Picking A Sub-$200 Gaming CPU: FX, An APU, Or A Pentium?

By Don Woligroski
published

We really like to hunt down great values in the processor space. Since our last round-up of affordable CPUs, AMD released its Llano-based APUs and Bulldozer-based FX family. Also, Intel introduced a handful of Sandy Bridge-based Pentium chips.

Benchmark Results: DiRT 3

This is another example of a graphics-bound test, which we'd frankly expect given its DirectX 11-based engine. Minimum frame rates exceed 50 across the board. AMD's A4-3400 is the only exception, though it manages to maintain at least 30 FPS throughout our test.

As you can see (or not, apparently), performance differences are largely unimportant, since almost every platform doles out more than 60 frames per second in the majority of our test.

The A4-3400 is the notable exception, and AMD's FX-4100 does briefly dip below 60 FPS.

Don Woligroski
309 Comments Comment from the forums
  • rambostyrer
    Another showcase of how disappointing the FX processor is in gaming terms.

    the fx-8120 outperformed by the i3-2100
    Reply
  • compton
    Given how well my 2500K (and every other 2500K) overclocks, 4.3 is a good every day top turbo bin for 4 cores, and the performance increase vs. power consumption is fantastic. I don't want to add to the chorus of negativity to Bulldozer, but the Phenom II x6 should be kicked down to 32nm soon -- I just can't really think of any reason that someone should by Bulldozer over Intel or an X6. For those that can make use of it's particular strengths, it's price is certainly reasonable. And there is a lot to like about AMD motherboards too. The Phenom might be venerable, but it's not terrible and it's a lot more honest than Bulldozer.

    Reply
  • Youngmind
    Does anybody else still think of Pentium 4s and the other flops that Intel created when they see "Pentium?"
    Reply
  • acerace
    So, is Pentium processors any good? Cause I think I want to upgrade my aging PC to that.
    Reply
  • alidan
    YoungmindDoes anybody else still think of Pentium 4s and the other flops that Intel created when they see "Pentium?" yea... personally i like numbers, like (name) (number) and that tells me all i need to know about the chip, i dont like (name) (letter-number) and than i have to look crap to figure out what it is, though the whole i series bugs me because of that.

    comptonGiven how well my 2500K (and every other 2500K) overclocks, 4.3 is a good every day top turbo bin for 4 cores, and the performance increase vs. power consumption is fantastic. I don't want to add to the chorus of negativity to Bulldozer, but the Phenom II x6 should be kicked down to 32nm soon -- I just can't really think of any reason that someone should by Bulldozer over Intel or an X6. For those that can make use of it's particular strengths, it's price is certainly reasonable. And there is a lot to like about AMD motherboards too. The Phenom might be venerable, but it's not terrible and it's a lot more honest than Bulldozer.
    if i had the money, id go i7, i woundt consider anything lower than that.
    if i dont have the money, i would only consider the phenom II x4 or x6 line, as i prefer real cores, and the lowest real 4 core intel is over 200$ and the phenoms are 100-150ish.

    granted i would wait for pilerdriver.
    Reply
  • _Pez_
    Now I feel I made the right choice with my Phenom X6 1100T @4Ghz, DDR3 1752Mhz CL9 CR2
    Reply
  • Yargnit
    this really confirms what I've been thinking about the Intel "Pentium" models flying under the radar in the budget market.

    The i3-2100 is actually down to $110 on Newegg right now, but at $125 it made the Pentium models an absolute steal. You were paying nearly $40 more for .2 Ghz faster and hyper-threading compared to the G850 between $85-90. A $110 i3-2100 not only addresses this difference much better, but basically kills almost every AMD CPU above that price point, while the Pentium's kill the AMD CPU's below it.

    The Phenom 2 x6's (which now appear to be all out of stock) for selective use, and maybe the FX4100 is really all AMD has left that's semi-viable anymore. IT's not looking good for AMD that's for sure. :\
    Reply
  • amuffin
    A pentium outperforming an 8 core fx 8120. What.
    Reply
  • de5_Roy
    thanks a lot for this article. cleared up a lot of things for me.
    it was great to see ph ii x4 955 outperform fx in gaming. imo it's the best gaming cpu from amd. fx4100's (and the rest of fx) overclocked (under)performance was sad.
    but core i3 2100 and sandy bridge pentiums...damn...
    i think intel sorta turned around the old 'pentium vs fx' (for gaming) with sandy bridge pentium vs bulldozer fx.
    amd must do better with piledriver and trinity. :sweat: need more competition in cpu arena...
    Reply
  • LuckyDucky7
    @compton

    There isn't, and won't ever be, a 32nm die shrink to the Phenom IIs.
    Bulldozer is IT, and that's all there is to it.

    Maybe Piledriver will have some improvements, but they just won't be enough. Even if they could get IPC parity with the old Phenom IIs they still get run over by Pentiums and the i3-2100.

    It will be interesting to see how Trinity performs but I'd be surprised if it wasn't just Bulldozer bolted on to a better GPU; IPC improvements might be there but I doubt they'll be as good as the Phenom IIs. The fall FX releases might get them to parity.


    I'd like to see what performance the Ivy Bridge i3 will have; or if Intel will (unlikely) release a K-series for it- thus ensuring that sub-200-dollar overclocking is shelved for at least another 2 years if not indefinitely.
    Reply