Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Does AMD's FX Catch Intel Under $200?

Gaming Shoot-Out: 18 CPUs And APUs Under $200, Benchmarked
By

With our testing complete, we wanted to plot out average performance at 1920x1080, with Intel's Pentium G860 standing in as our 100% baseline.

What you see below is a very different aggregate chart compared to the one that showed up in Picking A Sub-$200 Gaming CPU: FX, An APU, Or A Pentium?, particularly when it comes to the Pentium. The rest of the results seem like they fall close to where we would have expected them, based on our previous testing. AMD's processors do come closer to Intel's last-gen and Ivy Bridge-based Core i3s. Indeed, the FX-8350, FX-6300, and FX-4300 are nipping at the entry-level Intel chip. The Phenom II X4 and X6 are as well, though neither is available any more. Even quad-core APUs like the A10-5800K and A8-3870K hold their own.

The performance curve starts to fall off pretty quickly once we look at the Pentium G860, Athlon II X3 450, and the two A4 APUs.

It isn't explicitly clear what changed in the last year, since our previous look at processors under $200, to affect performance. But we are using some new games, old games that have been patched, new drivers, and a new operating system, so all of that is in play. Regardless, AMD's FX processors, its two-generation-old Phenom II X6 and X4 CPUs, and the company's Athlon II X4 look a little better compared to Intel's Core i3 than they used to. In contrast, the Sandy Bridge-based Pentium G860 falls relative to where it was.

The Pentium isn't bad, to be sure. In fact, for $70, it still does really well against the FX chips we tested that cost $125 and up, use quite a bit of power, and generate significantly more heat. Nevertheless, we see the trend toward more threaded titles continuing, compelling us to start distancing ourselves from dual-core non-Hyper-Threaded CPUs in 2013. At least for the time being, whatever quad-core Athlon II and Phenom II processors that are still available seem like smart buys.

Once those dry up, what then? Intel still holds the aces. For your dollar, the Core i5 has no competition above $160. At $130, the Core i3-3220 is tough to beat. It no longer humiliates the FX line-up in games thanks to AMD's most recent architectural update, but it's still cheaper, faster, and more power-friendly than most of the Vishera-based models.

Fortunately for AMD, its chips fare better in the non-gaming components of our benchmark suite, where its modular architecture is better able to benefit from today's threaded software. In a general-purpose workstation, that's certainly something to think about. But in a pure gaming machine, there's just no ignoring the effectiveness of Intel's Sandy and Ivy Bridge designs.

Display all 278 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 33 Hide
    ingtar33 , February 12, 2013 3:29 AM
    so... the amd chips test as good as the intel chips (sometimes better) in your latency test, yet your conclusion is yet again based on average FPS?

    what is the point of running the latency tests if you're not going to use it in your conclusion?
  • 29 Hide
    cleeve , February 12, 2013 5:13 AM
    ingtar33so... the amd chips test as good as the intel chips (sometimes better) in your latency test, yet your conclusion is yet again based on average FPS?what is the point of running the latency tests if you're not going to use it in your conclusion?


    We absolutely did take latency into account in our conclusion.
    I think the problem is that you totally misunderstand the point of measuring latency, and the impact of the results. Please read page 2, and the commentary next to the charts.

    To summarize, latency is only relevant if it's significant enough to notice. If it's not significant (and really, it wasn't in any of the tests we took except maybe in some dual-core examples), then, obviously, the frame rate is the relevant measurement.

    *IF* the latency *WAS* horrible, say, with a high-FPS CPU, then in that case latency would be taken into account in the recommendations. But the latencies were very small, and so they don't really factor in much. Any CPUs that could handle at least four threads did great, the latencies are so imperceptible that they don't matter.
  • 25 Hide
    e56imfg , February 12, 2013 3:21 AM
    Nice round up. It's nice to finally shine some light onto the new FX chips.
Other Comments
  • 25 Hide
    e56imfg , February 12, 2013 3:21 AM
    Nice round up. It's nice to finally shine some light onto the new FX chips.
  • -3 Hide
    esrever , February 12, 2013 3:27 AM
    Wow. Frame latencies are completely different than the results on the tech report. Weird.
  • 33 Hide
    ingtar33 , February 12, 2013 3:29 AM
    so... the amd chips test as good as the intel chips (sometimes better) in your latency test, yet your conclusion is yet again based on average FPS?

    what is the point of running the latency tests if you're not going to use it in your conclusion?
  • 18 Hide
    shikamaru31789 , February 12, 2013 3:37 AM
    I was hanging around on the site hoping this would finally get posted today. Looks like I got lucky. I'm definitely happy that newer titles are using more threads, which finally puts AMD back in the running in the budget range at least. Even APU's look like a better buy now, I can't wait to see some Richland and Kaveri APU tests. If one of them has a built in 7750 you could have a nice budget system, especially if you paired it with a discrete GPU for Crossfire.
  • 9 Hide
    hero1 , February 12, 2013 3:39 AM
    ingtar33so... the amd chips test as good as the intel chips (sometimes better) in your latency test, yet your conclusion is yet again based on average FPS?what is the point of running the latency tests if you're not going to use it in your conclusion?


