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

[vertexx]

I'm totally with you guys on the 8320/8350, especially with the pricing. Tom's has got totally hung up on this article being only for "Gaming", when the reality is that people use their Gaming PCs for more than just gaming.

I mean BFD if you can play 1080p Skyrim at 87FPS on an I5 and "only" 67FPS with an 8320. Nevermind that as soon as you push up to 1440p or higher, the differences get much narrower. And nevermind that the newer titles are tending to favor the higher thread count.

But what I'm talking about is what you will really notice. I've finally gotten around to ripping my Blu Ray and DVD collection to the home server I built this past year. Ripping and Transcoding those takes a LONG time, like up to 3 hours for a full-length blu ray. I tell you, I'm wishing I had an 83XX CPU. I'm doing this on my "gaming" PC. And if I had an 8320, I'd be able to game while I'm ripping (MakeMKV is single threaded and not very CPU intensive at that), and my Handbrake transcoding would be A LOT shorter. Unlike the meaningless difference in single threaded games, these differences are SUBSTANTIAL, and they have significant impact on my PC use. With an 8320/50, I'd be able to get back to GAMING much more quickly, really it would be a difference of about 30-45 minutes per blu-ray. In my book, that's alot more important than the FPS difference single threaded title, especially where I have recently upgraded to a 1440p monitor. So I'm talking about a difference of maybe 3-4 FPS if even that.

Same thing goes for other activities that consume a lot of computing time, like if I need to 7-zip a 20GB file (Skyrim data backup with every freaking mod package change I make). With an I-5, I'm staring at the PC much longer than if I had an 8320 - and that 8320 costs less!!!

The more I've followed this article, the more I've come to understand that a narrow focus on gaming FPS really can misinform a buying decision, when the overall experience with the CPU is much broader than that.

 

[InvalidError]

And nevermind that the newer titles are tending to favor the higher thread count.

How many titles would that actually be? There are hundreds of new games launching every year but how many of them make meaningful use of fine threading? AFAIK, there are less than 10 of these so far. When I look at games's CPU usage through Process Explorer, most of them show 95-99% of their total CPU activity focused on 2-3 threads out of 50-150.

 

[vertexx]

And nevermind that the newer titles are tending to favor the higher thread count.

How many titles would that actually be? There are hundreds of new games launching every year but how many of them make meaningful use of fine threading? AFAIK, there are less than 10 of these so far. When I look at games's CPU usage through Process Explorer, most of them show 95-99% of their total CPU activity focused on 2-3 threads out of 50-150.

That's really a minor point in my post. I would answer with "Any title where performance might be a concern". What single-threaded titles are you talking about? Really, is the FPS difference between an I5 and 8350 for those titles going to have an impact on your gaming experience? What about at 1440p or higher resolutions?

My main point is that there are other computing activities that gamers use their computers for. And those activities that consume the most TIME tend to be multi-threaded. So, for those activities, having the 8320 is going to get me back to gaming alot more quickly.

And I'm no AMD fanboy - Intel CPUs outnumber AMD in my house 5 to 1, with my next purchase being the Kaveri A8 as soon as that is available. But after my thinking on this, I may go and finally replace my Phenom II quad core workhorse with an FX 8320.

 

[bassbeast]

I'm totally with you guys on the 8320/8350, especially with the pricing. Tom's has got totally hung up on this article being only for "Gaming", when the reality is that people use their Gaming PCs for more than just gaming.

I mean BFD if you can play 1080p Skyrim at 87FPS on an I5 and "only" 67FPS with an 8320. Nevermind that as soon as you push up to 1440p or higher, the differences get much narrower. And nevermind that the newer titles are tending to favor the higher thread count.

But what I'm talking about is what you will really notice. I've finally gotten around to ripping my Blu Ray and DVD collection to the home server I built this past year. Ripping and Transcoding those takes a LONG time, like up to 3 hours for a full-length blu ray. I tell you, I'm wishing I had an 83XX CPU. I'm doing this on my "gaming" PC. And if I had an 8320, I'd be able to game while I'm ripping (MakeMKV is single threaded and not very CPU intensive at that), and my Handbrake transcoding would be A LOT shorter. Unlike the meaningless difference in single threaded games, these differences are SUBSTANTIAL, and they have significant impact on my PC use. With an 8320/50, I'd be able to get back to GAMING much more quickly, really it would be a difference of about 30-45 minutes per blu-ray. In my book, that's alot more important than the FPS difference single threaded title, especially where I have recently upgraded to a 1440p monitor. So I'm talking about a difference of maybe 3-4 FPS if even that.

