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

[logainofhades]

Yea, forgot to mention die shrink in my comment as well. Don't see why HSA wouldn't work. It is just making the CPU and GPU work together right? The first APU's were K10 based after all.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

They didn't have HSA; Kaveri is the first with it.

IIRC it involves having them share lots of resources, including things like memory addressing.

 

[logainofhades]

Which would have been in the memory controller. Phenom II with a die shrink, updated controller, and improved clocks, would be superior to faildozer/piledriver/ and possibly even steamroller.

 

[damric]

...apples to apples...

I always tune everything to the max, then I just compare the data in my HWBOT profile over the years

Logain, why do you make silly comments like a C2Q could be faster than an Athlon 760K? Are you talking about at stock? I'm sure at typical max overclocks the 760K would beat the C2Q in just about everything, but let me go look at some HWBOT data to verify that.

 

[logainofhades]

Nope, at 4.3ghz a 750k/760k cannot even beat a Q9550 at 3.7ghz and barely beats it at 3.4ghz, in games. Clock for clock Trinity and Richland are slower than Phenom II x4 or Core 2 Quad.

 

[damric]

Well this is an interesting comparison after I looked up some old overclocker data. The old expensive C2Q does very slightly beat the Athlon 760K when the C2Q is at 4.0GHz and the Athlon 760K is at 4.7GHz (it's very close like 1/2 FPS). The interesting part is that the C2Q gets totally whipped at stock due to the low stock clocks (C2Q is low 2GHz to low 3GHz) versus the 760K at stock, simply because 760K turbos up to 4GHz at stock settings. I won't even bother to bring up how much a high clocked C2Q cost upon debut

Now the benchmark above is funny also since they gave the C2Q 9550 a 700MHZ (23%) OC but if you gave the 760K the same % OC it would be 4.9GHz (very doable) and still beat the C2Q. Just look at the FX-4350 in the chart at 4.7GHz for comparison (very similar).

If clock for clock is your motto, then overclock for overclock is mine.

I think I will mention dollar for dollar too $530 vs $90 MSRP.

 

[vertexx]

Nope, at 4.3ghz a 750k/760k cannot even beat a Q9550 at 3.7ghz and barely beats it at 3.4ghz, in games. Clock for clock Trinity and Richland are slower than Phenom II x4 or Core 2 Quad.

I think the one of the main points in this discussion going back several pages is that none of the 750k/760k reviews have shown the benchmarks using 2400 memory.

Damric shows here (http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/comparisons-of-cpu-gpu-ram-overclocks-and-comparing-bottlenecks-fm2-cpu.196940/) that going from 1600 to 2400 provides an 18% increase in FPS for one game. The Tomshardware review that we all keep referencing is only using 1866 memory with a 2000MHz CPU-NB frequency.

So it seems likely that the 760k scales higher than that article shows - question is how much and for how many games.

 

[vertexx]

I think I will mention dollar for dollar too $530 vs $90 MSRP.

Well, a little less now, but still good point.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Core-2-Quad-Processor-Q9550-2-83GHz-1333MHz-12-MB-LGA775-EM64T-CPU-BX80569-/301170061507?pt=CPUs&hash=item461f2270c3

 

[Sakkura]

Well this is an interesting comparison after I looked up some old overclocker data. The old expensive C2Q does very slightly beat the Athlon 760K when the C2Q is at 4.0GHz and the Athlon 760K is at 4.7GHz (it's very close like 1/2 FPS). The interesting part is that the C2Q gets totally whipped at stock due to the low stock clocks (C2Q is low 2GHz to low 3GHz) versus the 760K at stock, simply because 760K turbos up to 4GHz at stock settings. I won't even bother to bring up how much a high clocked C2Q cost upon debut

Now the benchmark above is funny also since they gave the C2Q 9550 a 700MHZ (23%) OC but if you gave the 760K the same % OC it would be 4.9GHz (very doable) and still beat the C2Q. Just look at the FX-4350 in the chart at 4.7GHz for comparison (very similar).

If clock for clock is your motto, then overclock for overclock is mine.

I think I will mention dollar for dollar too $530 vs $90 MSRP.

The C2Q would probably be a better overclocker though, on average.

As for the price gap, well that's only natural since the C2Q is several years old. This level of performance was awesome back then, today it's mediocre.

