Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: February 2012
Table of contents
- 1. Best Gaming CPUs For The Money, February Updates
- 2. Best Gaming CPU: $100 And Under
How do AMD's new FX and APU lines compare when it comes to gaming, and are Intel's Sandy Bridge-based Pentiums worth a look? The shocking answers to those questions shake up our recommendations. Check this month's update for details!
If you don’t have the time to research benchmarks, or if you don’t feel confident enough in your ability to pick the right processor for your next gaming machine, 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.
February Updates
At the end of January, we published our analysis of the sub-$200 CPU market as it pertains to gaming in a story called Picking A Sub-$200 Gaming CPU: FX, An APU, Or A Pentium? The big surprise was that Intel's budget Sandy Bridge-based Pentiums are able to hang with some of AMD's best efforts. For example, the Pentium G630 and Pentium G860 performed just slightly below and above AMD's venerable Phenom II X4 955, respectively. Even more eye-opening was that the new FX-4100, -6100, and -8120 actually underperformed both budget-oriented Intel chips, despite their higher price points. The Athlon II X3 and X4 CPUs were left in the dust, along with the Llano-based A8 and A6 APUs, and the A4-3400 performed dismally. To be clear, the tests were performed using a Radeon HD 7970 graphics card, so we're certainly not detracting from AMD's excellent integrated graphics. Rather, we're concerned with each processor's ability to handle demanding games in a CPU-bottlenecked scenario.
Of course, this is going to affect our recommendations. We would have had to remove the Athlon II and Phenom II CPUs from our chart sooner or later anyway, since they're all being displaced by the FX and APU families. We had hoped that some of AMD's new models would claim spots on this list, though. For a long time now, affordable processors from the company have dominated the first few pages of our monthly column, and that's now going to change. As it stands, the closest thing to a recommendation earned by one of AMD's processors is an honorable mention favoring its $110 FX-4100, a dual-module chip with a lot of overclocking headroom enabled by an unlocked multiplier. Keep its value proposition in perspective, though: overclocked to 4.5 GHz, the FX-4100 and FX-6100 barely achieve parity with a stock $125 Core i3-2100 in our gaming tests. Pushed as far as they can go on air, no AMD CPU can touch a stock Core i5-2400 in the same benchmark suite.
Unfortunately, we see this trend continuing unless AMD can reverse Bulldozer's problems with the next wave of FX processors based on its Piledriver architecture. The company claims to be gunning for at least a 10% performance improvement over its current design, though recent server roadmap changes suggest that it might be seeing more. Just remember that Intel's Ivy Bridge-based chips will almost certainly emerge before anything with Piledriver in it, and that architecture will introduce performance gains of its own.
Speaking of Intel, the company recently introduced the Core i7-2600S, a low-power version of the familiar Core i7-2600. It has the same 3.8 GHz peak Turbo Boost bin as the non-S version, but a 600 MHz-lower base frequency of 2.8 GHz, which facilitates a 65 W TDP (down from 95 W). This model is selling on Newegg for $310. But since its focus is on low power and not performance, it has no place in our recommendations.
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. We may add honorable mentions for outstanding products in the future, though. For now, our recommendations are based on stock clock speeds and performance at that price.
Cost and availability change on a daily basis. We can’t offer up-to-the-minute accurate pricing information in the text, 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 US prices from online retailers. In other countries or at retail stores, your mileage will most certainly vary. Of course, these are retail CPU prices. We do not list used or OEM CPUs available at retail.
- 1 / 4
- Next
-
Latest CPU News
- 02/22 – AMD Piledriver Cores to Use Energy Recovery Tech
- 02/22 – Intel's Rosepoint Puts Wi-Fi Radio, Atom CPU on Single Chip
- 02/21 – Nvidia, ZTE Intros Tegra 2 + Icera Smartphone
- 02/21 – Intel Reveals More Details of Ivy Bridge Variants at ISSCC
- 02/21 – Photo Shows Possible iPad 3 CPU/GPU as 'A5X' System...
Latest CPU reviews
-
Latest Intel News
- Intel's Rosepoint Puts Wi-Fi Radio, Atom CPU on Single Chip
- Intel Readies New 313 Series Caching SSDs for Ivy Bridge
- Intel Reveals More Details of Ivy Bridge Variants at ISSCC
- Intel's Ivy Bridge Core i3 Details Leaked
- Leaked Slide details Intel's Lynx Point Chipset
-
Latest Intel reviews
- Overclocking: Can Sandy Bridge-E Be Made More Efficient?
- Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: February 2012
- Intel SSD 520 Review: Taking Back The High-End With SandForce
- In Pictures: 16 Of The PC Industry's Most Epic Failures
- Upgrade Advice: Does Your Fast SSD Really Need SATA 6Gb/s?
It would be great to review a desktop CPU hierarchy chart devoted purely to speed, power-usage efficiency and application responsiveness dollar per dollar. I'm glad that the gamers put the rest of us "enthusiasts" on the map but between them and the hand-held device crowd, I'm beginning to feel particularly left out...
Well, I for one completely appreciate Tom's updating their CPU article every month.
(And I'm sure many other do that don't post because of the somewhat tedious log on procedure here)
This monthly update of a hierarchy should totally help the more budget conscious be at
ease with their purchases as the OS (Win 7) hasn't changed all the sudden and the
need for speed is still being satisfied with our purchases.
If you have to recommend a CPU at any price, why don't you recommend a server based Xeon ? Yeah, sure, it's an enterprise product, but they are clocked high and the motherboards support PCI-Express, heck, you can find some which allow SLI and Crossfire.
um.. wth... the comments are from january article, same with the 'Read the comments on the forums' link.
anyway, nice to see the new hierarchy chart. although i think that the fx cpus deserve to be another tier lower because of their higher power consumption, compared to the intel (pentium and core i3) cpus in the same tier.
8150 one tier lower than core i3 2100 (for gaming)!!! that's gotta be tough to take in for the c.a.l.f.s pitching multitasking and all day pov-rendering.
if the sub-$200 cpu round up came out right after fx line of cpus were launched......
i think amd cpus had a few months of free reign at the value gaming cpu recommendations.
i really, really, really hope amd makes a good comeback with trinity and piledriver.
The 2500K is still top for price/performance.
Such an awesome CPU, and so easy to overclock.
Now I see why AMD is pursuing the mobile market. Intel solidified it's place as a top tier CPU manufacturer on the bleeding edge of performance.
Then Intel went ahead and proceeded to dominate the budget market with the same precision and efficiency. That left AMD no where to claim as theirs.
I hope the mobile market treats them better.
Also, good thing they bought ATi/Radeon when they did. It seemed like they overpayed at the time, but now it's looking like they diversified into a better position in the global technology landscape. Props.
People, don't forget this is a "gaming" cpu list, not necessarily an "all around use" list. Personally I would still go for a Phenom II X4 of some sort over a dual core i3. It's a more balanced option IMO. But eh, who am I to talk, I went from a Athlon X4 635 to a Phenom II 965BE to a FX-8120 to my current i7 2600k. All I can say is "I should have went with an i7 to begin with." lol
"In any case, gamers should skip any processor bearing the Atom brand anyway." I will add to that and take it up a notch and say EVERYONE should skip any processor bearing the Atom brand! It's dog excrement from Intel at it's best, hell they are still producing these on 32nm when their Flagship i series are moving to 22nm... says a lot really...
Highly agreed. Its strange that Intel has the kickass lineup of i3, i5, i7, and the enthusiast line up. And then there's Atom... Absolutely useless. Heck, thats probably why AMD's APU ended up becoming popular because they proved that low end computing doesn't have to be a pile of crap.
"Amd CPU's Aren't Building for Windows 7"
I've heard this so many times, it's not the chip it's the software. Come on and wake up, AMD knows full well going into production of their processor that the vast majority will be used on a Windows platform. So to come out and say "well our CPU is great but windows 7 holds it back" is total bulls**t and a cop out. Either that or AMD is so stupid that they would create a chip knowing full well it won't perform on the platform it's supposed, they may has well have just dug their own grave ... stupidity.
I'd like to see some Battfield 3 MULTIPLAYER benchmarks comparing Intel and AMD CPUs.
BF3 singleplayer doesn't need much CPU power, but BF3 multiplayer needs a lot of CPU performance and is apparently properly multithreaded.
Benchmarking 64player multiplayer is difficult, but BF3 is the one game people actually buy systems for, so it would be worth having some benchmarks.
It's a shame the 3820 didn't get any love (or honorable mention) this month. Of course I suspect that with the shortages the 3930k are facing it's going to be tough to get your hands on one regardless. At $285 it represents a realistic entry into LGA2011 for the enthusiast builder and performs on par with the 2600K.
