Gaming CPU Hierarchy Chart
What about this other CPU that’s not on the list? How do I know if it’s a good deal or not?
This will happen. In fact, it’s guaranteed to happen because availability and prices change quickly. So how do you know if that CPU you have your eye on is a good buy in its price range?
Here is a resource to help you judge if a CPU is a reasonable value or not: the gaming CPU hierarchy chart, which groups CPUs with similar overall gaming performance levels into tiers. The top tier contains the highest-performing gaming CPUs available and gaming performance decreases as you go down the tiers from there.
This hierarchy was originally based on the average performance each CPU achieved in our charts test suite using only four game titles: Crysis, Unreal Tournament 3, World in Conflict, and Supreme Commander. We have since incorporated new game data into our criteria, but it should be known that any specific game title will likely perform differently depending on its unique programming. Some games, for example, will be severely graphics subsystem-limited, while others may react positively to more CPU cores, larger amounts of CPU cache, or even a specific architecture. We also did not have access to every CPU on the market, so some of the CPU performance estimates are based on the numbers similar architectures deliver. Indeed, this hierarchy chart is useful as a general guideline, but certainly not as a one-size-fits-all CPU comparison resource. For that, we recommend you check out our CPU Performance Charts.
You can use this hierarchy to compare the pricing between two processors, to see which one is a better deal, and also to determine if an upgrade is worthwhile. I don’t recommend upgrading your CPU unless the potential replacement is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel and you may not notice a worthwhile difference in game performance.
| Gaming CPU Hierarchy Chart | |
|---|---|
| Intel | AMD |
| Core i7-2600, -2600K Core i7-965, -975 Extreme, -980X Extreme, -990X Extreme Core i7-980, -970, -960 Core i5-2500, -2500K, -2400, -2310, -2300 | |
| Core i7-860, -870, -875K, -920, -930, -940, -950, Core i5-750, -760, -2405S, -2400S Core 2 Extreme QX9775, QX9770, QX9650 Core 2 Quad Q9650 Core i3-2100, -2105, -2120 | Phenom II X4 Black Edition 980, 975 |
| Core 2 Extreme QX6850, QX6800 Core 2 Quad Q9550, Q9450, Q9400 Core i5-650, -655K, -660, -661, -670, -680 | Phenom II X6 1100T BE, 1090T BE, 1075T Phenom II X4 Black Edition 970, 965, 955 |
| Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Core 2 Quad Q6700, Q9300, Q8400, Q6600, Q8300 Core 2 Duo E8600, E8500, E8400, E7600 Core i3 -530, -540, -550 Pentium G850, G840 | Phenom II X6 1055T Phenom II X4 945, 940, 920, 910, 910e, 810 Phenom II X3 Black Edition 720, 740 A8-3850 A6-3650 Athlon II X4 645, 640, 635, 630 Athlon II X3 460, 455, 450, 445, 440, 435 |
| Core 2 Extreme X6800 Core 2 Quad Q8200 Core 2 Duo E8300, E8200, E8190, E7500, E7400, E6850, E6750 Pentium G620 | Phenom II X4 905e, 805 Phenom II X3 710, 705e Phenom II X2 565 BE, 560 BE, 555 BE, 550 BE, 545 Phenom X4 9950 Athlon II X4 620 Athlon II X3 425 |
| Core 2 Duo E7200, E6550, E7300, E6540, E6700 Pentium Dual-Core E5700, E5800, E6300, E6500, E6600, E6700 Pentium G9650 | Phenom X4 9850, 9750, 9650, 9600 Phenom X3 8850, 8750 Athlon II X2 265, 260, 255 Athlon 64 X2 6400+ |
| Core 2 Duo E4700, E4600, E6600, E4500, E6420 Pentium Dual-Core E5400, E5300, E5200, G620T | Phenom X4 9500, 9550, 9450e, 9350e Phenom X3 8650, 8600, 8550, 8450e, 8450, 8400, 8250e Athlon II X2 240, 245, 250 Athlon X2 7850, 7750 Athlon 64 X2 6000+, 5600+ |
| Core 2 Duo E4400, E4300, E6400, E6320 Celeron E3300 | Phenom X4 9150e, 9100e Athlon X2 7550, 7450, 5050e, 4850e/b Athlon 64 X2 5400+, 5200+, 5000+, 4800+ |
| Core 2 Duo E5500, E6300 Pentium Dual-Core E2220, E2200, E2210 Celeron E3200 | Athlon X2 6550, 6500, 4450e/b, Athlon X2 4600+, 4400+, 4200+, BE-2400 |
| Pentium Dual-Core E2180 Celeron E1600 | Athlon 64 X2 4000+, 3800+ Athlon X2 4050e, BE-2300 |
| Pentium Dual-Core E2160, E2140 Celeron E1500, E1400, E1200 | |
Summary
There you have it folks: the best gaming CPUs for the money this month. Now all that’s left to do is to find and purchase them.
Also remember that the stores don’t follow this list. Things will change over the course of the month and you’ll probably have to adapt your buying strategy to deal with fluctuating prices. Good luck!
Follow us on Twitter for more tech news, reviews, and exclusive updates!
Related Stories :
- AMD unveils Athlon FX-57 gaming processor
- IBM Still Developing Cell Processor; Loves Games
- AMD imagines on-board physics processors, 8-core gaming platforms
- Are Intel's Integrated Graphics Processors Good Enough for Gaming?
- DFI announces gaming board for Intel's Pentium-M processors
- Game-Off: Seven Sub-$150 Processors Compared
Nice! I've been waiting for the July update for awhile
The Phenom II X4 840 seems to be missing from the CPU comparison chart.
Thanks for the update!
Why bother to even mention the enthusiast-unfriendly processor, the i5-2400, when the i5-2500K is 20 bucks more?
It's the only chip worth buying in that range since, well, it usually winds to 4.5 GHz with a little care: and if you can afford a 2400, you can afford a 2500K.
(And I still can't wait for Bulldozer.)
Nice! I've been waiting for the July update for awhile
For what...about a month?
(And I still can't wait for Bulldozer.)
Personally, I'm waiting for Piledriver, the revised Bulldozer architecture which is scheduled for 2012.
Its nice to see that the 2500k, released in January, still retains its value. For how much longer? That depends on Bulldozer's eventual release, performance, and pricing. Ivybridge is not too far around the corner though, so get busy AMD...
No doubt way too late for this article, the Phenom II X3 720BE has recently re-emerged for $60 (with the promo code): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103652
That looks like a contender for the upcoming $500 SBM...
The 2500K is still showing its strength. Such a powerful gaming CPU for the money.
It's going to take something pretty special to move it from the top spot....the ball is in your court, AMD.
I've always wondered something about the i5-760 recommendation. For someone with a Pentium G6950, this is fine, but for someone with an i3 or an i5-6XX, this seems to defy the hierarchy's advice about being "three tiers higher". Is the upgrade from four logical cores to four physical cores that important for gaming?
These articles always seem to be a copy+paste from the last month ever since SB arrived. Hopefully AMD will be able to change this.
September 19 is the release date of BD cpus with 2,3 and 4 modules..Still 2 months away
Llano fails again ha ha
I don't understand this one bit. This is about the best chip right? How can Llano be excluded when it clearly beats Sandy Bridge on graphics, and the fact that it runs DX11 and Sandy Bridge, according to what I read, can't do so. Can someone explain this?
I don't understand this one bit. This is about the best chip right? How can Llano be excluded when it clearly beats Sandy Bridge on graphics, and the fact that it runs DX11 and Sandy Bridge, according to what I read, can't do so. Can someone explain this?
Its about CPU not chip.
I don't understand this one bit. This is about the best chip right? How can Llano be excluded when it clearly beats Sandy Bridge on graphics, and the fact that it runs DX11 and Sandy Bridge, according to what I read, can't do so. Can someone explain this?
They explained at the start of the article. While Llano beats Sandy Bridge graphically, its only with the on-board GPUs. Once you add a middling gaming card (anything 6770 or up), as a *gaming* PC is going to do, the advantage always swings back to Sandy Bridge. Llano's great for a basic PC, but for a serious gamer, it is just an Athlon II.
still much of the same, AMD is a poor man's Intel...
Phew! Still in good shape. No need or desire to upgrade.
Once you add a middling gaming card (anything 6770 or up), as a *gaming* PC is going to do, the advantage always swings back to Sandy Bridge.
You are being generous, a 5570 will handily beat 6550D even with expensive high performance RAM. Ignoring power consumption and for most games, you are much better off with a 6670 and an Athlon X2 for the same price as a A8-3850. Plus, it is uncertain about what sort of future compatibility FM1 will have.
No matter what AMD releases, history shows they will be behind the curve and only able to match Intel's technology from 2 years ago.