Same thing goes for other activities that consume a lot of computing time, like if I need to 7-zip a 20GB file (Skyrim data backup with every freaking mod package change I make). With an I-5, I'm staring at the PC much longer than if I had an 8320 - and that 8320 costs less!!!

The more I've followed this article, the more I've come to understand how narrow-focused and under-serving of the user community it really is.

I have the Phenom II X6, picked one up when the price hit $100 and I have to say...its EXACTLY as you describe! I use Aiseesoft Total Video Converter which lets you set which cores to use for conversion and have NO problem playing Borderlands II WHILE converting a dozen videos AND burning a backup DVD!

When you look at the bang for the buck? The X6 and X8 chips are just great. BTW if yu look around you can get the FX6120 for $88, cheaper than you can get a Pentium Dual core! If ALL a person is ever gonna do with a system is game? Then yes you might get a deal on a Pentium but if you compare what you get price to price? Then the AMD hexas and octos are pretty hard to top.

 

[logainofhades]

Do you have your CPU running at stock settings Onus?

EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm not an Intel fanboy trying to attack AMD users. I'm an IT Professional and gamer who is about 2-3 years past when I probably should have upgraded. I've been hearing non-stop how much better the newer Intel stuff is over AMD, and the counter from AMD users is always that you can OC the AMD processors higher. I don't plan to OC, at least not initially (I might consider doing it for the first time in 3 years when the warranty has expired if my computer is feeling slow) so I'm planning on a 4670K, assuming Micro Center has them the next time I am near one. So my questions stem more from a desire to understand why I'm suddenly seeing people insisting that AMD processors that have been around a while are better than Intel at the same price range.

In other words, would the 8320 or 8350 be a better choice than the 3350P if you never overclock it and why?

If you don't think you will overclock at all, don't get a 4670k. Get a Xeon 1230v3 and get i7 performance for a bit more than the 4670k. That is unless you go to Microcenter. :lol: You sound like the type that keeps their rig a long time. I would suggest Xeon E3 1230v3 or a 4770k if you go to Microcenter. I would probably still want an FX 8320, bumped to FX 8350 speeds, over the i5 3350p so I would have more money to spend on GPU. This especially hold true for us lucky enough to live near a Microcenter. I have bought 2 of the FX 8320 on sale for $99.99 now as upgrades to my spare rigs. For the record, I don't consider changing the multiplier on an FX 8320 to match an FX 8350 a real overclock.

 

[bassbeast]

Do you have your CPU running at stock settings Onus?

EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm not an Intel fanboy trying to attack AMD users. I'm an IT Professional and gamer who is about 2-3 years past when I probably should have upgraded. I've been hearing non-stop how much better the newer Intel stuff is over AMD, and the counter from AMD users is always that you can OC the AMD processors higher. I don't plan to OC, at least not initially (I might consider doing it for the first time in 3 years when the warranty has expired if my computer is feeling slow) so I'm planning on a 4670K, assuming Micro Center has them the next time I am near one. So my questions stem more from a desire to understand why I'm suddenly seeing people insisting that AMD processors that have been around a while are better than Intel at the same price range.

In other words, would the 8320 or 8350 be a better choice than the 3350P if you never overclock it and why?

If you don't think you will overclock at all, don't get a 4670k. Get a Xeon 1230v3 and get i7 performance for a bit more than the 4670k. That is unless you go to Microcenter. :lol: You sound like the type that keeps their rig a long time. I would suggest Xeon E3 1230v3 or a 4770k if you go to Microcenter. I would probably still want an FX 8320, bumped to FX 8350 speeds, over the i5 3350p so I would have more money to spend on GPU. This especially hold true for us lucky enough to live near a Microcenter. I have bought 2 of the FX 8320 on sale for $99.99 now as upgrades to my spare rigs. For the record, I don't consider changing the multiplier on an FX 8320 to match an FX 8350 a real overclock.

