Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: March 2011

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • CPUs
  • Product
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
March 31, 2011 4:00:04 AM

It's March, and at long last, Intel's P67 and H67 chipset woes seem to be solved. Of course, now we have Z68 knocking at our door. Still, the Sandy Bridge-based Core i3s are now floating around, making it a good time to shop for a cheap LGA 1155 board.

Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: March 2011 : Read more

More about : gaming cpus money march 2011

March 31, 2011 4:15:57 AM

I just stepped up from a Phenom 955BE to a i7 2600 today and I can say it's definitely worth the upgrade if you render video's or 3d modelling or any CPU-Intensive task.

But for gaming I didn't notice any major improvements, but that isn't to say I didn't notice a few things.
Score
2
March 31, 2011 4:51:27 AM

I have to disagree with the recommendation for the i3-2100.

The reason being is that the previous-generation Core i3-530 (the slowest one) can be overclocked to speeds over 3.75 GHz at stock voltages (4 GHz isn't uncommon).

Also, since the i3-2100 isn't much faster than a stock i3-530, and even at 3.75 GHz the 2100 folds to the O/C'd 530.

Socket 1156 may be a dead platform now, but chances are good that if you're on a budget you won't be buying Ivy Bridge either- so by the time 1155 is obsolete you'll be looking at an upgrade again anyways.
Score
2
Related resources
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2011 5:00:21 AM

Poor AMD is being nudged out.Well let's hope BD turns out well for them (and us) in a couple of months from now.It would be nice to have better competition between AMD and Intel on the desktop front.
Score
3
March 31, 2011 5:16:09 AM

Where would an X3 720 with the 4th core unlocked and a clock rate of 3.6 rank in the chart for gaming? Same as the regular one? I've a 5870 and have wanted to drop in another but is it worth it? Crossfire's been killing it, i hear.
Score
1
March 31, 2011 5:27:06 AM

AMD's 955 is the same price as the 965 on newegg.
Score
1
Anonymous
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2011 5:35:12 AM

Do these recommendations make any difference at resolutions of 1920X1200 and above? I just can't understand spending more on the cpu than the monitor or graphics card for gaming.

Coming from a i5-750, 6950 2gb, HP ZR24w IPS user.
Score
1
March 31, 2011 5:54:40 AM

Quote:
awww, i feel bad for the i7-990x. it didne get even a honorable mention :( 


That's because this is for GAMING. The 2500K is by far the best bang for buck CPU when it comes to gaming.

The 990x is useful for people who do lot of rendering, encoding, and use a lot of multi-threaded apps on a regular basis, and even for that, the 2600K is a great choice at just over $300.
Score
2
March 31, 2011 6:35:19 AM

an upgrade from i7 860 to 2600k is a good upgrade? What about upgrading from 5870 to 6970/gtx 570 ?
Score
0
March 31, 2011 6:46:05 AM

werr20an upgrade from i7 860 to 2600k is a good upgrade? What about upgrading from 5870 to 6970/gtx 570 ?


I don't think it would be worth upgrading at all in that case, I had 1 GTX470 and grabbed a second one instead of buying a different card.
Score
2
March 31, 2011 7:15:16 AM

keep in mind that i cant overclock my cpu very easy ! @3,8ghz i am reaching very high temps +85* @ 1,375voltage and it's still unstable ! and i understand that my cpu @2,8 it lowers the gpu's performance !
Score
0
March 31, 2011 8:02:28 AM

Just waiting for that blank space below the AMD column in the first row to get filled up with BD procs. Come on AMD...

Also i dont think people on a budget will go with LGA1156. Even if it is a couple of $$$ cheaper as gamers will know that SNB is way better and that those $$$ are better spent there.
Score
3
March 31, 2011 8:10:14 AM

LuckyDucky7Also, since the i3-2100 isn't much faster than a stock i3-530, and even at 3.75 GHz the 2100 folds to the O/C'd 530.



And why is that, is it the fact that you have to oc the i3 530 650mhz faster to beat the Core i3 2100? Which proves toms hardwares point about how powerful the core i3 2100 compared to the core i3 530.
Score
3
March 31, 2011 8:28:09 AM

The Core i3-2400 is missing from the hierarchy chart.
I suppose it's a border case between the two top fields.
Score
2
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2011 8:57:17 AM

I would love to see these CPUs in this article neck to neck in a chart to see what really is the difference in games. All games averaged out should give a good indication what you are buying.

If the new i3 might give 50 FPS average and an i7 58 (thumbsuck) then it might not be worth getting and i7. The hierarchy is nice, but doesn't give enough conrete % information.

Alternatively in the hiearachy one could put the top CPU as 100% average frame rate in games, and each CPU below could show its relative speed to he fastest. (E.g. 93% etc)

Also, there was an article last year on how an i3 is really what one needs for gaming (so I thought a high Mhz Core2 will do the trick for now). Based on that I only upgraded my Graphics card to a 5870 and suffered very bad frame rate in Bad Company 2. Later Upgrading to an i7 3hgz (with the same graphics card) gave a shocking improvement.
Score
1
March 31, 2011 9:57:50 AM

Please explain why the Phenom II X4 975 is six slots above the 970 when the difference between the two is a measly 100 MHz. Surely this is a mistake...
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 94 à CPUs
March 31, 2011 11:20:05 AM

well, amd may aswell just drop their phenom line completely and concentrate on the low end. It wont matter if they make it to 4ghz on the phenom, an i3 is faster.......bring bulldozer now or go home!
Score
0
March 31, 2011 11:33:44 AM

QuoteBut no list is complete without the best-of-the-best, and that's the Core i7-2600K. For $330 you can have a CPU that games faster than the $1050 hexa-core Core i7-990X Extreme.


This is wrong, as your article states, at no situation did the 2600K surpass the 990X. But the difference is infinitesimal that it's not worth the money based on it's gaming. As an all-around platform, though the 990X is much better when it comes to performance.

Olle PThe Core i3-2400 is missing from the hierarchy chart.I suppose it's a border case between the two top fields.


They might've been in a rush and simply forgot to add it.

philologosPlease explain why the Phenom II X4 975 is six slots above the 970 when the difference between the two is a measly 100 MHz. Surely this is a mistake...


How many of this series did you read? they group the similar processors in tiers and the difference between the 975 and the 970 is only one tier and not six slots.

werr20an upgrade from i7 860 to 2600k is a good upgrade? What about upgrading from 5870 to 6970/gtx 570 ?


Both upgrades aren't worth it. The 6970 is worth it if and only if you can use its extra memory i.e. if you game at 2560x1600 or you use Eyefinity. Also, the upgrade from the 870 to the 2600K isn't worth it as it is not "at least three tiers higher". You'd better wait until Z68 is here except if REALLY need Quick-Sync now.

assmarWhere would an X3 720 with the 4th core unlocked and a clock rate of 3.6 rank in the chart for gaming? Same as the regular one? I've a 5870 and have wanted to drop in another but is it worth it? Crossfire's been killing it, i hear.


I think it would have the same performance as the 955BE. so, Xfire performance will decrease slightly depending on your gaming resolution.
Score
1
March 31, 2011 12:07:14 PM

How many of this series did you read? they group the similar processors in tiers and the difference between the 975 and the 970 is only one tier and not six slots.

Okay, I see what you mean, although the chart seems to split into tiers and sub-groupings, and this division is lost by having the 975 on an island. What adjacent Intel CPU would you say the 975 is on a par with? The Phenom II architecture is slightly slower than Core 2 clock-for-clock, right? At 3.6 GHz it must be better than any of those Core 2 Extremes. Can it match a i5 750?
Score
1
March 31, 2011 2:30:28 PM

Who does the editing for these articles? Since you actually mention the Pentium E6800, don't you think you should put it on your CPU Hierarchy Chart?
Score
1
March 31, 2011 2:43:08 PM

TA152HWho does the editing for these articles? Since you actually mention the Pentium E6800, don't you think you should put it on your CPU Hierarchy Chart?


It's catching. E8600.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2011 2:52:41 PM

This is the second month in a row you've recommended the $99.99 Athlon II X4 635 over the $99.99 Athlon II X4 640.

Why?
Score
2
a b 4 Gaming
a c 150 à CPUs
March 31, 2011 3:15:21 PM

As an exercise, I visited the Anandtech CPU benchmark page at http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/62 and browsed through all of them. With very few exceptions (e.g. Starcraft II; a real CPU-killer), even a "miserable" little Athlon II X2 255 can run any game at playable frame rates. This certainly doesn't invalidate Don's efforts, and this article remains one of my favorite monthly pieces, but the simple fact is it doesn't take a high-dollar CPU [on an expensive full-featured motherboard, overclocked to the gills] to play and enjoy most games.
Score
1
March 31, 2011 3:31:17 PM

philologosPlease explain why the Phenom II X4 975 is six slots above the 970 when the difference between the two is a measly 100 MHz. Surely this is a mistake...


The mistake may be how you're interpreting the chart... it's one tier above, not six. Many CPUs share the same tier.
Score
1
March 31, 2011 3:32:13 PM

ScrewySqrlThis is the second month in a row you've recommended the $99.99 Athlon II X4 635 over the $99.99 Athlon II X4 640.Why?


because for the second month in a row the 640 was not available for $100 when I checked pricing.
Score
1
March 31, 2011 3:34:49 PM

gaborbarlaI would love to see these CPUs in this article neck to neck in a chart to see what really is the difference in games.


On the first page we link to the article where we do exactly that:
"Who's Got Game? Twelve Sub-$200 CPUs Compared" :) 
Score
1
March 31, 2011 3:44:34 PM

Hey guys, how about if you could start to publish a chart of best motherboards for all the CPU sockets and in different form factors and prices? That will be a really helpful addition to the CPU chart.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
a c 150 à CPUs
March 31, 2011 3:56:05 PM

The latter would be EXTREMELY subjective, but I agree that an updated article on chipset features would be very useful.
Score
1
March 31, 2011 4:12:38 PM

I think one guy above hit the nail on the head with a particular suggestion. Can we get a comparison across a multitude of games? Such as the percentages you have in relative performance and performance relative to price when it comes to these CPUs and gaming.

I know I don't play a single game but lots of them. SC2 may be fantastic coupled with a 2600k but if that same processor shows only a ~10% increase in other games over a 955 or 2100 then it'd be advisable to stick the money elsewhere, say a larger SSD or better GPU.

I guess what I'm asking is if there's any way to see which programmer's are favoring when it comes to game design: the cpu or gpu?
Score
1
March 31, 2011 5:08:40 PM

nforce4maxFor $95 good luck finding any thing else better for the price. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103824There is nothing wrong with the x4 820 yet people go for the athlon x4 that lack the l3 cache.



The listing is for an OEM CPU

Tom's GuideOf course, these are retail CPU prices. We do not list used or OEM CPUs available at retail.


You could argue that someone would buy an aftermarket cooler anyway, but that wouls be an unlikely investment at the 95 dollar price point.
Score
1
March 31, 2011 5:18:31 PM

Going to stick with my i7-930 for some time, but nice to see tech is progressing.
Score
1
March 31, 2011 5:46:52 PM

I think that the e6800 should be upgraded to a full recommendation. For those of us Running on the 775 chipset, the investment in the product compared to the next recommendation is HUGE!

Buyers looking in the $100 price range are likely in a similar situation as me... How can I get a good improvement for little cost with this setup.
e6300 OC'd to 2.8, 4GB DDR2, 460 GTX 1GB video

e6800: $100 (OC to 4.0 maybe?)

vs

Core i3-2100: $120
4GB DDR3 RAM: $70
Mobo: $80
total: $270

Thats almost 3 times the price for the next step up, and this would probably barely increase your frame rates! Granted, your upgrade path has pretty much expired with the 6800. But it certainly is the "Best gaming CPU for the Money" in that price range.
Score
0
March 31, 2011 6:00:25 PM

There is something wrong with this paragraph:

"Why do we limit our recommendation to folks with Core i3s? If you already have an i5 on LGA 1156, it's at least a -750, and the -760 isn't worth the extra money. And if you're already rocking a Core i7, well, you probably don't want to step down. "

Why ? Because you assumed that "it's at least a 750" when referring to Core i5's and that is not true. There are Core i5's that are Dual Core. You have to rewrite the text not only for it to make sense but also so that we know what do you think those stand in your line of argumentation.
Score
0
March 31, 2011 8:49:35 PM

Wouldn't the 3.2 GHz Phenom II X4 840 be a better buy at $110 than the 2.9 GHz Athlon II X4 635 at $100?
Score
0
March 31, 2011 9:11:35 PM

tpi2007There are Core i5's that are Dual Core.


True, I was focused on the new Sandy Bridge CPUs. The paragraph is revised.
Score
0
March 31, 2011 10:18:07 PM

Ya gotta love that the best gaming CPU is only $330.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
March 31, 2011 10:40:17 PM

I have a lot of respect for the author, but I maintain my disagreement with the concept of "past the point of reason." I've witnessed the obsolescence of far too many supposedly powerful CPUs over the years to ever believe that there is such a thing as too much power.
You are in good company though Cleve, a rather famous fellow once insisted we would never need more than 1MB of system memory.
Score
0
March 31, 2011 11:29:18 PM

Am I missing something, how does the Intel HD 3000 video work on the new Sandy Bridge chips? Every Mobo I see has no video outputs on it. How does that work?

EDIT: ahhh, I was looking at p67 chipsets not h67
Score
0
March 31, 2011 11:46:13 PM

ProximonI have a lot of respect for the author, but I maintain my disagreement with the concept of "past the point of reason." I've witnessed the obsolescence of far too many supposedly powerful CPUs over the years to ever believe that there is such a thing as too much power.You are in good company though Cleve, a rather famous fellow once insisted we would never need more than 1MB of system memory.


Heheh. Well, my 'past the point of reason' statement refers to a much shorter span of time than Gate's 1MB quip, I think.

When gaming is the application, more expensive CPUs do nothing to enhance performance, and since the bottleneck often gets shifted to the graphics card this state of affairs will last long enough (a year, maybe even a little more) that spending increased amounts of money on a gaming CPU is a total waste.

That's for *gaming* CPUs mind you. If your focus is more broad than that, indeed, a more powerful CPU might show you some benefits (although probably not much over a 2500K). But I make that clear in the article.

As far as witnessing the obsolescence of far too many CPUs over the years, for my part, I've witnessed far too many people pay thousands of dollars for bleeding edge PC components that were never properly utilized... and was worth less than half in a matter of months.

Often, bleeding edge hardware is a waste of money in the PC world. ;) 
Score
1
April 1, 2011 1:20:33 AM

The i3 2100 and 2120 is to high on the chart. It simply losses to much ground once any extra task is added. While gaming most have a voip, adware checker, anti-virus,and possible software firewall. In the article linked the multitasking of 2033 shows the i3 2120 cant possible match the AMD x6 1075 and about a tie to the x4 970. The 2100 cant even keep up with x4 955 in this test. I suggest moving the i3 2100 and 2120 down a place in the hierarchy chart.
Score
2
April 1, 2011 1:27:58 AM

philologosHow many of this series did you read? they group the similar processors in tiers and the difference between the 975 and the 970 is only one tier and not six slots.Okay, I see what you mean, although the chart seems to split into tiers and sub-groupings, and this division is lost by having the 975 on an island. What adjacent Intel CPU would you say the 975 is on a par with? The Phenom II architecture is slightly slower than Core 2 clock-for-clock, right? At 3.6 GHz it must be better than any of those Core 2 Extremes. Can it match a i5 750?

The phenom 975 @3.6 GHz meets the performance of an i5-750 @2.66Ghz. You can say that they are on par at stock speeds. However, overclocking both is a different story as it makes the i5 sail past the phenom dramatically.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
April 1, 2011 4:53:23 PM

Good article. I had planned to upgrade my system and do some actual gaming this year, but as before, I just don't have the time.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
April 2, 2011 7:32:54 AM

Cleeve .... Often, bleeding edge hardware is a waste of money in the PC world.


Well, that's certainly true. I admit that the QX9650 was a waste of money for those that bought it, but we aren't talking about a $1K part. I used to say that two notches down from the best was the right CPU to buy, and that seemed to work well for a while.
Here is the test I would love to see run on a variety of CPUs:
You are in a late night raid in your MMO of choice and you haven't noticed the time. Your aggressive malware suite suddenly kicks into gear and does a full system scan. This is the kind of real world gaming challenge that benchmarks never show.
I can see clearly that any gaming benchmark shows a lack of value with the i7 2600K. Maybe what we need is a subjective study. Would 10 gamers be able to spot the i7 2600K out of three otherwise identical machines?
Score
1
April 4, 2011 6:09:21 PM

AMD needs to step up its game!
Score
0
April 4, 2011 11:17:24 PM

I have an i5-750 with a 5850.. i have an 1080p monitor. i am looking to upgrade, does anyone have any recommendations
Score
0
April 4, 2011 11:54:41 PM

loverblueI have an i5-750 with a 5850.. i have an 1080p monitor. i am looking to upgrade, does anyone have any recommendations


I recommend you don't bother, unless you need to drive higher resolutions and can afford a better graphics card. The 750 isn't really holding you back.
Score
0
April 5, 2011 1:40:49 PM

If you are building your computer for gaming, it is important to know the demands of the type of game you play in general, and the specific game you play if there is one that overshadows everything else. Some games don't mind a mid-range CPU, some games can use all the CPU you can get. It also depends a lot on your personal preference - don't let anyone talk you into spending more than what you are happy with, but on the other hand, if you want more than what THEY are happy with, don't apologize for your choice either.

;) 
Score
1
a b à CPUs
April 11, 2011 12:53:04 PM

IMHO Tom´s Gaming CPU Hierarchy Chart is for reference only. Anyone can draw its own conclusion on what CPU suits best.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2011 5:20:58 PM

Do they even know H61 exists?? They failed to mention it in the recall. lol
Score
-1
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!