Gaming Shoot-Out: 18 CPUs And APUs Under $200, Benchmarked

[DEY123]

Does anybody else think it's a bit suspicious that toms is howing the fx CPUs performing well below even the 3550 while the 8350 has been shown to be capable of beating or at least competing with the 3770k in many modern games?

The problem is that there are certain games that AMD struggles with. One of which is skyrim. This always puts the AMD chips behind in any comparison that uses a high end card as skyrim is used in almost every review done. Conversely AMD only beats intel by small amounts on its wins.

That being siad I have an 8320 because I want to support the underdog and am willing to sacrifice a bit of game performance in some games (well skyrim which I already finsihed).


IMO for most users AMD is fine. If you have a high end graphics card you may be forced to turn down settings on an occasional game (whem compared to intel).

 

[idecris]

Wow. intel's HT dual core's still Lord it over AMD multi-cores.

This is now. In the future Intel will surely "move on" from their dual cores even HT ones and start providing "budget" quad cores.

That'll be the day that AMD gets really spanked.

AMD Fanboys need to be more objective and face the truth, Intel's products are better at any price point.

You may say AMD procs may be "good" but they are definitely not as good as Intel's

 

[cleeve]

Please re-run all of these tests with overclocks on the AMD chips. Then lets talk. Its quite deceptive to run stuff like this and pit non-overclockable intel chips against overclockable AMD chips and not overclock. Thats what you buy an AMD chip for. And not some wimpy overclock using the stock heatsink. Make it real.

Do some research. You are ill informed.

We overclock AMD chips on a regular basis. But the highest realistic AMD overclocks on air do not surpass the Core i5-3570K when it comes to gaming... and I mean an i5-3570K at stock speeds, not overclocked.

 

[cleeve]

Does anybody else think it's a bit suspicious that toms is howing the fx CPUs performing well below even the 3550 while the 8350 has been shown to be capable of beating or at least competing with the 3770k in many modern games?

How its it suspicious? It totally depends on the game.

In some of the games we tested, the FXs stand up well to the Core i5.

The Core i7 has no notable advantage over the i5 when gaming.

 

[Guest]

I actually grabbed a 3570k last week for 189.

 

[cleeve]

you can see by comparing the two graphs that the vertical graph show when the highest latency occurs. what would be meaningful? if the highest latency occurs during a "valley" of lower latency, then it would be much more noticeable. whereas if the highest latency occurs during a peak of latency, then it would not be as noticeable.

That's precisely what the new chart does!

As we mention, we compare CONSECUTIVE (side-by-side) frames in the stream. That means we're not looking at each frame on their own, we're looking at how each frame compares to the frames next to it.

 

[sarinaide]

[citation][nom]de5_Roy[/nom]...how about this - if there's proof that ud5 indeed inhibits performance compared to ud7, only then it should be taken into account. (edit: are you sure you weren't comparing rev 1.0 motherboards? afaik those usually have issues that get ironed out in later revs.) i doubt it'll show up at stock settings unless there's sub-par power delivery in ud5 or inferior bios firmware that causes throttling. i've seen some benches where boards indeed bottleneck gaming performance with intel cpus but those were in double digits, in certain cases 10~20 fps(forgot the exact figures) on average. that's why i tend to ignore 5-6 fps difference if there's even any.[/citation]

It is low differences but differences nonetheless.

Those parts all perform in close proximity but while in the notoriously poor games for AMD despite not matching Intel FPS, they do extremely well in the latency stakes. Far Cry 3 tends to surprise me how the AMD A-Series parts have the lowest frame to frame latencies. Which tends to suggest that AMD is not nearly as bad for gaming as made out to be. If you are a First Person gamer or general gamer AMD or Intel is going to make very little difference its what fits your budget better. If you are going to specifically play Star Craft and Civilizations well then Intel is better.

 

[SuperVeloce]

Great review. i wonder, can pci-e controller have an impact on frame render delay (latency even)? Some say AMD has better controller (and intel have better memory controller)

 

[cleeve]

So, were the fps differences significant enough to notice? Or what made the fps "the relevant measurement"?

+1 from me, and kudos for asking it... THIS is the important question!

In this CPU roundup, none of the latencies were noticeable to my eye, and I'm pretty sensitive to this stuff. BUT, it's SUBJECTIVE, right?

The problem is, it's ALL subjective. There's no universal law that states that 30 FPS is the minimum for smooth gaming. It's a sort of common denominator that's somehow made its way as a de-facto standard (probably based on television frame rates), but to be honest it's completely subjective.

That's not to say it's a useless standard, it's a decent relative starting point and most people have a good idea of what 30 FPS offers. But it illustrates the problem, that right now, we don't have a latency standard at all!

In this article I simply kept my eye out for any microstuttering... didn't see it, really, at least not in the quad-cores and dual-core hyperthreaded CPUs. But in our next latency article, it's our goal to get a lot of subjective opinions to help us define a rough standard as to what latency is acceptable and where it becomes noticable.

That article will be completely focused on the latency problem, not on CPUs. It's in the queue, but it will take a while to write up.

 

[idecris]

[citation][nom]idecris[/nom]Wow. intel's HT dual core's still Lord it over AMD multi-cores.This is now. In the future Intel will surely "move on" from their dual cores even HT ones and start providing "budget" quad cores.That'll be the day that AMD gets really spanked.AMD Fanboys need to be more objective and face the truth, Intel's products are better at any price point.You may say AMD procs may be "good" but they are definitely not as good as Intel's[/citation]

i'd just like to add that since GAMERS are confined by their budgets, and that the sub-$200 is the largest gamer "demographic", it is clear that an Intel is the CPU that makes the most sense for a gamer looking for the most effective CPU to pair with his discrete GPU at his budget.

 

[DEY123]

Do some research. You are ill informed.

We overclock AMD chips on a regular basis. But the highest realistic AMD overclocks on air do not surpass the Core i5-3570K when it comes to gaming... and I mean an i5-3570K at stock speeds, not overclocked.

Actually I think this article is comparing sub $200 chips but you included the others for reference. The i5-3570 is not a sub-$200 chip so it really should not have been included other then as a reference point. I think intel does n ot really sell their K chips for under $200. of course the i5-3570k can OC and beat the 8350, buthow does a 6300 match up against the I3?

It would be nice to see how the last chart looks when you do a moderate overclock for each chip that can. The last chart shows the I3s beating the AMD chips. if the AMD chips are overclocked (like the 6300) how do they fair against the I3s which can't OC.

 

[cleeve]

Actually I think this article is comparing sub $200 chips but you included the others for reference.

The only CPU I included for reference is the i5-2500K (which the 3550 beat slightly). The i5-3550 is $200 on Tigerdirect.com.

The i5-3570 is not a sub-$200 chip so it really should not have been included other then as a reference point.

The 3570K *wasn't* included! We included the 3550.

I think intel does not really sell their K chips for under $200. of course the i5-3570k can OC and beat the 8350, but how does a 6300 match up against the I3?

The 6300 is in there. It loses to the i3-3220 by a bit.

It would be nice to see how the last chart looks when you do a moderate overclock for each chip that can. The last chart shows the I3s beating the AMD chips. if the AMD chips are overclocked (like the 6300) how do they fair against the I3s which can't OC.

This isn't an overclocking article, but we do those periodically, too. Unfortunately, even the flagship FX-8350 won't beat an i5 at gaming on air. An FX-6300 or FX-4300 might meet or slightly beat an i3-3220, but not by much.

If you guys want, I can look at that in a separate article. But it doesn't change things as much as you think it would.

 

[levin70]

[citation][nom]cleeve[/nom]How its it suspicious? It totally depends on the game.In some of the games we tested, the FXs stand up well to the Core i5. The Core i7 has no notable advantage over the i5 when gaming.[/citation]

You ask me to do research and tell me i am ill informed. However, the point of the frickin article is comparing sub $200 chips and you bring out an intel chip that nowhere can you get for under $200

I don't think so. Learn some basic comprehension skills before you tell off others

 

[sarinaide]

Thats where I would have liked to see this in the price point spectrum. AMD have the A10's and FX6300 all wedging the i3 3220 in price ($125-149$) then for sub cost i5's they are wedged between a $170 and $190 FX 8320 and 8350 respectively.

I have looked at a few i3 vs A10 reviews which show the A10 in many games with discrete level GPu's are able to keep up with the i3. what would be nice is to see the latencies with Integrated Graphics, the thing I want to find out there is. there are a few games where HD4000 is capable of being closeish to HD7660D but the last Techreport on that showed the latency spikes on the HD4k making the game unplayable despite FPS over 30. These results could be interesting particularly over a array of games excluding the cpu limited games that way get to see how far the APU's can actually drive a discrete card (I know on BF3 multiplayer the A10/7870 attained higher aggregates relative to the i3 I similarly ran with the same GPU)

 

[clownbaby]

I'd like to see the same cpu's tested for power efficiency and graphed price/performance/efficiency.

 

[cleeve]

You ask me to do research and tell me i am ill informed. However, the point of the frickin article is comparing sub $200 chips and you bring out an intel chip that nowhere can you get for under $200

I don't think so. Learn some basic comprehension skills before you tell off others

My goodness! You're an angry fellow, aren't you?

I'm not sure what part of "We overclock AMD chips on a regular basis. But the highest realistic AMD overclocks on air do not surpass the Core i5-3570K when it comes to gaming... and I mean an i5-3570K at stock speeds, not overclocked" you can't understand, or why you feel a suggestion to do some research is 'telling you off'.

Maybe try being an little less abrasive and you might find better reception to your comments.

 

[idecris]

Why do AMD fanboys keep trying to force AMD proc up the ladder?

Can't handle the truth? Get over it. Accepting the truth plain and simple.

AMD can't match Intel in terms of value for money.

The APU's probably if you're not buying a discrete GPU. But then again, this is about GAMING CPU's wherein they are paired with discrete GPU's.

AMD's are good, no question. But for the price, might as well get the better proc, which is the Intel, period. Plain and simple.

 

[-Fran-]

The biggest winner in those charts, is the FX8350 IMO. It really shows good numbers for it's price.

Cheers!

 

[bustapr]

article was pretty misleading. makes me wonder why they would include the 2500k and 3550 in a sub $200 cpu roundup. and no, the 2500k and 3550 arent sub $200 cpus on any good websites. feels kind of like deliberate hater-baiting -_-

 

[azraa]

I get the idea. Nice work guys, but still this does not make sense for me.

How could one recommend one CPU over another, considering that this tests were done at Stock.
Only 2 or 3 Intel CPUs there were unlocked. All AMD's are unlocked, i3-3220 does kick 4300 but by a little margin but overclock that 4300? Its what everyone will do anyway. Im sorry, im just cannot join the bandwagon and pick the i3 for budget gaming.

 

[de5_Roy]

This isn't an overclocking article, but we do those periodically, too. Unfortunately, even the flagship FX-8350 won't beat an i5 at gaming on air. An FX-6300 or FX-4300 might meet or slightly beat an i3-3220, but not by much.

If you guys want, I can look at that in a separate article. But it doesn't change things as much as you think it would.

i bet there are others like me who'd love to see some oc benches (fx4300, a10-5800k, fx 6300 and fx8320) against the i3 and sub $200 i5 cpus.

since the apus and fx 6300 turned out to be decent gaming performers, i am hoping that the next sbm builds(like q4 2012 one) might have one or two as well.

It is low differences but differences nonetheless.

Those parts all perform in close proximity but while in the notoriously poor games for AMD despite not matching Intel FPS, they do extremely well in the latency stakes. Far Cry 3 tends to surprise me how the AMD A-Series parts have the lowest frame to frame latencies. Which tends to suggest that AMD is not nearly as bad for gaming as made out to be. If you are a First Person gamer or general gamer AMD or Intel is going to make very little difference its what fits your budget better. If you are going to specifically play Star Craft and Civilizations well then Intel is better.

i've read your numerous(as in too many to count) claims of not being able to notice fps difference between i5 cpus and fx/apus in gaming. yet, mid-single digit fps difference due to motherboard choice gets you this worked up. i hope you're absolutely, absolutely, absolutely sure that your amd-bias isn't clouding your judgement.
underlined the bit for future references.

