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

[xaephod]

Surprised the 5820 wasn't listed. I thought it was the bargain Haswell-E. Is there really no advantage unless you run mutiple GPU? Am I just better off getting the Core i5-4430 for $180? I want max FPS, will I see a significant boost with Haswell-E?

 

[jkhoward]

"What do end up with? Four hundred dollars and change left over, and an Intel Core i7-3530K. "

Spelling error!

 

[Tzn]

G1620 still rocks my world, i will upgrade only when Intel passes at 14nm.

 

[numanator]

I would love to see some tests done with the Xeon E3 v3 processors for gaming (at least the 1230+ models). They seem like great no-OC CPUs in the $250-$300 range for people looking to get the benefits of a hyperthreaded 4 core CPU.

 

[RedJaron]

Until I see the stuttering issue thoroughly addressed, I won't even consider the G3258 for a gamer. Maybe it's fine, but if it isn't, a lot of buyers will be severely irritated if they buy one. Tests please! And, this is one where balance matters. I know you typically isolate CPU performance by using a top-end graphics card, but in this case that may be little more than giving this chip the rope by which to hang itself. G3258+R7 260X may be more enjoyable than G3258+R9 290 (even if settings must be lowered), and AMD+nVidia differences may matter too, like R7 260X vs. GTX750Ti.

You, I, and others have been asking for this for a while. Sadly we've also been asking for a proper comparison between the 750K and 760K with its improved memory controller. Neither have happened yet. *sigh* Hopefully someday our ( article ) prints will come.

1) With a $70 overclockable Pentium and a $100 FX-6300the i3's should never be recommended. Both of these chips will outperform and i3 for less money (Especially the notably more powerful FX-6300). Stop phoning it in and pay attention to your article.

That depends on the game. In MMOs and other poorly-threaded titles, the i3 is the better choice (reserving judgement on the Pentium until stuttering tests are done). Overclocking a FX-6300 to match it may be possible, but will require a more expensive mobo, non-stock cooling, and a lot more power.

Yep, and the i3 is still the best low-budget gaming chip for people who want to build but aren't comfortable tweaking their system. Just want to plug it in and start it up with no fuss? At stock clocks, Intel is the way to go.

I would love to see some tests done with the Xeon E3 v3 processors for gaming (at least the 1230+ models). They seem like great no-OC CPUs in the $250-$300 range for people looking to get the benefits of a hyperthreaded 4 core CPU.

The E3-1230 will perform just below a stock clocked i7 so tests really don't need to be done. And you're right, they are excellent chips for people that game and also run heavily threaded apps on the side. But how big is that market really? For that reason I don't think the Xeon deserves a full-on best-of award right now, but it probably deserves an honorable mention. The 1230 is also about the only E3 that deserves mention. The 1220 is just a more expensive 4440 with no IGP, a slightly higher turbo, and 2MB more L3. None of that matters much in gaming. The 1240 is $30 over the 1230 for a 100MHz speed bump, and above that is pricier than a 4790K.

 

[rust22]

The 5930k is a really price agnostic recommendation considering you could get the 5820k for close to 200$ cheaper and only lose 12 pcie lanes which only start to become a factor once you get to 3-way sli/crossfire+ because even if you sli 2 cards they'll run at 16x 8x(which at least with current cards doesn't impact performance) and you still have 4 pcie lanes left to get like a pcie ssd.

 

[darco]

why are you still recomending the i3 4130 when at the same price tag comes i3 4160 with +200mhz clocks?

 

[Onus]

I'd cut Don a little slack on pricing and availability. This article probably had a two-week lead time, but prices and availability can change on a daily basis.

 

[Thaibog]

still gaming with my i5 2500k @ 4.2 ghz ...... i dont think its worth upgrading?

 

[prudovik]

Intel Core i5-4690K and Intel Core i7-4790K with TDP 84 W
Intel Core i7-5930K Memory Support : DDR3-1066/1333/1600
REALLY? LOL

 

[I Hate Nvidia]

please note and correct: the i7 5930k utilize DDR4 not3 as mentioned in the datasheet.

 

[I Hate Nvidia]

Oh, also please note that 5930k uses LGA 2100 not 2011 as mentioned in your tech.specs.

 

[prudovik]

5930k uses LGA 2011-3

 

[Morrowing]

Best deals power/$ in Microcenter (+tax): 1) FX 6300 6 cores/6 threads - $90 ($99 with Mb). 2) Intel Core i7-5820k 6 cores/12 threads - $300 ($499 with Mb). Also 4690k/4790k not bad. But i3-4130, i5-4430 are junk.

 

[mapesdhs]

The i7 4820K is missing from the summary table (should be in the top tier),
which is a shame given that it does have 40 PCIe lanes.

Ian.

 

[UltimateDeep]

The i7 4820K is missing from the summary table (should be in the top tier),
which is a shame given that it does have 40 PCIe lanes.

Ian.

Not just that, the Non-K 4790, the 4770R,
And also maybe about time to introduce the Mobile Processors to the list too?

