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

[cleeve]

Your commenting system is now completely broken!

I know, my apologies for that. Us writers have nothing to do with it really, but the web programmers responsible are working on it. At least that's my understanding, for what it's worth.

It's probably safe to say it's at least as irritating for me as it is for you. 😉

 

[gaban]

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

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

[citation][nom]darkchazz[/nom]Wait for bulldozer , then compare it with SB[/citation]
Should we therefore not wait for Intel's Next release and compare it to Bulldozer or are you only content when AMD has the upper hand?

Sandybridge is but a tweaked Core i7 processor. Bulldozer is a new architecture.

I'd say that we compare the products that are out right now and then compare them again once newer products arrive. Sounds a tad more objective to me.

 

[Guest]

Exactly.

All OC you get with those non K i5 is 400 MHz for turbo bins. i5 760 catches up after OC.

SB based i3's don't OC at all (bus OC is completely irrelevant), so old i3 not only catches up, it beats them.

Non "K" SB = BIG FAT "MEH"!

 

[karma831]

Nice review. Looks like going from a triple to a quad does make a pretty noticeable difference in some games.

 

[FrozenGpu]

Ohhhh intel, ship those SB mobo's already, will ya? I would like to build a SB set-up by the end of this month at the very latest. 🙁

 

[mosox]

So, lemme see if I got this right:

- The $195 Intel Core i5-2400 is slightly faster (17%) than the $140 Phenom II 955 which is a generation older?
Intel Has Game indeed. They gamed us.

 

[AlienIsGOD]

Good roundup. I myself would look at the X6 just for the fact that even if only up to 4 cores are used in gaming, My World Community Grid can use all 6 cores WHILE gaming. Therefore IMO its not a waste for me to pony up the extra $$$ for an X6 over an X4.

 

[_Pez_]

I can clearly see that the software is being the problem how come that more cores less perfomance with AMD CPU's, and when deactivating two cores perfomance got a perfomance bump. In my opinion I'd say the problem resides on the programs(or the way they were compiled), I think the AMD six core and fourth core 970 showed to be on par with SB Cpu's.

 

[haplo602]

5 pages of comments and all 5 the same ? admin screwed up while censoring the comments ?

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]lunyone[/nom]I'm still thinking the AMD Athlon II x3's and x4's are the best buys around. If you take comparable configurations from AMD and Intel, AMD wins easily. Here is what I'm talking about below:AMD build w/AMD Athlon II x3 455 w/Asus 870 based mobo:$89 for Athlon II x3 455$90 for AMD mobo (Asus) w/6xSATA 3, 6 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0, 4 x DDR3 slots.ASUS M4A87TD/USB3 AM3 AMD 870 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 AMD Motherboardhttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813131651Intel build w/i3 550 w/P55 based mobo (Asus also):$130 i3 550$150-$10 MIRc Comparable mobo (Asus also) 6xSATA 3, 6 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0, 4 DDR3 slots.ASUS P7P55D-E LX LGA 1156 Intel P55 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboardhttp://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813131634**These are all Newegg prices**AMD build (using the same Case/PSU/RAM/DVD parts in both systems)$179 + shared parts.Intel build (same parts shared w/AMD build)$280 + shared parts.This equals out to ~$100 price difference between the 2 builds, which to me is quite a bit! So in general when trying to factor in "Value" for the gaming buck I still see the AMD based system being the better buy. Assuming your using mobo's with about the same features. If you notice the Intel based mobo's will cost you more for similar AMD based mobo's. This is where a lot of the value comes from AMD. Don't get me wrong here, the Intel based system is very good system too, you just have to pay more for them.[/citation]


my thoughts exactly, sure tom's made a nice show of saying yeah intel's got cheap game now , but they compeletely forget any value saved on a low end intel processor is thrown out the window when it comes time to sink money into an intel based main board, so in teh end goign amd , is stil FAR cheaper than going intel , because intel mobo prices are insultingly "rich" blooded to get the equivlant parts to an amd based Mobo.