And Intel has a new lineup coming out in April :-/
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 077-5.html
and
http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] 106-5.html
FX-8150 was on same tier/level with i3-2100 in November, now is 2 tiers/levels bellow, and Phenom II X6 was 1 level under FX-8150, now is 1 level higher!
Either you have retested FX-8150 and found out that it performs bad because AMD has a new manufacturing process, or maybe Intel has a new manufacturing process for Sandy Bridge architecture that makes 2nd gen i-processors faster, or you just change the tiers/levels as you find more amusing?
Which can it be?
Any idea?
My thoughts, too. Not sure why Toms still does this article, monthly. I'm thinking it could be done quarterly, while things like the $500, $1,000 and $2,000 gaming systems could still be done monthly. We won't see any new CPUs (Ivy Bridge) until at LEAST sometime in Q2, anyway, right? At the same time, though, AMD 7000 series is out, having an effect on the best gaming system builds, today.
We users fought hard to have these sorts of articles every month.
A lot of things happen quickly when a new type of CPU is released normally, and it sends a shockwave through the rices and often performance/ price which generates the lists at different price points, particularly when it comes to the value you can get out of overclocking.
The thro main manufacturers also release minor changes within their lineup ( a newer model from timte to time) and EOL various models when new steppings arrive.
The fact that AMD underwhelmed with the recent Bulldozer line is a bit of an anomaly, and has caused a relatively static result for this product at present.
If something happens in the next month I don't want to be waiting 8 weeks for an analysis at this depth.
These same points are equally valid for graphics cards.
This is the only hardware site on the net that has a regular analysis like this.
That's why toms is the number 1 hardware site.
I might be slightly biased tho ...
Let me get this straight: Since you tested the Pentiums last month you had to readjust your recommendations. But those have been around since summer 2011. So did the price drop significantly or did you give the tip of the hat to AMD's inferior products for that long simply because you weren't interested in testing the Pentiums?
I like thes articles but they seem a little nonsensical. There should be defined price brackets say every $25 or $50 from a low of $50-75 up to $300. The way this is done now you just pick random CPUs from the low end on up with no ryme or reason... $85 CPU, $100, $110, $190... It makes no sense.
@Don Woligroski,as a sincere member and harcore supporter of tom's forum, I request you to please have a monthly article on CPU and GPU coolers as well. It is very difficult to get honest and conclusive reviews on CPU coolers for a particular budget, be it the enthusiast or the mainstream user.Please, I beeeeeeeeg of u!!
Totally true. I think a lot of confusion lies with many article publishers omitting the all-important 'above ambient' - where applicable - as well.
I like thes articles but they seem a little nonsensical. There should be defined price brackets say every $25 or $50 from a low of $50-75 up to $300. The way this is done now you just pick random CPUs from the low end on up with no ryme or reason... $85 CPU, $100, $110, $190... It makes no sense.
We're reporting on the market, not the other way around. To me, it would be nonsensical if we chose arbitrary dollar amounts.
Instead, we choose the best performers that make a difference with a significant price spread.
The market doesn't follow our article, we follow the market. Trying to dictate convenient dollar amounts would be futile.
Let me get this straight: Since you tested the Pentiums last month you had to readjust your recommendations. But those have been around since summer 2011.
The LGA 1155 Pentium G860 has been getting a recommendation from us since July 2011, actually.
Billybob, I don't think the Pentiums were tested, but Tom's was not alone in ignoring them. Since, at the time, an Athlon X2 250 could play any game, it seemed unlikely that a mere Pentium could do any better. A prior look at the G9650 had not been impressive, so no one was calling for Tom's to test the new ones, and they simply hadn't done it yet. The AMD chips got the nod because no one took the new Pentiums seriously. Well, we all learned otherwise last month when Tom's finally looked at them. Ok, Tom's (and the rest of us) have pulled our pants back up; they're on the charts now and AMD has been booted off.
I think that the issue of scale should be brought up. At whatever game settings you prefer, whether you are getting 60FPS or 100FPS isn't going to make much difference. OTOH, going from 30FPS to 50FPS can be quite a big deal. If you had to lower your settings to "unsavory" levels to get playable FPS, then you probably want to plan an upgrade. If you've got the settings you want and a playable frame rate, then upgrading your AMD X3 455 need not be a priority at all. Put another way, if you've got an AMD CPU, the fact that it got bumped down a tier or two doesn't mean it slowed down any; the games you've been playing just fine will continue to look the same as always. Don't build a new machine using AMD, but there's no reason to upgrade a working PC just because it is AMD.