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

[yumri]

so ,Intel Pentium G3258 can play all older games without problems? what about Diablo3 at low settings ?

almost anything can run Diablo3 if it has at least 2 cores and a decent GPU as most modern CPUs run @ 2.8GHz if not higher

 

[chimera201]

The Intel Pentium G3258 should be removed from the CPU charts as it lacks Hyper Threading and only has 2 cores, some of the newer games will not run on a pure dual core processor, Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age Inquisition are the latest examples.

Divinity: Original Sin is the top rated game of 2014 and it runs on a dual-core

 

[Joona Kinnunen]

So! I now have: Phenom II X4 945. This doesn't seem to run any of the newer games anymore so I should just start upgrading my pc to the highest hierarchy level so that assassins creed unity would run faster than 15fps?? Got 8gb 1333Mhz ddr3 ram and r9 270 gc..

 

[Digitrax]

At microcenter... its best to get the i5-4690K because they sell it for $200 + $50 off motherboard... so I got the GIGABYTE GA-H97N-WIFI ($120 on newegg) for about $65 ($265 for CPU + motherboard = off shield - no rebates). On newegg, that would be $345.

AMD is just not on the list...

Also, (if you've got a MicroCenter within reach), the i7 4790K is on sale at $249 ($300 newegg and elsewhere), and almost all of the Z87 boards have BIOS updates to support it; (typically these boards can be gotten from $29 to $89 as MC is "pushing them out"). I bought i7 4790K (4.4GHz at turbo) + (open box, but complete) Gigabyte GA-Z87-D3HP for <$300.

 

[PoorGamer75]

from AMD A4 4020 i might get the Athlon X4 750k or 850k for my cpu upgrade

 

[yumri]

So! I now have: Phenom II X4 945. This doesn't seem to run any of the newer games anymore so I should just start upgrading my pc to the highest hierarchy level so that assassins creed unity would run faster than 15fps?? Got 8gb 1333Mhz ddr3 ram and r9 270 gc..

unless you have a real big want to play that one game of AC: Unity look at how it preforms in your other games then if it doesnt preform up to your liking overclock it a little ~ to the point that it is still stable then see if there is any differnece as the rest of what you said is pretty good 8GB DDR3 and r9 270 are pretty good parts just the Phenom II X4 945 is kinda dated but still shouldnt stop to much from happening on screen ... though i do not personily own AC: Unity as i do not meet the minimum requirements and i think the minimum requirements were made with 1080p @ 60Hz in mind.

 

[arespirit]

I don't know if it has been said, but I don't think anything less than a mid range quad core should be on the list any more. With the release of some of this seasons premier titles being quad core locked it seems strange that a dual core would still be in the recommendations. Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2851126/far-cry-4-woes-with-dual-core-processors-point-to-a-bleak-future-for-budget-pc-gamers.html

 

[yumri]

I don't know if it has been said, but I don't think anything less than a mid range quad core should be on the list any more. With the release of some of this seasons premier titles being quad core locked it seems strange that a dual core would still be in the recommendations. Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2851126/far-cry-4-woes-with-dual-core-processors-point-to-a-bleak-future-for-budget-pc-gamers.html

arent all mid end, high end and above CPUs at least quad cores if not higher core counts though? So i was thinking that a faster clock speed would be better instead of more cores but yes more cores will help too.

 

[arespirit]

I don't know if it has been said, but I don't think anything less than a mid range quad core should be on the list any more. With the release of some of this seasons premier titles being quad core locked it seems strange that a dual core would still be in the recommendations. Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2851126/far-cry-4-woes-with-dual-core-processors-point-to-a-bleak-future-for-budget-pc-gamers.html

arent all mid end, high end and above CPUs at least quad cores if not higher core counts though? So i was thinking that a faster clock speed would be better instead of more cores but yes more cores will help too.

