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

[caamsa]

5350 VS i73960x with a 750Ti 1920x1080 Not too shabby!

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/General-Tech/AMD-AM1-Platform-and-Athlon-5350-GTX-750-Ti-1080p-under-450

 

[RedJaron]

Certainly you have a few 20" - 26" HDTVs laying around the house? 😉

 

[logainofhades]

Certainly you have a few 20" - 26" HDTVs laying around the house? 😉

No HDTV's in my house at all. 🙁

 

[Sakkura]

5350 VS i73960x with a 750Ti 1920x1080 Not too shabby!

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/General-Tech/AMD-AM1-Platform-and-Athlon-5350-GTX-750-Ti-1080p-under-450

Less than 40 FPS in all but one game - Bioshock Infinite, a game based on a decade-old engine. And fully half the games sit below 30 FPS average, which IMO is not acceptable performance anyway.

And of course, no info on the settings used.

 

[RedJaron]

No HDTV's in my house at all. 🙁

No monitors with HDMI inputs?

 

[Onus]

From the article, I believe they were using "High" settings, but you're right, we don't know about AA, or other specific settings that might make a difference. Still, it's hard to say why it was slower where it was, since there were some games where it provided FPS as high as the i7 did. I'd like to see other graphics cards tested, in the hopes of finding out if the x4 lanes was a big part of the difference, or if most of it comes down to the CPU.
As a daily-driver that is capable of light-moderate gaming though, it looks like a frugal power-sipper that in the long run would make a nice little machine. I've decided I really need to build one, and plan to do some casual testing with it.

 

[logainofhades]

No HDTV's in my house at all. 🙁

No monitors with HDMI inputs?

None.

 

[redgarl]

Question for Toms... these results seem accurate for 1080p and 1440p... but what about 4k? Is a core i5 4670k still matching a core i7 4770k at 4k?

 

[Onus]

I would think so, in fact increasing resolution shifts the burden more onto the graphics card. Altering your resolution can be a way to test for where any bottleneck may be. If FPS climbs when resolution decreases, the bottleneck is more likely to be on the graphics card.

 

[GreiverBlade]

interesting ... since the Athlon X4 750K isn't supposed to be a Black edition (aka unlocked) the K means nothing for AMD, but the X4 760K Black Edition is a unlocked CPU ok it cost a bit more, still it's a Richland architecture (over Trinity for the 750K ) i know the improvement are not heavy but you get a unlocked cpu

well most of the site i know say the 760K is a "rumored" CPU but my retailer have them in stock (or all the etailer i know also) and at a price not that much higher than the 750K
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/880/AMD_Athlon_X4_750K_vs_AMD_Athlon_X4_760K.html

now some site say the 750K is unlocked but no official reference describe it as a "Black Edition" like the 760K but then the 750K might be easier to find than the 760K

 

[Someone Somewhere]

The 760K definitely exists, and has been available for months...

 

[logainofhades]

The 760K definitely exists, and has been available for months...

Yup

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/amd-cpu-ad760kwohlbox

 

[maddogfargo]

i3 > 8350 for gaming? Just wow. Tom's Hardware is so paid. There is absolutely no way in hell that this chart is even close to being acurate. Just look at every single comparison from any other sight (specifically tek syndicates review on amd vs. intel). The more accurate description would be 8350 = Haswell i7k. Why can't review sights just be honest and unbiased? I guess when Intel pays you, you would say anything too, I guess. i3 > 8350 is just disgusting, blatant bias.

If you take all those games that only use one or two threads (skyrim, starcraft II, WoW, Diablo III, blizzard in general) and look at the results the I3 is ahead because of its superior single thread performance. If you have enough of those types of games, or if those games are weighted heavily enough in the bench totals, then yes. You will definitely see the I3 being ahead of the 8350 for the most part (honestly I believe all of those games should be stripped from the benchies, but thats me, they're still massively popular games). When it comes to anything at all even remotely multithreaded though, the 8350 trounces the I3. Especially if you're gaming and streaming/browsing/have a VM or 3 up/have tons of apps up/etc. Personally when im recommending hardware i try not to recommend I3's, they're chips that work pretty ok now but they will age badly, and you'll probably be wanting another chip in 18 to 24 months. If you're the type of person that upgrades that often, or are the type of person that upgrades the CPU only, then its no problem. But if you want a stable gaming build to last more than 2 years, they're a no go (honestly in my opinion the FX 4000 series and 4 core APU's are a no go as well, but they should live a little longer than the I3). In that case I'd at the very least recommend an FX 6300, I5, or better. Anyway back to the original comment, I can see why they place them above the 8350, but in the future, you'll be wishing you'd have gone with a better processor. Also quit with the whole paid off by Intel bit, it makes you sound fan boy and trollish...

This. This illustrates very well the danger of basing purchasing decisions on a single data point, out of context. Someone who enjoys older and/or single-threaded games, relying on TekSyndicate (by my understanding an AMD fanboy site, if not an outright shill) to buy an FX, will be disappointed because for those titles, the i3 is better. OTOH, someone relying solely on a site claiming the i3 beats the FX, but planning to play only the latest and greatest as they appear, will also have good cause to be very angry. Anyone can cherry-pick benchmarks to "prove" what they want; you need to select the ones most relevant to you before you buy.

