Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Budget Gaming Processor

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 1, 2012 12:49:00 PM

Hello....
I want to ask you about 2 processors.
The first one is the Intel I5 2500k LGA 1155 3.3 Ghz.
the other one is the AMD AM3 FX6100.
Which one should i pick? I am going to use it for gaming.
I would also like you to tell me a good mobo for each of them bcz currently i am using Asus P5KPL-AM/PS mobo which does not support either of them.

I would prefer the AMD processor bcz its cheaper and i am on a budget too of about 200$ for the processor.But i wanted to know if the 2500k makes a huge difference in performance over the FX6100.....??

Thanks in advance..!! :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :) 
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 1, 2012 1:04:29 PM

Hi AmaanK :-) The i5 is hugely superior for gaming - around 35% faster than the FX8150 in games that require CPU muscle (so obviously more than 35% above the FX6100). For an AMD gaming option for less money, the FX6300 is a better choice. It's still well below the i5 though. You should be able to find an i5 3570K for a similar price to that i5, or just use a 3450 and save some money if you're not going to overclock it.

EDIT: That 35% gain is at 1080p - at lower resolutions the gain is even more.
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2012 1:10:34 PM

Well, the 2500k kills the FX series in most software. The FX series tend to see an advantage in software that can push load across all it's avaliable threads (multithreaded software) which most games still do not.

If you only have about $200 for a CPU as you mentioned, then you could actually go with something like an FX 8320 which while it still does not beat out the 2500k in most software, it is still cheaper, nets you 8 cores/threads and beats out the older Bulldozer chips as well.

Overall AMD has the budget advantage still, so i would go that route, probably with an FX piledriver chip like the 8320 which is $179.99 on Newegg and then grab a fairly cheap 970 chipset board unless you need a board with more feature sets.

Related resources
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 1, 2012 1:15:21 PM

You could also take a look at Tom's Hardware recommendations to get an idea of some options. The only recommendation AMD gets is a half-recommendation for something that's well below what you're after anyway.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/gaming-cpu-review-overclo...
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 1, 2012 1:15:50 PM

I wouldn't recommend the 8320 for a strictly gaming system, maybe - but if it's used for other things like video editing or Matlab then 8320 all the way for value.
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2012 1:26:31 PM

FinneousPJ said:
I wouldn't recommend the 8320 for a strictly gaming system, maybe - but if it's used for other things like video editing or Matlab then 8320 all the way for value.


This is true, granted, from a budget perspective it's performance even in gaming and especially multi-threaded games is still excellent while remaining cheaper then what Intel has put out.

It's still one of the best chips you can get for less then his $200 budget. You must also remember that he has no board for what CPU he gets, hence adding onto the cost. If he can deal with a board that with a lower end feature set, grab an FX chip and use the rest on a solid GPU, i'd say he'd be in the best place.

If he has $200 soley for the CPU, it's really the best you can get. You'd have to go down to the i5 3450 just to get it under $200 on the intel side, which is a great chip, but still, the motherboard prices are higher to run it and it's still mroe expensive then a FX 8320.

a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 1, 2012 1:37:35 PM

Let's not get that argument going in this thread :lol:  Both are fine choices.
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2012 1:44:56 PM

FinneousPJ said:
Let's not get that argument going in this thread :lol:  Both are fine choices.


I agree. And from a performance perspective for the software he uses you're correct. ;) 

Simply, the 2500k is far better if you can grab both the chip and a board.
a b à CPUs
December 1, 2012 2:01:15 PM

If you are willing to OC, the FX6300 is the best value chip. If you don't want to OC, go for an i3. If you only game, go for an i3, too.

my 2 cents
December 1, 2012 2:54:41 PM

Thank you everyone...!! For those answers.....After reading them all and since my main purpose is gaming (not that i won't be using the pc for other purposes) I am thinking of increasing my budget to buy a 2500k.

Which is better a 2500k or 3450 ??or is there only a cost difference??

Whatever you people recommend please suggest a budget motherboard for the same...!!

Thanks in advance...!!!
:)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :) 
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 1, 2012 3:02:26 PM

The 3450 is slightly faster by default, but the K models can be overclocked. Doing so would void your warranty, but you don't mind that, you can increase the speed on the 2500K. Since the 3450 speed is locked, the 2500K could achieve higher speeds if you overclock it. Honestly though you'll see very little difference whichever you go for. I'd personally take the cheapest option (but avoid the S models and T models). I'd take the 3450 myself.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 1, 2012 3:07:39 PM

OCing a K-series CPU doesn't void warranty, AFAIK. That'd be the ultimate scam though, buy an overclockable CPU just to void your warranty :lol: 
December 1, 2012 3:14:03 PM

sam_p_lay said:
Hi AmaanK :-) The i5 is hugely superior for gaming - around 35% faster than the FX8150 in games that require CPU muscle (so obviously more than 35% above the FX6100). For an AMD gaming option for less money, the FX6300 is a better choice. It's still well below the i5 though. You should be able to find an i5 3570K for a similar price to that i5, or just use a 3450 and save some money if you're not going to overclock it.

EDIT: That 35% gain is at 1080p - at lower resolutions the gain is even more.


Hey sam_p_lay thanks for those advises.
I was wondering if the FX 8150 would do me any good??Also i am going to buy an ATI Radeon 7750 HD 1GB GPU.
Can you tell me a good motherboard for the CPU and GPU i chose..??
:)  :) 
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 1, 2012 4:05:38 PM

FinneousPJ said:
OCing a K-series CPU doesn't void warranty, AFAIK. That'd be the ultimate scam though, buy an overclockable CPU just to void your warranty :lol: 


I know it seems bizarre, but Intel are very clear on this. I've actually spoken with them directly about it to confirm it. They do offer a warranty extension though - http://click.intel.com/tuningplan/. You pay a bit extra but then you're covered for one replacement if your overclocked CPU dies. CPU failure at stock clocks is covered by your standard warranty.

EDIT: Check out the FAQ if you're interested, it does a good job of clearing up the confusion. Only thing that isn't made clear is the duration of the extension - it's limited to the duration of your warranty. So if you purchase it two years into a three year standard warranty, it only lasts for a year. When the warranty is gone, overclocking cover goes with it.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 1, 2012 4:14:48 PM

AmaanK said:
Hey sam_p_lay thanks for those advises.
I was wondering if the FX 8150 would do me any good??Also i am going to buy an ATI Radeon 7750 HD 1GB GPU.
Can you tell me a good motherboard for the CPU and GPU i chose..??
:)  :) 


Glad to help :-) I'd take the FX6300 over the FX8150 - the benefits of the new architecture will give you more performance gain than the addition Piledriver module of the FX8150. You really are better off with the i5 though. If you want to overclock, the ASRock Z77 Extreme4 is a very popular choice to pair with an i5 3570K.

If you're not into overclocking, the i5 3450 is the way to go. For that, I'd find the cheapest Z77 board you can find and just look up reviews to make sure there are no issues with it. The Z77 chipset has support for USB 3, SATA 3 and PCI-E 3 already built-in, so all that new good stuff :-) It's barely any different in price to non-overclocking chipsets. If you're certain you'll never overclock though, B75 motherboards are also fine (though also limited to a single SATA 3 port on the chipset).

Finally, if you have plans to use SLI or Crossfire, be sure there's at least two non-graphics slots separating the PCI-E x16/x8 slots you'll be putting your cards in.

EDIT: For GPU, the GTX650 is also worth considering - it's also very cheap, same kind of performance, but you get FXAA, TXAA, adaptive v-sync, PhysX etc... all the good nVidia stuff :-)
December 1, 2012 5:57:37 PM

The i5 is by far the best choice for any kind of gaming, the FX were primarily marketed as server processors, and even then they get whooped by Xeon pretty badly, the i5 beats even the 8350 in all but the most heavily threaded tasks(where both will fail pretty hard).
December 1, 2012 8:48:12 PM

Thats not exactly "budget" gaming we are talking about. Budget would be i3 or dual core pentium.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 1, 2012 8:51:43 PM

AmaanK stated his budget in the original post - these CPUs fit. The nomenclature doesn't really matter.
December 2, 2012 2:41:15 AM

sam_p_lay said:
AmaanK stated his budget in the original post - these CPUs fit. The nomenclature doesn't really matter.

Hii....After much research on Flipkart I found a motherboard quite cheap,(actually the cheapest in Z77 motherboards)
Its the ASrock Z77 Extreme 3 motherboard will it be good enough...??
Other than this what could my options be??Please HELP!!

I also looked at the GTX650 its costly than the 7750 HD but provides same performance.Why should i take it then??

Thanks!!
:) 
December 2, 2012 4:23:33 AM

get a fx 6300 over the 6100.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 2, 2012 8:15:21 AM

Well here the GTX650 is the same price here, so the benefit is just the added stuff you get with nVidia graphics - FXAA, TXAA, adaptive v-sync and PhysX!
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 2, 2012 8:30:29 AM

I think only PhysX is unique and is quite useless also nowadays.
December 2, 2012 8:48:46 AM

sam_p_lay said:
Well here the GTX650 is the same price here, so the benefit is just the added stuff you get with nVidia graphics - FXAA, TXAA, adaptive v-sync and PhysX!


I asked about the motherboard too in my previous post....So it would be very nice of you if you tell me about my motherboard choice-ASRock Z77 Extreme3 motherboard.

Thanks in advance.....!!!
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 2, 2012 5:39:04 PM

FinneousPJ said:
I think only PhysX is unique and is quite useless also nowadays.


Nope, they're all unique. And the last game I played (Borderlands 2) used PhysX, which I could have enjoyed had I been using a GeForce. AmaanK - I'll take a look at that motherboard tomorrow and let you know, but it's probably fine.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 2, 2012 6:21:47 PM

The names may be unique but not the functionality.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 2, 2012 7:50:56 PM

Seems like you're just taking guesses here and hoping you're right. I'm certain in particular that AMD don't do PhysX and adaptive v-sync. Are you able to back any of this up? Post links if you can.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 2, 2012 7:53:47 PM

AmaanK, that board looks good to me, but Google some reviews just to be sure there aren't issues. Looks like a good board for SLI or Crossfire if you ever add a second card.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 2, 2012 8:26:49 PM

Actually you made the claim the OP should purchase a more expensive card to get "nVidia goodies", so I'd like to see you back your statement up. What makes it worth more money when in most benchmarks it actually performs worse?
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 2, 2012 8:46:35 PM

There we go - complete ignorance of the facts and empty guesses that Radeons MIGHT deliver the same benefits. You obviously have no clue about this technology.

FXAA is an anti-aliasing technique developed by nVidia to deliver the same benefits as MSAA but with a fraction of the performance hit. AMD tried something similar with morphological anti-aliasing (which was actually based on Intel research), where an anti-aliasing algorithm would be applied post-process once the frame had been rendered, just before outputting the frame buffer. Only problem was, it sucked.

I was hugely excited about it when it launched, despite what the tech media said about it blurring the frame and strange corruption effect on text (figured I'd be the judge of that myself). Enabled it in Fallout 3 and saw they were right - anti-aliasing effect was only achieved by blurring the entire frame, and the HUD text had a weird bendy effect on it. Disabled morphological AA immediately and I've not used it since.

Figured that I shouldn't get my hopes up about anti-aliasing solutions that don't result in any significant performance hit, but then nVidia introduced FXAA. It's ideal for games like Max Payne 3 that would take a huge performance hit with MSAA on the Radeon 7750 and GTX650.

Now do I also need to teach you about how v-sync and adaptive v-sync work, or will you admit that you're a bit out of your depth here?

EDIT: Also, I'd be interested if you can post a significantly cheaper price for the 7750 than the cheapest GTX650 price (and not like a £5/$10 difference).
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 2, 2012 8:58:51 PM

sam_p_lay said:
There we go - complete ignorance of the facts and empty guesses that Radeons MIGHT deliver the same benefits. You obviously have no clue about this technology.

FXAA is an anti-aliasing technique developed by nVidia to deliver the same benefits as MSAA but with a fraction of the performance hit. AMD tried something similar with morphological anti-aliasing (which was actually based on Intel research), where an anti-aliasing algorithm would be applied post-process once the frame had been rendered, just before outputting the frame buffer. Only problem was, it sucked.

I was hugely excited about it when it launched, despite what the tech media said about it blurring the frame and strange corruption effect on text (figured I'd be the judge of that myself). Enabled it in Fallout 3 and saw they were right - anti-aliasing effect was only achieved by blurring the entire frame, and the HUD text had a weird bendy effect on it. Disabled morphological AA immediately and I've not used it since.

Figured that I shouldn't get my hopes up about anti-aliasing solutions that don't result in any significant performance hit, but then nVidia introduced FXAA. It's ideal for games like Max Payne 3 that would take a huge performance hit with MSAA on the Radeon 7750 and GTX650.

Now do I also need to teach you about how v-sync and adaptive v-sync work, or will you admit that you're a bit out of your depth here?

EDIT: Also, I'd be interested if you can post a significantly cheaper price for the 7750 than the cheapest GTX650 price (and not like a £5/$10 difference).


Wow, what a condescending post. I guess you think you're pretty smart :lol:  You still present no actual proof, just a patronizing attitude.

BTW, you did nothing to teach how FXAA works, but you're welcome to. If you can do V-Sync and Adaptive V-Sync as well, why not.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 2, 2012 9:05:14 PM

Well it's more than the empty guesses you can provide... I can link you a white paper on FXAA, but it will only provide a brief overview and implementation instructions for developers. You're right that I didn't explain how the technique is actually achieved, primarily because it's a proprietary technique, so naturally nVidia aren't going to go in too much detail about how it works (or AMD would implement the same and nVidia lose the advantage).

Go ahead and do some research yourself on it though, ask people in the forum who know more than you. Or just get in touch with somebody like Chris Angelini (his email is available on the site). He's a good guy and will give a helpful, detailed response confirming what I've told you. The post was indeed condescending, but you have to understand my frustration with fanboy-like behaviour. You offer no proof or explanation, just guesses and assumptions that AMD might offer the same benefits. Trust me, if my Radeon could replicate FXAA (and especially adaptive v-sync), I'd be using them right now. Not to mention PhysX.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 3, 2012 7:31:05 AM

I forgot about that thing - looks like some impressive work they've done. Means you need to configure and tune it for each application though, unlike the nVidia solution.

And I'm sure you do feel that any argument against whatever you say is 'empty'. Like I say, ask somebody else if you don't believe me. There's obviously no point in me explaining it, because you won't believe me. So stop pestering me. Readers can decide for themselves.
December 3, 2012 7:57:58 AM

sam_p_lay Thanks for all your play.After posting many questions in different sections of the forum I have finally made up my rig.....

CPU-Intel i5 3450 3.1Ghz
Mobo-ASRock Z77 Extreme3
GPU-ATI Radeon 7770 1GB GDDR5
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 4GB DDR3 1600
PSU: Corsair CMPSU-600GUK 600 Watts PSU
Cooler-Cooler Master 212 EVO cooler

All done for around 45000 INR (using flipkart prices)
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 3, 2012 8:00:03 AM

That looks like a nice setup! Good luck with it :-)
December 3, 2012 11:31:22 AM

Good choice for the processor. I am an AMD loyalist but I must admit that the third generation intel core cpus (3xxx) are way better than the amd fx bulldozer processors especially in gaming.