I agree and would only add if their budget is tight the FX6 chips are also quite nice, having one module disabled can give even more headroom if they plan to OC and I've seen the FX6 chips going for as low as $88. Must be nice living by a Microcenter, most of us aren't that lucky.

But I have to say that even at stock speeds having more cores? Niiiiccceee, REAL nice. I haven't gone past the Phenom II X6 for this reason, even at stock speeds I can just throw jobs at the thing and she never chokes, not to mention having the automatic OC that is Turbocore is like having 2 CPUs, a faster triple for when I'm "just" gaming and the hexa for when I'm just throwing work at the thing.

But so far I haven't been able to find a game that won't run smooth as butter on an AMD hexa and the money I saved was better spent on more GPU and RAM. As we all know when it comes to performance its a balancing act, if you pair an uberpowerful Intel chip with a weak sauce GPU its just as bad as pairing an Intel Atom with an HD7970 as far as performance goes. Like you I'm all about "the right tool for the job" and if the poster has an unlimited budget? Then sure thing grab a high end i5 or i7 along with a seriously nice board and go for it, but if they are on a tight budget then the FX6 and FX8 chips are a very good value ATM.

 

[vertexx]

FX 8320 is STILL $100 at Microcenter. Also regarding that E3, the Xeon E3-1230v2 (Ivy Bridge version) is also available at Microcenter for $200. It's hard to believe you can buy two 8320's for the price of that one E3, but they're both great deals.

I have the 1230V2 in my home server. For that build, I wanted the lower power consumption of Ivy Bridge, and I cared more about threads than clock speed. It handles everything I throw at it for home use. It runs multiple VMs, is a Plex media server, NAS, etc.

Also, FWIW, Microcenter is running a deal on the Kaveri A10-7850 for $140 with a FREE bundled ASUS uATX FM2+ Mobo.

 

[pcgaming98]

If this is 2014, why did they place the AMD Athlon II X4 750k instead of the 760k? 760k has a newer architecture and more instruction sets which make for better performance per core than the 750k, and it's not a arm or a leg more than the 750k.

 

[logainofhades]

The 760k isn't a newer arch than the 750k. The differences between Trinity and Richland were all for the IGP side of the APU lineup. CPU side, they are both just piledriver based chips without L3 cache.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Only real difference is that the 760K is clocked 400MHz higher. Which is worth $10 if you don't want to OC it.

 

[lukababu]

Xeon 1230v2 all the way...

 

[RedJaron]

Xeon 1230v2 all the way...

Why a V2 and not a V3 at this point?

As much as I like the Xeons, they're a niche gaming CPU. Consider pricing: 4670 is about $220, 4670K $240, 1230 V3 $250, 4770K is $310. The 1230 gives you the 4C/8T and 8MB L3 of the i7 and ECC support, but lower stock clocks and no overclocking. If you can't actually use the extra 2MB cache and four threads, the 4670 non-K is $30 cheaper and still faster. The Xeon also doesn't come with a heatsink, so that adds to their real-world price.

The Xeon makes great sense in a gaming rig that doubles as a "prosumer" workstation where the extra resources will be used. But even in that case the 4770K can sometimes be the better alternative, if a little pricier, for the OC headroom to speed up whatever heavy number crunching you're doing.

 

[vertexx]

The Xeon also doesn't come with a heatsink, so that adds to their real-world price.

It does. At least mine did. I tend to agree with your other points generally speaking for a pure gaming rig. But I've been wishing I had more threads on my gaming PC lately. As a result, I've been offloading work onto my 1230v2 server, which hasn't made other people in the house happy.

I personally stuck with the 1230v2 due to lower cost (at the time the CPU & motherboard combo were significantly cheaper), and lower power of Ivy Bridge for a home server use. At this time, I'd probably go with the V3, unless you want the lowest cost 8 thread Intel CPU available that is...

For a gaming PC, the 1230v2 and v3 are both great values if you also do alot of work in threaded apps outside of gaming. Admittedly a niche use case, but there it is....

