AMD's Athlon II X3 440 is such a capable little chip, and and it costs so little. Is there any real point in spending more money on your gaming machine’s CPU? We explore this question with a head-to-head challenge against Intel's venerable Core i7-920.
Every month, we publish our Best Gaming CPUs For The Money column. This is where we share our picks for the processors that we feel provide the best gaming value for your hard-earned dollar. Our recommendations are based on a lot of testing, and that testing has shown that games respond best to high clock speeds.
However, our benchmarks also show that the number of processor cores is a secondary consideration. There is a large performance jump from single- to dual-core CPUs, but most games only show a slight performance increase when a third core is added. In fact, it is rare to find a game that will take advantage of more than three processor cores and demonstrate a notable performance increase.

Since its release, the Athlon II X3 440 has had a strong impact on our recommended gaming CPU list. When you combine its high 3 GHz clock speed, trio of processor cores, and sub-$90 price tag, you end up with a real force in the gaming arena. On top of that, the third processing core allows the Athlon II X3 to be an especially great processor compared to dual-core models because that extra core can smooth out desktop performance when multitasking.
When it comes to gaming, though, the CPU can only do so much; the graphics subsystem is key. We've received some feedback on the forums suggesting that our recommendation of any processor more expensive than the Athlon II X3 440 is frivolous. The argument is that, while game performance may increase with a costlier CPU, the money is wasted because the Athlon II X3 440 is supplying all the performance that games require to achieve smooth frame rates, and that upgrading the graphics cards is the only way to remove a meaningful game performance bottleneck.
We decided to run a series of tests to really explore whether or not there's any point in investing in a CPU more powerful than the Athlon II X3 440 for gaming duty. First, we need to examine how we measure game performance and get a better understanding of how meaningful the numbers are.
- Why Pay More?
- How Much Game Performance Can We Perceive?
- Game Performance Targets
- Test Systems And Benchmarks
- Average FPS Benchmarks: Single Radeon HD 5850
- Minimum FPS Benchmarks: Single Radeon HD 5850
- Average FPS Benchmarks: Radeon HD 5870 In CrossFire
- Minimum FPS Benchmarks: Radeon HD 5870 In CrossFire
- Average FPS Benchmarks: Athlon II X3 440 In CrossFire Vs. Core i7-920 With A Single Card
- Minimum FPS Benchmarks: Athlon II X3 440 In CrossFire Vs. Core i7-920 With A Single Card
- Conclusion
I'd guess at least 90% of users never overclock anything.
To be fair though, probably 90% of Tom's readers do.
the whole thing seems to slightly contradict the 'balanced PC' articles though. why put such a cheap CPU in a system with such a powerful GPU? is the budget really going to be THAT tight?
the whole thing seems to slightly contradict the 'balanced PC' articles though. why put such a cheap CPU in a system with such a powerful GPU? is the budget really going to be THAT tight?
except very high end gaming, I realy do not see a reason to go after the i7.
what I am missing from the article is the X3 vs Intel cpus in the same price range. maybe a followup would do some good :-)
I'd guess at least 90% of users never overclock anything.
To be fair though, probably 90% of Tom's readers do.
my thought is that for single card users (not necessarily 58xx type not because it's not good but is for sure not budget friendly) and normal monitors (1680x1050) a triple or even dual core amd is enough.
I tried to play online, and it's pretty boring and repetitive. Uninstalled.
When i build gaming rigs for a kids, i don't want to get the HI end system with somewhat hi price tag for a kids computer. The AMD CPU is a solid choice, with cheaper GPU like the 5770 it will be a good and cheap gaming machine. And if FPS will get bit low, I can lower the game effects to a reasonable point and still have grate experience from a game.
All I can say that it was a good investment as I can max out everything I play, considering I only have a 19" screen that supports upto 1280*1024.
It's what I call balance. Not everyone can afford an i7 with SLI or Xfire and 30" screens.