Skip to main content

Game-Off: Seven Sub-$150 Processors Compared

Conclusion: Three Processors Stand Above The Sub-$150 Crowd

Well, that was fun. Let's have a look at the average 1920x1080 relative gaming results, with the Athlon II X2 260 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 three products that stand above the crowd when it comes to gaming value. Note that we didn't take multitasking performance into account in this chart.

First, available for under $90, is the Athlon II X3 445. This processor stands head and shoulders above its dual-core contemporaries under the $100 mark, and for good reason. It combines a high 3.1 GHz clock speed with three physical CPU cores for a low price, and since games rarely take advantage of more than three processor cores, the Athlon II X3 445 is a great budget gamer's choice.

The next product of interest is Intel's Core i3-530, a CPU that started out at $125 a few months ago. It seems that Intel has finally decided to compete with the lower-priced AMD models, and the Core i3-530 can now be had for $115. While this CPU does offer some great gaming performance for the dollar, its dual-core architecture (with Hyper-Threading) does show some weaknesses compared to true quad-core processors when multitasking. Even the Athlon II X3 445 demonstrates similar gaming performance when multiple applications are employed. Despite this, gaming performance is impressive enough and the price has gone down enough that the Core i3-530 cannot be ignored.

The next processor that impresses us with its gaming performance is the Phenom II X4 940/945. It beats out the more expensive Core i3-540—a CPU that hardly offers any performance increase over the cheaper Core i3-530—while delivering great multitasking performance, too. This is one of the instances where the Phenom II's large 6MB L3 cache can show a solid advantage. The Athlon II X4 640 is functionally identical and runs at the same 3 GHz clock speed, but lacks an L3 cache entirely, and the performance difference is obvious. Frankly, this surprises us, as we haven't noticed such a difference in past tests. In any case, the Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition is a great option for folks with Socket AM2+ motherboards, and buyers with AM3-based motherboards will appreciate the Phenom II X4 945.

With the value leaders out of the way, we'll have a few quick words about the CPUs that didn't perform as well in the gaming arena. In general, the Pentium G6950 isn't a good choice for a gamer. The Athlon II X4 640 didn't perform poorly, but it didn't show much of a gaming advantage over the Athlon II X3 445, despite its higher price (except when multitasking). In many cases, the Athlon II X4 showed no advantage over the cheaper triple-core processor at all, while the Core i3-530 consistently bested it. Finally, the Core i3-540 looks like a bad choice next to its Core i3-530 brother, a CPU that's $30 cheaper, yet performs almost identically with only a 133 MHz clock speed difference between them.

On a final note, it has to be mentioned that yes, all of these CPUs could be overclocked to good effect when it comes to gaming performance. Even the Pentium G6950 has a solid reputation for hitting high clocks. And after seeing these results, we can't help but wonder how the $115 Core i3-530 would fare against the $140 Phenom II X4 940 or 945 operating at its true potential. Perhaps this is something we should try to do in an upcoming comparison.

  • wintermint
    AMD is really improving. I'm waiting for them to manufacture 32nm CPUs like Intel :)
    Reply
  • Tamz_msc
    Interesting article-it clearly shows the advantage of having four physical cores of the Athlon II and the Phenom II X4s over the hyper-threaded Core i3s in real-world situations.No doubt that this article will benefit people who want the perfect processor for their money at this price range
    Reply
  • falchard
    I am glad an RTS was used in this benchmark. More CPU heavy games should be included in the benchmark for Processor benchmarking.

    With that said, there was a mention that the 6MB L3 cache may have helped the Phenom II X4 945, I wonder what would happen with a Phenom II X2 or X3 by comparison if this actually makes a significant impact. It could prove there is a significant advantage to cheaper AMD CPUs then the Athlon IIs in this benchmark.
    Reply
  • Found a typo on the chart, I don't see why you would compare the Intel i3-530 against itself. :P
    Reply
  • qvasi_modo
    AMD - bang for the buck, Intel - bling for the buck.
    Reply
  • Tamz_msc
    qvasi_modoAMD - bang for the buck, Intel - bling for the buck.Uptil a certain price range.
    Reply
  • war2k9
    It is time for me to dust of my old am2+ computer and put a new amd proc in it and give it a new life.
    Reply
  • cleeve
    DemonslayFound a typo on the chart, I don't see why you would compare the Intel i3-530 against itself.
    Thx, fixed!
    Reply
  • vikasnagpal_v2
    i like the performance of i3-530......................
    Reply
  • luke904
    Tamz_mscInteresting article-it clearly shows the advantage of having four physical cores of the Athlon II and the Phenom II X4s over the hyper-threaded Core i3s in real-world situations.No doubt that this article will benefit people who want the perfect processor for their money at this price range

    sorry but i must disagree...

    the core i3 530 was 8% faster than the athlon X4 and costs $5 less
    its a great processor it seems, a nice change from intel. but i admit, my heart sunk after seeing amd's athlon X4 get beat. its like sports, i root for AMD

    please dont quote the multitasking benchmark as no sane person compresses stuff while gaming...
    yes the athlon would probably be better overall for most people, but not for gaming



    Reply