Best Gaming CPU: $200 And Up
Best gaming CPU for $200:
Core i5-750 (Check Prices)
| Core i5-750 | |
|---|---|
| Codename: | Lynnfield |
| Process: | 45 nm |
| CPU Cores: | 4 |
| Clock Speed: | 2.66 GHz |
| Socket: | LGA 1156 |
| L2 Cache: | 4 x 256KB |
| L3 Cache: | 8MB |
| QuickPath Interconnect (QPI): | - |
| Thermal Envelope: | 95W |
The new Core i5 brings top-of-the-line Nehalem-class performance at a $200 price point. We recently awarded it our Recommended Buy honor after seeing it stand up to more expensive CPUs in games and other demanding apps.
For those desiring the best possible performance, the Core i5-750 can be overclocked to great effect, and when pushed, can perform similarly to the $1,000 Core i7-975 Extreme Edition at its stock settings.
Read our review of the Core i5-750, right here.
Past the Point of Reason:
With rapidly-increasing prices over $200 offering smaller and smaller performance boosts in games, we have a hard time recommending anything more expensive than the Core i5-750. This is especially the case since the Core i5-750 can be overclocked to great effect if more performance is desired, easily surpassing the stock clock rate of the $1,000 Core i7-975 Extreme Edition.
Perhaps the only performance-based justification we can think of for moving up from a Core i5-750 is that LGA 1156 processors have an inherent limit of 16 PCIe lanes for graphics use. This is an architectural detail that the LGA 1156-based Core i5 and Core i7 processors share, so if a gamer plans to use more than two graphics cards in CrossFire or SLI, the LGA 1366 Core i7-900-series processors are the way to go.
To summarize, while we recommend against purchasing any CPU that retails for more than $200 from a value point of view, there are those of you for whom money might not be much of an object and who require the best possible performance money can buy. If you're buying several hundred dollars worth of graphics and are worried about a potential platform bottleneck, we recommend the following CPUs:
Best gaming CPU for $295:
Core i7-930 (Check Prices)
| Core i7-930 | |
|---|---|
| Codename: | Bloomfield |
| Process: | 45 nm |
| CPU Cores/Threads: | 4/8 |
| Clock Speed: | 2.8 GHz |
| Socket: | LGA 1366 |
| L2 Cache: | 4 x 256KB |
| L3 Cache: | 8MB |
| QuickPath Interconnect (QPI): | 4.8 GT/s |
| Thermal Envelope: | 130W |
Intel's Core i7 has proven itself to be the most powerful gaming CPU option available, based on the data we have gathered. The Core i7-930 is a great choice for systems coupled with multiple graphics cards in an SLI or CrossFire configuration.
The motherboards and DDR3 RAM that the i7 architecture requires will bring the total platform cost higher than other systems, but the resulting performance should be worth the purchase price.
While the Core i5 performs similarly, there are a few applications and games that can take advantage of the Core i7 900-series' Hyper-Threading and triple-channel memory features, so spending the extra money on the Core i7-930 can pay off, particularly if you plan to overclock.
In addition, LGA 1156-based Core i5 and Core i7 processors are limited to 16 PCIe 2.0 lanes, but the LGA 1366-based Core i7-900s do not share this limitation, since they get their PCI Express connectivity from the X58 chipset. This makes the LGA 1366 Core i7 processors a good choice for CrossFire or SLI configurations with more than two graphics cards.
Best gaming CPU for $1090:
Core i7-980X Extreme (Check Prices)
| Core i7-980X Extreme | |
|---|---|
| Codename: | Gulftown |
| Process: | 32 nm |
| CPU Cores/Threads: | 6/12 |
| Clock Speed: | 3.33 GHz |
| Socket: | LGA 1366 |
| L2 Cache: | 6 x 256KB |
| L3 Cache: | 12MB |
| QPI: | 6.4 GT/s |
| Thermal Envelope: | 130W |
This six-core monster has stolen the bragging rights for the world's fastest CPU from the Core i7-975 Extreme. Despite the fact that most games don't utilize more than three CPU cores, this is the fastest gaming CPU currently available for purchase as our tests have shown. Is it worth $1,090? If you have money growing on trees, are afraid to try to overclock the Core i7-930, want the ease of overclocking that the Extreme Edition's unlocked multiplier provides, and are willing to pay for the bragging rights of having six CPU cores capable of running 12 threads, then it just might be.
