Who's Got Game? Twelve Sub-$200 CPUs Compared

[cleeve]

quote from the conclusion page:
i5 2400 offers 148% of X3 455 performance but it is priced at 213% of the X3 455 !!!

It seems that you're going out of your way to spin this a certain way. Why didn't you show the X3 455 vs. i3-2300 value proposition?

how about graphing the performance progression and cost progression in one graph to actualy see the best value for money ? the last graph only focuses on relative performance but price increase is not considered (at least only in the relative more/less expensive way).

Price is definitely considered: it's listed on the front page and the charts are listed in order of price. I don't personally go for absolute price/performance charts because they can mislead a little--often the lowest priced model will always have the best price/performance ratio, but that product can also have sub-par performance in some scenarios that is not reflected in that kind of chart. This is why i prefer to simply order the chart based on price as a relative indicator.

but the first page shows the X6 being the most expensive CPU !!!

Part of the reality of quickly changing prices, I'm afraid. Things are often written weeks before publication and we struggle to update them before publication to keep them relevant but the reality is the landscape changes quickly. I've updated the X6 price but there really isn't much difference to worry about.

what are you guys at Tom's smoking lately ?

Um... I guess the stuff that doesn't make us over-sensationalize the minutia?

 

[heuritisk]

Ofc i know there will be bottleneck if testing low with med gpu..

but it should be mention in the article. the focus was only to see what cpu is fastes thats am totally fine with. but there would be mention about when pairing in real life situation.

 

[megamanx00]

I think this article is too dismissive of LGA 1156 CPUs. Yes LGA 1155 certainly looks better at first glance, but their non-existent OC potential is a big strike against them. For a budget builder LGA 1156 still makes sense if your not afraid of overclocking. I'm sure good LGA 1156 boards will be put on sale soon as well making the platform as a whole more attractive.

Looks like the time of the Phenom II is just about over. Stop poking it with Bulldozer AMD and launch it already

 

[cleeve]

Ofc i know there will be bottleneck if testing low with med gpu..

but it should be mention in the article. the focus was only to see what cpu is fastes thats am totally fine with. but there would be mention about when pairing in real life situation.

Ah, but you're missing some of the message:

The article proves that if you're buying a high-end GPU, an i3-2300 is a viable CPU and platform for it.

 

[tomate2]

hm.... dont know if this was said already... the third last paragraph the writer recommened the athlon ii x4 940... is that the athlon ii x4 or the phenom ii x 4?? 😵

 

[cleeve]

hm.... dont know if this was said already... the third last paragraph the writer recommened the athlon ii x4 940... is that the athlon ii x4 or the phenom ii x 4?? 😵

Should say Athlon II X4 640. Fixed!

 

[youssef 2010]

A Very nice article.

About the Phenom II x6 dilemma, if we make the game use no more than 4 cores through windows task manager, will this end its peculiar performance figures?

One other question: Where are you, Bulldozer?

 

[youssef 2010]

[citation][nom]masterofevil22[/nom] Too many "simulated" cpu's??[/citation]

Yes, but the editors have proved countless times that this approach is very accurate even for processors with different core counts.

 

[simon12]

If you take into account the motherboard costs the Phenom 955 (and the other AMD chips) would look alot more attractive.

 

[heuritisk]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]When testing CPUs you want to remove other bottlenecks.There's little point in testing gaming CPUs if we limit the results to a low end graphics card. Then we're testing the graphics card, not the CPUs.In order to focus on CPU results we have to remove the graphics bottleneck, and so a fast graphics card is required.[/citation]

I know that.

My points is:

We all know that a weak gpu dont ultilize the whole power og high end gpu.
But atleast the article could mention that. for people who blindly look and read without knowing it.

The article focus was on to see what was what. but the conclusion does not say if about what gpu you choice. it focus only how strong each cpu compared to each other was. not about how in real life use they where.

ofc.some games use more gpu then cpu vice versa.

 

[cleeve]

My points is:

We all know that a weak gpu dont ultilize the whole power og high end gpu...
...some games use more gpu then cpu vice versa.

I'm not sure I follow you. The 480 is high-end enough to utilize the 2500K I think.

If the game is GPU-bottlenecked, we saw that in the results (i.e. AvP).
If it's CPU-bottlenecked, we also saw it in the results (i.e. StarCraft 2).

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]darkchazz[/nom]Wait for bulldozer , then compare it with SB[/citation]
Or maybe not! Bulldozer's absence is AMD's fault. If we played the waiting game for AMD's upcoming processors to release it would be unfair to not wait for Intel's counter to AMD(unless SB still is on top with SB). Otherwise it's a never ending cycle. If the processors are on the market they should be compared, period.

 

[tajisi]

[citation][nom]Communism[/nom]My old ass E4300 (which I got at the time for CHEAPER than the current SB procs) OCed to 3.5 ghz trashes the dual-core SB procs that can't overclock [/citation]

I have the same CPU. All I can say is "No" .

 

[cleeve]

About the Phenom II x6 dilemma, if we make the game use no more than 4 cores through windows task manager, will this end its peculiar performance figures?

I'm not sure... sounds like an interesting experiment. I assume it would work, the performance is increased if we disable two of the cores using MSCONFIG, but that requires a reboot.

