Trending

Gamers: Do You Need More Than An Athlon II X3?

By

AMD's Athlon II X3 440 is such a capable little chip, and and it costs so little. Is there any real point in spending more money on your gaming machine’s CPU? We explore this question with a head-to-head challenge against Intel's venerable Core i7-920.

Minimum FPS Benchmarks: Athlon II X3 440 In CrossFire Vs. Core i7-920 With A Single Card

Here are the minimum FPS results for an Athlon II X3 440 paired with two Radeon HD 5870 cards in CrossFire versus the Core i7-920 using a single Radeon HD 5850:

Once again, the Core i7-920 system boasts some notable leads here, except in S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat, a notoriously demanding game on graphics subsystems. Even at the bottlenecked resolution of 2560x1600, the Core i7-920 system takes a solid win when it comes to World in Conflict, despite its single graphics card handicap.

144 Comments Comment from the forums
  • welshmousepk 27 May 2010 13:16
    good read, though unsurprising. certainly justifies these lower end processors in gaming rigs.

    the whole thing seems to slightly contradict the 'balanced PC' articles though. why put such a cheap CPU in a system with such a powerful GPU? is the budget really going to be THAT tight?
    Reply
  • sohei 27 May 2010 13:20
    good point in this article....if you have money ....you have 1 solution for every application you run on your pc....(high end cpu) folks with money dont have to think...is simple ...but if you have less money to spend ...an AMD cpu is your (my) choice
    Reply
  • Verkil 27 May 2010 13:48
    Still no GTA4? I'm still having thoughts getting an Athlon II X3 because I'll be playing GTA4 and all your Athlon II X3 gaming benchmark does not include GTA4.
    Reply
  • slinkoguy 27 May 2010 13:50
    Looks like you guys got a Deneb core. Unlock that thing and let us see those results! :D
    Reply
  • haplo602 27 May 2010 13:52
    hmm ... I see an interesting pattern here. the latest Intel architecture is 3x as expensive yet an AMD cpu on a generation older architecture can still keep up reasonable.

    except very high end gaming, I realy do not see a reason to go after the i7.

    what I am missing from the article is the X3 vs Intel cpus in the same price range. maybe a followup would do some good :-)
    Reply
  • tacoslave 27 May 2010 14:06
    should have overclocked the 440 because thats what most will be doing when they use this processor for gaming
    Reply
  • Jarmo 27 May 2010 14:17
    tacoslaveshould have overclocked the 440 because thats what most will be doing when they use this processor for gaming
    I'd guess at least 90% of users never overclock anything.
    To be fair though, probably 90% of Tom's readers do.
    Reply
  • Stardude82 27 May 2010 14:26
    Do it again with a 5750 or a GTS 250..or lower with a 5650 and a GT 240. You know something modern, but not in excess of the cost of the motherboard and CPU. This is my same problem with the G6950/720 article.. I don't think I've ever seen a good article showing differences with difference CPU's in the middle end. With more of a GPU is bottle neck, the CPU should matter even less.
    Reply
  • retrac1324 27 May 2010 14:28
    I like how Opera web browser was mistyped: Oprah
    Reply
  • HalfHuman 27 May 2010 14:34
    nice comparison. seems that the triple core is quite strong enough for gaming. i believe that xfire is crazy technology though and only an almost negligible number of gamers use it. i also do not see the point of using such a strong(expensive) video card with a budget cpu. a money conscious gamer would get a 57xx or something in that zone.

    my thought is that for single card users (not necessarily 58xx type not because it's not good but is for sure not budget friendly) and normal monitors (1680x1050) a triple or even dual core amd is enough.
    Reply