If you don’t have the time to research the benchmarks or if you don’t feel confident enough in your ability to pick the right CPU, fear not. We at Tom’s Hardware have come to your aid with a simple list of the best gaming CPUs offered for the money.
Our First Gaming CPU for the Money Article
I approached writing an article about the best CPUs for the money with a great deal of caution. I write the Best Gaming Graphics Cards for the Money monthly piece and it's pretty straightforward—graphics cards are used to get higher frame rates in games, so all I really have to look at is the price/performance ratio in games and come up with what I think are the best buys. There are a lot more variables, but at the root it comes down to game performance and entry price.
On the other hand, a CPU can be used for a great many things. Anything and everything done on a PC is at least somewhat dependent on CPU performance, including writing documents, image editing, games, database queries, Internet use, server apps, scientific calculations...the list goes on and on. In truth, it's nearly impossible to make recommendations that will apply universally in light of the many different usage models that exist.
We therefore have to focus on a particular aspect of CPU performance that we can better measure, compare, and assess. Why not gaming? People are interested in the best graphics card they can get to game, so it stands to reason that they're also interested in the best gaming CPU their money can buy.
This still leaves us with the task of measuring CPU gaming performance versus price to come up with results on which we can base recommendations. With CPUs, this is a little tricky, as certain games favor multiple cores, clock speed, cache, and even a specific architecture.
Our largest database of CPU game performance is included in our Desktop CPU charts (Ed.: check out the 2009 Desktop CPU charts that were just posted, too). This includes a good cross-section of games on which to base our performance index: Crysis, Unreal Tournament 3, World in Conflict, and Supreme Commander. Admittedly, limited sampling, budget, and time means that we don't have detailed benchmark results for every CPU available, but we do have enough information to compare architectures and fill in the blanks with reasonable estimations. So, based on this performance index, as well as up-to-date pricing information, we have a reasonable price/performance base from which to launch some solid recommendations.
Please keep in mind that we aren't going to consider factors such as overclocking or platform costs. Instead, we'll stick to the basics of CPU price versus stock CPU game performance. In the future, we will try to make honorable mentions for the overclockers and for any other special circumstances we might come across. But for our first try, we're going to keep things simple.
Please do feel free to chime in with feedback on this maiden look at processor value in games. As always, we'll do our best to take your suggestions into consideration.
Some Notes About Our Recommendations
This list is for gamers who want to get the most for their money. If you don’t play games, then the CPUs on this list may not be suitable for your particular needs.
The criteria to get on this list are strictly price/performance. We acknowledge that there are other factors that come into play, such as platform price or CPU overclockability, but we're not going to complicate things by factoring in motherboard costs to this list. We may add honorable mentions for outstanding products in the future, though. But for now, our recommendations are based on stock clock speeds and performance.
Prices and availability change on a daily basis. We can’t offer up-to-the-minute accurate pricing information, but we can list some good chips that you probably won’t regret buying at the price ranges we suggest (and our PriceGrabber-based engine will help track down some of the best prices for you).
The list is based on some of the best U.S. prices from online retailers. In other countries or at retail stores, your mileage will most certainly vary. Of course, these are retail CPU prices while we do not list used or OEM CPUs.
Though I might suggest a couple changes:
First off, I own both an E8500 running at 3.8GHz and a Phenom II 940BE running at 3.6GHz, and I gotta say, with both running $190 at Newegg the Phenom II is clearly the better value. Even if it gives up a few percentage points on a clock/clock/core basis, the Phenom's four cores just hum along in any and all games while the E8500, much as I like it, does occasionally stutter. Crysis for example I can run all settings on Very High with the Phenom II, while the E8500 stutters on a few levels, which only clears up after I lower the Physics setting down to High. The Phenom II will also scale better with multi-gpu setups in much the same manner that the Core i7 did against the Phenom II in your recent test. I still like my E8500 but I bought it for $160 a year ago and especially with AMD's dual- and triple-core Phenom II BEs it's kind of overpriced. Although for non-gaming personal computing use it's still fantastic, and I can see why you make mention of the low power consumption.
Second, the E5200 should probably be co-listed as a tie with AMD's 7850. It's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, but the E5200 does have a higher ultimate overclocking potential. The drawback being that OCing success requires a reasonably educated overclocker and capable motherboard, the additional cost of which can negate some of the E5200's superb value. The 7850BE is still great though, especially for true budget builders who may not be as experienced with overclocking. The unlocked multiplier makes OCing completely brainless, and doesn't require any expensive motherboard to be stable and reliable over the long-term.
