anaheim :
i was looking at these benchmark results (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1107) having a preconcieved thought that CPUs affect FPS drastically, however the difference between a ~$70 CPU and a ~$350 is <10 FPS... I'm aware that the price difference is justified through editing and stuff, but I thought they had a much larger impact on gaming, do these benchmarks seem correct?
To a certain extent, yes. But also it depends on how well a game is optimized for PC. But having said that, we already have games take advantage of better CPUs married with decent GPUs like BF4, Crysis 3, Metro 2033, Modded Skyrim, Arma 3 etc. Also in near future like games like The Witcher 3, Star Citizen etc.
Still that 10 FPS is huge. And every single FPS is critical, especially when you have a low-mid range PC and try to record your game play with game play video capture softwares like FRAPS (usually gobbles more than 5 FPS), Shadowplay (Gobbles 5 FPS in GTA V -
GTA 5 / V - i3 4150 - 4GB RAM - GTX 750 ti - 1080p - 720p. But this guy still with this config, gets Average 35 FPS with Shadowplay on, reflects how well GTA V PC is optimized).
Considering the recent debacle of
Ubisoft's FarCry 4 failing to launch on Dual Cores, future appears safe to those who have at least a quad core processor, IMO
At the end of the day, It's all comes down to Price-Performance Ratio. The following CPUs will come under that category:
Intel:
If you're on a budget, get i5 4460 (Quad(4) Core)
If you're looking for a high-end overclock CPU, get i5 4690K (Quad(4) Core)
AMD:
If you're on a budget get this overclock CPU FX 6300.(Hexa(6) Core)
If you're looking for a high-end overclock CPU, get FX 8350. (Octa(8) Core)
Cheers!