Cheers.

 

[lukababu]

Xeon 1230v2 all the way...

Why a V2 and not a V3 at this point?

As much as I like the Xeons, they're a niche gaming CPU. Consider pricing: 4670 is about $220, 4670K $240, 1230 V3 $250, 4770K is $310. The 1230 gives you the 4C/8T and 8MB L3 of the i7 and ECC support, but lower stock clocks and no overclocking. If you can't actually use the extra 2MB cache and four threads, the 4670 non-K is $30 cheaper and still faster. The Xeon also doesn't come with a heatsink, so that adds to their real-world price.

The Xeon makes great sense in a gaming rig that doubles as a "prosumer" workstation where the extra resources will be used. But even in that case the 4770K can sometimes be the better alternative, if a little pricier, for the OC headroom to speed up whatever heavy number crunching you're doing.

As vertex said it, the Xeon did came with a heatsink.
The reasons I got the v2:
Good mobo/cpu deal
Lower Wattage! 69W, there is beauty in efficiency 😀
No Intel HD, which just raises the cost and the temperature of the CPU.
8 threads - just amazing when video encoding

I think that Overclocking a pc just raises the price of the computer to the point where its better to buy a better CPU instead of overclocking.
If you buy a unlocked processor, you need a higher wattage psu, aftermarket cooler, mobo with good overclocking features...
Just my opinion,
I like and think overclocking as a sport rather than actual money saving (though I hear people get a lot out of the FX processors after overclocking)

On top of that 4670 benchmark is 7,518, and the v2 has 8,890, around 15% better Source

 

[InvalidError]

The reasons I got the v2:
Good mobo/cpu deal
Lower Wattage! 69W, there is beauty in efficiency 😀
No Intel HD, which just raises the cost and the temperature of the CPU.

Well, the Xeon 1230v1/2/3 all have an IGP; it is merely permanently disabled just like the i5-3350P and subtracted from the TDP figures. So you are not saving any more power than you would if you had a CPU with the IGP enabled in hardware but disabled in software since the IGP's power is shut off while not in use.

All you really save by opting for a Xeon without a usable IGP is the ~$12 MSRP difference.

 

[logainofhades]

The slight cost of the 1230v3 over, is offset by the lower cost needed for a motherboard. 4670k should be paired up with nothing less than a Z87 board. The 1230v3 can be easily used in any other x8x board depending on what you want. If you just want a basic setup, one GPU slot, and no raid, H81 is sufficient. 4 ram slots, don't care about raid, B85. Want raid and 4 ram slots, H87. There are pros to going Xeon. It depends on what a user is interested in.

 

[vertexx]

The reasons I got the v2:
Good mobo/cpu deal
Lower Wattage! 69W, there is beauty in efficiency 😀
No Intel HD, which just raises the cost and the temperature of the CPU.

Well, the Xeon 1230v1/2/3 all have an IGP; it is merely permanently disabled just like the i5-3350P and subtracted from the TDP figures. So you are not saving any more power than you would if you had a CPU with the IGP enabled in hardware but disabled in software since the IGP's power is shut off while not in use.

All you really save by opting for a Xeon without a usable IGP is the ~$12 MSRP difference.

The 1230v2/3 are have hyperthreading, so I would tend to compare it to the I7. So for Haswell, Newegg has $250 for the 1230v3 and $310 for the I7-4770. For Ivy Bridge, it's $230 for the 1230v2 and $300 for the I7-3770.

If you don't have need for the additional threads for apps outside of gaming (or to run apps while you're gaming), then I'd go with the I5. But when you need the threads, the Xeon's the better value.

Also to logainofhades' point, I'm running my 1230v2 with a ~$50 ASRock mini-ITX board. Again, this is for a mini-ITX home server, but you could have the same build for an all around productivity plus gaming powerhouse if overclocking isn't your thing.

Outside of home server duties, I have been using the 1230 for transcoding (where my I-5 just isn't cutting it). I can run handbrake all day with the 8 threads and 69W TDP - CPU temps with the stock cooler never get above 50C in a Lian-Li PC-Q25 case.

