best gaming cpu for around $100?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

gotMUSE

Honorable
Jun 26, 2013
18
0
10,510
hello, recently ive been wanting to build a gaming pc and im stuck trying to figure out whether i should get a dual core i3 processor ore a quad core amd. ive heard that amd processors are less efficient than intels, but quad core is going to be needed for future gaming. i would like some help to figure out what cpu would be best for computer which will primarily be playing games (hopefully next gen games on lowest settings). i dont know if this matters, but the graphics card im getting is geforce gtx 560 and i have a 550 watt power supply. thanks in advance :)
 
Solution
geofelt
When you look at the windows task manager, you will see 4 cores.
But, in reality, the last two cores are not as strong as the main cores. But, if the os has enough lower priority tasks ready to run, yes, they will be dispatched on those hyperthread "pseudo cores"
I might estimate that they are about as strong as 30% of a primary core.

For what it is worth, the amd cpu's use a method to get 8 cores out of 4 by sharing resources.
Sort by date Sort by votes
ingtar33

ingtar33

Glorious
Dec 17, 2012
9,017
198
45,840


you won't find any i3 for <$100
the best <$100 cpu is probably the Phenom II x4 965be; it's quad core and strong enough to not really bottleneck you significantly. your 550W psu should be more then enough to handle a 560 and phii x4 965
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maddogfargo

maddogfargo

Splendid
Nov 28, 2006
3,344
8
22,965
Don't get an i3. Even Intel fans will tell you it's not enough anymore.

The earlier recommendation for a Phenom II 965BE is a good option.

But also consider, an FX 6300 is only $120, overclocks like a champ if you add a good cooler, and it pretty much THE best bang for the buck in a budget CPU. Plus it uses the AM3+ socket so you can always upgrade to an 8350 later if you want.

Intel does have a more efficient core design, so you will see better performance in titles like Skyrim that only use 2 cores or so. But something modern like Crysis 3 or BF 3/4 will use 6 cores and really benefit from that 6300.

And about that GTX 560 and 550w PSU. I would upgrade those next. Just watch for killer sales. For example, NewEgg had an OCZ Mod extreme Pro 700w on sale today for $65, which is a STEAL.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
G

gotMUSE

Honorable
Jun 26, 2013
18
0
10,510


i said around, not under $100
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,291
4,145
174,240
Most games use only one main core plus a helper core, so faster cores are better than many cores.
You can have sort of a compromise if you have cpu with hyperthreading. That gives an extra 2 dispatchable threads which use residual cycles of the main cores.
Here is an older report on sub $200 gaming cpu's:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-frame-rate-performance,3427-9.html

If you live near a microcenter, they will sell you a i3-3240 for $110:
http://www.microcenter.com/product/414454/Core_i3_3240_34GHz_LGA_1155_Boxed_Processor

Since most games are limited by the graphics card than the cpu, a cheaper cpu like the $80 G2120 would work well with your graphics card. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116777

For any of these intel cpu's, any socket 1155 motherboard will do.
You can find them for $50 or so.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
G

gotMUSE

Honorable
Jun 26, 2013
18
0
10,510
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,291
4,145
174,240
When you look at the windows task manager, you will see 4 cores.
But, in reality, the last two cores are not as strong as the main cores. But, if the os has enough lower priority tasks ready to run, yes, they will be dispatched on those hyperthread "pseudo cores"
I might estimate that they are about as strong as 30% of a primary core.

For what it is worth, the amd cpu's use a method to get 8 cores out of 4 by sharing resources.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
ingtar33

ingtar33

Glorious
Dec 17, 2012
9,017
198
45,840


spot on summery of HT, though only under the most optimal situations will you get 30% performance out of HT... generally HT performance ranges from 15%-25%

AMD actually has 8 physical cores, so it's not like ht at all. HT is a scheduling gimmick, all it does is schedule additional tasks into the "openings" in the tasks the core is working on (imagine if a task 1 core is working on takes up 70% of it's instructions per second. generally without hyperthreading, nothing additional will be scheduled on that core, ht allows a 2nd task to be scheduled to fill up the last 30% of the core's instructions... it's a cute scheduling gimmick, and its a great way to pull a little extra performance out of a core, but there is nothing physical on the chip which does this. Its pretty much a software scheduling trick.

What AMD has done is built 2 physical cores, then had them share front and back end "parts" to save space and power (it's actually a very energy/heat efficient design) in what's called a core module... the problem is this actually bottlenecks their own core design. As a result the bulldozer/piledriver cores actually spend most of their time WAITING for things to work on, because AMD messed up the pipelines bringing data from the ram to the chip and back, in short, it's a clever designed chip which might be significantly better then it benches, but we'll never know. Because the chips are data starved by the problems in their unique design. The hope is steamroller will fix the pipelines and allow the cores to actually reach their full potential, but we're going to have to wait to see if it happens. Its sorta tragic that AMD has had to spend two whole chip rebuilds working on the front end of the chip structure and not the cores themselves, because they can't even get 100% of their current core performance out of their chips.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom