Game-Off: Seven Sub-$150 Processors Compared

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
"On a final note, it has to be mentioned that yes, all of these CPUs could be overclocked to good effect when it comes to gaming performance. Perhaps this is something we should try to do in an upcoming comparison."

Please do, but if I may suggest that you not only try to overclock the hell out of them but also maybe include moderare overclocks as well. Some buyers might use stock coolers or like myself don't try to overclock my processor very much for the sake of the longevity of my computer hardware. I have a modest 400 mhz boost on my 1.8 ghz AMD X2 with a zalman cooler on it. I know it can go higher but you can't find 939 processors anymore so I dont want it to fail..although if it did fail it would force me to buy a new rig.
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]I pulled $3 a month out of my butt as an example of how futile the difference is, but if it seems significant to you let's look at the actual numbers:The highest TDP of any of the CPUs is the Phenom II X4 940 with 125 W, the lowest TDP of any of the CPUs are the Clarkdales with a 73W max. That's a theoretical difference of 52W under full load.Electricity is about 15 cents/killowatt hour in the most expensive parts of the US. that means each hour it costs 15 cents for 1000 watts of usage. So in the worst case scenario, under full load, the per hour cost difference between a Core i3 540 and a Phenom II X4 940 is 0.78 cents ((52w/1000w=0.052)x15 cents=0.78 cents/hour). Not even a penny.Assuming someone games four hours a day, putting the CPU to full load, every day, for a 31-day month. The cost difference under full load is 0.78 cents x 4 hours, or 3.12 cents per day times 31 days, which equals 96.72 cents.Almost a dollar. That's almost a dollar at the maximum theoretical limits, worst case scenario, gaming for four hours a day, every day. no days off, always full CPU load. Not even 12 dollars a year. And that's using the most expensive electrical rates in the country.In real life, no CPU is pushed to it's max limits for four hours a day, even if the user games for four hours a day. With normal desktop usage past experience has shown us that we would expect to see a 10-20 watt difference because all of these CPUs will throttle down and sip the juice unless they're pushed. And it all becomes irrelevant when the PC is put to sleep.And there are other factors. Which chipset do I use? What peripherals? What power supply? You can't easily apply a calculation to a CPU vs. CPU and say "this one costs less!".All of this is why I have a hard time being concerned about power usage differences with CPUs, especially sub-$150 models.[/citation]

Add in the cost of air conditioning and I think you're talking about more than a mere difference of a few pennies a year - particularly in warmer climates. Not to mention the environmental impact of strip mining and burning coal. One might consider extra fan noise a "cost" as well.
 
[citation][nom]agawtrip[/nom]why is there no phenom II X2???http://www.newegg.com/product/prod [...] 6819103680LoL currently unavailable.......[/citation]
Unavailable because the 550 BE is no longer produced if I remember right. There is a non BE 550 now, and the 555 is BE.
 
Your graphs are showing interesting result that the cache on Phenom is more important than 4th core. That is differences between Athlon II X3 and X4 is minor as when compared with Phenom X4. What I am missing here and it would be interesting to do in the light of your conclusion is Phenom II X3. Isn't it possible that this would be the best bangs for your bugs?
 
[citation][nom]Tamz_msc[/nom]That is why I said real world situations.People use their PCs for stuff other than gaming in most of the part they are turned on.The AMD quad cores clearly have the edge with respect to overall performance.[/citation]

dam... -15 for calling i3 good.. and i though i was an amd fanboy


umm gaming is a real world benchmark, and no duh 4 cores is better than 2c/4t when it comes to heavy multitasking.. we didnt need tom to tell us that

maybe im just not a multitasking god but i hardly ever use more than 2 cpu intensive programs. browsing is not cpu intensive, it uses 0% cpu 95% of the time and 5% cpu 5% of the time, office programs are the same story. listening to music is not cpu intensive, i almost never see my music player use more than 1%. those of you using itunes may have a different story, though...

encrypting, compressing and encoding just aren't things i see people doing very often or along side other cpu intensive tasks

this is why i think the i3 would be a better choice for the average web browser and the gamer, and alot of people in between.

though i'd personally just take a 635 which is 20 bucks less than the 640


[citation][nom]doron[/nom]Don't forget that Intel's higher clock efficiency and SMT (HyperThreading) is probably the reason that their cpus are more expensive. You also pay more for the igp embedded inside the i3's. So if you're on a budget you should ask yourself, do you want a clock efficient, multitask un-efficient, relatively expensive core i3, or a less efficient but with a higher core count athlon / phenom II.. That's the whole deal my friends[/citation]

and yes hes right... intel has a more efficient cpu, get over it guys and stop marking him down. i think the AMD is still better its just its the 1960's hot rod with a big ineffient v8 in it compared to some ugly looking import car with a small light efficient 4 cylinder in it.

extreme example but thats what it is


 
[citation][nom]mcvf[/nom] What I am missing here and it would be interesting to do in the light of your conclusion is Phenom II X3. Isn't it possible that this would be the best bangs for your bugs?[/citation]

It probably would be! but it's being phased out, no more Phenom II X3 CPUs at retail. 🙁

Although, keep in mind the 720 model is 2.8 GHz and they tend to overclock poorly from what's I've seen (on average). Nevertheless, they're a good OEM deal at $105 if you add a $25 cooler.
 