 

[SuperVeloce]

[citation][nom]azraa[/nom]I get the idea. Nice work guys, but still this does not make sense for me.How could one recommend one CPU over another, considering that this tests were done at Stock.Only 2 or 3 Intel CPUs there were unlocked. All AMD's are unlocked, i3-3220 does kick 4300 but by a little margin but overclock that 4300? Its what everyone will do anyway. Im sorry, im just cannot join the bandwagon and pick the i3 for budget gaming.[/citation]
i5's can be overclocked to some extend with turbo bins (most of them on stock voltage) and you still don' hear everyone raging about it... Overclocked AMD with 1,5Volts changes things dramatically as far as efficiency goes...

 

[azraa]

[citation][nom]SuperVeloce[/nom]i5's can be overclocked to some extend with turbo bins (most of them on stock voltage) and you still don' hear everyone raging about it... Overclocked AMD with 1,5Volts changes things dramatically as far as efficiency goes...[/citation]

1.5v? Why go that far?
Stock voltage is enough to push about 500mhz for free and stable with a decent air cooler.
1.4v is pretty much the maximum for me, why push it further?


PLUS people always talk about power efficiency but... come on guys, there are reports that 3570k vs 8350 actually is a win for Intel. On a 3 year period, you get about 30USD less from your electricity bill from using the Intel, but the AMD option is about 30 or 40USD cheaper, whats the difference? I call that argument absolute bullshit, we are power users, and of course we know Intel is a bit more efficient but who cares? its so little... just, dont use that argument.

Now, really I can see why people recommend the i3 or the locked i5s (which can also be OC'd with a little more work of course). Those cpus have a nice upgrade path, yes, and are better at stock in pretty much every game, but why trash the AMD solution? SPECIALLY when you get a lot of options with the red guys. First of all, unlocked everything. Second, even if the 8320 is slower than the acclaimed 3570k, you still get the 8 cores for well threaded productivity/professional programs and the option to turn of 4 cores to optimize resources for gaming (with less threads, of course). I really get the point guys, its not a fanboy thing. Intel IS better, but not thaaaat much.


I dont know guys, there is this thing about AMD, not about tech but about it as a company. No shady operations (compiler scams, pay-offs to retailers, etc). Im not saying Intel is bad bad company, but the humble and striving company, AMD, which is always trashed is not that behind, just because the market is flooded by its competitor propaganda. AMD has my respect. Intel does NOT. But its not about me, its about the public, focusing on hating and not recognizing success when evident.

 

[cleeve]

article was pretty misleading. makes me wonder why they would include the 2500k and 3550 in a sub $200 cpu roundup. and no, the 2500k and 3550 arent sub $200 cpus on any good websites. feels kind of like deliberate hater-baiting -_-

Actually, you're incorrect. The 3550 is $199 at tigerdirect.com

As for the 2500K, we explained why, but you have to read it to find out...

 

[Guest]

What I got from this article:

1. The i5-3550 is marginally better than the i5-2500k in most scenarios. While the two do trade blows in some cases, the majority of the time the i5-3550 is better. Since the i5-2500k is also only marginally better than the i5-2400, the difference between an i5-2400 and an i5-3550 is still pretty small. Therefore, I probably wouldn't see any real-world performance gains upgrading my CPU this year.

2. The AMD Denebs and Thubans are roughly as fast as the newer i3 cpus.

3. AMD should revisit the Thuban. Thuban still bests the newest i5s in a few multithreaded applications. That's impressive, for a relatively old CPU. If they improve the architecture there, they could give Intel a run for their money in a variety of applications, instead of just a few. AMD needs to give up this defeatist mentality and aim to steal the performance crown once again.