Picking A Sub-$200 Gaming CPU: FX, An APU, Or A Pentium?

[zubin_98]

BUt how much video ram is there in the integrated GPU of the intel g630 processor

 

[Guest]

Nice post very well written.

James Bond suit

 

[immasolipsist]

Power rates here are expensive as shlt. I just cant keep a blind eye and buy AMD.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]zubin_98[/nom]BUt how much video ram is there in the integrated GPU of the intel g630 processor[/citation]

None. It shares the system RAM with the CPU cores. No IGP on any CPU die has its own frame buffer integrated on the CPU die too, at least not that I've ever heard of for modern computers.

 

[unrealj]

eh i dont care about what other people say how well AMD cpu's have been outrun by intel but im still sticking with my 4 ghz fx-6100

 

[panos1550]

Could someone please explain to me how come the SB Pentium G860 is placed 2 or even 3 tiers below cpus such as the Athlon II X4 645, Phenom II X6 1090T, Phenom II X4 980 or the A8-3870K, or even the i3-2100 in Tom's own GAMING cpu charts (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106-5.html), while at the same time seems to beat or be very close to them according to this article's charts...Kind of an antiphasis, no?
Speaking from experience, as I have one of them paired with a 5850 gpu, i can tell you most of the times it's the gpu thats brought to its knees first, and NOT the cpu (talking about games like Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Far Cry 3 and such at 1920x1080)
Take into consideration that this little gem costed me about 80$ here in greece, while all the others cpus i mentioned start from ~95$ and can reach almost double the price (i3-2100)

I can understand it being so low when talking about OVERALL performance, but we 're talking about GAMING performance here right? I would love an answer or even someone else's experience on that ...

 

[army_ant7]

@panos1550
Hello there... I'll have to point this out to you... It mentioned on the first page of January (2013)'s Best Gaming CPU i.e. the current one as of now, that they will be releasing a new sub $200 gaming CPU article. You'll have to wait for that. Aside from that though, I'm guessing (based on different things) older quad-cores are now said to trump non-Hyperthreaded dual-cores because of more accurate (in terms of what really matters to the gaming experience) types of benchmarking data, which will be released in that upcoming article.

 

[panos1550]

@army_ant7
I'll surely wait for them then, as the charts and benchmarks published to date are kind of contradictory to each other you must agree.
Thanx for the immediate response anyway

 

[panos1550]

[citation][nom]panos1550[/nom]@army_ant7I'll surely wait for them then, as the charts and benchmarks published to date are kind of contradictory to each other you must agree.Thanx for the immediate response anyway[/citation]
Edit: Can't help but notice though, that min and avg fps in modern game titles are enough/self explanatory benchmarking data, can't see how this will change when the new types of benchmarks will be introduced and to what extent they will be more accurate than fps themselves...i guess i 'll just have to wait and see

 

[army_ant7]

@panos1550
In the recent Tom's Hardware articles, they've also started presenting graphs showing frames over time. The advantage that poses is that it can show how smooth your gaming experience can be. As it seems, min FPS can't really show smoothness that well, since if there are some frames that take an unacceptable time to render, but then are followed by frames that render quick enough to even out the average to make it seem acceptable (all within one second) the min FPS would come out seeming alright even though there was that spike of high frame latency(, or something like that).

Anyway, I bet it will be explained (better) in that upcoming article.