 

[dark_lord69]

Well..
I'm happy with the purchase I made (several months ago).
Phenom II X4 955 Black
I have it overclocked to a modest 3.6GHz
It runs like a champ!
I run StarCraft II @ 1080p on high and it looks great with a more modest video card than the one used in this article. Frame rate is smooth and I am happy with my new video card and CPU combo.

 

[Tura]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]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.[/citation]

Nor do I Cleeve. Furthermore, the use of an overpowered (for the market) GPU was a waste of time.

Any review focused on a value sensitive gaming audience should speak only to value for gaming. Nothing else matters. We (value gamers) want the gear that plays our game at it fullest without spending one penny more than need be to get there. Period. Overclocking, cf/sli impact and most important gaming software limitations should be the only test criteria.

What do I care if I can buy a rocket ship that goes to the moon for 100 million if all I need to do is drive around the block?

Tom's please, get a grip. Let's say I have a c2d or even a LGA775 with perhaps a GTX460. AS a value gamer, I want to catch up with the software either at the top rung of my current ladder (SLI GTX460?) or MAYBE catch the bottom rung of the next ladder. Showing me, a VALUE gamer, the top of the next ladder, beyond ANY benefit to current games I play, does what for me?

Tell me when prices drop on just what I need, and only what I need, and I will find your site useful.

Past that it turns into just what these 5 pages in this thread has turned into - repetitive nonsense over who's best in a world non of us can afford.

 

[cleeve]

Exactly.

All OC you get with those non K i5 is 400 MHz for turbo bins. i5 760 catches up after OC.

SB based i3's don't OC at all (bus OC is completely irrelevant), so old i3 not only catches up, it beats them.

You're missing a couple of important points:

1. you don't HAVE to overclock a Sandy Bridge, it comes with that performance stock. To get there with an i5-760 you have to push it all the way it'll go, and hope you can get the same performance. And hope that you can clock that high. So what's the advantage of having to overclock? Using more power and having more heat in the case?

2. At 3.3 GHz the older i3 gets owned. I'd like to see you push an i3-560 far enough to beat an i3-2300. You act like it's a foregone conclusion, I'm not sure it'll go fast enough to meet or beat SB on air.

 

[Tura]

[citation][nom]dark_lord69[/nom]Well..I'm happy with the purchase I made (several months ago).Phenom II X4 955 BlackI have it overclocked to a modest 3.6GHzIt runs like a champ! I run StarCraft II @ 1080p on high and it looks great with a more modest video card than the one used in this article. Frame rate is smooth and I am happy with my new video card and CPU combo.[/citation]

How much $

 

[cleeve]

Tom's please, get a grip. Let's say I have a c2d or even a LGA775 with perhaps a GTX460. AS a value gamer, I want to catch up with the software either at the top rung of my current ladder (SLI GTX460?) or MAYBE catch the bottom rung of the next ladder. Showing me, a VALUE gamer, the top of the next ladder, beyond ANY benefit to current games I play, does what for me?

Your response makes a great many assumptions. It seems that you find no value in an article unless it fits your personal budget, goals, and specific game titles that you play--not to mention your personal sense of benefit.

I suggest that your personal sense of value does not necessarily mirror the rest of the readership.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the value of the data in the article I suppose. I found it quite enlightening, personally.

 

[Tura]

[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]Your response makes a great many assumptions. First it seems that you find no value in an article unless it fits your personal budget, goals, and specific game titles that you play. not to mention your personal sense of benefit.I suggest that your personal sense of value does not necessarily mirror the rest of the readership.We're going to have to agree to disagree on the value of the data in the article I suppose. I found it quite enlightening, personally.[/citation]


Thanks for the kind reply Cleve. I might have edited my tone a tad after submitting, but as a new poster I couldn't find how to edit myself.

I found benefit in the article. I would have found more benefit were I a new system buyer, however typical to a value gamer that is not the case.

When the title implied game with sub $200 CPUs, perhaps it attracted an audience that it may not have wanted. An audience looking to boost its gear, on budget, to enjoy a little more.

I did not expect to find a spitting contest about AMD vs. Intel. How boring.

