Skip to main content

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

Can FX, APUs, And Pentium Processors All Game?

Whenever there are significant changes in the CPU market, we like to collect as many sub-$200 models as possible and put together a gaming comparison. Certainly a lot has happened since the last time we did this. Perhaps most obviously, the Phenom II and Athlon II families have started giving way to the FX series, along with the A4, A6, and A8 APUs. Intel, meanwhile, now has Sandy Bridge-based Pentium processors.

First, let's talk about AMD's new offerings. The company's Bulldozer micro-architecture landed in the desktop space as the Zambezi die, which came to be branded FX. There are only four processors in the entire family: the quad-core FX-4100, the hexa-core FX-6100, and the octa-core FX-8120 and FX 8150. They all sport unlocked multipliers, and, even in the face of less-than-elegant efficiency numbers, they're known to overclock pretty well. Unfortunately, the FX processors also make sacrifices in IPC, negatively affecting performance in lightly-threaded applications compared to older AMD CPUs and anything from Intel.

Nevertheless, we're still curious to see how these CPUs fare in gaming environments (especially the $110 FX-4100). And since all of the FX processors are easy to overclock, we'll also test them at more aggressive frequency settings to see how well they scale. In order to ensure the FX line-up puts its best foot forward, we also installed the new Windows 7 scheduler updates KB2645594 and KB2646060.

AMD also has its APUs, which combine traditional processing and a graphics engine on a piece of silicon referred to as Llano. Manufactured at 32 nm, these chips employ the Stars architecture utilized by the familiar Phenom IIs, along with mainstream Radeon graphics designs that facilitate respectable 3D performance. Although the APUs don't come with the Phenom's big L3 caches, the individual execution cores are slightly more efficient. We’re interested in seeing how these products perform complemented by discrete graphics cards compared to the other sub-$200 options. Two APUs are waiting for our affections: the dual-core A4-3400 and the multiplier-unlocked quad-core A8-3870K. We also have a quad-core Athlon II X4 631 to test, which is functionally identical to the A6-3650's processing component. It's cheaper though, because the integrated graphics are disabled.

Finally, we're taking a look at Intel's new Pentium processors manufactured at 32 nm and based on the Sandy Bridge architecture. Does a relatively small 3 MB shared L3 cache and dual-core, Hyper-Threading-less design hold these budget-oriented models back? Or, do the $100 Pentium G860 and $80 Pentium G630 give gamers on budgets ample muscle?

The Sub-$200 Gaming CPU Line-up

Today we have the following sub-$200 CPUs, plus a $230 Core i5-2500K for comparison:

AMD FX-4100AMD FX-6100AMD FX-8120AMD A4-3400AMD Athlon II X4 631AMD A8-3870K
Codename:ZambeziZambeziZambeziLlanoLlanoLlano
Process:32 nm32 nm32 nm32 nm32 nm32 nm
Cores (Threads):468244
Clock Speed (Turbo):3.6 (3.8) GHz3.3 (3.9) GHz3.1 (4.0) GHz2.7 GHz2.6 GHz3.0 GHz
Interface:AM3+AM3+AM3+FM1FM1FM1
L3 Cache:8 MB8 MB8 MBN/AN/AN/A
Thermal Envelope:95 W95 W125 W65 W65 W100 W
Online Price:$110$160$200$70$85$145
AMD Athlon II X3 455AMD Athlon II X4 645AMD Phenom IIX4 955AMD Phenom II X4 980AMD Phenom IIX6 1090T
Codename:RanaPropusDenebDenebDeneb
Process:45 nm45 nm45 nm45 nm45 nm
Cores (Threads):34446
Clock Speed (Turbo):3.3 GHz3.1 GHz3.2 GHz3.7 GHz3.2 (3.6) GHz
Interface:AM2+/AM3/AM3+AM2+/AM3/AM3+AM2+/AM3/AM3+AM2+/AM3/AM3+AM2+/AM3/AM3+
L3 Cache:N/AN/A6 MB6 MB6 MB
Thermal Envelope:95 W95 W125 W125 W125 W
Online Price:$80$105$125$160$180
Intel Pentium G630Intel Pentium G860Intel Core i3-2100Intel Core i5-2400Intel Core i5-2500K
Codename:Sandy BridgeSandy BridgeSandy BridgeSandy BridgeSandy Bridge
Process:32 nm32 nm32 nm32 nm32 nm
Cores (Threads):222 (4)44
Clock Speed (Turbo):2.7 GHz3.0 GHz3.1 GHz3.1 (3.4) GHz3.3 (3.7) GHz
Interface:LGA 1155LGA 1155LGA 1155LGA 1155LGA 1155
L3 Cache:3 MB3 MB3 MB6 MB6 MB
Thermal Envelope:65 W65 W65 W95 W95 W
Online Price:$80$100$125$190$230
  • 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