Who's Got Game? Twelve Sub-$200 CPUs Compared

Conclusion: Sandy Bridge Has Game

Well, that was fun. Let's have a look at the average 1920x1080 relative gaming results, with the Athlon II X3 455 representing the baseline:

Because our charts are arranged in order of processor price, with the most expensive at the top and the least expensive at the bottom, we can see how these products stack up against each other when it comes to gaming value.

Let's start at the bottom. AMD's Athlon II X3 455 is available just under $90. In our previous sub-$150 game-off, the Athlon II X3 emerged as the obvious victor in the price/performance war. Now, with an updated gaming suite and more compelling competition, this is no longer the case. It used to be that the higher clock rate of the Athlon II X3 helped it meet or beat the Athlon II X4's performance. But now the quad-core chip offers slightly higher frequencies, and the latest games are increasingly putting its extra core to better use. While the Athlon II X3 is a good sub-$90 entry-level CPU, the $100 Athlon II X4 640 (only 100 MHz slower than the Athlon II X4 645 we tested, but about $20 cheaper) is a superior choice in a budget gaming rig.

At $125, the Phenom II X4 925's existence is justified as an upgrade to the Athlon II X4. But the Core i3-550 is only $5 more, and it boasts slightly better performance in the games we're testing. Frankly, we’d choose the Phenom II X4 due to the fact it sports four cores (a boon in other disciplines, aside from gaming). But we can’t deny that the Clarkdale-based Core i3 are more attractive in the face of recent price drops. It's unfortunate that LGA 1156 is doomed to disappear so soon after its birth. At this point, it's difficult to recommend any Clarkdale- or Lynnfield-based processor.

The next step up is Intel's Core i3-2100. Based on our results, no value-oriented performance-focused gamer can ignore this processor's potential. Priced at an estimated $135 when it finally does emerge (originally scheduled for February, but almost certainly delayed until B3-revision Cougar Point chipsets start surfacing), the Core i3-2100 performs as well as (or slightly better than) AMD's Phenom II X4 970 flagship. Granted, these Core i3s boast little to no overclocking headroom due to their locked multipliers. But let’s be honest here: at 3.5 GHz, the Phenom II X4 970 probably has about 500 MHz more available, even with its unlocked multiplier. The Core i3-2100 has amazing potential to bring superlative gaming power down to the sub-$150 price point. The worst thing we can say about it is that its dual-core Hyper-Threaded architecture might not perform ideally in parallel tasks, but that doesn’t seem to slow it down when it comes to gaming.

That brings us to the Phenom II X4 955, a processor that was really unbeatable at $150, prior to the less-expensive Sandy Bridge-based Core i3s launching. The Phenom II X4 955 remains a viable option because of multiplier-unlocked overclockability and true quad-core prowess. But the upcoming Core i3-2100 steals its status as the obvious choice, making this CPU part of a decision that gamers and modders will have to think about. Perhaps it'll come down to the platform already under your proverbial hood, and if an AM3-based chip makes an upgrade less expensive than a new Core i3 and LGA 1155 motherboard.

Next up is Intel's Core i3-560, a CPU that stands up well compared to the Phenom II X4 but doesn’t have a lot going for it when you consider its two cores versus similarly-priced quad-core chips from AMD and a dying platform. Modders might find this processor appealing based on its overclocking headroom, but we'd encourage new system builders to hold out for Sandy Bridge instead.

The Core i3-2120 shows us nice results, but it’s probably not worth the price premium over Core i3-2100. In the same vein, AMD's Phenom II X4 970 probably isn’t worth the extra cost over Phenom II X4 955. Feel free to bypass both of these CPUs.

We now consider the Core i5-2300, Intel’s lowest-cost quad-core chips based on the Sandy Bridge architecture, priced at $185. This chip's performance results are good, but you'd be crazy not to spend the extra $10 on the $195 Core i5-2400, buying a 300 MHz clock increase. Overclockers will want to upgrade to the multiplier-unlocked Core i5-2500K for $225. But the Core i5-2400 delivers excellent service to folks happy to leave their systems at stock speeds.

What of the Phenom II X6? Well, games largely don’t seem to utilize more than four threads at a time. The final results suffer a little from the curious issue this processor suffers when playing F1 2010, but even when this game isn't taken into account the results are identical to a cheaper Phenom II X4. I suppose users who do a lot of media encoding and heavy threading will want to consider the AMD’s hexa-core architecture. However, from a purely gaming perspective, this CPU doesn’t have a lot to offer.