All the Tek Syndicate reviewers use Intel. This is clearly stated in their reviews of the AMD CPUs. So, definitely not a fanboy site.


But most importantly, you've hit on the single biggest key point that fanboys in both camps conveniently gloss over:

Intel and AMD have their strengths and weaknesses. You CANNOT assume one size fits all scenarios. You have GOT to know and unserstand what those strengths and weaknesses are and how they apply to the apps and games you want to use.


This is a limitation of Tom's current methodology for recommending the 'best gaming CPUs'. They really should update their old game benchmark titles to include measures for the more current trend of having 4-8 core usage in gaming.

 

[Sakkura]

This is a limitation of Tom's current methodology for recommending the 'best gaming CPUs'. They really should update their old game benchmark titles to include measures for the more current trend of having 4-8 core usage in gaming.

Yeah, like include the brand-new Elder Scrolls Online. Great example of how multithreaded new games are, look at how the FX-8350 trounces Intel...

 

[logainofhades]

Elder Scrolls Online, at is base, uses the same graphics engine as Skyrim, iirc. Skyrim is not a multithreaded title by any means, in the sense most are talking. Skyrim only uses 2 threads.

 

[Sakkura]

Elder Scrolls Online, at is base, uses the same graphics engine as Skyrim, iirc. Skyrim is not a multithreaded title by any means, in the sense most are talking. Skyrim only uses 2 threads.

Nope, it's a completely different engine. They initially used the HeroEngine (used in SWTOR) for testing and development purposes, but the game is actually based on its own custom engine.

 

[ingtar33]

This is a limitation of Tom's current methodology for recommending the 'best gaming CPUs'. They really should update their old game benchmark titles to include measures for the more current trend of having 4-8 core usage in gaming.

Yeah, like include the brand-new Elder Scrolls Online. Great example of how multithreaded new games are, look at how the FX-8350 trounces Intel...

ESO is not multithreaded (well it uses 2 threads... so i guess that's sorta multithreaded), and is heavily intel favored.

Very few online games are multithreaded... in any way whatsoever... if you're an MMO player your best experience will be with Intel.

 

[Onus]

Hmmm, so no one noticed the dripping sarcasm?

 

[damric]

Often I find myself recommending intel chips to others (it's the logical choice), yet for myself I always tend to have AMD (more fun to OC).

 

[Onus]

Damric, that's a good point. I sometimes make that distinction too; those wishing to play on their PCs should get Intel, but those preferring to play with them should get AMD.

 

[harly2]

This is a limitation of Tom's current methodology for recommending the 'best gaming CPUs'. They really should update their old game benchmark titles to include measures for the more current trend of having 4-8 core usage in gaming.

Yeah, like include the brand-new Elder Scrolls Online. Great example of how multithreaded new games are, look at how the FX-8350 trounces Intel...

Pick and choose, clearly multi-core software/games development is the TREND, does not mean all games are that way today

 

[Sakkura]

ESO is not multithreaded (well it uses 2 threads... so i guess that's sorta multithreaded), and is heavily intel favored.

Very few online games are multithreaded... in any way whatsoever... if you're an MMO player your best experience will be with Intel.

Yes, I know. I was being sarcastic, showing how immensely multithreaded this new game is... not.

MMOs often aren't all that threaded. Unfortunately, MMOs are often among the more CPU-dependent games around. And it does sort of blow a hole in the "new games are multithreaded" thing. Sure, there's progress towards more games being multithreaded... but it's pretty slow.

 

[vertexx]

Does anyone have any word on whether there will be an i5 "Devil's Canyon" CPU? The only thing I've seen that's been named is the i7-4790K.

 

[maddogfargo]

Sakkura...just to be clear, I never suggested the FX 8350 was faster than a comparable Intel part in ESO. I would definitely recommend against AMD for this particular game. Intel would clearly be a much better choice.


It's all good though. This is still another great example that backs my original point:

You have got to know your software/games and which CPU will perform best for your usage scenario. If you don't inform yourself, you're likely to choose poorly.

 

[damric]

ESO is not multithreaded (well it uses 2 threads... so i guess that's sorta multithreaded), and is heavily intel favored.

Very few online games are multithreaded... in any way whatsoever... if you're an MMO player your best experience will be with Intel.

Yes, I know. I was being sarcastic, showing how immensely multithreaded this new game is... not.

MMOs often aren't all that threaded. Unfortunately, MMOs are often among the more CPU-dependent games around. And it does sort of blow a hole in the "new games are multithreaded" thing. Sure, there's progress towards more games being multithreaded... but it's pretty slow.

Unfortunately MMOs are the games that NEED multithreading the most. It makes me wonder what the devs are thinking when they release new games like ESO and it can't even be run at 60FPS on the latest hardware.

My wife is addicted to WoW style games and they all run like crap even though her machine is pretty high end.