It was rather late when I posted that and I had lost most if not all of my ability to articulate an idea. I was trying to point out for the second time in the thread, first being from boogereaterpicker, that the G3258 should be removed from the list in favor of at bare minimum the AMD Athlon X4 750K which operates four logic cores over 2 physical, the minimum for new games. I was also attempting to point out that the industry seems to be headed toward producing games that require, capitalize, or utilize a multi threaded environment as we see on the PS4 and X1. If they do move in that direction it would be a decisive blow to the average pc gamer with a recent system as they would be looking best case at a cpu replacement and worst case cpu+mobo. For many I think that would lead to purchasing a console instead. I personally run a z68 with i5 2500k and a more recent AMD 890fx with a FX-6300, but I am still somewhat worried that some day soon the recommended specs will be an eight core processor.

 

[darkmendez]

Tom's hardware will always shines Intel more times than AMD when it comes to processors. And it does not matter if they are old or discontinued, they will put an Intel processor on the top tier to proved that AMD is not trying. But riddle me this, top game consoles has AMD products instead of Intel. WHY?

 

[Mac266]

Tom's hardware will always shines Intel more times than AMD when it comes to processors. And it does not matter if they are old or discontinued, they will put an Intel processor on the top tier to proved that AMD is not trying. But riddle me this, top game consoles has AMD products instead of Intel. WHY?

Because It's cheap. And it's an APU, so the graphics bit will be better than Intel's.

 

[darkmendez]

you have a point.....why pay more?

 

[Mac266]

you have a point.....why pay more?

Don't be mistaken, the Console CPU's are quite weak. Because the games are 'closer to the hardware', they don't need a super duper i7 5960x. The CPU's are closer in performance to a mobile Pentium.

Fortunately, They have a nice GPU part of the APU.

 

[yumri]

Sony and Mircosoft were going for the best GPU in a CPU / GPU combo this time and AMD has the better intergrated GPU so AMD got it even though the CPU part is with a much lower IPC on it and of course AMD is much cheaper for those intergrated chips than Intel would be while Intel would make for some pretty nice AI simulations that seems to not be the trend atm with human vs human mulitplayer being more wanted than human vs human vs AI or something like that anyways in multiplayer with that AI you can always have it be on the server with the big CPU power during mutliplayer so why would each console need it for the little time ppl spend in single player mode?
again Intel is the better CPU but AMD is the better value CPU + GPU combo as consoles are almost all about playing games ( or use to be ) so graphics matter ALOT and AMD has the better graphics.

 

[sirjyk]

I have a "bozo" question. If I take a quick glance at the hierarchy chart, it indicates to me that the highest performing CPUs are at the top. However, further scrutiny, indicates that the i&-2600 is the top performing CPU. Is this correct? Is it possible to put the fastest, "bestest", at the top and rank similarly through the grouping, even if you have to distinguish between the CPU sockets/generations?

 

[yumri]

I have a "bozo" question. If I take a quick glance at the hierarchy chart, it indicates to me that the highest performing CPUs are at the top. However, further scrutiny, indicates that the i&-2600 is the top performing CPU. Is this correct? Is it possible to put the fastest, "bestest", at the top and rank similarly through the grouping, even if you have to distinguish between the CPU sockets/generations?

for gaming CPUs that is still true yes even today though the article at the top was written 2 almost 3 years ago. This is because the CPU does not do that much in games besides passs infomation to the GPU and AI simulations.
an i7-2600 and the i5-2500 will preform about equally to one another if clocked the same. For This time in history i will say to go with the i5-3330 as it is a good CPU for the money and going higher has very quick dismishing returns but going lower will much lower the preformance on higher end games.
For AMD i will say to go with at least the FX-8330 and overclock it a bit to be better than the FX-8350 as that is the best from AMD for gaming atm.
BOTH CPUs i said are cheap CPUs which will get the job done without to much trouble and sustain a clean 60fps in most games that are not AI heavy ie the new Ubisoft games.

 

[turbopiki]

What about Xeon E3-1231v3

 

[yumri]

What about Xeon E3-1231v3

yes it will also work and be relatively good for how much you pay for it just why a Xeon? the i7 series even though slightly more expenvie for some reason is more geared with consumer minded features. That tends to only mean overclocking abilities of the CPU core speeds and RAM Speeds from what i can tell though.

 

[Onus]

I'd like to see a tier shaded on the hierarchy chart, below which modern games would be considered unplayable (below 30FPS on "low" settings). For example, a couple years ago, an Athlon II X2 260 could still play any game on "decent" settings, but I'm not sure that's true any more. So, where is the cutoff?