Otherwise, the Core i7-980X Extreme is a hard sell from a value standpoint; you'd be better off investing more in graphics or solid state storage.
Related Stories :
- Phenom II 955 Versus Core i7 920: Gaming Value Compared
- AMD Phenom II X6 1100T Review: The New Six-Core Flagship
- Six-Core Analysis: AMD’s Phenom II X6 Gets Scaled Down
- Meet Zosma: AMD's Quad-Core Phenom II X4 960T Gets Unlocked
- Phenom II X2 555 Vs. Pentium G6950: New Budget Dual-Core Titans
- Clarkdale's Efficiency: Core i5-661 Versus Core 2, Athlon II, And Phenom II
- Scaling Summary: DDR3 Memory On Core 2, Core i7, And Phenom II
- Undervolting Your Phenom II And Core 2 Processors
- Overclocking: Core i7 Vs. Phenom II
- Athlon II Or Phenom II: Does Your CPU Need L3 Cache?
I guess I'm not too surprised that the Phenom X6 1055t didn't beat out the i5-750 at it's price point. From what I have seen, the i5-750 does tend to perform better in games.
However, I thought the 1055t would have made it into the honorable mention, especially for gamers looking for some awesome power for video conversions and that sorta thing. It may not be the best "gaming" cpu for $200, but for gamers looking for something a little extra, the 1055t presents a great value.
Anyways, like I said I was not too surprised here. Another great article.
I guess I'm not too surprised that the Phenom X6 1055t didn't beat out the i5-750 at it's price point. From what I have seen, the i5-750 does tend to perform better in games.However, I thought the 1055t would have made it into the honorable mention, especially for gamers looking for some awesome power for video conversions and that sorta thing. It may not be the best "gaming" cpu for $200, but for gamers looking for something a little extra, the 1055t presents a great value.Anyways, like I said I was not too surprised here. Another great article.
AMDs Hexacore cpus don't help with gaming compared with deneb, unless you use its great overclocking ability. It OCs better than Deneb....
What makes the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition better than the 955? I mean they're both unlocked right? Is it that the 965 is better binned or something? Does it justify $25 extra bucks?? I mean newegg has the new steppings listed differently, so there's no way you can go wrong by getting a 955...
The AMDs hexacore cpus would have made the tops only if this was a: Best multimedia/video encoding CPUs For The Money: May 2010
I hear the 965 b and the 955 b are the same thing when unlocked.
The i7-930 can be purchased for $200 at Micro Center in store only. Pretty damn good deal, no price online can beat it.
http://www.microcenter.com/single_ [...] id=0331303
I'm always confused the LGA 775 always gets put off as an inferior platform with limited upgrade potential.
Let's keep it in perspective, it's a superior platform to the P55, in the guise of the x48, if you're using a couple of GPUs or want modern technologies like USB 3.0 and SATA 6 Gbps.
You also can potentially add USB 3.0 and SATA 6.0 more easily, since you've got those PCI-E lanes that P55 doesn't. Asus has an x4 PCI-E card. It would work better in x48, than P55.
Upgrading is always something I've never understood. People seem to get a warm fuzzy feeling from saying they can upgrade their processor, but does anyone actually do it? It's been this way almost forever, show me someone that upgrades JUST his or her processor, and I'll show you an idiot. By the time the processor is obsolete, the whole platform is, so you just get both new. There are exceptions, but, really, upgrading processors alone has always sounded like something you'd want, until you realize you never end up doing it.
With processors tending to be considerably less important than Graphical Processing Units, getting a platform will more PCI-E lanes could make sense. Not always, but constantly disparaging it as useful for only upgrades misses some of the platform advantages it has over P55, as well as huge cost advantages it has over x58.
Also, the Pentium E6500 costs $75, the Core E7500 $117, both at the same clock speed. Is 1 MB cache worth $42 more? Probably money better spent on a video card, for gaming. A system based on the E6500 costs so little that it would probably do extremely well with the extra money spent on video cards, especially if the processors are overclocked (emphasizing the video cards more).
Upgrading is always something I've never understood. People seem to get a warm fuzzy feeling from saying they can upgrade their processor, but does anyone actually do it? It's been this way almost forever, show me someone that upgrades JUST his or her processor, and I'll show you an idiot. By the time the processor is obsolete, the whole platform is, so you just get both new. There are exceptions, but, really, upgrading processors alone has always sounded like something you'd want, until you realize you never end up doing it.
Upgrading often makes sense with budget CPUs. Last year I upgraded from a Phenom based Athlon X2 to a new Athlon II X4. I more than doubled my threaded performance for the 40€ it cost me after selling the old CPU.
i must agree with some of that mentioned above.
but mostly just the shunning part. core2 is still very powerful and the hype is just that...hype not much more.
remember when they were showing the 9550 along side the I7 the advantage they were showing when gaming was not staggering. I believe they removed core2 quad from the picture for just that reason.
but ive been known to be wrong
I just upgraded my Athlon 64 X2 5000 to a Athlon II X4 thanks to a new BIOS on my ASUS M2N-E. Bought this four or so years ago and I'm happy that there was room to upgrade.
I used to think that I would buy a new machine the next time I needed upgrades but now I realize that being able to upgrade the CPU and various other components along the way is much nicer (and cheaper).
I agree with you, TA152H. The fact is, i haven't seen a proper head to head comparison here on Toms between core i3 530 and core2duo E8400, or between core i5 750 and core2quad Q9400. And let's not forget that Intel stated that each new cpu generation will bring a new socket, so there's really no upgrade path for 1156. For LGA775 you either get a core2duo, like a E8400, or a core2quad, like a Q9400 and you're done. There's nothing else. That's the same on 1156: you either take core i3 530 or core i5 750. It's not like you can upgrade beyond that, to a core i7 930 or smt. And the cpus Intel will release from now on will be on a new socket, so you're in exactly the same situation.
.Also, the Pentium E6500 costs $75, the Core E7500 $117, both at the same clock speed. Is 1 MB cache worth $42 more?
The E8400 in certain benchmarks is still a force to be reckoned with.. the E7500 is middling and not a big step up from the much cheaper E6300.
Yes the 1156 platform is limiting, but the benchmarks for the i5 750 speak for themselves. On the other hand, I don't see any devices near max SATA 3 speeds and probably won't until the next upgrade cycle in a couple years.
What makes the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition better than the 955? I mean they're both unlocked right? Is it that the 965 is better binned or something? Does it justify $25 extra bucks?? I mean newegg has the new steppings listed differently, so there's no way you can go wrong by getting a 955...
965 is 3.4 GHz, consuming 125W while 955 is 3.2 GHz also comsuming 125W. Basically the 955 is a 965 that heats more/consumes more. You can OC the 955 to 3.4 GHz but then it will consume around 140-150W. The 965 can OC to higher frequences than the 955 due to the lower thermal dissipation, however, if you like the stock frequences, you can turn a 955 into a 965 without issues. The extra 25 bucks is worth if you go OC for 4.0 GHz and more.
Upgrading often makes sense with budget CPUs. Last year I upgraded from a Phenom based Athlon X2 to a new Athlon II X4. I more than doubled my threaded performance for the 40€ it cost me after selling the old CPU.
Yeah, makes more sense with AM3 platforms where you can go from a $50 budget CPU to a high end PII. Meanwhile Intel doesn't really do that whole 'backwards compatible' thing.
Stuff
In my opinion the only reason Intel hasn't EOL'd LGA775 yet is because they haven't pushed Nehalem that far down the stack yet. Once we see $50 Nehalerons, I expect LGA775 to die.
Most of the LGA775 CPUs seem overpriced for the performance they give. The E8400 costs more than the i3-530, but the two CPUs will go toe to toe in most benches. The Q9400 is only a hair cheaper than the i5-750, and the 750 is going to best it, particularly in poorly threaded apps like games.
P55's lack of PCIE is not really a problem unless you're using a pair of top end GPUs. The x4 slot can take care of USB3/SATA6. So you may as well grab a modern CPU with your modern GPUs. If you are building with a pair of 5870s, then you're already spending at least $800 on graphics, the $50 price difference between an x48 and an x58 is rather small by comparison (you won't be buying an el cheapo LGA775 here). The other thing is that if you're using enough GPU to bottleneck at x8-x8, you'll need a good CPU to not bottleneck them anyway. Again, you're already shelling out enough that the difference between a Q9400 and an i7-930 isn't worth quibbling over (especially if you have a Microcenter nearby), and the 930 does have a performance lead over the Q9400.
P55 is a pared-down X58, not a crippled/brain-dead one. Intel did well there, the cuts give X58 a solid advantage, but most normal builds won't be bottlenecked by them.
