Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: November 2011

[zepfan_75]

I know that most gamers out there go with the unlocked K model CPU because of overclocking, but I own an i5-2400 and it is overclocked to ~4ghz, just shy of it really, and it is still a great processor! I think I remember seeing that TH usually keeps their 2500ks at around 4ghz as well, so I saved 30 bucks for the same performance!

I really don't see why some people balk at the thought of Intel because of how expensive they are, or at least in my situation I think I lucked out in picking the right processor on my first build.

ALL HAIL INTEL!

 

[cutebeans]

Wow. I really think that even the Ivy Bridge won't be able to beat the i5-2500k. It's been eating the competition from left to right.

 

[assassin123]

[citation][nom]AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls[/nom]Intel is actually the best for gaming at all price points.Celeron G530: $57Athlon II X2 250: $62The G530 beats the 250 by 15-25% in gaming.Pentium G620: $72Athlon II X3 445: $75The G620 beats the 445 in gaming by 5-15%.Pentium G850: $88Athlon II X4 640: $100The G850 beats the 640 in gaming by 5-15%.Core i3-2100: $125; Core i3-2120: $130Phenom II X4 955: $125; Phenom II X4 965: $130Both beat the 955 and 965 in gaming by 5-10%, respectively.Everything above these get no competition at all from AMD when it comes to
gaming. The Phenom II X6 1090T isn't a gaming processor; if you want that you get a 955/965.[/citation]


tanks bro thing is exactly i need

 

[r0aringdrag0n]

I love Intel's CPUs, but they overprice them, but it is worth it if you have the money.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

I know that most gamers out there go with the unlocked K model CPU because of overclocking, but I own an i5-2400 and it is overclocked to ~4ghz, just shy of it really, and it is still a great processor! I think I remember seeing that TH usually keeps their 2500ks at around 4ghz as well, so I saved 30 bucks for the same performance!

I really don't see why some people balk at the thought of Intel because of how expensive they are, or at least in my situation I think I lucked out in picking the right processor on my first build.

ALL HAIL INTEL!

How did you OC a non-K CPU? BCLK?

 

[AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls]

[citation][nom]elbert[/nom]This depends if your buying for lab testing or real world gaming. The Phenom II X4 955 turns the tables on the 2100 in real world tests once you count latency, firewall, anti-virus, and VOIP such as team speak or vent. The same goes for the low end X6's as they match the i5 2300 and 2400 in real world tests.http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/W/2 [...] asking.png[/citation]

I'm pretty sure almost no one is gonna be running a virus scan while gaming, and out of the three things you mentioned that's the only one that will mean a tangible performance penalty. The i3s are better for gaming than the Phenom II X4s, and the Celeron/Pentiums are better for gaming than the Athlon II X2/X3/X4s.

As to which is the better processor overall, that will depend on your needs, but if you're looking for a budget CPU the G530 is faster than the 250 in all tasks. If you're looking for a cheap encoding machine, the X4 631 and X6 1055T make sense.

 

[AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-Phantom[/nom]How did you OC a non-K CPU? BCLK?[/citation]


Multiplier and BCLK.

Remember that Turbo functionality is what enables higher multipliers in Sandy Bridge (not SB-E), so you can still raise it. The difference is that unlike the "K" models with unlocked multipliers Intel limits you as to how much you can raise it.

In practice you can set a 38x multiplier and get 3.8GHz on a single-threaded application. In multi-threaded that's two bins lower and therefore 3.6GHz. Most motherboards will also allow a 105MHz or 106MHz BCLK, so if you combine both you can get all core 3.78GHz/single core 3.99GHz or all core 3.82GHz/single core 4.03GHz. 4GHz on all cores is pretty hard to get since not many motherboards can reach 110MHz+ BCLK, but 3.8GHz is easy without needing any additional voltage.

 

[Onus]

[citation][nom]AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls[/nom]Intel is actually the best for gaming at all price points.Celeron G530: $57Athlon II X2 250: $62The G530 beats the 250 by 15-25% in gaming.Pentium G620: $72Athlon II X3 445: $75The G620 beats the 445 in gaming by 5-15%.Pentium G850: $88Athlon II X4 640: $100The G850 beats the 640 in gaming by 5-15%.Core i3-2100: $125; Core i3-2120: $130Phenom II X4 955: $125; Phenom II X4 965: $130Both beat the 955 and 965 in gaming by 5-10%, respectively...[/citation]
The validity of this is somewhat enlightening (and is hideous for AMD), however two points need to be made (one of which already was).
1. Additional background tasks will bog down a dual core CPU more than a X3 or quad. Most people do have other applications running while they are playing games; and playing games is not the only thing most computer users do on their systems. Unless it's an absolutely rock-bottom budget build, I would never put a dual-core CPU into a new build, particularly one that lacks hyper-threading. I3 maybe, but Pentiums are not on my radar.
2. Until you get up into the "K" processors, Intel CPUs no longer overclock anywhere near as well as similarly priced AMD CPUs; that will easily make up a 10%+ performance deficit (although it does use more power, which I'm not suggesting is always the best use of resources).
The more I think about it, the more miffed I become at what a sucking fail Bulldozer is, as I had anticipated it would be a decent upgrade. Still, I can be in the midst of a game on a Sunday night when my Acronis backup kicks off, and not even notice until I see its little icon when the game ends; the 970BE I'm running now seems to be enough for my needs.

 

[youssef 2010]

Great guide as usual

 

[AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls]

[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]The validity of this is somewhat enlightening (and is hideous for AMD), however two points need to be made (one of which already was).1. Additional background tasks will bog down a dual core CPU more than a X3 or quad. Most people do have other applications running while they are playing games; and playing games is not the only thing most computer users do on their systems. Unless it's an absolutely rock-bottom budget build, I would never put a dual-core CPU into a new build, particularly one that lacks hyper-threading. I3 maybe, but Pentiums are not on my radar.2. Until you get up into the "K" processors, Intel CPUs no longer overclock anywhere near as well as similarly priced AMD CPUs; that will easily make up a 10%+ performance deficit (although it does use more power, which I'm not suggesting is always the best use of resources).The more I think about it, the more miffed I become at what a sucking fail Bulldozer is, as I had anticipated it would be a decent upgrade. Still, I can be in the midst of a game on a Sunday night when my Acronis backup kicks off, and not even notice until I see its little icon when the game ends; the 970BE I'm running now seems to be enough for my needs.[/citation]

Background tasks like running an email client or a web browser or an AV client with active protection won't make any of them slower by a tangible amount, like doing something like running a virus scan would. Also remember that even if we were to test having non real-world applications running in the background it wouldn't change the overall picture, either, because Sandy Bridge has 40% higher IPC than K10.5.

Your statement about never using a dual-core on a system is nonsensical, especially when you consider the fact you're comparing two strong, fast cores (Celeron/Pentium) vs. three slow, sluggish ones (Athlon II X3). Sorry, but that's the truth.

As far as overclocking goes you have to remember that the Athlon II X2 and X3 consume tons more power than the Celeron and Pentium, respectively. If you want to overclock you may want a third-party heatsink to keep temps down. Also, the K10.5 Athlons don't have much OCing headroom. Most go to 3.5-3.7GHz only.

 

[Onus]

I did acknowledge the power use issue, to which I am particularly sensitive myself. I have noticed on my own two systems (one of which is the hyperthreaded i5-650) that the i5 is a little snappier on some things, but is affected more by other running programs. I'd have a hard time testing for it, but it "feels" different. In actual use, there seems to be no practical difference. If it did not even have hyperthreading, I think it might be more noticeable.
Maybe it's a mental block, but when I see "Celeron" I can't help but read it as "Slug." I've used a few, and they always felt slow.

 

[zepfan_75]

[citation][nom]AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls[/nom]Multiplier and BCLK.Remember that Turbo functionality is what enables higher multipliers in Sandy Bridge (not SB-E), so you can still raise it. The difference is that unlike the "K" models with unlocked multipliers Intel limits you as to how much you can raise it.In practice you can set a 38x multiplier and get 3.8GHz on a single-threaded application. In multi-threaded that's two bins lower and therefore 3.6GHz. Most motherboards will also allow a 105MHz or 106MHz BCLK, so if you combine both you can get all core 3.78GHz/single core 3.99GHz or all core 3.82GHz/single core 4.03GHz. 4GHz on all cores is pretty hard to get since not many motherboards can reach 110MHz+ BCLK, but 3.8GHz is easy without needing any additional voltage.[/citation]

What your saying is a bit misleading, you can't OC an I52400 by multiplier, because you can't raise the multiplier AT ALL, and by Intel you can't raise the CPU beyond 3.99ghz.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]zepfan_75[/nom]What your saying is a bit misleading, you can't OC an I52400 by multiplier, because you can't raise the multiplier AT ALL, and by Intel you can't raise the CPU beyond 3.99ghz.[/citation]

You can force the turbo multipliers though, i think that's what he's saying zepfan.