 

[evtehbaus28]

I was waiting for this article to come out

 

[Huba79]

The price ranges have been picked so Intel processors would have come as best price/performance chips. If i am curious to see the best p/p ratio for, say $100-150 or 160-220$ intervals, i can find other processor better worth to buy, with more AMD processors among them. The message of this article is loud: Buy Intel, not the best bang for your bucks! Just my 2 cents worth opinion

 

[Speedracerkb1978]

While I can respect the recommendations this post really should be broken out into two camps the AMD camp and the Intel camp. I've already got and existing AMD set so 99.999% of the recommendations are Intel so reality of it is that the $70 processor now becomes $110 since Id need a new mobo and the prices just go nuts from their since

 

[de5_Roy]

While I can respect the recommendations this post really should be broken out into two camps the AMD camp and the Intel camp. I've already got and existing AMD set so 99.999% of the recommendations are Intel so reality of it is that the $70 processor now becomes $110 since Id need a new mobo and the prices just go nuts from their since

since the article is about "best...for money", we need to consider both brands. best gaming intel cpu for money doesn't make sense if amd offers a better option at the same price point and vice versa. same with gfx cards. besides, situation specific recommendations are always mentioned so there's no need for brand-specific recommendations.

 

[Onus]

One difficult factor to address is the effect of overclocking. This article is presumably based on stock performance. Limited to stock, recommendations will be a lot different than once overclocking is considered; IMHO there's no way Don hasn't applied some level of pro-overclocking bias in his recommendations (which is not a ding; any rational builder would do the same). The Pentium G3258 is a great example; I wouldn't want that "thing" stock, but it might be great [in poorly-threaded titles] once it is overclocked.

 

[Red_Sun]

AMD needs to do better than this to pry my phenom 980 out of my cold, dead hands. Also, where are the price cuts? I noticed the 8350 was still listed on the egg at $179 last week, only to drop another mere $10 this week. C'mon now.

 

[mapesdhs]

One difficult factor to address is the effect of overclocking. This article is presumably based on stock performance. ...

This is why I've said so many times that, for those on a tight budget, a used 2700K offers so much value.
I've obtained five so far, every one of them handles 5GHz with ease; doesn't cost that much, Z68 boards
are cheap (bought a new ASUS M4EZ for 60), no need for a fancy cooler (old TRUE with two typical fans
is fine), excellent performance. Ideal stepping stone to something higher up the scale in the future after
one can save up for a while.

I guess the problem with charts is there really isn't any consistent way one could factor in oc potential
into the rankings. So many factors involved. All one can do is read reviews, check benchmarks, etc.,
to see how the kind of games one likes to play are affected by CPU power, based on one's desired
detail settings, resolution, single vs. multiple GPU, etc.

Ian.

 

[RedJaron]

The price ranges have been picked so Intel processors would have come as best price/performance chips. If i am curious to see the best p/p ratio for, say $100-150 or 160-220$ intervals, i can find other processor better worth to buy, with more AMD processors among them. The message of this article is loud: Buy Intel, not the best bang for your bucks! Just my 2 cents worth opinion

Ok, let's examine that. Really the only CPUs not on this list right now are the low Athlons and FX 8320, so that must be what you're sore about. Now yes, the 750K and 760K deserve mention at the low budget end simply because you still get four threads whereas the G3258 is limited to two ( and there is some suspicion that leads to stuttering. )

Compared to the i3, the 8320 gets you four more threads and an unlocked chip for $30 more. But those extra threads don't help much in most gaming right now or the immediate future. And in order to OC the 8320, you need to spend more on the mboard and cooling compared to the i3. At that point, you're not really building a lower budget gaming PC anymore, so the i3 comparison starts to be inapplicable.

Next, the 6300. Sure, going for the 8300 gives you two more threads, but again those aren't going to make any difference in a gaming first machine when you've already got six. The 6300 is already unlocked and the price difference between the two chips would pay for the CPU cooling you'd need to use it. So again, why pay more for the 8320 over the 6300?

Stepping up to your $160 - $220 range, The 8320 starts going against the i5. Again keep in mind the extra price in OC components to crank up the FX chip eats away at the price difference between the 8320 and a 4440 in a relatively cheap H87/97 board with stock cooling. In the vast majority of games you won't see a difference. In the heavier threaded games you may see some benefit in the 8320, but mostly you'll just have more noise and heat due to the OC. So again, a locked i5 is generally preferable. If you're in the budget for an unlocked i5, there's very little reason to consider an 8320.

Consider an 8320 like a cheaper Xeon 1230. They make sense to people that game but also spend considerable time on other CPU intensive tasks. As such, they aren't main recommendations in an article that is talking about best gaming performance for your money.

 

[Shin-san]

That top tier has gotten too crowded for my tastes. There needs to be a paradigm shift to where you can use more of that power. Fortunately, GPU processing has taken the load off the CPU, especially with shaders. Newer APIs are poised to drop the need for a powerful gaming CPU further