 

[Isaiah4110]

Do you have your CPU running at stock settings Onus?

EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm not an Intel fanboy trying to attack AMD users. I'm an IT Professional and gamer who is about 2-3 years past when I probably should have upgraded. I've been hearing non-stop how much better the newer Intel stuff is over AMD, and the counter from AMD users is always that you can OC the AMD processors higher. I don't plan to OC, at least not initially (I might consider doing it for the first time in 3 years when the warranty has expired if my computer is feeling slow) so I'm planning on a 4670K, assuming Micro Center has them the next time I am near one. So my questions stem more from a desire to understand why I'm suddenly seeing people insisting that AMD processors that have been around a while are better than Intel at the same price range.

In other words, would the 8320 or 8350 be a better choice than the 3350P if you never overclock it and why?

If you don't think you will overclock at all, don't get a 4670k. Get a Xeon 1230v3 and get i7 performance for a bit more than the 4670k. That is unless you go to Microcenter. :lol: You sound like the type that keeps their rig a long time. I would suggest Xeon E3 1230v3 or a 4770k if you go to Microcenter. I would probably still want an FX 8320, bumped to FX 8350 speeds, over the i5 3350p so I would have more money to spend on GPU. This especially hold true for us lucky enough to live near a Microcenter. I have bought 2 of the FX 8320 on sale for $99.99 now as upgrades to my spare rigs. For the record, I don't consider changing the multiplier on an FX 8320 to match an FX 8350 a real overclock.

Haha, I am definitely the type that keeps my rig a long time, especially when I can't afford to upgrade. My closest Microcenter is 425 miles away (SoCal), BUT I'm traveling down to that area for work in March, so I'm hoping to squeeze in a visit for a 4670k combo deal.

Like I said before, I don't plan to overclock initially (likely keeping the rig long term), but having the potential to overclock in the future to squeeze a little more performance when the PC starts feeling slow and extend the useful life is an option I'd like to have. So for immediate purposes my main comparison is stock performance between the 4670k and the 8320/8350. I thought I remembered the 4670k beats the AMD CPUs with both at stock settings in most performance metrics?

Of course, if they are neck and neck in performance and prices stay the same then $100 vs. $200 is a pretty easy argument, but then I'd have to compare chipset advantages/disadvantages and figure out which motherboard option will suit me. Of course, that is a completely different topic and I don't want to further derail the "Best Gaming CPUs for the Money" thread.

Also, why would someone put a Xeon in a gaming PC? Don't they have higher thread counts, but lower clocks and per thread/clock performance?

 

[sfcampbell]

Shame on you Tom's Hardware. This article is called "Best Gaming CPUs For The Money," not "Best CPUs To Marry Up With Discrete GPUs For Enthusiast Gaming Rigs."Saying "[Kaveri APUs] don't offer much additional value"... "assuming you want discrete graphics" is a shallow perspective of a niche market contradictory to this article's title.With as many stream processors as an HD 7750 (and higher clock speed) Kaveri APUs are the first processors in history capable of providing a broad variety of games over 30fps at 1080p without dedicated graphics. While you might argue that detail settings may need to be reduced for APU gaming compared to a GPU, the truth is that no Intel CPU can dip a toe in gaming waters without dedicated graphics to carry the load.If you indeed have any appreciation for "Best Gaming CPUs" Kaveri APUs deserve no less than an honorable mention, rather than being flippantly scoffed at. Intel may still hold the edge on IPC [for what it's worth] but advances in APU technology with Kaveri Architecture (HUMA/HSA, GCN, Mantle, on-die video encoding engine) overshadow meager advancements in Intel HD Graphics _fill_in_the_blank_.

 

[Sakkura]

The slight cost of the 1230v3 over, is offset by the lower cost needed for a motherboard. 4670k should be paired up with nothing less than a Z87 board. The 1230v3 can be easily used in any other x8x board depending on what you want. If you just want a basic setup, one GPU slot, and no raid, H81 is sufficient. 4 ram slots, don't care about raid, B85. Want raid and 4 ram slots, H87. There are pros to going Xeon. It depends on what a user is interested in.

You can just as well get a cheaper non-k 4670 and a B85 board.

 

[RedJaron]

You can just as well get a cheaper non-k 4670 and a B85 board.

Precisely.

As I said, I like the idea of the Xeon and if I were to make a new system today it would be heavily considered ( I don't usually OC my CPU because I don't think it adds much to my typical use scenarios. ) Look at the examples given here: home server, Handbrake transcoding, background processing while gaming. These aren't common situations for most "gaming first" systems out there.

Luka, Passmark is often ridiculed as a benchmark. The reason the Xeon beats the i5 is because of hyper-threading. If you're not running anything on your system that utilizes the extra threads, you won't see any of that improved performance.

Logain, that mboard argument isn't always applicable, at least to me. You can't get two PCIe 3.0 slots on anything but a Z87 board. Even though H87 supports x8/x8 PCIe splitting, I don't see any boards that actually offer it ( likely because mfrs want to force consumers into the pricier Z87 market. ) So if you want SLI or XFire, you need a Z87 board regardless if you're OCing. I also like forward facing SATA ports, eSATA, four RAM slots, and a healthy number of internal headers. Finding all that on anything less than an H87 is pretty much impossible.

Re: the Xeon heatsink, did that change at the V2 or V3? Last I knew Intel didn't include a heatsink with them ( https://communities.intel.com/thread/25341 )

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Shame on you Tom's Hardware. This article is called "Best Gaming CPUs For The Money," not "Best CPUs To Marry Up With Discrete GPUs For Enthusiast Gaming Rigs."Saying "[Kaveri APUs] don't offer much additional value"... "assuming you want discrete graphics" is a shallow perspective of a niche market contradictory to this article's title.With as many stream processors as an HD 7750 (and higher clock speed) Kaveri APUs are the first processors in history capable of providing a broad variety of games over 30fps at 1080p without dedicated graphics. While you might argue that detail settings may need to be reduced for APU gaming compared to a GPU, the truth is that no Intel CPU can dip a toe in gaming waters without dedicated graphics to carry the load.If you indeed have any appreciation for "Best Gaming CPUs" Kaveri APUs deserve no less than an honorable mention, rather than being flippantly scoffed at. Intel may still hold the edge on IPC [for what it's worth] but advances in APU technology with Kaveri Architecture (HUMA/HSA, GCN, Mantle, on-die video encoding engine) overshadow meager advancements in Intel HD Graphics _fill_in_the_blank_.

A CPU and dGPU is cheaper and faster than an APU. Enough said. This argument has been had before, many, many times.

Also, APUs are crippled by memory bandwidth, even if they have lots of stream processors and high clock speeds.

 

[logainofhades]

Also, why would someone put a Xeon in a gaming PC? Don't they have higher thread counts, but lower clocks and per thread/clock performance?

The E3 series Xeons, 1230+, are nothing more than i7's without IGP and have added ECC ram support but work in normal consumer boards and with normal desktop ram. The 1245 is the exception as it has IGP. They will all perform the same as an i7 of same clock speed and generation. The 1240 v3 is equal to a 4770. The 100mhz difference of the 1230 v3 means little in today's CPU's.

The slight cost of the 1230v3 over, is offset by the lower cost needed for a motherboard. 4670k should be paired up with nothing less than a Z87 board. The 1230v3 can be easily used in any other x8x board depending on what you want. If you just want a basic setup, one GPU slot, and no raid, H81 is sufficient. 4 ram slots, don't care about raid, B85. Want raid and 4 ram slots, H87. There are pros to going Xeon. It depends on what a user is interested in.

You can just as well get a cheaper non-k 4670 and a B85 board.

I would rather spend the extra $27 for the i7 performance vs buying a locked 4670. I do not care for the locked i5's in general. Only reason I have my i5 2400 is it was free. :lol:

 

[Someone Somewhere]

Other option is the i5-like Xeons. E.g. the 1220V3, IIRC.

 

[logainofhades]

Other option is the i5-like Xeons. E.g. the 1220V3, IIRC.

The 1220 v3 is a poor value of a CPU. 1220 v3 is equal to an i5 4440, but costs roughly $20 more. The 1225 costs more than a 4670k, but is equal to a 4570.