Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: November '09

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
November 23, 2009 5:26:13 AM

E7500 still going strong and on the list....
Score
-4
November 23, 2009 5:54:18 AM

AFAIKT, Athlon II 425 runs at 2700 MHz, not 2800 MHz.
Score
4
Related resources
November 23, 2009 6:03:39 AM

Kinda strange that here on toms I5-750 is superior in gaming, well true if u want to play on low resolution and with no AA, AF and so on, because at 800x600 the I5-750 whipes the floor with AMD 965, but then something a bit strange happens when u turn the heat up.
Source:


Testet with radeon 5850.

Devil May Cry 4 Benchmark[/b]

Benchmark Reviews uses the DirectX 10 test set at 1920x1200 resolution to test with 8x AA (highest common AA setting available between GeForce and Radeon video cards) and 16x AF. The benchmark runs through four different test scenes, but scenes #2 and #4 usually offer the most graphical challenge.
Sene 2
I5-750 - Looses with 4,8 frames
Sene 4
I5-750 – Looses with 4,4 frames

Far Cry 2 Benchmark
Og Far Cry is nown to be good on the Intel arcitecture

Benchmark Reviews used the maximum settings allowed for DirectX 10 tests, with the resolution set to 1920x1200. Performance settings were all set to 'Very High', Render Quality was set to 'Ultra High' overall quality, 8x anti-aliasing was applied, and HDR and Bloom were enabled.

I5-750 – Looses with 1,8 frames

Resident Evil 5 Tests

Benchmark Reviews uses the DirectX 10 version of the test at 1920x1200 resolution. Super-High quality settings are configured, with 8x MSAA post processing effects for maximum demand on the GPU. Test scenes from Area #3 and Area #4 require the most graphics processing power, and the results are collected for the chart illustrated below.
Area 3#
I5-750 – Loses with1,6 frames
Area 4#
i5-750 – Looses with 3,7 frames

Source:


And even against the i7-940 with radeon 5870 on max settings, 1920x1080, the phenom 965 wins 2 of 4, ties in on, looses 1 on.

Shoudnt this tell that to base that a cpu is good with low resulutions is worthless when it comes to real gameplay.
Score
-12
November 23, 2009 6:05:01 AM

Well the link sources isnt in the post over, dont know why, but the numbers are from Benchmarkreviews and Guru3d.
Score
-12
November 23, 2009 6:06:49 AM

Fixed.
Score
-12
November 23, 2009 6:10:04 AM

So far on the net with tests with powerful grapic cards the phenom wins 80% against nehalm, well there are only 2 test on the web where real settings are appliend, but that will change now, since Toms is doing it so far good "balanced gamer rigg artichles

Edit:

Thanks Izzycraft :) 

And edit a lil bit more

If my memory serves me right Phenom does better than i7 with the nvidia gtx 285 when the grapic card is on max settings to, confirmed here on toms among other places.
Score
-11
November 23, 2009 7:04:44 AM

oh hilarity ensues

edit: osse you can edit your posts but finding the forum and post is not that easy, you can even delete a post if you go into full edit instead of a quick edit

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum2.php?config=tom...

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/forum-56.html

And the reason why cpus are tested at low resolutions is more academic then practical yes but it does show in theory that what a cpu can do when other parts of the computer isn't holding it back mainly the gpu as "practical" test can't show everyone's personal set up and quarks of a system
Score
3
November 23, 2009 7:07:55 AM

pentium dual-core E2160 still there..
Score
0
November 23, 2009 8:24:30 AM

@ osse, 1 to 4 frames difference is not something I would call worthless performance... That can easily be a difference because of slightly other parts besides the cpu as it would be the cpu.
And if it were so that it was 1-4 frames slower that still doesn't mean it is slower on all facets of cpu usage. ofcourse gaming is important but other tasks it will outperform amd easily.
Score
0
November 23, 2009 8:24:41 AM

@ osse, 1 to 4 frames difference is not something I would call worthless performance... That can easily be a difference because of slightly other parts besides the cpu as it would be the cpu.
And if it were so that it was 1-4 frames slower that still doesn't mean it is slower on all facets of cpu usage. ofcourse gaming is important but other tasks it will outperform amd easily.
Score
-9
November 23, 2009 8:36:57 AM

I have asked this question op a number of forums but nobody seems to know the answer. What is the CPU design software that AMD and Intel use for designing their processors. Maybe Cadence products?
Score
0
November 23, 2009 8:40:36 AM

Good to consider then build around. Will help with the few builds I am considering.
Score
0
November 23, 2009 9:45:26 AM

@2shea

I for the most agree that 1-4 frames isnt much, and it wasnt in that context i refered to the 2 tests where high end grapic card is used 5850/5870.

While there is no diffrense in 100 vs 130 frames, there can be a diffrense between 40 and 44 frames in gamer experience. However small.

It was in the context to the claim that i5-750 is superior in gaming. When it actually loose when you have settings that gamers want.

Edit:
And i was actually more supprised when guru matched i7-940 vs phenom 965, espeially in Far cry, wich should be a very good game for Nehalm, I7-940 wins big times on 1024x768, but looses with a few frames when we go to 1920x1200.
with gamer settings : high-quality DX10 mode with 4x AA (anti-aliasing) and 16x AF (anisotropic filtering).

Same happens in Brother In Arms, i7-940 wins big time 1024x768, and looses with a few frames in 1920x1200. In crysis they tie at 1920x1200, and resident evil I7-940 wins good.

But the conclusion so far of tests out on the web with gamer setting , is that overall phenomII 965 is abel to pull a few more frames out of the radeon 58xx, both against the i5-750 and i7-940. On stock speed.

And that is the oposit result of what you would expect from testing in low resolutions and no grapic effects tells us, there both i5-750 and i7-940 wins big time.
Score
-4
November 23, 2009 10:10:07 AM

I just bought an i750 at Microcenter for $149. Great steal, not sure if they have pics of Andy Grove or something, but that changed the price/performance enough for me to go Intel this time around - I'd been looking at Phenom II x3s until that find.
Score
1
November 23, 2009 12:53:29 PM

Uhm... what is E7500 doing there, when there is also E6500, which supports virtualization... unlike the E7500?
Score
2
November 23, 2009 12:53:44 PM

Uhm... what is E7500 doing there, when there is also E6500, which supports virtualization... unlike the E7500?
Score
-4
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2009 1:04:00 PM

Nice chart evongugg. The info is great, just don't like that you have to mouse over to see what the OC speed was used. All seem fairly moderate, but a good gauge of free extra performance.

On the hierarchy chart, comment on the note about three tiers before noticing a difference. Should this be reduced in cases where you're going from a dual core to a tri or quad. Example, an A64 x2 5600+ to a x3 425. Seems like there's enough justification to make the jump sooner than later.
Score
0
November 23, 2009 1:23:21 PM

I just built a rig for cheap including the Athlon II 435 and a HIS Radeon HD 4670 1GB which just went on sale on Newegg for $15 off. In any case I am still very happy with the performance I got for the price

Score
1
November 23, 2009 2:18:25 PM

I think the i7 860 would be a better choice for the 280 mark. One thing the MB of the 1156 are cheaper and you don't have to spend the extra money on a third memory channel. That being said you could spend that extra money on a graphics card as well as a better CPU cooler for overclocking.

Sure it doesn't have the two PCIe 2.0 x16 slots however the benchmark did show that it wasn't a significant performance hit and would be a good overall system. And I am a big AMD fan however their current lineup isn't that great.

I'll eventually come back to them if Bulldozer is a success.
Score
0
November 23, 2009 2:37:37 PM

and yet the Core i7 920 has been selling for $200 ever since February (Micro Center) and is the only recommendation I make to anyone building a new pc
Score
-7
November 23, 2009 2:39:31 PM

I also enjoy looking at the chart and seeing that my laptop CPU (QX9300) is ranked higher than almost the entire AMD lineup
Score
-5
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2009 2:39:32 PM

E8500 = overpriced piece of crap...$200 for a dual core? You've got to be sh*ting me...

You can get a cheap $160 quad core, OC it, and it'll perform much better.
Score
5
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2009 4:10:49 PM

^Yeah.
E8500 is way overpriced.
But If Intel reduces its prices to 100$ then it will give a tough competition to those 100$ AMD chips.
Score
2
November 23, 2009 5:28:33 PM

Funny that the core i5 was designed as an ENTRY-level cpu... just to end up at the end of the list.

Still, I am one of the few who got a PII X3 720 unleashed at PII X4 20 at a really stable state. I never got a crash with the new Asus BIOS update...

Really awesome seriously...

I know some peoples who actually OC a PII X2 550 to a X4 stronger than a stock core i7 920... it was hilarious...
Score
3
November 23, 2009 5:31:01 PM

scook9and yet the Core i7 920 has been selling for $200 ever since February (Micro Center) and is the only recommendation I make to anyone building a new pc


With a 300$ motherboard, a third stick of memory to purchase and no gain without a crossfire or a SLI configuration containing at least 400$ of graphic cards...

Yeah, a great choice PAL...
Score
1
November 23, 2009 5:32:39 PM

ifko_pifkoUhm... what is E7500 doing there, when there is also E6500, which supports virtualization... unlike the E7500?

Why do you need virtualization support for gaming?
Score
-2
November 23, 2009 5:42:36 PM

scook9I also enjoy looking at the chart and seeing that my laptop CPU (QX9300) is ranked higher than almost the entire AMD lineup

Awesome for the fact that you spent 1,000 dollars just for a CPU...you just helped pay for Intel's "rebates"....congrats
Score
1
November 23, 2009 5:46:45 PM

scook9and yet the Core i7 920 has been selling for $200 ever since February (Micro Center) and is the only recommendation I make to anyone building a new pc

Building with Intel is just far more expensive for building a PC/Laptop than it...has to be...
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2009 5:57:57 PM

Informative article but I have to keep reminding myself the article is about gaming cpu's rather than general pupose use.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
November 23, 2009 6:01:14 PM

One thing I think is strange is how the Core i5 is highly recommended here yet in the CPU section of the forum in the CPU Buyers Guide 2.0 Core i5 was removed from the recommendations because of the Foxconn LGA 1156 socket issue with the P55 Platform.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/267801-28-buyer-guide

There were reports of failure with extreme over clocking and now a couple of reports with over clocking on air cooling.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/news/25803/

It also seems a little dependent on the builders skills at installation. Don't get me wrong here the Core i5 CPU itself is easily one of the best bangs per buck and I was seriously considering such a build until this issue reared its ugly head recently a while ago.

To me this would be like having 3 good lug nuts on each wheel on a car.
It might run fine until one took too many high speed turns.Or it's more like having the wrong gauge of house wiring.

Obviously some P55 motherboards use the Tyco AMP or LOTES sockets and these seem to not have this issue at this moment.
Have the defective Foxconn sockets been replaced with corrected ones yet or should a builder be concerned that high air cooled over clocks are just too dangerous for the P55 platform and just stick with either stock speeds or just lightly over clock.

Question will a lynnfield i5 or i7 CPU at stock speeds and P55 motherboard have normal longevity or will it degrade and burn out at an earlier date than expected if there is poor contacts with the Foxconn sockets?
Score
1
November 23, 2009 6:21:22 PM

AMD offers good deals with high reliability but iam still waiting Core 2 Quad Q9550 to drop so its price ........:) 
Score
1
November 23, 2009 6:44:10 PM

Suggestion: It would also help budget gaming builders to match each of your 'Best Gaming CPU for ___' with a recommended motherboard. Every time I read one of these articles I go to newegg to assemble a budget gaming pc, and I always have to do my own research for a decent motherboard to match. It helps to see what you will have to pay for a motherboard when you are planning to build a new system from scratch.
Score
3
November 23, 2009 6:51:25 PM

BrueBixSuggestion: It would also help budget gaming builders to match each of your 'Best Gaming CPU for ___' with a recommended motherboard. Every time I read one of these articles I go to newegg to assemble a budget gaming pc, and I always have to do my own research for a decent motherboard to match. It helps to see what you will have to pay for a motherboard when you are planning to build a new system from scratch.

Good point +1. Any word Toms? lol
Score
1
November 23, 2009 7:34:21 PM

Good to see E8500 still there, mine's at 4+ GHz. It easliy makes up for core count in sheer clock speed. Got it a year ago when I couldn't afford a quad core, I still don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.
Score
-2
November 23, 2009 7:51:52 PM

I believe this article is very true on price to performance. AMD, AMD, AMD, AMD, AMD, Intel.
Score
2
November 23, 2009 8:13:19 PM

jj463rdOne thing I think is strange is how the Core i5 is highly recommended here yet in the CPU section of the forum in the CPU Buyers Guide 2.0 Core i5 was removed from the recommendations because of the Foxconn LGA 1156 socket issue with the P55 Platform.http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] uyer-guideThere were reports of failure with extreme over clocking and now a couple of reports with over clocking on air cooling.http://www.overclockersclub.com/news/25803/It also seems a little dependent on the builders skills at installation. Don't get me wrong here the Core i5 CPU itself is easily one of the best bangs per buck and I was seriously considering such a build until this issue reared its ugly head recently a while ago.To me this would be like having 3 good lug nuts on each wheel on a car.It might run fine until one took too many high speed turns.Or it's more like having the wrong gauge of house wiring.Obviously some P55 motherboards use the Tyco AMP or LOTES sockets and these seem to not have this issue at this moment.Have the defective Foxconn sockets been replaced with corrected ones yet or should a builder be concerned that high air cooled over clocks are just too dangerous for the P55 platform and just stick with either stock speeds or just lightly over clock.Question will a lynnfield i5 or i7 CPU at stock speeds and P55 motherboard have normal longevity or will it degrade and burn out at an earlier date than expected if there is poor contacts with the Foxconn sockets?


+1

Wow some really good information there. Didn't know that they were having problems with the sockets. However I never really like Foxconn at all. However with my P55 build I'm going Intel all the way to hopefully avoid such problems.
Score
1
November 23, 2009 8:52:27 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
E8500 = overpriced piece of crap...$200 for a dual core? You've got to be sh*ting me...

You can get a cheap $160 quad core, OC it, and it'll perform much better.

Over priced yes and will become more obsolete as more games support 4 cores to the fullest, but what else can not bottleneck sli or crossfire when you oc a E8500 past 4Ghz easy on air. It has the cache and speed it just doesn't have 2 more cores to make you happy.
Score
0
November 23, 2009 9:20:21 PM

Well I am popular here!

Let me clarify a few things, firstly, I paid only $500 for my laptop CPU (OEM not an ES) courtesy of the HP spare parts store (part #: 507946-001 for those interested). This is not that bad for a top shelf laptop part (they are more expensive than desktop parts due to lower supply and demand for consumers)

Second, the i7 920 for $200 can be paired with a very strong x58 motherboard that is only in the $200 area, same as a strong P55 board, what you know! And that 3rd stick of ram is optional, you don't HAVE to run tripple channel, but if you do, unless going for top-end ram, the cost isn't bad at all.

Now for the remark about graphics cards, yes it does well with more than one and that can be expensive. But people use desktops for things besides gaming as well. Especially people doing server or VM work or large database operations.

Now for the reason I recommend it to people building new systems,
1) future proofing (or at least trying too) is always a good idea, these have power for the future and a CPU socket that we know new models will be coming out for (6-12 core stuff will be 1366, NOT 1156)
2) If someone IS interested in a gaming use, you can get one card now and another down the road. Having to upgrade your whole system because you want more 3d power later is kind of a pain, much easier to just add a 2nd card don't you think?! (that is assuming that a 2nd card in SLI/CF would be better than any single card at the time - this is true of pretty much all the graphics cards in the $175+ range)

That being said, I agree a Core i7 will be overkill for many people, at those times I make other recommendations. One that is also good is a Q9550 for $169 (also Micro Center - they just get sick deals on CPUs) paired with P45 and some good DDR2 ram. Given that the price of an E8400/E8500 is close to or higher than the Q9550 I just mentioned, why bother with them?

Hopefully this will be up long enough for some people to read before I get the -5 because I am disagreed with here

And just to clarify, I am not a fan boy of Intel. I do not think they have been making the most ethical business decisions lately, but that does not change the fact that they offer higher performance than AMD does right now (in some cases for lower price)
Score
-4
November 23, 2009 9:37:00 PM

Futuru Proof ? what is so future proof with x58, in round 6-12 months a motherbored should have

USB 3.0
Sata 6
And PCi 3.0 is not so far away either.

Do agree that if you want eyefinity then 2 x 5870 is good, but is there any singel screens out there that can take advantage of 2x5870 ?

Smiles, well i recon saying that Phenom II 965 does get a few more frames out of the radeon 58xx, than the i5-750/i7 940 is not a popular thing here at Toms, but the 2 tests on the net with gamer settings does say it does.
Score
1
November 23, 2009 9:46:45 PM

osseFuturu Proof ? what is so future proof with x58, in round 6-12 months a motherbored should haveUSB 3.0Sata 6And PCi 3.0 is not so far away either.Do agree that if you want eyefinity then 2 x 5870 is good, but is there any singel screens out there that can take advantage of 2x5870 ?Smiles, well i recon saying that Phenom II 965 does get a few more frames out of the radeon 58xx, than the i5-750/i7 940 is not a popular thing here at Toms, but the 2 tests on the net with gamer settings does say it does.


Let me clarify once more, I am comparing apples to apples, what is out now. By future proof I meant computing ability, not compatibility. The 3 standards you just listed, will not be as earthshaking as you think. Sata 6GB/s will matter for people with RAID arrays of SSD's, not a normal user in any way. USB 3.0 will be nice for faster external drives, but doesn't e-sata already achieve this? PCI-e 3.0 is a joke given how new PCI-e 2.0 is and it is not even close to saturated with modern hardware (well, maybe, things like a 5970 will benefit from the full x16 2.0 vs x8 but that is it)

People can use multiple video cards for gaming on a 30" if they like, or beyond (eyefinity and such) but there are many other uses for these cards as well. All the GPU computing stuff out there will utilize these GPUs regardless or what monitor they are attached to. Things like F@H and SETI@home and others.

You make a valid point, that nothing is really "future proof" but buying hardware that will have a longer practical lifespan is a step in that direction.

And remember, all those standards were issued before P55 even came out, and none were implemented with it. So until Intel and AMD incorporates those into their chipsets making additional expensive controllers unnecessary, they will not be mainstream.
Score
-2
November 24, 2009 12:59:04 AM

Well useres test with crysis has resultet in a 18% frame loss between an 1366 and 1156 setup in crysis, another forum user saw 11% frame loss at the same when going from 16x16 to 8x8 crossfire.

And for gaming i have to agree with u when it comes to usb 3.0 and sata 6.

Futurproving is however the most difficult thing there is, intel comes with new cpu round every second yr, amd cant do that due to the lack off resources.

But the Bulldozer is an AM3 cpu, witch should make also that plattform pretty future profe.

Myself shell have an eyefinity setup, it is almost a crazy ekeperience, and it is quite affordabel. But i recon there be another half year before we really see the full benefit of an eyefinity setup, with that i meen, almost beseless lcd screen, bessel mangement, and crossfire support for eyefinity.

I cant argue with the value over an 1366 rig in ur country, but here in Norway the price diffrensen betwenn an i7-920 rigg and an i5-750 /amd 965 rigg is round the same as the price for an Intel 80gb ssd gen 2 disk.

But u get tums up for ur opinion :) 
Score
1
November 24, 2009 3:50:02 PM

My Processors are all in the top bracket, except my lousy Phenom II X4 955.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 159 à CPUs
November 24, 2009 6:56:46 PM

I need change my X4 955 for an Intel processor, I love AMD, but in performance is too much better Intel...:( 
Score
-2
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
November 25, 2009 1:26:56 AM

I think the i7 920 is just inside the point of reason rather than just above it. Of course, it's on it's way out and the extra cost of the motherboard and RAM over that of a comparable i5 setup should be taken into account.
Score
1
November 25, 2009 9:22:52 AM

I strongly disagree with this article. It should be called best cpu for the money, not gaming cpu.

A dualcore like the 550 is way more powerful for a gaming rig than a lower clocked triple of a lot lower clocked quadcore. I am more and more seeing guides here, that seem to nbe just made out of the top of the creators head, in stead of testing it thoroughly. That budget quadcore for example, is not even closely comparable with the 550 and its surely not worth mentioning.

Besides the whole article is a bit of a fluke, because a processor belongs to a socket, which goes with a specific motherboard. Those prices vary quite a bit, so anyone who builds a gaming computer, can better first check the motherboard prices per socket, than the individual processor prices and their relative performance.

Score
0
!