TL;DR: If you're spending enough on GPUs that P55 PCIe bottlenecks matter, you may as well go big and get X58. If you aren't get P55 and a decent CPU/GPU pairing. LGA775 is really only worthwhile if you already have parts of it.
the 635 is now $105
No! My E1400 is at the bottom of the heirarchy chart. I hope it doesn't bottleneck my GMA 4500.
Upgrading is always something I've never understood. People seem to get a warm fuzzy feeling from saying they can upgrade their processor, but does anyone actually do it? It's been this way almost forever, show me someone that upgrades JUST his or her processor, and I'll show you an idiot. By the time the processor is obsolete, the whole platform is, so you just get both new. There are exceptions, but, really, upgrading processors alone has always sounded like something you'd want, until you realize you never end up doing it.
I have to admit there is some truth to this. I myself in a recent build was constantly debating about justifying the additional cost of a more "future proof" motherboard vs. one that was just good-enough for what I needed today. I finally decided it simply made more sense to ignore SATA II, USB 3, and 6 core support for now and put the money elsewhere.
Another great article, but it doesn't look like much has changed since AMD did some shuffling with a few new CPU's. Intel isn't doing its users any favors with the constant socket changes. On the other hand, Intel has a few really solid models while AMD has so many in all different price ranges, it seems they may be competing with themselves. I'm not sure it is a wise strategy to have so many CPU's in the market.
I have to disagree with the cpu upgrades though, my current platform has gone from a fx-62 dual core to a X4 9850 to a X4 PhII 940. All of these were significant upgrades with much higher performance and overclocking ability. This has kept my PC relevant for 3 years. I will need to move to another mobo for 6 or 8 cores, but I don't think I will do that for another year.
Yeah, makes more sense with AM3 platforms where you can go from a $50 budget CPU to a high end PII. Meanwhile Intel doesn't really do that whole 'backwards compatible' thing.In my opinion the only reason Intel hasn't EOL'd LGA775 yet is because they haven't pushed Nehalem that far down the stack yet. Once we see $50 Nehalerons, I expect LGA775 to die.Most of the LGA775 CPUs seem overpriced for the performance they give. The E8400 costs more than the i3-530, but the two CPUs will go toe to toe in most benches. The Q9400 is only a hair cheaper than the i5-750, and the 750 is going to best it, particularly in poorly threaded apps like games. P55's lack of PCIE is not really a problem unless you're using a pair of top end GPUs. The x4 slot can take care of USB3/SATA6. So you may as well grab a modern CPU with your modern GPUs. If you are building with a pair of 5870s, then you're already spending at least $800 on graphics, the $50 price difference between an x48 and an x58 is rather small by comparison (you won't be buying an el cheapo LGA775 here). The other thing is that if you're using enough GPU to bottleneck at x8-x8, you'll need a good CPU to not bottleneck them anyway. Again, you're already shelling out enough that the difference between a Q9400 and an i7-930 isn't worth quibbling over (especially if you have a Microcenter nearby), and the 930 does have a performance lead over the Q9400.P55 is a pared-down X58, not a crippled/brain-dead one. Intel did well there, the cuts give X58 a solid advantage, but most normal builds won't be bottlenecked by them.TL;DR: If you're spending enough on GPUs that P55 PCIe bottlenecks matter, you may as well go big and get X58. If you aren't get P55 and a decent CPU/GPU pairing. LGA775 is really only worthwhile if you already have parts of it.
You kind of missed the point with your rambling.
x58 is a LOT more expensive, and would perform worse in most cases if the extra money were spent on video cards. That's the irony with this type of article - with games, the processor really isn't so important, the video card is. That's why they struggle to find a point in processors in a pretty big cost range and just give honorable mentions.
You're comparing x58 to x48, when you talk about dual GPUs, I was comparing to P55. When you start comparing x58 to x48, you're automatically looking at a much more expensive platform and more expensive processors. Put another way, would you do better on most games with an overclocked Pentium E6500 and an extra $250 on the video card(s), or a i7 930? I think we both know the answer to that. It's not an absolute, but the more money you can spend on the video card, the better.
I like x58, but for this narrow criteria, on almost all price points, and most games, you'd be better off with a cheaper CPU and more expensive video cards. It doesn't make it bad, it's just the nature of games right now - video cards matter more, especially at resolutions where you want to play.