But the the fx piledriver (4300s, 6300s, 8300s) series are better than intel ^_^.

just my opinion ^_^

good luck on your setup. ^_^
December 3, 2012 11:50:47 AM

AmaanK said:
sam_p_lay Thanks for all your play.After posting many questions in different sections of the forum I have finally made up my rig.....

CPU-Intel i5 3450 3.1Ghz
Mobo-ASRock Z77 Extreme3
GPU-ATI Radeon 7770 1GB GDDR5
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 4GB DDR3 1600
PSU: Corsair CMPSU-600GUK 600 Watts PSU
Cooler-Cooler Master 212 EVO cooler

All done for around 45000 INR (using flipkart prices)

I am wondering on why you bought a non overclockable cpu, but spent money on an aftermarket cooler?
December 3, 2012 12:16:43 PM

milkshakez7z said:
I am wondering on why you bought a non overclockable cpu, but spent money on an aftermarket cooler?


So is there no use of a the Cooler Master 212 EVO with a non overclockable CPU like the one i stated.....??
December 3, 2012 12:33:54 PM

AmaanK said:
So is there no use of a the Cooler Master 212 EVO with a non overclockable CPU like the one i stated.....??

Well not really unless you think that your cpu will run to hot, otherwise the stock should be fine.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 3, 2012 12:43:34 PM

That's a good point - remember, if you're buying boxed retail, there's a free heatsink in the box.
December 3, 2012 1:34:00 PM

sam_p_lay said:
That's a good point - remember, if you're buying boxed retail, there's a free heatsink in the box.


Hey sam_p_lay

Take a look at this forum of mine.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/355605-28-asking-revi...
I would love to get some help here from you......!!
Thanks....!!
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 3, 2012 1:39:00 PM

Will do :-)
December 3, 2012 3:27:43 PM

In the other thread I went with the Extreme 4 mobo and Evo 212 for future upgrading to a K series processor Amaank. If you don't plan to do so the Extreme 3 and stock fan are fine. Also your updated system still shows only 4 gb of ram, should probably still consider stepping up to 8.
December 3, 2012 11:46:21 PM

I got GTX670 and yes, physx is just a useless marketing gimmick. Bringing it into amd vs nvidia debate is like saying reference coolers are better on one over the other.
a b 4 Gaming
December 4, 2012 2:15:06 AM

There's no real point getting the z-chipset board if your CPU is locked and SLI/Crossfire is a no go.
Get the H77 Pro4/MVP instead, it's cheaper but has more ports.

As for the PhysX thing, I don't personally find the feature much of a big thing to get a nVIDIA card over an AMD card that outperforms it at the same price. There's only a handful of games that make use of PhysX.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 4, 2012 8:44:23 AM

Borderlands 2. I just spent two months playing it and the DLCs, and not playing it at its full potential. If you're talking about spending more money for say 10% less performance, it might be a decent point. If it's $10/£5 for 5% less performance, I'd say it's a pretty weak argument.

And what about FXAA? MSAA takes a much bigger performance hit in some games than in others. With these cards, there's no way you could consider Max Payne 3 at 1080p, high and MSAA. With the Radeon, you'd have to lose anti-aliasing. If the GeForce can give you the benefits of anti-aliasing without a significant performance hit, then I'd say that alone is worth £5. I don't even know if Max Payne 3 supports FXAA (though it's a new game so probably), but it's a good illustration of where this could really come in handy.

And what about adaptive v-sync? All together, I wouldn't hesitate to spend a tiny bit extra for this stuff.
a b à CPUs
a b 4 Gaming
December 4, 2012 9:44:02 AM

I'm not sure the GTX650 is able to do any AA at all :lol: 
a b 4 Gaming
December 4, 2012 11:54:50 AM

7750 w/ or w/o Catalyst 12.11 with 4xAA has better fps than the 650.
As for the Adaptive V-sync, the Finneous guy already showed you AMD's version of it, but at these frame rates, they're hardly relevant.

!