for fx because the higher clocked, higher priced (i.e. lower perf/price), higher tdp fx cpus were being tested. high clock and high tdp would usually allow for higher consistent (average) sustained clockrate on a nearly-unbottlenecked test platform. fx6300 would scale linerly lower.
meanwhile, fx6300 is selling for $110 at newegg and haswell core i3 4130 3.4 ghz is selling for $120 (100mhz faster than 3225 without counting ipc improvement). fx6350 is selling for $140 (outta stock atm). i don't think anyone would argue fx6300's budget value now that the price is down so much. but core i3 still holds general gaming perf. advantage, and in case of fx6350, it can out perf/price in specific cases (combined h81 mobo, while fx6350 has to have compatibility for 125w, well cooled, comparatively better vrm etc.).
edit: newegg is just a reference. one can find better deals for cpus elsewhere or any other time.
 
I wasn't looking for an argument, just pointing out that cherry-picking can go both ways, especially when it isn't being labeled. And, if the particular game(s) you play are outliers, cherry-picking can be a perfectly valid basis for judgement.
The biggest issue I tend to have is a rejection of what high-dollar parts one "has to have" in order to enjoy games. Perhaps it is a sign of age, or of not having the time to get into the newest, most demanding titles, but I've realized I could enjoy most, if not all, of my games on a SB i3 or an Athlon II with a HD7750, even though I'd rather have the faster stuff I've got now. This weekend, I'm going to start subjectively comparing the FX-8320 to the i5-3570K. I suspect differences will be inconsequential, in which case I'll favor the one that uses notably less power.
 

yeah, cherry picking goes both ways.
what i was trying to point out that both core i3 and fx 6300/6350 are budget parts. but fx6350 is priced higher. core i3 prices are high too, but 3220, 4130 compete directly against fx6300. and in stock settings and in an unbottlelecked system, stock fx6300 will perform lienarly lower than stock fx6350 due to turbo, stock cooling and cpu load (and type of load) being big factor.
so using fx6350 as a reference to 6300, and claiming (not by you) fx6300 can run at fx6350's (which is overclocking) is not a fair comparison to core i3 that is priced directly against fx 6300. <- this is where the cherry picking is happening. oc'ing fx6300 to 6350 clockrate usually means 6350's clockrate on all cores (at least the websites that simulated lower fx cpus seem to have done this), disabling power saving options and so on - is not representative of fx6300's stock performance or settings, because overclocking does not every time ensure stable clock rate achievement without changing stock settings. and oc'ing changes perf/price ratio. i am aware of how minor o.c. (keyword here) is needed for fx6300 to run at 6350 clockrate.
 

as long as the resulting lowering of perf/price is also mentioned. same with intel.
in reality, majority of cpu owners do not or do not want to o.c. even if they have an overclockable cpu. stock performance is factory-set, more or less certain and consistent.
late, late edit: this article actually makes a point about cpu overclocking with almost all the amd cpus it mentions, along with intel's. oc'ing was not being ignored, but the hierarchy chart is based on stock performance for obvious reasons.

core i5 3570k's stock performance is already high enough without overclocking (especially compared to stock amd fx). but anyone budget limited will be fine with a 3350p. 3350p can also be partially o.c.'ed or can be pushed further using a multicore turbo enabled bios and mobo as well as very minor bclk o.c. - none of these are mentioned either.
 

That's a terrible motherboard with bad VRMs and a chipset from ~2008.
 

It should with the kind of motherboard you're looking at.
 
'Bout intel being better at AMD in gaming...

Take note that Havok is an Intel product. A hundred quid says that it's compiled with ICC, and therefore heavily nerfs the AMD CPUs. And Havok is quite prevalent, AFAIK.
 

first, the games will have to use havok, then havok will have to be compiled with icc, yet then the havok being used in a certain game will have to be compiled with icc instead of another compiler. intel will have unfair advantage only if the coders turn off the compiler switch intel was forced to provide with icc per court ruling (or something).

that said, these new ubisoft games will use havok:
http://www.techpowerup.com/195455/havok-tech-powering-assassins-creed-iv-watch-dogs-and-the-division.html
i should also point out that the new consoles use amd soc, so devs using havok in console games and crippling amd soc... doesn't make sense from a performance perspective.
unless amd pushes it's own compiler or an independent, vendor-neutral compiler to developers, intel having unfair advantage with i.c.c. is kinda moot at present.
 


It is still a 125w capable motherboard. Asus also makes an inexpensive one. Does it really matter when the chipset was made? I don't see the need for a fancy new chipset. Hence why I am so unimpressed with Haswell. It offers me nothing I need over Ivy or even my P67 Sandy Bridge system. Only have my 3570k because I needed a quick fix for my file server and my P67 board was all I had on hand at the time to fix it. I couldn't wait on a replacement for gaming rig either, so I went to Microcenter and took their bundle deal on the 3570k.



For serious overclocking, I wouldn't even be looking at that board. I would be looking at something more suitable like the 990fxa-ud3
 


It must be, right? It says so on the sticker, so it must be a 550w PSU, right? LOL! /s
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom