We really like to hunt down great values in the processor space. Since our last round-up of affordable CPUs, AMD released its Llano-based APUs and Bulldozer-based FX family. Also, Intel introduced a handful of Sandy Bridge-based Pentium chips.
Whenever there are significant changes in the CPU market, we like to collect as many sub-$200 models as possible and put together a gaming comparison. Certainly a lot has happened since the last time we did this. Perhaps most obviously, the Phenom II and Athlon II families have started giving way to the FX series, along with the A4, A6, and A8 APUs. Intel, meanwhile, now has Sandy Bridge-based Pentium processors.
First, let's talk about AMD's new offerings. The company's Bulldozer micro-architecture landed in the desktop space as the Zambezi die, which came to be branded FX. There are only four processors in the entire family: the quad-core FX-4100, the hexa-core FX-6100, and the octa-core FX-8120 and FX 8150. They all sport unlocked multipliers, and, even in the face of less-than-elegant efficiency numbers, they're known to overclock pretty well. Unfortunately, the FX processors also make sacrifices in IPC, negatively affecting performance in lightly-threaded applications compared to older AMD CPUs and anything from Intel.
Nevertheless, we're still curious to see how these CPUs fare in gaming environments (especially the $110 FX-4100). And since all of the FX processors are easy to overclock, we'll also test them at more aggressive frequency settings to see how well they scale. In order to ensure the FX line-up puts its best foot forward, we also installed the new Windows 7 scheduler updates KB2645594 and KB2646060.
AMD also has its APUs, which combine traditional processing and a graphics engine on a piece of silicon referred to as Llano. Manufactured at 32 nm, these chips employ the Stars architecture utilized by the familiar Phenom IIs, along with mainstream Radeon graphics designs that facilitate respectable 3D performance. Although the APUs don't come with the Phenom's big L3 caches, the individual execution cores are slightly more efficient. We’re interested in seeing how these products perform complemented by discrete graphics cards compared to the other sub-$200 options. Two APUs are waiting for our affections: the dual-core A4-3400 and the multiplier-unlocked quad-core A8-3870K. We also have a quad-core Athlon II X4 631 to test, which is functionally identical to the A6-3650's processing component. It's cheaper though, because the integrated graphics are disabled.
Finally, we're taking a look at Intel's new Pentium processors manufactured at 32 nm and based on the Sandy Bridge architecture. Does a relatively small 3 MB shared L3 cache and dual-core, Hyper-Threading-less design hold these budget-oriented models back? Or, do the $100 Pentium G860 and $80 Pentium G630 give gamers on budgets ample muscle?
The Sub-$200 Gaming CPU Line-up
Today we have the following sub-$200 CPUs, plus a $230 Core i5-2500K for comparison:
| AMD FX-4100 | AMD FX-6100 | AMD FX-8120 | AMD A4-3400 | AMD Athlon II X4 631 | AMD A8-3870K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codename: | Zambezi | Zambezi | Zambezi | Llano | Llano | Llano |
| Process: | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Cores (Threads): | 4 | 6 | 8 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Clock Speed (Turbo): | 3.6 (3.8) GHz | 3.3 (3.9) GHz | 3.1 (4.0) GHz | 2.7 GHz | 2.6 GHz | 3.0 GHz |
| Interface: | AM3+ | AM3+ | AM3+ | FM1 | FM1 | FM1 |
| L3 Cache: | 8 MB | 8 MB | 8 MB | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Thermal Envelope: | 95 W | 95 W | 125 W | 65 W | 65 W | 100 W |
| Online Price: | $110 | $160 | $200 | $70 | $85 | $145 |
| AMD Athlon II X3 455 | AMD Athlon II X4 645 | AMD Phenom II X4 955 | AMD Phenom II X4 980 | AMD Phenom II X6 1090T | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codename: | Rana | Propus | Deneb | Deneb | Deneb |
| Process: | 45 nm | 45 nm | 45 nm | 45 nm | 45 nm |
| Cores (Threads): | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 |
| Clock Speed (Turbo): | 3.3 GHz | 3.1 GHz | 3.2 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 3.2 (3.6) GHz |
| Interface: | AM2+/AM3/AM3+ | AM2+/AM3/AM3+ | AM2+/AM3/AM3+ | AM2+/AM3/AM3+ | AM2+/AM3/AM3+ |
| L3 Cache: | N/A | N/A | 6 MB | 6 MB | 6 MB |
| Thermal Envelope: | 95 W | 95 W | 125 W | 125 W | 125 W |
| Online Price: | $80 | $105 | $125 | $160 | $180 |
| Intel Pentium G630 | Intel Pentium G860 | Intel Core i3-2100 | Intel Core i5-2400 | Intel Core i5-2500K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codename: | Sandy Bridge | Sandy Bridge | Sandy Bridge | Sandy Bridge | Sandy Bridge |
| Process: | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Cores (Threads): | 2 | 2 | 2 (4) | 4 | 4 |
| Clock Speed (Turbo): | 2.7 GHz | 3.0 GHz | 3.1 GHz | 3.1 (3.4) GHz | 3.3 (3.7) GHz |
| Interface: | LGA 1155 | LGA 1155 | LGA 1155 | LGA 1155 | LGA 1155 |
| L3 Cache: | 3 MB | 3 MB | 3 MB | 6 MB | 6 MB |
| Thermal Envelope: | 65 W | 65 W | 65 W | 95 W | 95 W |
| Online Price: | $80 | $100 | $125 | $190 | $230 |
- Can FX, APUs, And Pentium Processors All Game?