 

[tajisi]

[citation][nom]quicksilver98[/nom]Complete failures? Last time I checked this review is comparing 2+ yr old technology to brand new architecture. I think for its age that the Phenom II is hold up. I would say keep ignorant comments like that out of discussions until it's apples to apples. Don't forget when AMD released the Athlon 64 and it stomped the Pentium 4, it was the same thing then and people were trashing the P4 (which at the time was a 5yr old tech) Give AMD a break until they release their new offerings.. You wouldn't want to look foolish if Bulldozer beats SB in a review like this again.[/citation]

I think the poster meant that in terms of architecture, AMD hasn't had a rolling boulder the size of the Netburst fiasco roll after them to suitably motivate them.

Intel had its figurative pants set on fire (probably by the heat put out from the P4) and released the Core series as a relatively quick response, all the while managing to either release mostly on time or early for its completely changed future product table.

AMD has a knack for release dates falling somewhere in between Valve-Time and Duke-Nukem-Forever-Time.

 

[Thor]

AMD is definitely more at all in the race. It is not surprising to hear rumors of its sale.
This is unfortunate for consumers who will soon have another monopoly over 90% of Intel. And it will raise prices of its microprocessors as it sees fit as there will be more competition.
This is what happens with operating systems and Microsoft's monopoly: it sells the operating system while $ 300 is worth at most $ 5.
Long live capitalism and its monopolies!

 

[fyasko]

[citation][nom]Communism[/nom]All the non-overclockable SB procs are failures to anyone not running so-called "mission critical" things on their comps.My old ass E4300 (which I got at the time for CHEAPER than the current SB procs) OCed to 3.5 ghz trashes the dual-core SB procs that can't overclockOutside those who are willing to spend money on the SB mobos and are in the price range ($250 ish) for the 2500k/2600k, SB is completely pointless for overclockers of any stripe.Since the AMD chips atm are still complete failures, people like me who are stuck with OCed core 2 duos and core 2 quads have nothing to look forward to in affordable high performance procs that are worth upgrading to until Bulldozer from the looks of it.[/citation]

what have you been smoking? your E4300 at 3.5 is weak and can't/won't/doesn't beat any SB CPU. why would you think it does? and how is SB pointless to oc'ers? when one OC's a SB-k it destroys everything.

 

[Stardude82]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]When testing CPUs you want to remove other bottlenecks.There's little point in testing gaming CPUs if we limit the results to a low end graphics card.[/citation]
In other words, with a mid-range 460 or 5850, there is no point in going above a $70 Athlon II X3 435 for gaming? Then this whole article is a extremely limited in scope. It's okay to buy a $500 480 to game when I already have a 550. I still don't know if I'd make as bold of claims of "value" as you did in the conclusion.

 

[kilo_17]

Great article! That's interesting how an i3 can beat a quad core Phenom 2, and the fact the the 1075t kind of lagged behind a little bit, too.

 

[dlite]

[citation][nom]quicksilver98[/nom]Complete failures? Last time I checked this review is comparing 2+ yr old technology to brand new architecture. I think for its age that the Phenom II is hold up. I would say keep ignorant comments like that out of discussions until it's apples to apples. Don't forget when AMD released the Athlon 64 and it stomped the Pentium 4, it was the same thing then and people were trashing the P4 (which at the time was a 5yr old tech) Give AMD a break until they release their new offerings.. You wouldn't want to look foolish if Bulldozer beats SB in a review like this again.[/citation]
Well until AMD's new apples are ready to be plucked from the tree all you can review, is their current apples that are well past their prime. When bulldozer comes around i am sure there will be plenty of reviews to keep the AMD diehards happy and more competition for intel. However Intel has a strong new line up for the rest of the year and beyond too. So I do not expect AMD to jump intel in most sectors of the market for long.

 

[Guest]

would like to see you guys do another review with cf/sli. It would be interesting to see, especially if you are on budget. What would bottleneck 2 gtx 460 for example. I have a phenom 925 and a gtx 460, both can be bought for around 100 and 140 euros respectively. I would like to see if the phenom 925 can still cope with another gtx 460. Hope you guys can do an article on different cpus with cf/sli graphic card 😀 overclocking cpu results would be a plus, my phenom 925 is running 3.5 ghz from default 2.8 ghz without any problem

and a short question i just thought while writing, will a cf/sli setup causes more cpu usage than single gpu setup? assuming that both setups has the same graphic performance, or it will just be about equal? or are there other things as well that could impact performance? Thanks

 

[davewolfgang]

Why no 1366 CPU's? There are quite a few under $200 now also.

Even the i7-950 is $199 now. And that's without a rebate too.

 

[cleeve]

In other words... ...there is no point in going above a $70 Athlon II X3 435 for gaming? Then this whole article is a extremely limited in scope. It's okay to buy a $500 480 to game when I already have a 550. I still don't know if I'd make as bold of claims of "value" as you did in the conclusion.

This article taught me a lot, and pointed out some very useful info IMHO. I'm not sure what more you feel it needs to give you anything useful but I guess we don't see eye to eye on that.

We'll have to agree to disagree in the usefulness of the data as gathered and accompanying conclusion, but I remain quite satisfied with it.

 

[cleeve]

Why no 1366 CPU's? There are quite a few under $200 now also.

Even the i7-950 is $199 now. And that's without a rebate too.

We've already seen in the Sandy Bridge launch that the i5-2000 series will beat older Core i7's when it comes to gaming. I didn't see a need to drag the 'premium' platform into the sub-$200 gutter fight.

 

[cleeve]

oh yes one more thing. missing out on lga775 is a huge mistake.

We've shown that the sub-$200 LGA 775 lineup doesn't have much to offer in the past, and let's face it, it's a dying platform. I dont' think anyone would recommend LGA 775 for a new system at this point. There's nowhere for it to go.