Is Intel's Core i3-530 Fast Enough For Performance Gaming?

[Crashman]

Our latest "How Much CPU Do I Really Need?" article pits the cheapest Core i3 and price-matched Phenom II series processors against the highest-priced CPUs for the same two platforms. Can the low-cost parts provide a similar gaming experience?

Is Intel's Core i3-530 Fast Enough For Performance Gaming? : Read more

 

[Dekasav]

Excellently done. Thanks a lot THG!

 

[andy5174]

It should also take GTA IV (which is CPU intensive game and can utilize four cores) into consideration, although most games don't behave similar today. In addition, I would expect more and more to-be-released games to be able to utilize the full potential of quads.

 

[andy5174]

However, I do admit that i3's performance is really impressive!

 

[shin0bi272]

all similar fps results usually means one of two things... either youre gpu limited or those results are accurate (meaning you didnt ever become cpu limited ... which I thought was the point of this review). Please redo the test with a 5970 to see if the rankings change. Plus if youre saving money on your cpu you can spend it on the gpu

 

[dapneym]

On the "Is Overclocking Needed" I think you forgot a few fours. A voltage of 1.72 would probably fry the processor quite quickly. You had it right later one with 1.472, but it shocked a me a bit at first to see such a high number, haha.

 

[tortnotes]

shin0bi272, correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of this article was to see how much the CPU really matters when paired with a reasonable single GPU. I think the result--that it doesn't much matter--is pretty good to know.
If a super high end GPU was used, it wouldn't be relevant to gamers looking at CPU performance.

For me personally though.... I'll stick with my i7. Beats any i3 at mental ray rendering any day.

 

[shubham1401]

^Yeah!!

If the user has money for Super high end GPU why would he look at an i3 processor?

 

[JohnnyLucky]

Looks like some gamers will not have to spend as much money for a new cpu.

 

[Guest]

I wonder who will buy such an exclusive separated Graphics card with the core-i3 processor. cause most of the core-i3 buyers don't want to waste money on a separated GPU.others will just keep their core-2(specially quad series) processor because they're better than core-i3 processors(According to 3D-Mark Result).

 

[amdfangirl]

Great article.

We need more articles like this! A million better than a standard review.

 

[Kelavarus]

Aye, I'd go with testing GTA IV. None of these titles are all that CPU intensive, get something that takes a lot of processing as well.

I also don't get the argument with if someone has a 'super high end GPU why would they look at an i3 processor.' Just because they spent a lot of money on one place doesn't mean they WANT to spend it elsewhere. I'm sure there's plenty of penny-pinching enthusiasts who are looking at top performance for lowest dollar. I know I'm one.

 

[gti88]

The good thing is, that you can go for the 100$ MB and cheap cooler, and still, you'll have excellent gaming experience.

 

[SpadeM]

I agree with andy5174 and Kelavarus. GTA IV and RTS games would have been a good addition to the benchmark since they put a lot more emphasis on CPU performance then these shooters.

Plus, the difference between amd and intel was in the ".x" margin which is negligible so what i've learned is that this articles tries to make a point but fails to do so.

 

[masterjaw]

Nice article in general. Splendid performance especially on power consumption. I hope you also added the Athlon II chips in the line for a more broader comparison among low-cost chips.

 

[th_at]

So once again, a 3 Ghz Dual Core CPU (100$) and a Radeon 5850 (300$) manage to play to just about every game perfectly at up to 1920x1200 (and mostly beyond) with HQ image settings. And why wouldn't it, when every developer with half a brain will make sure their games run on the XBOX 360 and thus froze system specs in 2006.
Why is that never stressed more in regular CPU/GPU tests, where the focus is usually on 300$ CPUs and 500$ GPUs and their Pyrrhic victories of producing meaninglessly high framerates that only framerate morons (everything below 50 fps stutters) and insects care about?

 

[vaughn2k]

yup this is spicy...

off topic - its nice to see that the Phenom 965 can beat the Core i7 870 which is around $120 more.

 

[izliecies]

[citation][nom]andy5174[/nom]It should also take GTA IV (which is CPU intensive game and can utilize four cores) into consideration, although most games don't behave similar today. In addition, I would expect more and more to-be-released games to be able to utilize the full potential of quads.[/citation]
I totally agree. Reviewers should include GTA IV when benchmarking CPUs.

 

[hundredislandsboy]

Very useful article, especially for gamers or an budget who opt to spend mosre on the GPU and then be forced to shop for a low cost CPU.

Interesting to see charts (only hi-rez, max AA) where the 5850 IS the bottleneck and the low cost CPU waits for the 5850.

This article would have been perfect if there was one more line or bar added beneath the 2560 X 1600, one more test where they plug in the 5970 to remove the bottleneck and then see if the CPU beoomes the bottleneck at the high resolution.

 

[abhishekk89]

if ur sole purpose is just gaming i'd go for a dual core... but since i do a lot more than just gaming quad's my way..

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]HundredIslandsBoy[/nom]Very useful article, especially for gamers or an budget who opt to spend mosre on the GPU and then be forced to shop for a low cost CPU. Interesting to see charts (only hi-rez, max AA) where the 5850 IS the bottleneck and the low cost CPU waits for the 5850.This article would have been perfect if there was one more line or bar added beneath the 2560 X 1600, one more test where they plug in the 5970 to remove the bottleneck and then see if the CPU beoomes the bottleneck at the high resolution.[/citation]

The article is more for the mid-budget gamer who wants the high-end gaming experience but can't afford everything associated with it. It even mentions the CPU bottleneck with CrossFire that's found in several SBM articles, and that would include the two slightly-underclocked 5870's in CrossFire that make up the 5970.

 

[Th-z]

Would like to see CPU tests on BF:BC2, Metro 2033, RTS games such as Napoleon Total War, RPG games such as Dragon Age series, and games that claim to scale well on core count, thanks Tom's.

 

[notty22]

Intel makes some rocking cpu's. Great Article.

Love the summation.
Our heartfelt condolences go to those who would like to go green and save green with team green.
Time to go with a Intel, especially if your one of the people worrying about power and heat.

 

[AeroWB]

Nice article but incomplete.
The benchmark results tells us clearly that most games depend much more on GPU performance then CPU performance and that it really doesn't matter if you get AMD or Intel.
Most performance results are so alike they mean really nothing except to say it doesn't matter.
However it is really weird that you test CPU gaming performance and then don't use CPU intensive games. Use Supreme Commander Forged Alliance and run some test. I bet you will see noticeable differences as this is still one of most CPU intensive games. Maybe some Flightsim like X-plane or FSX wouls have been good too.
Now it just says that with most FPS games (which always have been GPU limited) you have to have a better GPU and don't have to spend too much on CPU, the only thing we learn is that even with a CPU that costs less then half of a GPU we still have a GPU limitaton.

 

[lashton]

there is no reason to buy the core i3, you need expensive DDR3 ram, and with the phenom II 550 BE you could unlock the other 2 cores, there is NO REASON to buy the Core i3