Game-Off: Seven Sub-$150 Processors Compared

Features
By published

Today, we're putting the newest and fastest sub-$150 processors against each other in a gaming competition to see which models offer the best bang for your buck. Will it be Intel's Core i3, its Clarkdale-based Pentium, or AMD's Athlon and Phenom II CPUs?

Multitasking Benchmark

In our final benchmark, we're going to do things a little differently. We're going to measure Crysis benchmark performance during the creation of a .RAR file and this should show us the game performance we can expect out of these processors for multi-tasking applications.

These results are interesting in that we can see that the Core i3 processors take a much harder performance hit during multitasking usage models compared to true quad-core options. Indeed, even the budget Athlon II X3 445’s performance is close to that of the Core i3 when running concurrent applications. This is likely because Hyper-Threading isn't as effective as an additional physical CPU core when multiple threads are executed. It's an interesting experiment, and in this case, the Phenom II X4 940/945 shows a definite advantage over all of the other sub-$150 CPUs.

TOPICS
99 Comments Comment from the forums
  • wintermint
    AMD is really improving. I'm waiting for them to manufacture 32nm CPUs like Intel :)
    Reply
  • Tamz_msc
    Interesting article-it clearly shows the advantage of having four physical cores of the Athlon II and the Phenom II X4s over the hyper-threaded Core i3s in real-world situations.No doubt that this article will benefit people who want the perfect processor for their money at this price range
    Reply
  • falchard
    I am glad an RTS was used in this benchmark. More CPU heavy games should be included in the benchmark for Processor benchmarking.

    With that said, there was a mention that the 6MB L3 cache may have helped the Phenom II X4 945, I wonder what would happen with a Phenom II X2 or X3 by comparison if this actually makes a significant impact. It could prove there is a significant advantage to cheaper AMD CPUs then the Athlon IIs in this benchmark.
    Reply
  • Found a typo on the chart, I don't see why you would compare the Intel i3-530 against itself. :P
    Reply
  • qvasi_modo
    AMD - bang for the buck, Intel - bling for the buck.
    Reply
  • Tamz_msc
    qvasi_modoAMD - bang for the buck, Intel - bling for the buck.Uptil a certain price range.
    Reply
  • war2k9
    It is time for me to dust of my old am2+ computer and put a new amd proc in it and give it a new life.
    Reply
  • cleeve
    DemonslayFound a typo on the chart, I don't see why you would compare the Intel i3-530 against itself.
    Thx, fixed!
    Reply
  • vikasnagpal_v2
    i like the performance of i3-530......................
    Reply
  • luke904
    Tamz_mscInteresting article-it clearly shows the advantage of having four physical cores of the Athlon II and the Phenom II X4s over the hyper-threaded Core i3s in real-world situations.No doubt that this article will benefit people who want the perfect processor for their money at this price range

    sorry but i must disagree...

    the core i3 530 was 8% faster than the athlon X4 and costs $5 less
    its a great processor it seems, a nice change from intel. but i admit, my heart sunk after seeing amd's athlon X4 get beat. its like sports, i root for AMD

    please dont quote the multitasking benchmark as no sane person compresses stuff while gaming...
    yes the athlon would probably be better overall for most people, but not for gaming



    Reply