 

[logainofhades]

Mediocre like the 750k. Also, FX 4350 @ 4.2ghz (stock) is still faster than a 750k at 4.3. The 4.0 Phenom II x4 beats it as well. The 750k can't beat hardware from several years ago, that is kinda sad. Phenom II X4 965's were selling for around the $100 mark before they were discontinued and were a far better buy than a 750k is today. At least then you could use an AM3+ board and have an upgrade path to FX 8320. Kaveri was a letdown.

 

[damric]

As for the price gap, well that's only natural since the C2Q is several years old. This level of performance was awesome back then, today it's mediocre.

That's why it's stupid to compare new products to discontinued products.

So when we only look at products that are not discontinued, the fact of the matter is that the 750K/760K at $80/90 is quite an awesome deal, especially for overclockers. There absolutely nothing that intel has at that price point to compare with in performance. There hasn't been a performance/price deal this good since the Phenom II 960T, and before that the Phenom II 550 BE, and overclockable nehelem era i3s.

From looking at my benchmark scores, you would have to look at the reciept to believe that I only spent $310 total on that hardware (CPU+MOBO+RAM+GPU).

 

[vertexx]

From looking at my benchmark scores, you would have to look at the reciept to believe that I only spent $310 total on that hardware (CPU+MOBO+RAM+GPU).

+Cooler..... it makes a difference, especially since you can run the i3 no problem with the stock cooler. But I'm with you, for overclocking, the 760k is still the best entry level value.

I'm actually considering getting one just for the heck of it. I have no real need right now, but I am waiting for the A8-7600 to build a super small ITX HTPC/light gamer for my master bedroom TV. Since the A8 is now delayed, I may just pick up the rest of the components and a 760k, just to play with it in my office gaming PC (now running the Phenom II with R9 280X).

On the other hand, the upcoming unlocked Pentium G anniversary edition CPU has also piqued my interest.

 

[damric]

From looking at my benchmark scores, you would have to look at the reciept to believe that I only spent $310 total on that hardware (CPU+MOBO+RAM+GPU).

+Cooler..... it makes a difference, especially since you can run the i3 no problem with the stock cooler. But I'm with you, for overclocking, the 760k is still the best entry level value.

I'm actually considering getting one just for the heck of it. I have no real need right now, but I am waiting for the A8-7600 to build a super small ITX HTPC/light gamer for my master bedroom TV. Since the A8 is now delayed, I may just pick up the rest of the components and a 760k, just to play with it in my office gaming PC (now running the Phenom II with R9 280X).

On the other hand, the upcoming unlocked Pentium G anniversary edition CPU has also piqued my interest.

What? Do tell me about this unlocked Pentium G please. FFS I never thought intel would offer anything low end unlocked again.

 

[Sakkura]

What? Do tell me about this unlocked Pentium G please. FFS I never thought intel would offer anything low end unlocked again.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-haswell-e-devils-canyon-pentium-anniversary-edition-broadwell,26326.html

 

[damric]

Yeah I just read that. It's pretty cool. I knew about the Devil's Canyon refresh but I missed the news about the unlocked Pentium. That could kill a lot of the low end (like the Athlon 750K) except in more threaded stuff. It's a good thing the new consols have AVX to take advantage of the integer cores Now if they would just unlock an i3...

 

[de5_Roy]

+Cooler..... it makes a difference, especially since you can run the i3 no problem with the stock cooler. But I'm with you, for overclocking, the 760k is still the best entry level value.

i've been following this, and i'm also interested in hearing about cooling (case, fans, heatsink et al) and power supply.

I'm actually considering getting one just for the heck of it. I have no real need right now, but I am waiting for the A8-7600 to build a super small ITX HTPC/light gamer for my master bedroom TV.

rumor is, amd has delayed the 7600 till H2 2014, no specifcs given afaik.
edit: btw, H2 could mean anything from june 1 onwards. but they didn't say q3 either, so... have your fingers crossed.

 

[vertexx]

rumor is, amd has delayed the 7600 till H2 2014, no specifcs given afaik.
edit: btw, H2 could mean anything from june 1 onwards. but they didn't say q3 either, so... have your fingers crossed.

Yeah - I've been following that. "2nd half" means probably not Q3. It's really too bad - that CPU was the only Kaveri CPU I was excited about. I've had this case sitting empty in my office for over a year now:

The Kaveri A8 running in 45W mode would turn this into the perfect HTPC/Linux Steam Gamer that I want for my master bedroom. By "Gamer", I mean very light - we're big fans of the Steam Linux initiative - KSP, FTL, Don't Starve, Garry's Mod, etc, and my kids are just crazy Minecraft fanatics, which also runs well on Linux.