Many posts have implied the same - seeking to know in the real world what is what at $200 - not who is king of the mountain.

And just to let you know, moving to an LGA775 would be a serious upgrade for me!

 

[Tura]

*Cleeve*

Sorry for the typo, still can't edit my own post - a real danger!

Also, I might have restated this: "Many posts have implied the same - seeking to know in the real world what is what at $200 - not who is king of the mountain."

To say: "Many posts have implied the same - a desire to know in the real world how to tweak THEIR system for under $200 - not learn who is king of the CPU mountain."

Anyway, just some thoughts...

BTW, my apology to Tom's if I missed the primer for value gamers headlined, "What to do with a LGA775 for under $200" or "Now is the time to "LGA755" for the value gamer" or similar, putting real world parts together to limit out today's games. My search attempts have not found them.

 

[skora]

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.

Just like no one would recommend an AM2+ for a new gaming build, the question of a 775 CPU lands solidly in the upgrade only section. So even if the entry level i3 2100 only cost $130, there's another $125 or so for platform buy in. If someone has an existing 775 setup and can drop in a Q9400 for about $200 or Q8400 for $160, that leaves $50-$90 for more GPU, which would probably go further than a lesser GPU with a new platform.

With the Q9400 on your very own hierarchy chart on the same level as the 955 and the Q8400 matching the 925, it seems wrong to not even address the issue of if a C2Q 775 CPU can still be a viable upgrade option for an existing platform.

I understand that inventories are drying up, but there's some great steals out there. I've seen Q9300s for $100 at microcenters (they don't last long) or Q9450 OEMs for $185 online (went quick too.) Given the choice of an i3 and 5770 or a C2Q and a 5870, the old platform gets my nod as the C2Q won't hold back the GPU to the point it will be seen on the monitor.

 

[zloginet]

Phenom II X4 925 Deneb is 95watts and has 6MB L3 Cache..

Above shows no L3 and has it at 125watts.

I have it and a visit to newegg will prove the same.

Fix it darn it LOL..

 

[cleeve]

I understand that inventories are drying up, but there's some great steals out there. I've seen Q9300s for $100 at microcenters (they don't last long) or Q9450 OEMs for $185 online (went quick too.) Given the choice of an i3 and 5770 or a C2Q and a 5870, the old platform gets my nod as the C2Q won't hold back the GPU to the point it will be seen on the monitor.

Gotcha, and I agree with you - the upgrade market is definitely valid.

Unfortunately, the reality of short timetables means I have to target specific and limited goals in my testing, and this time I had to draw the line at the new platforms. I would like to do an upgrade-only gamer CPU review, that's a definite possibility. Or an overclocker's review.

But I have to do this stuff in little pieces. The good news is that future comparisons can build on this data.

 

[cleeve]

Phenom II X4 925 Deneb is 95watts and has 6MB L3 Cache...

...Fix it darn it LOL..

Thanks for the catch, fixed!

 

[cleeve]

Also, I might have restated this: "Many posts have implied the same - seeking to know in the real world what is what at $200 - not who is king of the mountain."

I hear you. But I suspect our definitions of what sub-$200 value is might be diffferent. To me, the one or two games that i might want to play that react like StarCraft 2 did, that makes me seriously consider the i3-2300 as a great starting point. Because it's the demanding games that make a difference with the right CPU, that's the game you'll be playing and say to yourself "Damn! I should have bought something else"

And it's certainly valid that you might choose to look at the big picture and say "heck, the Athlon II X3 offers playable framerates in everything for way less cash!". And you'd be right! It's quite subjective really, and depends a lot on your point of view.

Either way, I think the data is there, I haven't hidden it. It's transparent and how you choose to interpret it is certainly your own prerogative. I'll share my own observations but that doesn't make me more right than you are when it comes to how it impacts your purchasing decisions.


As far as LGA 775, as I mentioned in a post just above, I'd love to look into that kind of thing. But that's not the focus of this particular review. It may well be the focus of a future piece, but that doesn't make this review any worse for not including it. I can't invest two months writing the definitive gaming CPU piece, my employers wouldn't be happy with the return on investment that kind of article provides. but we can definitely explore those alternate avenues in articles that expand upon what we've started here.