I might niggle with a couple other things but overall I think this is a great idea and not bad for the first stab.
I think, if you continue these charts, that you should stick with stock speeds only and leave the overclocking side of it out of the equation. There are to many variables in overclocking and if you took 10 of the same CPU you just might end up with 10 different results. Just add a blurb at the end of the article that the reader must do their own research if they wish to purchase based on over clocking ability of processors.
My major gripe with this article is thus....
The price structure is a bit out of whack. You jump from $120 to $190 in your recommendations.. I think that is too much of a jump when you consider all of the good choices (AMD or Intel) within that price range.
For instance, in that price range, higher then $120 but lower then $190, are many viable choices. (Prices are, and have been, current for July 09)..
AMD:
PII x4 810 2.6GHz
PII x4 920 2.8GHz
PII x4 945 3.0GHz
Intel:
C2D e7300 3.06GHz
Q8200 2.33GHz
Q8300 2.5GHz
Q8400 2.66GHz
C2d e8400 3.0GHz
Now take the PII x4 945 up there, for July (I've been watching the prices) it is selling for $180 and it beats the $190 e8500 CPU in games even on Tom's own charts. Makes me wonder why the e8500 was chosen over the PII x 4 940 when it only has two cores and was beaten in games?
I think a better price structure is needed, not this random prices that skip over viable choices. This would lead to speculation as why a particular processor or set of processors were skipped over, as we see in this article. I think you should do a "set in stone" price structure, some thing like $25 increments.
If you think there is no good choice for any particular $25 price increment, then you can write that "this so-and-so CPU is a good choice at this price, but for the extra $25 (or less $25) your better off going with this so-and-so CPU.
I think that would make for better overall recommendations in an article like this one.
I would have thought that the Athlon II would have pulled higher with such a massive clockspeed.
From what I have seen of the Athlon X2s, framerates are seriously impaired by these CPUs compared to more expensive CPUs. At some point, it has to make sense to spend money on CPU over GPU... I'm not sure where that point is right off, but it has to be considered.
Finally, I'm fairly certain the X2 6000+ was significantly stronger than the Kuma 7750. Are you sure the 7850 is better than the 6000+? The 6000+ actually costs less.
Its been a long time since I have considered AMD CPUs and its good to now see where they fit in.
Keep up the good work
I really like the hierarchy chart (both CPU & GPU). With the ever dropping prices, I rely partly on the chart to know if it's worth it at that particular time. Even when I know by waiting for 2~4 weeks, there will be a faster CPU/GPU or rather the price dropped dramatically
Though I might suggest a couple changes:
First off, I own both an E8500 running at 3.8GHz and a Phenom II 940BE running at 3.6GHz, and I gotta say, with both running $190 at Newegg the Phenom II is clearly the better value. Even if it gives up a few percentage points on a clock/clock/core basis, the Phenom's four cores just hum along in any and all games while the E8500, much as I like it, does occasionally stutter. Crysis for example I can run all settings on Very High with the Phenom II, while the E8500 stutters on a few levels, which only clears up after I lower the Physics setting down to High. The Phenom II will also scale better with multi-gpu setups in much the same manner that the Core i7 did against the Phenom II in your recent test. I still like my E8500 but I bought it for $160 a year ago and especially with AMD's dual- and triple-core Phenom II BEs it's kind of overpriced. Although for non-gaming personal computing use it's still fantastic, and I can see why you make mention of the low power consumption.
Second, the E5200 should probably be co-listed as a tie with AMD's 7850. It's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, but the E5200 does have a higher ultimate overclocking potential. The drawback being that OCing success requires a reasonably educated overclocker and capable motherboard, the additional cost of which can negate some of the E5200's superb value. The 7850BE is still great though, especially for true budget builders who may not be as experienced with overclocking. The unlocked multiplier makes OCing completely brainless, and doesn't require any expensive motherboard to be stable and reliable over the long-term.
I might niggle with a couple other things but overall I think this is a great idea and not bad for the first stab.
The 720 is currently priced at $119 on newegg.com
I went from 5600+ to 7750 and got some good gains thanks to additional 2MB L3 cache. 7750 definitely kicks 6000+ arse.