- Test System And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3
- Benchmark Results: Just Cause 2
- Benchmark Results: StarCraft II
- Benchmark Results: DiRT 3
- Benchmark Results: Metro 2033
- Overclocking Benchmarks
- AMD Or Intel: Which Offers Better Gaming Performance?

the fx-8120 outperformed by the i3-2100
the fx-8120 outperformed by the i3-2100
if i had the money, id go i7, i woundt consider anything lower than that.
if i dont have the money, i would only consider the phenom II x4 or x6 line, as i prefer real cores, and the lowest real 4 core intel is over 200$ and the phenoms are 100-150ish.
granted i would wait for pilerdriver.
The i3-2100 is actually down to $110 on Newegg right now, but at $125 it made the Pentium models an absolute steal. You were paying nearly $40 more for .2 Ghz faster and hyper-threading compared to the G850 between $85-90. A $110 i3-2100 not only addresses this difference much better, but basically kills almost every AMD CPU above that price point, while the Pentium's kill the AMD CPU's below it.
The Phenom 2 x6's (which now appear to be all out of stock) for selective use, and maybe the FX4100 is really all AMD has left that's semi-viable anymore. IT's not looking good for AMD that's for sure. :\
it was great to see ph ii x4 955 outperform fx in gaming. imo it's the best gaming cpu from amd. fx4100's (and the rest of fx) overclocked (under)performance was sad.
but core i3 2100 and sandy bridge pentiums...damn...
i think intel sorta turned around the old 'pentium vs fx' (for gaming) with sandy bridge pentium vs bulldozer fx.
amd must do better with piledriver and trinity.
There isn't, and won't ever be, a 32nm die shrink to the Phenom IIs.
Bulldozer is IT, and that's all there is to it.
Maybe Piledriver will have some improvements, but they just won't be enough. Even if they could get IPC parity with the old Phenom IIs they still get run over by Pentiums and the i3-2100.
It will be interesting to see how Trinity performs but I'd be surprised if it wasn't just Bulldozer bolted on to a better GPU; IPC improvements might be there but I doubt they'll be as good as the Phenom IIs. The fall FX releases might get them to parity.
I'd like to see what performance the Ivy Bridge i3 will have; or if Intel will (unlikely) release a K-series for it- thus ensuring that sub-200-dollar overclocking is shelved for at least another 2 years if not indefinitely.
And no 960T? Thats about the only non FX/Llano chip left available in any numbers. That and the 2.8GHz hex core.
PS: Also as a side note, my own i5 2400 allows me to "overclock" (31 to 38) with no base clock increase, through a limited multiplier on the UD4 motherboard and so if Asus has this ability which i assume it does, could have posted overclocked numbers for those parts too.
I completely agree. I've been wanting to build a somewhat light gaming machine based on these APUs but I haven't really found anyone that tests them all as they are. Instead they throw in a discrete card and scream intel is better. Though that is true with discrete graphics, I want to know how it does with the GPU on die because I know the APUs will destroy the intel CPUs when it comes to all around performance based on integrated graphics.
But I do still like this article, it was very well done.
What disappoints me is actually the weak overclocks I've seen so far on the unlocked Llano. 3.6 vs 4.0 on the 955 mainly accounts for the .3 difference between them, but considering it's a lower TDP part, I'd think that Llano could be pushed a bit further than Phenom IIs. Anyway, the Llanos are brought into this because they're the only Stars based chips on a process similiar to SB chips, meaning they can actually compete on a wattage basis. Bulldozer was supposed to be the 32nm CPU part, but...well that didn't turn out as expected. It's pretty clear though that Llano performs as well as an Athlon II using less energy, so they could have likely had the same results from a Phenom II on a 32nm process.
Anyway, Ivy isn't going to be a major improvement in CPU performance, it's a wattage reduction/better IGP upgrade. Piledriver has a lot of room for improvement, so hopefully they manage to fix everything wrong so far and get a solution that runs well. If AMD drops out of the market, we won't be discussing sub 200 processors much longer.
I'd like to see some GPU scaling with CPU too. As a side note, I was sad to see the G530 not up there. It's only $50 and should be hanging with the more expensive and soon to be extinct Athlon II's. To me that is the only CPU in the Intel range that puts enough $$$ between it and an i5-2500K to really be worth looking at.
...So there!