 

[Tura]

Gotcha, and I agree with you - the upgrade market is definitely valid.

Unfortunately, the reality of short timetables means I have to target specific and limited goals in my testing, and this time I had to draw the line at the new platforms. I would like to do an upgrade-only gamer CPU review, that's a definite possibility. Or an overclocker's review.

I hear you. But I suspect our definitions of what sub-$200 value is might be different. To me, the one or two games that I might want to play that react like StarCraft 2 did, makes me seriously consider the i3-2300 as a great starting point. Because it's the demanding games that make a difference with the right CPU, that's the game you'll be playing and say to yourself "Damn! I should have bought something else"

And it's certainly valid that you might choose to look at the big picture and say "heck, the Athlon II X3 offers playable framerates in everything for way less cash!". And you'd be right! It's quite subjective really, and depends a lot on your point of view.

Either way, I think the data is there, I haven't hidden it. It's transparent and how you choose to interpret it is certainly your own prerogative. I'll share my own observations but that doesn't make me more right than you are when it comes to how it impacts your purchasing decisions.

As far as LGA 775, as I mentioned in a post just above, I'd love to look into that kind of thing. But that's not the focus of this particular review. It may well be the focus of a future piece, but that doesn't make this review any worse for not including it. I can't invest two months writing the definitive gaming CPU piece, my employers wouldn't be happy with the return on investment that kind of article provides. but we can definitely explore those alternate avenues in articles that expand upon what we've started here.

I hear you. To be sure value is very subjective. These days, as the highest end machines go beyond what a "gamer" needs (Tom's Feb 25, core i7-990X review), I hope your employers appreciate the "value" of upgrade guides as much as they have historically appreciated the "new release" reviews.

What this article does show is hardware is significantly ahead of software need, at least for gaming - way ahead of online gaming. Marginal improvements, such as a new Q9xxx on an existing mobo mentioned in one post, is a value statement in-line with the gaming software "reality", these days. Especially if it could be illustrated in a review what additional games at max performance that upgrade would garner (and which would miss). Your point on StarCraft 2 is well taken, but the list of games pressing that end of the spectrum is very short. So short as to be for the guy who will spend anything to get everything, imo. (God bless you if you are one of those, btw!)

More so are the titles (and the readers) that would appreciate a comparison just below the set of CPUs you reviewed, with the i3 possibly taking the top end and the i5 being for folks not worried about "value", but able to go "all the way" (in game titles). (My subjective value statement...)

Hey, thanks for listening (reading). I hope you haven't found this harsh. I am just a little frustrated by my personal situation and my challenge to find a specific answer on what hardware I need for my particular game title. In my case, I have two rigs to upgrade and the I have to be very stingy.

I wonder if moving forward into this newly satisfied gaming market, the guy who begins writing the articles that benchmark what hardware is able to give max performance game title by game title will hold a key to the reader's need and eyeballs? If so, that is something your bosses should well appreciate! (Just my opinion, of course).

I am starting to feel like I hi-jacked your thread so I will leave now, but at least I said something other than AMD vs Intel! (I'll watch for that upgraders guide to the galaxy in my Tom's newsletter!).

 

[cleeve]

Hey, thanks for listening (reading). I hope you haven't found this harsh. I am just a little frustrated by my personal situation and my challenge to find a specific answer on what hardware I need for my particular game title. In my case, I have two rigs to upgrade and the I have to be very stingy.

Harsh? Not at all, it's been a pleasure.

Frankly, I find a lot of folks will read an article and knee-jerk criticize what's not there rather than appreciate what is--it's human internet nature, I think. But most people have enough of an open mind to understand the logistical impossibility of including every permutation in every article, and can empathise when we let them know we hope to answer more questions in the future.

If you're looking for a specific upgrade guide, what hardware are you running in those rigs? Maybe I can offer something more for your particular situation if I know exactly where you're coming from. I do have a little experience with hardware upgrades. 😀