Wow, that’s not quite what we expected

That a dual-core Hyper-Threaded Sandy Bridge-based CPU can not only compete with, but also beat an AMD Phenom II X4 970 in the latest games is somewhat shocking. Up until now, AMD's showings in the sub-$200 space have shown us excellent value that Intel's previous-generation offerings didn't really touch. Those qualifications are in question now, though, all the way down to price points as low as $135. The Phenom II X4 955 can no longer be recommended without reservation, and the $100 Athlon II X4 640 is probably the company's most attractive offering right now for a budget gaming (or multipurpose) rig.

This changes the gaming CPU landscape far more than we thought it would. As soon as Intel gets its platform problems solved, it'll be a serious contender under the $150 mark for the first time in, well, a while. AMD's next-generation processors cannot get here soon enough. Until then, the company should worry hard about the possibility of a $100 dual-core Sandy Bridge-based Pentium.

One final note: yes, we know that LGA 1155-based motherboards are currently unavailable, and the CPUs have largely been pulled back as well in response. Frankly, if you’re about to build a system and Intel’s most recent developments look good to you, then it’s worth the month or two wait until motherboards become available.

Having said that, 60 days is a long time in the tech industry. Folks already sporting an LGA 1156-based Core i3 might be better served by an upgrade to a Core i5-760 or compatible Core i7. AM2+/AM3 motherboard owners with low-end CPUs might want to consider the Phenom II X4 955 as a cost-effective alternative, instead of spending substantial cash to migrate over to a Sandy Bridge platform. We’ll also be a lot closer to AMD’s desktop version of Fusion, as Llano is expected to arrive in the July timeframe.

This thread is closed for comments
    Your comment
  • Simulated CPU Chart: 3330 GHz

    o_O I'd like me one of those
  • alidan
    id just love to point out, i personally will never again make a mistake of getting a hyperthreaded cpu over real cores. i made that mistake once, and never again.

    a pc will never be gaming only, unless you have more than one, in that case, for for the cheaper dual core hyperthreaded, but if you do anything else, get a real quadcore and don't even take into consideration the logical cores.
  • lunyone
    I'm still thinking the AMD Athlon II x3's and x4's are the best buys around. If you take comparable configurations from AMD and Intel, AMD wins easily. Here is what I'm talking about below:

    AMD build w/AMD Athlon II x3 455 w/Asus 870 based mobo:
    $89 for Athlon II x3 455
    $90 for AMD mobo (Asus) w/6xSATA 3, 6 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0, 4 x DDR3 slots.
    ASUS M4A87TD/USB3 AM3 AMD 870 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 AMD Motherboard

    Intel build w/i3 550 w/P55 based mobo (Asus also):
    $130 i3 550
    $150-$10 MIRc Comparable mobo (Asus also) 6xSATA 3, 6 USB 2.0, 2 USB 3.0, 4 DDR3 slots.
    ASUS P7P55D-E LX LGA 1156 Intel P55 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard

    **These are all Newegg prices**
    AMD build (using the same Case/PSU/RAM/DVD parts in both systems)
    $179 + shared parts.

    Intel build (same parts shared w/AMD build)
    $280 + shared parts.

    This equals out to ~$100 price difference between the 2 builds, which to me is quite a bit!

    So in general when trying to factor in "Value" for the gaming buck I still see the AMD based system being the better buy. Assuming your using mobo's with about the same features. If you notice the Intel based mobo's will cost you more for similar AMD based mobo's. This is where a lot of the value comes from AMD. Don't get me wrong here, the Intel based system is very good system too, you just have to pay more for them.
  • amirp

    Yes the amd build is pretty cheap, but swap you're i3 550 with the i3 2100 and the p55 mobo with the p67 mobo, and you have a build that is now worth the $100 over the amd build
  • amirp
    sorry I meant to add, the drawback is waiting for the SB mobo's to arrive

    also I think this conclusion summarizes well AMD's predicament in a months time:
    "the Core i3-2100 performs as well as (or slightly better than) AMD's Phenom II X4 970 flagship."
  • dco
    Up until now, AMD's Pentium II X4

    I almost missed this typo an AMD pentium hmmm something seems wrong.
  • So what everyone is saying is - AMD's old technology is getting beat by Intel's newest? This is to be expected.

    If the point is that Intel has the best budget system at the current prices - then yes, the point is made. But it looks more like you're trying to prove Intel is better just before AMD launches a new generation of CPU's. While I can't speak for anyone else, I'm at least going to give their next generation a chance.
  • kashifme21
    Why even bother upgrading when most games are console ports, and dont need more then 3-4 yr old hardware to run maxed out?

    Certainly no one needs quad cores for web browsing and word lol.
  • hardcore_gamer
    Don't forget the fact that these sandy-bridge CPUS can not be overclocked
  • iam2thecrowe
    id like to see a core 2 duo comparison to the new cpu's. Everyone says they are old and slow, but in reality they are similar to an i3 without hyperthreading.
  • dco
    So glad you did the bench's in 1920x1080 instead setting the resolution really low to make the differences more prominent. Much more realistic and usable as a real world benchmark. good read.
  • haplo602
    what are you guys at Tom's smoking lately ?

    quote from the conclusion page:
    "Because our charts are arranged in order of processor price, with the most expensive at the top and the least expensive at the bottom,"

    but the first page shows the X6 being the most expensive CPU !!!

    Also I miss the price/performance graph:

    X3 455 = 88.99USD
    i5 2400 = 189.99USD

    from the average game performance graph:

    i5 2400 offers 148% of X3 455 performance but it is priced at 213% of the X3 455 !!!

    how about graphing the performance progression and cost progression in one graph to actualy see the best value for money ? the last graph only focuses on relative performance but price increase is not considered (at least only in the relative more/less expensive way).
  • haplo602
    oh yes one more thing. missing out on lga775 is a huge mistake. this way people have to run through several benchmarks to establish their still working rigs relative performance to the SB ships.

    and ... do NOT test HT on I/O intensive workloads (winrar). run something like super pi or a physics simulation on the CPU. I/O limited workloads are the most favorable HT scenario.
  • Bigmac80
    To bad they didn't add the i5 2500k since it's only $199.99 at microcenter..
  • joytech22
    Good to see Intel making great progress in the budget market.
    But they still have nothing to combat AMD's APU + GPU combo.

    Wait yes they do, i3..

    I wonder if AMD's planning to go out in a bombshell..
    Or will they make a comeback to remember them by?
  • Im not agree with you Toms Hardware. There is a lot of difference btw Intel and AMD cpus in blizzard games because in those games GPU isnt the cap. And Intel is way faster than AMD...

    Its stupid compare CPUs in games where the graphic card scores under 50pfs...
  • jj463rd
    I think AMD needs to lower their prices again.Comparing to the Phenom II X4 955 BE with the i3-2100 on your conclusion chart the Phenom II X4 955 BE should be priced at $115 to $125 to be competitive.Of course AMD will have a couple months until their new CPU line comes out though so they do have some time.
  • SpadeM
    In Europe the price difference between 2300 and 2400 is around 4$ in some markets so even better :P. I do have a request though, could you switch from winrar to 7zip for multitasking testing on future reviews? All in all, it's nice to see where things stand at now, even though only AMD is available on the market till ... april or may.
  • rambostyrer
    Nice article there.

    would have been interesting to see some overclocked benchmark though, to see how the unlocked muliplyer of the Phenoms would do against Sandy bridge with no unlocked muliplyer.

    And I know it's an older game, but GTA has the reputation of being a real cpu killer, so would have been interesting with that ass well.

    And what did i learn? that my next cpu, will be a Phenom II 955, an upgrade from my current Athlon II 445.
  • darkchazz
    Wait for bulldozer , then compare it with SB :/
  • masterofevil22
    Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it much more difficult or impossible to OC the 2300/2400??

    Why not do a max OC comparison of these CPU's?? Especially given that at this price range most people who are buying these chips for their own rigs are trying to maximize their dollar and are probably at least considering doing so.

    Too many "simulated" cpu's??
  • digiex
    In the last graph, I really like if it was sorted from highest to lowest and see all the Intel processors on the top.
  • andy5174
    masterofevil22Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't it much more difficult or impossible to OC the 2300/2400?? Why not do a max OC comparison of these CPU's?? Especially given that at this price range most people who are buying these chips for their own rigs are trying to maximize their dollar and are probably at least considering doing so. Too many "simulated" cpu's??

    Amd supporters are finally willing to talk about OCed performance considering non-K SandyBridge is not OCable.

    How about paying $15 dollars more for the 2500K and OCed it to 4.4GHz? 2500K can achieve 4.4GHz easily with stock cooler which gives you a lot more performance without requiring paying extra cost ($80+) for a high end cooler. You will then end up with a much better performance for less cost than the PII-X6@4GHz+high end cooler.
  • Communism
    All the non-overclockable SB procs are failures to anyone not running so-called "mission critical" things on their comps.

    My old ass E4300 (which I got at the time for CHEAPER than the current SB procs) OCed to 3.5 ghz trashes the dual-core SB procs that can't overclock

    Outside those who are willing to spend money on the SB mobos and are in the price range ($250 ish) for the 2500k/2600k, SB is completely pointless for overclockers of any stripe.

    Since the AMD chips atm are still complete failures, people like me who are stuck with OCed core 2 duos and core 2 quads have nothing to look forward to in affordable high performance procs that are worth upgrading to until Bulldozer from the looks of it.