 

[logainofhades]

FX 6300 can hit 4.0ghz in any 125w capable motherboard, and would easily beat a 750k/760k. Even the cheap Gigabyte GA-78LMT-USB3 can handle that, which I know for a fact. My FX 8320's, due to budget constraints and the fact that they were just for spare rigs on the cheap, have that board. Microcenter FTW! One has been @ 4.0ghz since day one and have had 0 issues with it. It sees quite a bit of use being used as a WoW rig. The other one is stock till I get a better case and cooler for it. I might sell that one to a friend. I won't have a need for it if I build my 1230v3 mini-itx rig.

 

[damric]

What makes you certain an overclocked 4GHz FX 6300 would beat a "Stock 4GHz" 760K? What if the game is poorly threaded like most are?

To be honest I already know the answer because my friends and I have run many benches in this scenario.

 

[logainofhades]

Because an FX 6300 has better performance, even in poorly threaded titles since it still has its L3 cache. The lack of L3 cache affects performance of Trinity/Richland vs FX much like it did with AM3 Athlon II vs Phenom II. Here is a benchmark result of a poorly threaded title. The 3.9ghz FX 6350 is about even with a 4.3ghz 750k. With both at 4.0ghz, the FX would win, even in poorly threaded titles, due to L3 cache.

In another poorly threaded title, the FX wins

 

[vertexx]

Because an FX 6300 has better performance, even in poorly threaded titles since it still has its L3 cache. The lack of L3 cache affects performance of Trinity/Richland vs FX much like it did with AM3 Athlon II vs Phenom II. Here is a benchmark result of a poorly threaded title. The 3.9ghz FX 6350 is about even with a 4.3ghz 750k. With both at 4.0ghz, the FX would win, even in poorly threaded titles, due to L3 cache.

Again, Damric's point, going back several pages in this discussion, is that this Tomshardware test was using 1866 memory, when the 760k supports 2400. Conventional wisdom has it that memory above 1600 has diminishing returns for most gaming CPUs. However, for the exact fact that the 760K does NOT have L3 cache means that memory scaling does in fact matter.

A few pages up, there are links to a post that shows up to 18% FPS gain just by taking the 760k from 1600 to 2400. Since the TH review is running 1866, that means that the 760K running at 2400 would be up to 12% faster than the FPS numbers in this article (for the CPU-limited titles of course). So for your examples, that would put the 760K@4.3Ghz StarCraft II numbers in the vicinity of 35 FPS and Skyrim in the vicinity of 87 FPS.

Plus, based on posts I've seen since following this discussion, it's entirely reasonable to expect 4.5-4.7GHz out of the 760K with a decent $30 aftermarket cooler, which would put it slightly ahead of the FX CPUs.

Bottom line is I think Damric has brought up some really good supporting evidence that should at least question the conventional wisdom around the FX vs. Athlon in the budget gaming space.

Would love to see a properly staged "budget shootout" - perhaps when the unlocked Pentium G hits the scene that'll prompt some increased attention in the budget space.

 

[damric]

I look at it like this. When reccomending a budget CPU, go with the 750K/760K. But if you need the extra threading performance I would jump all the way up to the FX-8320. If you need really fast single threaded then go intel. Afraid of overclocking, go intel pentium/i3 or low i5. If price isn't a concern at all then also intel. That anniversary unlocked pentium could throw a pretty good monkey wrench into that formula though.

 

[icraft]

You guys really need to update the tiered chart. The 4770 should not be on the same tier as the 2600. The i7 870 isn't 2nd tier anymore. (Sadly) The way it is set up now doesn't show much difference between 4-5 years of Intel chips.

 

[Onus]

I agree, it is too compressed. Some of the Intel CPUs on Tier-1 need to be moved into a still-higher tier, further distancing themselves from AMD.

 

[RedJaron]

Logain, go back to that review and specifically compare the OC'd 750K bar to the stock 4350. At those states, the 750K is running only 100 MHz faster. Go through the review and look at those bars and you'll see the 750K is nearly identical to the 4350 in most benchmarks. It loses a little bit in the compression suite and a few of the games at low-res, but at hi-res it's just as good as the 4350 even in Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3. That's pretty impressive for such a cheap chip.

The explanation is that the L3 on the FX is very slow so it really doesn't help out as much as Intel's implementation. Meanwhile the L2 and memory controller are much improved so accessing the RAM is almost as fast as the L3. If you were to run faster RAM in these tests, I think you'll see the differences shrink even more.