    Nice observation. I was wondering the same thing. It's time you provide conclusion based upon what you intended to test and not otherwise. You could state the FPS part after the fact.
  • 0 Hide
    Anik8 , February 12, 2013 5:00 AM
    I like this review.Its been a while now and at last we get to see some nicely rounded up benchmarks from Tom's.I wish the GPU or Game-specific benchmarks will be conducted in a similar fashion instead of stressing too much on bandwidth,AA or using settings that favor a particular company only.
  • 29 Hide
    cleeve , February 12, 2013 5:13 AM
    ingtar33so... the amd chips test as good as the intel chips (sometimes better) in your latency test, yet your conclusion is yet again based on average FPS?what is the point of running the latency tests if you're not going to use it in your conclusion?


    We absolutely did take latency into account in our conclusion.
    I think the problem is that you totally misunderstand the point of measuring latency, and the impact of the results. Please read page 2, and the commentary next to the charts.

    To summarize, latency is only relevant if it's significant enough to notice. If it's not significant (and really, it wasn't in any of the tests we took except maybe in some dual-core examples), then, obviously, the frame rate is the relevant measurement.

    *IF* the latency *WAS* horrible, say, with a high-FPS CPU, then in that case latency would be taken into account in the recommendations. But the latencies were very small, and so they don't really factor in much. Any CPUs that could handle at least four threads did great, the latencies are so imperceptible that they don't matter.
  • 22 Hide
    cleeve , February 12, 2013 5:13 AM
    esreverWow. Frame latencies are completely different than the results on the tech report. Weird.


    Not really. We just report them a little differently in an attempt to distill the result. Read page 2.
  • 24 Hide
    cleeve , February 12, 2013 5:15 AM
    Anik8.I wish the GPU or Game-specific benchmarks will be conducted in a similar fashion instead of stressing too much on bandwidth,AA or using settings that favor a particular company only.


    I'm not sure what you're referring to. When we test games, we use a number of different settings and resolutions.
  • 12 Hide
    znakist , February 12, 2013 5:20 AM
    Well it is good to see AMD return to the game. I am an intel fan but with the recent update on the FX line up i have more options. Good work AMD
  • -6 Hide
    wh3resmycar , February 12, 2013 5:23 AM
    hey don.. where's dota 2? :( 
  • 6 Hide
    Nintendo Maniac 64 , February 12, 2013 5:30 AM
    Hey Tom's, I think I may have found a bug with the new layout. Even though this article is stated to be "IN REVIEWS", it in fact doesn't appear on the "all reviews" page:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/articles/?articleType=review
  • 8 Hide
    cleeve , February 12, 2013 5:32 AM
    Quote:
    hey don.. where's dota 2? :( 


    It's coming. Lots of other stuff to do, but it's coming. :) 
  • 18 Hide
    Nintendo Maniac 64 , February 12, 2013 5:41 AM
    Who would have thought? AMD's "MOAR CORES!" is actually paying off. :p 
  • 6 Hide
    LORD_ORION , February 12, 2013 5:44 AM
    BigMack70You know what I think this article shows more than anything? How freaking awesome the Phenom II x4 / x6 chips were for low-midrange builds for their time.


    Except they weren't cheap for their time.
    eg: 945 was $280 for its 1st year? :\

    Spend that now and what do you get?
  • -6 Hide
    wh3resmycar , February 12, 2013 5:49 AM
    can't move my wallet without dota 2 numbers. just can't.

    but then again what's making AMD hard to swallow is the abysmal TDP ratings of their APUs. hopefully you guys can explicitly explain how an a8-5500 manages 65w while a a8-5600k pulls 100w with just a 300mhz difference?

    or with power constraints, what would be more effective? an ivy bridge celeron + 6670 or a6/a8 APU? apart from the usual load/idle, what about posting-in-a-forum-power-consumption?

    i would love to post my questions on the forums but i'm pretty sure the thread'll be just ravaged by fanboys or wouldn't get a pertinent answer.


    thanks!!!
  • 3 Hide
    rdlazar , February 12, 2013 6:01 AM
    Where would the Athlon II x4 750K be on that list?
  • 3 Hide
    The-Darkening , February 12, 2013 6:04 AM
    Isn't Intel G860 13-13-13 latencies a bit too relaxed? I'm sure 10-10-10 would be possible. Any explanation for this? Just curious.
  • 5 Hide
    cangelini , February 12, 2013 6:14 AM
    Nintendo Maniac 64Hey Tom's, I think I may have found a bug with the new layout. Even though this article is stated to be "IN REVIEWS", it in fact doesn't appear on the "all reviews" page:http://www.tomshardware.com/articl [...] ype=review

    Because there are so many products, this was defined as a round-up. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it's currently possible to use both Reviews and Round-ups as filters at the same time. So, they don't show up together. I'm going to pass this feedback back to France to see if Round-ups can be folded into Reviews.
Display more comments