I would love to see a pc with $300 cpu + extra$100 for fancy mobo + extra $100 for fancy memory.With gpu thats is $350 less than Nvidia 480.And compare thouse two pc's in the same gaming tests...
Just to see if that $350 is better spend on gpu.If I get cpu that is only $150.
 
Hmmm...

In the chart, i don't see how Min FPS can be greater than Avg FPS. Typo???
 
I can't see any graphs in this article
i've tried with both ipad and laptop
 
[citation][nom]GgG162534[/nom]Hmmm...In the chart, i don't see how Min FPS can be greater than Avg FPS. Typo???[/citation]

The final chart compares the FPS advantage on average, not the total FPS.

i.e. min FPS might be 30% better than the Athlion II X2 260, but avg FPS might only be 20% better. Dig?
 
Great article. I'd love to see version 2 with overclocking. I think a good percentage of Tom's readers will OC their processor. I've got a Q6600 running at 3.3ghz (900 mhz over stock). Intel chips OC really well, and overclocking is a major part of any purchasing decision.
 

I think this is called going off on a tangent. Air conditioning and strip mining ? lol
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]I personally wouldn't consider the E5500 and E3500 CPUs that will turn LGA 775 into a viable platform for the future, but whatever floats your boat.[/citation]

My point is that LGA 775 still has life in it since the the sub-$150 Intel offering are still competitive with the Athlons, especially if they are drop-ins. LGA 1366 and LGA 1156 are going to be replace in a year.
 
[citation][nom]Stardude82[/nom]My point is that LGA 775 still has life in it since the the sub-$150 Intel offering are still competitive with the Athlons, especially if they are drop-ins. LGA 1366 and LGA 1156 are going to be replace in a year.[/citation]

I understand your point, I just disagree with you as to the significance of it.

I'm not saying 775 is irrelevant, it's a great platform...

...but I'd never advise a new system builder to consider it over AM3 or 1156.
 
It does concern me a little that two of the three processors that this article shows as outperforming are actually different (and more costly) processors, with multipliers lowered by the tester.

Does Tom's have enough data to be convinced that, for example, an i3-530 really is equivalent in all relevant ways to a i3-540 with reduced multiplier? Seeing as how the tester didn't even have access to a i3-530, this worry needs to be addressed.
 
[citation][nom]frandreev0[/nom]It does concern me a little that two of the three processors that this article shows as outperforming are actually different (and more costly) processors, with multipliers lowered by the tester. Does Tom's have enough data to be convinced that, for example, an i3-530 really is equivalent in all relevant ways to a i3-540 with reduced multiplier? Seeing as how the tester didn't even have access to a i3-530, this worry needs to be addressed.[/citation]

There is no worry or concern necessary. We know what we are doing.

We have tested this method thoroughly in the past, and if you look into the architecture of these CPUs you will find that they are absolutely identical. The 530 and 540 are the same down to the transistor. All Phenom II X4 CPUs are similarly identical down to the transistor.

The only worry would be using a 'simulated' CPU in an overclocking test, which is something we would never do because CPUs are often binned as superior models based on how well they handle higher clocks.

In any case, we often discuss results with reps form processor companies, and I have gotten feedback that the technique is sound.

If you're concerned that more expensive processors are sometimes outperformed by cheaper models... welcome to the world of PC processors. :)

 
[citation][nom]Tamz_msc[/nom]Interesting article-it clearly shows the advantage of having four physical cores of the Athlon II and the Phenom II X4s over the hyper-threaded Core i3s in real-world situations.No doubt that this article will benefit people who want the perfect processor for their money at this price range[/citation]

Really? A dual core cpu performing close to a quad core cpu. Yes having actual cores beats out HT any day, but this shows how good the i3 really it. But for the current price of an i3 it is not worth it, that Phenom II performed wonderfully and would be my pick out of the line up.
 
Agreed overclocking is very important to many of the toms readers. My X4 965 BE was $160, so i spent extra on my 890 board and have it at 4ghz with no voltage increase. Loving life.
 
What dissapoints me is the lack of benchmarks of games that support quad cores such as GTA4 or at least Bad Company 2

Newer games are using 4 cores... a benchmark of bad company 2 can show if an AthlonX4 can really beat down theI3 530 and show if it's more futureproof then really fast duals.
 
Agreed, I would also have liked to see GTA4 in here, as that seems to be the poster child for having a quad core processor. Yes, most games only use 2-3 cores, but how much are you penalized when playing a game that wants all 4, like GTA4 does?
 
You must do a companion article with each CPU overclocked. That is what really matters, how much performance per $ when overclocked!
 
Looks like I made a great choice with my Phenom II X4 940. No need for me to upgrade to AM3 for a long time now that I updated my K9A2 Platinum's BIOS to support the Thuban CPUs. I think 8GB of DDR2-800 and 4 PCI-Express v2.0 x16 slots will be a powerful gaming platform for years to come. 😀
 
"Frankly, this surprises us, as we haven't noticed such a difference in past tests."

what?
you didnt know that the cache has the largest effect in games??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom