Skip to main content

Gaming Shoot-Out: 18 CPUs And APUs Under $200, Benchmarked

Test System And Benchmarks

Testing LGA 1155-, Socket AM3-, Socket FM1-, and Socket FM2-based CPUs requires four different platforms. We're using the same memory, hard drive, and graphics card on all four to eliminate as many variables as possible.

We're using Gigabyte's Z77X-UP7 for our LGA 1155-based platform. This is the company's flagship offering for that processor interface. The similar (but lower-priced) Z77X-UP5 earned our Recommended Buy award in Six $220-280 Z77 Express-Based Motherboards, Reviewed, so the -UP7 appears to be a great choice for our testing.

For the Socket AM3+-based system, we're using Gigabyte's 990FXA-UD5 motherboard. This product achieved the highest CPU overclock in our Five $160 To $240 990FX-Based Socket AM3+ Motherboards comparison, and distinguishes itself with true four-way SLI support.

Our Socket FM1-based platform is Asus' F1A75-V Pro, a board that demonstrated excellent overclocking potential in Professional Help: Getting The Best Overclock From AMD's A8-3870K.

Finally, the Socket FM2-based platform is represented by Asrock's FM2A85X Extreme6. This motherboard garnered our Tom's Hardware 2012 Approved award in Six Socket FM2 Motherboards For AMD's Trinity APUs thanks to a combination of high performance and low price.

As for the graphics card, we chose one of the fastest single-GPU boards available, MSI's GeForce GTX 680 Lightning. Our goal is to isolate CPU performance, so we made this choice with the intention of de-emphasizing GPU bottlenecks.

We're testing the 18 most notable CPUs under $200, including some previous-gen products (the Core i5-2500K costs more than $200, but it's included for comparison purposes) to gauge the improvements that have been made. The Athlon II X4s didn't make it because they employ the same micro-architecture and cache configuration as the Llano-based APUs, so they'd be redundant. AMD's A8-3870K processor accurately represents the performance of a 3.0 GHz Athlon II X4.

The Corsair Vengeance memory kit we used is rated at 1000 MHz with 10-10-10-27 2T timings using a built-in XMP profile, and we set it to that speed whenever possible. Due to limitations on certain platforms, we dropped the modules to 933 MHz on the Pentium G860, and 800 MHz at 9-9-9-24 2T timings on the Athlon II X3 450.

InterfaceSocket FM1Socket FM2Socket AM3+LGA 1155
CPU/APUAMD A4-3400 (Llano) 2.7 GHzAMD A8-3870K (Llano) 3.0 GHzAMD A4-5300 (Trinity) 3.4 GHz Base, 3.6 GHz Turbo CoreAMD A10-5800K (Trinity) 3.8 GHz Base, 4.2 GHz Turbo CoreAMD Athlon II X3 450 (Rana) 3.2 GHzAMD Phenom II X4 980 (Deneb) 3.7 GHzAMD Phenom II X6 1100T (Thuban) 3.3 GHz Base, 3.7 GHz Turbo CoreAMD FX-4170 (Zambezi) 4.2 GHz Base, 4.3 GHz Turbo CoreAMD FX-6200 (Zambezi) 3.8 GHz Base, 4.1 GHz Turbo CoreAMD FX-8120 (Zambezi) 3.1 GHz Base, 4.0 GHz Turbo CoreAMD FX-4300 (Vishera) 3.8 GHz Base, 4.0 GHz Turbo CoreAMD FX-6300 (Vishera) 3.5 GHz Base, 4.1 GHz Turbo CoreAMD FX-8350 (Vishera) 4.0 GHz Base, 4.2 GHz Turbo CoreIntel Pentium G860 (Sandy Bridge) 3.0 GHzIntel Core i3-2120 (Sandy Bridge) 3.3 GHzIntel Core i3-3220 (Ivy Bridge) 3.3 GHzIntel Core i5-2500K (Sandy Bridge) 3.3 GHz Base, 3.7 GHz Turbo BoostIntel Core i5-3550 (Ivy Bridge) 3.3 GHz Base, 3.7 GHz Turbo Boost
MotherboardAsus F1A75-V ProSocket FM1, Chipset: AMD A75ASRock FM2A85XSocket FM2, Chipset: AMD A85Gigabyte 990FXA-UD5Socket AM3+, Chipset: AMD 990Gigabyte Z77X-UP7LGA 1155, Chipset: Intel Z77 Express
NetworkingOn-board Gigabit LAN controller
MemoryCorsair Vengeance2 x 2 GB, 2000 MT/s, CL 10-10-10-24-2T, except Pentium G860 at 1866 MT/s, CL 13-13-13-34-2T and AMD Athlon II X3 at 1600 MT/s, CL 9-9-9-24-2T
GraphicsMSI GTX 680 Lightning1110 MHz GPU (1176 MHz Max Boost), 2 GB GDDR5 at 1502 MHz (6008 MHz effective)(Set to -105 MHz core to approximate 1006 MHz reference clock)
Hard DriveWestern Digital Caviar Black 1 TB 7,200 RPM, 32 MB Cache, SATA 3Gb/s
PowerePower EP-1200E10-T2 1200 W ATX12V, EPS12V
Software and Drivers
Operating SystemMicrosoft Windows 8 x64
DirectXDirectX 11
Graphics DriversNvidia 310.70 WHQL
Benchmark Configuration
3D Games
Metro 2033Version 1.0.0.1, Built-In Benchmark
Far Cry 3Version 0.1.0.1, Tom's Hardware Guide Custom Benchmark, Fraps runs
The Elder Scrolls V: SkyrimVersion 1.3.22.0, Tom's Hardware Guide Custom Benchmark, Fraps runs
DiRT ShowdownVersion 1.2.0.0, Built-In Benchmark
StarCraft IIVersion: 1.5.4, Tom's Hardware Guide Custom Benchmark, Fraps runs
  • e56imfg
    Nice round up. It's nice to finally shine some light onto the new FX chips.
    Reply
  • esrever
    Wow. Frame latencies are completely different than the results on the tech report. Weird.
    Reply
  • ingtar33
    so... the amd chips test as good as the intel chips (sometimes better) in your latency test, yet your conclusion is yet again based on average FPS?

    what is the point of running the latency tests if you're not going to use it in your conclusion?
    Reply
  • shikamaru31789
    I was hanging around on the site hoping this would finally get posted today. Looks like I got lucky. I'm definitely happy that newer titles are using more threads, which finally puts AMD back in the running in the budget range at least. Even APU's look like a better buy now, I can't wait to see some Richland and Kaveri APU tests. If one of them has a built in 7750 you could have a nice budget system, especially if you paired it with a discrete GPU for Crossfire.
    Reply
  • hero1
    ingtar33so... the amd chips test as good as the intel chips (sometimes better) in your latency test, yet your conclusion is yet again based on average FPS?what is the point of running the latency tests if you're not going to use it in your conclusion?
    Nice observation. I was wondering the same thing. It's time you provide conclusion based upon what you intended to test and not otherwise. You could state the FPS part after the fact.
    Reply
  • Anik8
    I like this review.Its been a while now and at last we get to see some nicely rounded up benchmarks from Tom's.I wish the GPU or Game-specific benchmarks will be conducted in a similar fashion instead of stressing too much on bandwidth,AA or using settings that favor a particular company only.
    Reply
  • cleeve
    ingtar33so... the amd chips test as good as the intel chips (sometimes better) in your latency test, yet your conclusion is yet again based on average FPS?what is the point of running the latency tests if you're not going to use it in your conclusion?
    We absolutely did take latency into account in our conclusion.
    I think the problem is that you totally misunderstand the point of measuring latency, and the impact of the results. Please read page 2, and the commentary next to the charts.

    To summarize, latency is only relevant if it's significant enough to notice. If it's not significant (and really, it wasn't in any of the tests we took except maybe in some dual-core examples), then, obviously, the frame rate is the relevant measurement.

    *IF* the latency *WAS* horrible, say, with a high-FPS CPU, then in that case latency would be taken into account in the recommendations. But the latencies were very small, and so they don't really factor in much. Any CPUs that could handle at least four threads did great, the latencies are so imperceptible that they don't matter.
    Reply
  • cleeve
    esreverWow. Frame latencies are completely different than the results on the tech report. Weird.
    Not really. We just report them a little differently in an attempt to distill the result. Read page 2.
    Reply
  • cleeve
    Anik8.I wish the GPU or Game-specific benchmarks will be conducted in a similar fashion instead of stressing too much on bandwidth,AA or using settings that favor a particular company only.
    I'm not sure what you're referring to. When we test games, we use a number of different settings and resolutions.
    Reply
  • znakist
    Well it is good to see AMD return to the game. I am an intel fan but with the recent update on the FX line up i have more options. Good work AMD
    Reply