Trending

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

By

Today we're putting the latest sub-$200 CPUs into a cage match armed with nothing but the latest DirectX 11 games (plus a helping of StarCraft 2) to see how they fare. Can AMD's familiar Athlons and Phenoms stand up to the new Sandy Bridge-based CPUs?

Benchmark Results: Multitasking

Our multitasking test involves running the Metro 2033 benchmark during the creation of a RAR file. This might not be very real-world, but it should help show the benefit of a more parallelized processor beyond simple gaming-only environments.

We all know that processes run in the background while we play our favorite shooters. Sometimes it's a Windows Defender scan; sometimes Windows Update decides to start downloading and installing patches. Either way, this little exercise should show us game performance while other tasks are going on in the background.

In the past, we used Crysis for this scenario, rather than Metro 2033. In those days, there was a notable difference between dual-core Hyper-Threaded Core i3 CPUs and triple- and quad-core models like the Athlon II.

Metro 2033 doesn’t seem to generate the same load as Crysis, which means that multi-core processors aren't taxed as intensively. Nevertheless, this is the one test where AMD's Phenom II X6 1075T stretches its legs a little, matching performance with the Core i5-2300 and -2400.

138 Comments Comment from the forums
  • 01 March 2011 12:40
    Simulated CPU Chart: 3330 GHz

    o_O I'd like me one of those
    Reply
  • alidan 01 March 2011 13:05
    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.
    Reply
  • lunyone 01 March 2011 13:23
    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
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131651

    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
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131634

    **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.
    Reply
  • amirp 01 March 2011 13:32
    @lunyone

    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
    Reply
  • amirp 01 March 2011 13:35
    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."

    Reply
  • dco 01 March 2011 13:42
    Up until now, AMD's Pentium II X4

    I almost missed this typo an AMD pentium hmmm something seems wrong.
    Reply
  • 01 March 2011 13:48
    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.
    Reply
  • kashifme21 01 March 2011 13:52
    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.
    Reply
  • hardcore_gamer 01 March 2011 13:55
    Don't forget the fact that these sandy-bridge CPUS can not be overclocked
    Reply
  • iam2thecrowe 01 March 2011 13:56
    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.
    Reply