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

Page 5 - 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.
[citation][nom]CaptainTom[/nom]Wait this is what is I was saying earlier! Look how the 8350 destroys the phenom![/citation]

In newer tests the Phenom X4 980 is neck and neck with the FX-8350. Far Cry 3 has been patched since our last tests, so this might be the cause of the change.
 


Would that be to the good ,,, or to the bad ?? :ouch:

CPU-scaling.png




 


To the good! The Phenom II X4 980 virtually tied the FX-8350. Granted, the settings were higher, and the resolution was 1080p, but the dual-core Pentium still performed slower than the quads and hyperthreaded duals.
 
I noticed something amusing as I was going through the comments.
This comment says:

But then, blazorthon's reply to it has the same quote from fourzeronine saying:
toms is really dumb...
Click to expand...
Now, notice on fourzeronine's post how it says:
Message edited by Cleeve on 01-16-2013 at 04:31:46 PM
Click to expand...
Don, naughty, naughty! :lol: I would be lying if I said I didn't think he deserved it though. :lol:
 
"Although it isn't yet live on the site, we just finished up the testing for our latest sub-$200 gaming CPU comparison. Without going into detail on our findings, we saw that, more than ever, today's games require a quad-core processor to realize their best performance. This shouldn't come as a revelation to anyone, but it does have a significant impact on our gaming CPU recommendations. We no longer plan to recommend dual-core chips like Intel's Pentium. Also, AMD's lower-priced quad-core models tend to look a little better. "

I've been saying this for 1-2 years, but nobody believed me because there was no proof yet.
When can we expect the cpu results so i can tell them all: "told you so".
I could kill everybody who keeps saying that de pentium Gxxx is even better then a phenom 965...
 
[citation][nom]mitsumark[/nom]"I've been saying this for 1-2 years, but nobody believed me because there was no proof yet.[/citation]

Ah, but for the past 1-2 years, the proof was opposite. Without FXAA taxing the CPU, in older, less-threaded titles, Pentiums beat the Phenom II X4s by a notable margin.

It's not that new information has come to light, it's that the situation has changed.
And it's not like a switch has been turned on, either, as some titles still favor Intel's dual cores. It's just that the margins are less in those titles, so it's time for a recommendation shift.
 
i want to read the new gaming cpu roundup on .....monday. 😗
(on the day the article comes out, i'll secretly edit this post and change the name of the days... also the part where i say i will do this...)
edit: (only if i'm wrong. otherwise i'll just delete the bracketed part and this part. :ange: )
 


Sorry. End of month is probably a better expectation. 🙁
 
Hi, based on the Far Cry CPU scaling, why is the Dual Core i3 performing wildly as great as the top notch quad cores from Intel? Does this mean that hyperthreading has a positive impact on gaming performance.

And based on the Far Cry CPU scaling benchmarks as well, I don't see why the Phenom II x4 should get the nod over the latest generation Pentium dual cores. I mean the results speak for themselves. Pentium G860, running on merely 2 cores at 3.0ghz 46 fps/ave, 37 fps/min versus Phenom II x4 955 3.2ghz 45 ave, 32 min.

Again, it may seem that dual cores "may" be on the decline in terms of gaming value, but the not so obvious truth IS THAT the Pentium dual cores are STILL very much in the game at their tremendous value price points.

So many are so eager to jump on the Dual core discrimination band wagon. But until you can show me results that the Pentium Ivy/Sandy's cannot deliver in modern titles then replace them from the list.

I'm not really a Pentium dual core fan boy. I am just against Dual Core discrimination. Every time somebody says that a dual core is a bottleneck, I just shake my head. The id wants the quad core (maybe marketing is so successful) but the Dual core is actually already sufficient and very much capable.

Best gaming CPU under $105 is still the Pentium. It may have just 2 cores, but that doesn't really translate to "weakness". The 4 cores of the Phenom are not really a significant advantage either.

Just making a point for the BUDGET gamers - THE DEMOGRAPHIC WHERE THE GREATEST NUMBER OF GAMERS ARE. (The reason why the budget processor recommendation is SO important.)

Not intended for those who can afford procs in i5's range as I'm actually a big fan of i5's myself.

Personally, "budget" value for money still lies with the Pentium Ivy's and Sandy's and "non-budget" value for money still hangs with the i5's.
 


You have to think about the future! TH is merely saying that most modern games favor 4+ threaded CPU's. If already most games favor them, then within a year almost all games will. After that dual cores will be a bottleneck.

In addition to this, the current intel Pentiums are on a soon to be dead socket. Once it is dead, SB and IB i5's will disappear from shelves and/or start to go up in price for the small amount of people who want to cheaply upgrade their PC's (For instance C2Q's selling for $150+).

On the other hand the AMD quad cores will be able to stave off bottle-necking a little longer (Especially when overclocked).
Then factor in that the current AM3+ quad cores they are recommending will be compatible with the upcoming steamroller and possibly even the AMD CPU line after that. It is easy to assume that these CPU lines will beat CURRENT i5's in gaming and offer even more multi-threaded goodness when gaming takes advantage of 6+ threads (Which they will in 2 years since some games already do). This means the budget oriented builder can get a cheap CPU now and later upgrade to a massively stronger CPU in 2 years that beats anything out NOW.

If you don't consider that a better value then idk what else to say. No framerate win that the pentiums currently have is a game changer, and the only true advantage is there poweruse which shouldn't be an issue unless you are going bare minimum <$400 budget to cheap out and get a 300w psu + 7750 (Which then I think a pentium is an excellent choice).

On one last note, Tomshardware isn't saying that they were wrong in the past, or that anyone who bought a pentium made a mistake. They are simply advising new builders to go with what is soon to be the new standard and is currently the best performing choice. If you like your pentium, I am not surprised. Enjoy it, and let the Phenom users enjoy theirs! 😉
 
Exactly, especially gamers on a budget tend to use their CPU for several years (4 or even more), in that time all new games will most likely be 4-8 threaded and dual cores will suffer severe performance issues, which apparently they already do (even if those 2 cores are 50% stronger then the 'slow'quadcores).
 
Suggestion: can we have the cpu chart to include laptop processors as well?
 
@Cleeve
"Although it isn't yet live on the site, we just finished up the testing for our latest sub-$200 gaming CPU comparison"

Any idea when this will be actually posted? I'm hoping to see some stats on older CPU - newer GPU combo's (AMS X4 965 + 7870 for example).
 

He did say this when I asked:

 
[citation][nom]natoco[/nom]In wow killing a world boss with 40 people, another 40 horde trying to kill you, plus the addons, good luck to any cpu on the market to date trying to do that at 60fps. Get in there Toms and do a world boss benchmark with 40 people thats a proper playing the game benchmark, not all this other crap i see like flying from one point to another, like really hahahahhah. fail benchmark[/citation]

WoW doesn't do 40 man raids much anymore. It's usually 10 or 25 man raids.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom