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

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]ingtar33[/nom]the problem is you don't build systems like this. If i just saved $100-$150 going with an FX6300 and a 970 chipset board over the comparable i5+lga1155 board, i'm going to spend the savings on a better GPU. So they won't have the same parts. In your comparison, all things being equal, with the same "other" parts it makes no sense to go with anything but an i5. I mean you just spent $100 more for a system that will run faster in every situation. But as i said, people don't build computers like this. This is a flawed comparison. People generally have a budget in mind and build the best system they can within that budget. So if I have a budget of $700 for my system and i can build an i5-3570k+HD 7770 system within it... or a FX 6300+HD7870, you would build the AMD system. Because whatever advantages the intel has in CPU power are wiped out AND MORE by the gpu differences. To the average user, the FX6300 would game MUCH better, much smoother and basically be the more impressive system in real life. The benchmark gaming tests would show a huge disparity between systems and their fps... with the FX system trouncing the i5... This is why you build a system with an FX6300 over an i5. Not because the FX6300 is a better CPU... it simply isn't. But because the performance difference is so negligable to the real world user, that you can take the $$ saved and throw it at a superior GPU and walk away with a better system overall, one which you can TELL is a superior system.Once budget stops being a concern, taking the AMD chip makes no sense... once budget gets high enough (around 1k) it stops making sense to go AMD. At about 1k, the extras you can stuff in the AMD system to make it play and work faster then the intel system (GPU/SSD) become easy to stuff into the intel system as well, so those advantages vanish, and going with anything other then intel makes less and less sense, unless you have some very unique system uses that play into some of AMD's small advantages.[/citation]

The point was an apples to apples comparison. Of course I wouldn't build systems like that, but they're the sort of thing that seemed to be what was asked for, so they're what I provided as requested. If we wanted to make a direct comparison, then these are the sorts of builds that would be necessary for it.

 

[Memnarchon]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Problem is that it's around 20% in most games. I did the math and looked at numerous reviews with dozens of gaming situations altogether today just to be sure. If we only judged by a few games such as Starcraft, then few if any non-LGA 1155 CPUs could touch even the top i3 and top Pentium LGA 1155 models.[/citation]

I chose these 3 games (Call of Duty: Black Ops II, Far Cry 3, Hitman: Absolution) cause they are some of the latest games.

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I could understand putting them a little farther away from each other since games that favor the i7 are getting more common, but I wouldn't put them more than another tier apart.Also, around 20% difference seems fairly normal considering how far away they are from each other in their tier. They might as well be in different tiers with how far they are from each other within their tier on the chart. Given that the move in the industry is to take them further apart over time, I could understand bringing the i7-900 series up to the next tier, but not far into it.[/citation]

I agree with you at here, though as I said 20% is high enough. My point is that according to these tiers i7-900 cpus should be a tier higher (at least...).

 

[Nintendo Maniac 64]

So uh, don't look at the Crysis 3 benchmarks cause it totally contradicts this article. In other words, it likes cores but not hyper-threading.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

phenom x4 still in there huh? If AMD cant out-do itself, how can it possibly ever beat Intel? This is just rediculous.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]phenom x4 still in there huh? If AMD cant out-do itself, how can it possibly ever beat Intel? This is just rediculous.[/citation]

Phenom x4 isn't in the recommended list. That's Phenom II x4 and furthermore, right after it is the still somewhat new FX-4300, so AMD obviously outdid their old parts.

 

[JonnyDough]

The best gaming CPU is as always, a used one. These things last forever if you treat them right.

 

[JonnyDough]

[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]phenom x4 still in there huh? If AMD cant out-do itself, how can it possibly ever beat Intel? This is just rediculous.[/citation]

I think you mean ridiculous.

 

[gamebrigada]

I think and extremely important aspect that we should start looking at is total system price vs processor price. I recently bought a pretty cheap system that is not bad for games for its price. I dropped in an A10 with a mobo, 120gig ssd, psu and 8 gigs of ram for a total of 400 bucks. that is a very respectable price considering it won't do bad at all in most games. I would like to see a comparison of total system price, because the AMD's provide a solution without a dedicated GPU, which definitely beats the intel solution. I'd like to see a comparison of price per dollar of the whole system, and then do a comparison of performance.

 

[de5_Roy]

I think and extremely important aspect that we should start looking at is total system price vs processor price. I recently bought a pretty cheap system that is not bad for games for its price. I dropped in an A10 with a mobo, 120gig ssd, psu and 8 gigs of ram for a total of 400 bucks. that is a very respectable price considering it won't do bad at all in most games. I would like to see a comparison of total system price, because the AMD's provide a solution without a dedicated GPU, which definitely beats the intel solution. I'd like to see a comparison of price per dollar of the whole system, and then do a comparison of performance.

here's a build vs build comparison (high end)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-core-i7-3770k-gaming-bottleneck,3407.html
here's another build vs build (upper-mid range)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-a-pc-overclocking-do-it-yourself,3366-15.html

 

[A Bad Day]

What about AMD's APUs? Will they ever get the chance to compete in the "Best Gaming CPUs for The Money"?

 

[Memnarchon]

[citation][nom]A Bad Day[/nom]What about AMD's APUs? Will they ever get the chance to compete in the "Best Gaming CPUs for The Money"?[/citation]
In order AMD's APU to be at a list like this, there should be a "CPU/GPU combo" best value for money chart.

 

[mousseng]

I don't think the 750k counts as an APU, though. Regardless, it'll be interesting to see if FM2 becomes a mainstream budget platform (for this demographic, at least).

 

[tanh]

Athlon x3 455 is better choice than x4 640. Is cheaper, have higher frequency and is unlockable to 4 cores.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]tanh[/nom]Athlon x3 455 is better choice than x4 640. Is cheaper, have higher frequency and is unlockable to 4 cores.[/citation]

Unlocks aren't guaranteed. In fact, more often than not, they don't work except for Semprons. Also, this isn't an enthusiast recommendation article, so a recommendation that relies on unlocking defies the point of this article.

 

[tanh]

Unlocks aren't guaranteed. In fact, more often than not, they don't work except for Semprons. Also, this isn't an enthusiast recommendation article, so a recommendation that relies on unlocking defies the point of this article.

50% Athlons x3 are unlockable to 4 cores.
Many older games uses only 2 cores (example first Crysis), so on x3 455 will be faster than x4 640.

 

[blazorthon]

50% Athlons x3 are unlockable to 4 cores.
Many older games uses only 2 cores (example first Crysis), so on x3 455 will be faster than x4 640.

Most modern games do not use just two cores effectively anymore. Crysis is a good example, but it's also hardly modern being from what, 2009 IIRC?

To use unlocking in your example when the unlock rate, as you say, is only around 50% for those models seems misleading since you didn't say the rate before.

 

[SuperVeloce]

first Crysis is from 2007. It was one of the first games with two demanding threads, enough to work better on basically any dual core on the market at the time.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]SuperVeloce[/nom]first Crysis is from 2007. It was one of the first games with two demanding threads, enough to work better on basically any dual core on the market at the time.[/citation]

Even more exactly, thank you We can't accurately call a game from 2007 modern anymore.

 

[army_ant7]

I'm with blaz on that it's too risky to purchase an Athlon II X3 and expect that it's locked core works perfectly. Aside from that, looking at this graph from Gaming Shoot-Out : 18 CPUs And APUs Under $200, Benchmarked you can see how the Athlon II X3 450 compared on average to the dual-core Pentium G860 for the games and settings they benchmarked with.

If you're gonna argue that some games still only use up to 2 main threads, then might as well get a similar Pentium which has better performance per core as I know; but if you want the flexibility of being able to play better threaded games (or just be able to handle more threads better generally) as well, go for something like the Athlon (or better yet Phenom) II X4, or a 2nd/3rd Gen Core i3 or better.

 

[Intel_shills_uncovered]

Believe it or not, I don't really trust tom's benchmarks as much anymore, Tek syndicate, is showing the 8350 outperforming the i53570k and just under a 3770k.

 

[TheBigTroll]

Believe it or not, I don't really trust tom's benchmarks as much anymore, Tek syndicate, is showing the 8350 outperforming the i53570k and just under a 3770k.

why not take a look at every other review on the net

 

[Intel_shills_uncovered]

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked
Unlike Tom's, Tek syndicate are not sponsored by any thing so they are unbiased, Do you really think a website sponsoring Intel is going to show results prove the 8350 outperform the i53570k?

 

[TheBigTroll]

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked
Unlike Tom's, Tek syndicate are not sponsored by any thing so they are unbiased, Do you really think a website sponsoring Intel is going to show results prove the 8350 outperform the i53570k?

well you think every other reviewer online are all sponsored by intel?

 

[mousseng]

http://teksyndicate.com/videos/crysis-3-benchmarks-amd-fx-8350-vs-intel-i7-3770k-both-overclocked
Unlike Tom's, Tek syndicate are not sponsored by any thing so they are unbiased, Do you really think a website sponsoring Intel is going to show results prove the 8350 outperform the i53570k?

You linked a benchmark of two CPUs on two games (both of which use very similar engines), claiming them to be more trustworthy than Tom's Hardware, who tests an extensive amount of games for an extensive amount of CPUs.

Look: Intel, for the most part, makes better gaming CPUs than AMD. That's it. I know a lot of folks don't want to believe that and want to grasp at every bit of data that supports AMD, but face it - AMD's not top dog right now, and they haven't been for a while. Virtually every reviewer out there supports this, as thebigtroll pointed out.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]intel_shills_uncovered[/nom]Believe it or not, I don't really trust tom's benchmarks as much anymore, Tek syndicate, is showing the 8350 outperforming the i53570k and just under a 3770k.[/citation]

I actually performed the tests and results are as reported. I've tested FX vs Sandy and Ivy bridge since they were introduced. I have never seen the 8350 outperform the i5-3570K in games.

[EDIT: I should mention that our own Crysis 3 performance article is coming out in the near future and, indeed, it's one of the very few games where the FX-8350 produces similar average frame rates compared to the i5-3570K.

**HOWEVER**, the minimum frame rates are very different (something Tek Syndicate doesn't publish), with Intel having a significant lead while the FX gets pulled down to stuttering. Furthermore, this is one of the only games I've ever seen where the Core i7 has a significant advantage over the Core i5. Crysis 3 is not your typical game, and I don't expect other titles to reflect this state of affairs on average for a few years, if ever.

As for Far Cry 3, our own bench results showed that the FX-8350 performed very close to the i5-3550, which has virtually the same clocks as the 3570K at stock.

To summarize, Tek Syndicate has used the two games most favorable to the FX series in this particular article. The irony is, their results don't stray far from our own in those two games, which are statistical outliers. The difference is, we tested more games than they did, they were only looking at Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3.

After performing even cursory fact checking, your suggestion of impropriety appears even more ludicrous. /EDIT]