 

[AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls]

[citation][nom]zepfan_75[/nom]What your saying is a bit misleading, you can't OC an I52400 by multiplier, because you can't raise the multiplier AT ALL, and by Intel you can't raise the CPU beyond 3.99ghz.[/citation]

Err, yes you can.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/14

Do some research before you say nonsense.

 

[spiralsun1]

AMD processors are a great deal any way you look at it, especially if you overclock. Intel makes their processors in Israel. That's bad. They are trying to take over the whole politics of the middle east using USA as their bully--with their massive media, finance, and political clout here. Israel sets US foreign policy and they are a foreign nation -- and Jews are only 3% the US population! Read Harvard and University of Chicago professors Mearsheimer and Walt's book: "The Israel Lobby" and California State University professor Kevin Macdonald's book: "The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements [Paperback]" to see what is behind current US foreign policy and the entire political-correctness edifice Jews have erected around us over the last 100 years. A GENOCIDAL edifice against white Americans, by the way. I do not feel right about putting a processor into my computer which helps make money for a country and a people that want my people to go extinct. My people (William Shockley et. al.) invented the transistor and the semiconductor and founded Silicon Valley. William Shockley also wrote at length about opposing Jewish movements -- see the book: "Shockley on Eugenics and Race: The Application of Science to the Solution of Human Problems by William Shockley, Roger Pearson and Arthur R. Jensen" Why is it OK for a small minority to move into every European nation around the world and put in place a system to destroy those people? I can't buy Intel in good conscience for supporting this, and European peoples do NOT deserve to be eradicated from the face of the Earth.

 

[elbert]

[citation][nom]AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls[/nom]I'm pretty sure almost no one is gonna be running a virus scan while gaming, and out of the three things you mentioned that's the only one that will mean a tangible performance penalty. The i3s are better for gaming than the Phenom II X4s, and the Celeron/Pentiums are better for gaming than the Athlon II X2/X3/X4s.As to which is the better processor overall, that will depend on your needs, but if you're looking for a budget CPU the G530 is faster than the 250 in all tasks. If you're looking for a cheap encoding machine, the X4 631 and X6 1055T make sense.[/citation]
Doesn't take a scan but something as simple as an automatic update or as many anti-virus run background all the time. Now out of the 4 actually the latency is the higher importance. The OS not have to fight game processing for latency handling can mean as much as 10ms. For first person shooters this is do or die. Second would be a VOIP as team speak often runs in 1~3% usage. Given the dual cores have nothing left in the lab tests this will reduce the 2100 below the ph II 955.

Now I agree when they both have the same number of cores the Intel's will win easy. The problem occurs when you match the 2100 vs the 955 or 2300/2400 vs x6. Give that the X4 631 can be OC'ed to 3.6GHz on stock cooling gives it a massive price to performance advantage. Check out the X4 631 stock passmark score beating the FX-4100 and 965. An extra half Megabyte per core goes a long way at 4408.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+II+X4+631+Quad-Core
Its price per performance goes a long way.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

Again the i3 2100 doesn't have enough left to stay ahead in real world tests. Same goes for the stock 2300 and the stock 2400 loss due to price as the X6 1075 is about $30 cheaper.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/W/280040/original/MultiTasking.png

 

[AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls]

[citation][nom]elbert[/nom]Doesn't take a scan but something as simple as an automatic update or as many anti-virus run background all the time. Now out of the 4 actually the latency is the higher importance. The OS not have to fight game processing for latency handling can mean as much as 10ms. For first person shooters this is do or die. Second would be a VOIP as team speak often runs in 1~3% usage. Given the dual cores have nothing left in the lab tests this will reduce the 2100 below the ph II 955.Now I agree when they both have the same number of cores the Intel's will win easy. The problem occurs when you match the 2100 vs the 955 or 2300/2400 vs x6. Give that the X4 631 can be OC'ed to 3.6GHz on stock cooling gives it a massive price to performance advantage. Check out the X4 631 stock passmark score beating the FX-4100 and 965. An extra half Megabyte per core goes a long way at 4408.http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lo [...] +Quad-CoreIts price per performance goes a long way.http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.htmlAgain the i3 2100 doesn't have enough left to stay ahead in real world tests. Same goes for the stock 2300 and the stock 2400 loss due to price as the X6 1075 is about $30 cheaper.http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/W/2 [...] asking.png[/citation]

Yeah... no. It's pretty clear you're an AMD fanboy. AMD may have two more cores than Intel, but Intel has 40% higher IPC, HyperThreading (good for 20-25% improvements in MT) and better frequency scaling.

And just so you know, CPU Benchmark is completely inaccurate for real-world comparisons; they use synthetic benchmarks.

There's already many reviews out showing the i3 being about the same speed overall as the Phenom II X4 and the Core i5 being faster overall than the Phenom II X6. If you actually think the Phenom II X6 is faster than the Core i5 you're delusional.

 

[ojas]

[citation][nom]elbert[/nom]Doesn.......hmark.net/cpu_value_available.htmlAgain the i3 2100 doesn't have enough left to stay ahead in real world tests. Same goes for the stock 2300 and the stock 2400 loss due to price as the X6 1075 is about $30 cheaper.http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/W/2 [...] asking.png[/citation]
Virus scans hit the storage system harder than modern day CPUs.

 

[eddieroolz]

Another month, yet still no sign of Bulldozer slipping in price to become a recommended buy.

 

[elbert]

[citation][nom]AppleBlowsDonkeyBalls[/nom]Yeah... no. It's pretty clear you're an AMD fanboy. AMD may have two more cores than Intel, but Intel has 40% higher IPC, HyperThreading (good for 20-25% improvements in MT) and better frequency scaling.And just so you know, CPU Benchmark is completely inaccurate for real-world comparisons; they use synthetic benchmarks.There's already many reviews out showing the i3 being about the same speed overall as the Phenom II X4 and the Core i5 being faster overall than the Phenom II X6. If you actually think the Phenom II X6 is faster than the Core i5 you're delusional.[/citation]
Its very clear your an Intel fanboy. I am a fan of price for performance. If the CPU in question was around $220 I would go straight for an i5 2500k. There are many lab tests showing the i3 as fast as the phenom II 955. There is only a few real world tests of them and the phenom II 955 take a small lead. Here is one if you wish to look at the change occurring. Note that even a 2% drop from the i3 would reduce its 1fps lead to a loss. From this test you must see the AMD 4 and 6 cores loss less ground when a second program is running.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/2/W/280040/original/MultiTasking.png

Your percentages of 60~65% would only over come three core phenom II's thus your argument isn't compelling. The only advantage the i3 has is when programs make poor use of the forth core. The real world tests correction puts good use to that 4th core is were the i3 losses. This said I think your percentages are over stated. The i5 would be as fast as a 7 core thuban if you was correct. Give the 1075t in multitasking is right at the metro 2033 fps of the i5 2400 I cant see no more than 52% total.

 

[dazed69]

Seems stupid to buy a dead platform from AMD with these low prices from intel.


the i5 2500k is awesome,probably the best value on a CPU ever at $150.00 on sale


My old Quad 9400 still plays new games on max settings with a 4890 card so i'm good for another year at least. knock on wood

 

[JohnnyLucky]

Still no reason to upgrade.

 

[capttoilet]

I am honestly surprised the phenom II x4 830 wasn't included on here. It was on sale the entire month of November at Microcenter for $50 bucks. Swapped out my dual core with that puppy and it made BC2 and Crysis 2 so much more playable.

 

[Guest]

meh. I'm still using a E8400 with a radeon 4850, running Skyrim at high with 45 fps. Im not convinced any of these "upgrades" are worth the money yet from a pure price point vs performance perspective.

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]malbert[/nom]meh. I'm still using a E8400 with a radeon 4850, running Skyrim at high with 45 fps. Im not convinced any of these "upgrades" are worth the money yet from a pure price point vs performance perspective.[/citation]


That depends entirely on what you personally value when it comes to frame rate performance. For a lot of people, 45 FPS doesn't cut it, and for a lot of people it does.