 

[yumri]

I'd like to see a tier shaded on the hierarchy chart, below which modern games would be considered unplayable (below 30FPS on "low" settings). For example, a couple years ago, an Athlon II X2 260 could still play any game on "decent" settings, but I'm not sure that's true any more. So, where is the cutoff?

well the problem with that is everyone likes differnet quality of settings. Some like maxing everything out which i can still do with most games of mine on steam with only an i5-3330 with a GT 620. Now of course i cant even get close to doing that without a ton of jerking animations in Watch_Dogs, Shadow of Mordor, AC: Unity, and etc.
Acceptable frame rates also depend on the amount of action on the screen for example the game of " The Crew " can probably get away with a fps of 40~45 and still look very smooth becuase of what kind of game it is but a game of Shadow of Mordor wont feel nor look that good below 60 fps becuase of how interactive and reactive the combat system in it is.
So for MINIMUM FRAME PER SECOND RATES these are what i think:

for raceing games 30 fps with low or medium settings doesnt ussualy look that diffenret from 60 fps with high or Ultra settings ... of course " The Crew " is the out lier where it does as Ubisoft really detailed everything even what didnt need to be. " The Crew " is still smooth at 40~45fps during the high speed chases and smooth at 30~40 fps when not doing the high speed chases though if not doing them and your fps is that low then your screwed at the point that they do happen.
for action games it is ussualy around 40~60 fps depending on how reactive the game is and the graphics quailty settings ussualy turning on shadows helps with some of the unussual darknesses and unussual brightness spots in the game otherwise medium is usssualy good for a minimum.
for turn based RPGs around 10~20 fps during combat is acceptable and 20~30 fps during the time of running around the open world with the settings staying static so choose one and stick with it.
for real time based 30~40 fps during the entire game both for combat and running aroud in the open world. Just because it is a real time based combat system and if you are not running you are ussualy being hit by the enemy.
for turn based stragey games around 5~10 fps is a good minimum higher is nice but not needed as long as everything is static but if it is moveing then 24~30 fps so the animations look smooth.
for RTS games 10~20 fps but a static fps is going to be best for RTS games so the ones which allow you to lock it that is the best solution. higher is better for larger maps but 10~20 fps is good for small to medium sized maps with it zoomed out enough for you to see all your units and base(s) if possiable anyways.

It is always good to note that higher almost always equals better to a point that higher is not really giveing you anything much more to see. This is true in all the real time based games be it Action, Adventure, RPG or RTS games but higher is ussualy not needed in turn based ones which you can just turn it up to max quailty and still have a good gaming time in them.

 

[Onus]

That is why I specified "Low" settings. Of course most people want better, but this would still help them identify minimum general requirements.

 

[turbopiki]

What about Xeon E3-1231v3

yes it will also work and be relatively good for how much you pay for it just why a Xeon? the i7 series even though slightly more expenvie for some reason is more geared with consumer minded features. That tends to only mean overclocking abilities of the CPU core speeds and RAM Speeds from what i can tell though.

Xeon would be amazing for what are you paying for him he is in i5 price range but you basically get i7 4770 without integrated graphics

 

[yumri]

That is why I specified "Low" settings. Of course most people want better, but this would still help them identify minimum general requirements.

good point and then for most games on lowest settings running at about 30fps you can probably do that on a GT 720 with almost any quad core CPU for running almost all the new games at lowest settings but for recommended they should find a common res, quailty setting, DSR setting ( for games which support it ), and etc. like that for the recommended computer requirements too. As Ubisoft using 4k on Ultra getting 60fps or higher for the recommended settings is just not right as not alot of ppl actually have 4k monitors, who do probably do not have the 6GB of VRAM to hold the textures for the 4k resulation monitor, and even if they did getting 60fps in fight scenes will be impossiable on current gen hardware without a SLI or Crossfire set up of course.
So both minimum and recommended configurations need standard requirements for what quailty and frame rate means minimum and what quailty and frame rate means recommended.

 

[CaptainTom]

Sorry but when new games won't even run with a dual core the Pentium loses all recommendations.