View Full Version : Best CPU for $180 - 220 range
Hey goku, not up to date on the new cpus that intel just launched, what's the best value for the average game with a $1000ish budget? Lots of my friends come to me for builds and I want to get 'em the best values.
These guys pretty much just game; league of legends, dota 2, TF2, WoW, skyrim and soon to be PS2.
Is he near MC? If so just get the 3570K. Otherwise the 2400 or 2500K.
If he wants Ivy Bridge go for the 3470 for $200.
He just wants best bang for buck for gaming. Mostly for PS2.. but we don't know much about the requirements for that~
termhn
2012-05-01, 04:01 PM
2500k from newegg... they have a sale on that for $205 right now, and it's pretty much the same as far as gaming performance with a discrete graphics card.
Zulthus
2012-05-01, 05:55 PM
It isn't Intel, but this is damn well the best processor for that price range, especially for gaming.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960
I'm sorry Zulthus, but that is far far from the case. BD is lacking severely as a gaming processor at that price. Maybe is AMD priced that at below $175 it would start getting more attention. The gap between IB and BD in terms IPC is just plain sad.
Zulthus
2012-05-01, 07:24 PM
I'm sorry Zulthus, but that is far far from the case. BD is lacking severely as a gaming processor at that price. Maybe is AMD priced that at below $175 it would start getting more attention. The gap between IB and BD in terms IPC is just plain sad.
I honestly don't think that to be the case. Two or three of my friends have that exact processor and gaming is as good as anyone would ever need it. Even my measly Athlon x4 630 runs games and multitasks perfectly fine.
Also found a quick benchmark:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
The Bulldozer performs better than most Ivy Bridge processors for the price point.
Even if the gap between IB and BD was that exaggerated, you really don't need the extra power. As a shitty example, let me think... it's sort of like choosing between a GTX 680 and a GTX 690 to play Doom at the highest settings. They can both run it perfectly fine, but you're just paying extra for the name on the 690.
Passmark is a awful benchmark. No real reviewer even makes use of it. Besides I'm talking gaming. Look here (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8) and here (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review-21.html). At launch BD was show to only beat SB in certain areas like using Winrar and other instances. No idea where you are getting your info.
Zulthus
2012-05-01, 08:14 PM
Passmark is a awful benchmark. No real reviewer even makes use of it. Besides I'm talking gaming. Look here (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4955/the-bulldozer-review-amd-fx8150-tested/8) and here (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/47155-amd-bulldozer-fx-8150-processor-review-21.html). At launch BD was show to only beat SB in certain areas like using Winrar and other instances. No idea where you are getting your info.
Both of those links you posted both point to show that the Bulldozer excels at multithreaded programs, and the framerate difference between the processors is insignificant. You don't notice a difference past 60FPS, which relates to the comparison I made earlier. You're just paying extra money on an Ivy Bridge for a minimal increase in performance that really doesn't matter in the end much anyway.
Like I said, BD vs IB is like GTX 680 vs 690 :p
I know you're the tech master in this neck of the woods but I stand by what I'm saying :D
BD only excels at certain areas that may happen to take advantage of all its threads. Most people out there looking for a processor around this price range do not need that extra benefit and will instead be better off with the stronger cores found on SB or IB. Besides if someone really needs multithreading they will be looking at either a i7 quad or moving up the 3930K. Neither of which BD even holds up to.
Zulthus
2012-05-01, 08:36 PM
BD only excels at certain areas that may happen to take advantage of all its threads. Most people out there looking for a processor around this price range do not need that extra benefit and will instead be better off with the stronger cores found on SB or IB. Besides if someone really needs multithreading they will be looking at either a i7 quad or moving up the 3930K. Neither of which BD even holds up to.
Perhaps the IB is much stronger than the BD. All I'm saying is the performance from both brands is exceptional.
I'm running a very old Athlon ii x4 630. I haven't even upgraded from that yet because there's no need. High end games run perfectly, I render videos often, lots of photoshop/aftereffects work, etc. It's really fast... and it's so much worse than the more modern processors. I'd in fact say the IB and BD are too good.
Vancha
2012-05-01, 08:37 PM
It isn't Intel, but this is damn well the best processor for that price range, especially for gaming.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103960
Why would you even do that to people?!
Zulthus
2012-05-01, 08:43 PM
Why would you even do that to people?!
The people who bought it in the reviews seemed to be happy about their purchase :D
Perhaps the IB is much stronger than the BD. All I'm saying is the performance from both brands is exceptional.
I'm running a very old Athlon ii x4 630. I haven't even upgraded from that yet because there's no need. High end games run perfectly, I render videos often, lots of photoshop/aftereffects work, etc. It's really fast... and it's so much worse than the more modern processors. I'd in fact say the IB and BD are too good.
Even if both are technically good processors what it comes down to is what someone is buying at the time. Right now Intel is dominating the entire line up. No reason to go AMD currently. However that may change when the Piledriver refresh comes later this summer I hope...
Zulthus
2012-05-01, 08:56 PM
Even if both are technically good processors what it comes down to is what someone is buying at the time. Right now Intel is dominating the entire line up. No reason to go AMD currently. However that may change when the Piledriver refresh comes later this summer I hope...
But is it really worth the extra $100-200 for a slight performance increase that the average user would likely not take the full advantage of? Most people build PCs to game on, not use the extra CPU intensive programs such as CS5.
Where the AMD gets 70 FPS and the Intel gets 140, you really can't notice a difference while gaming. The max a monitor will let you use is 120 anyhow. Any game is playable at 50 FPS.
I don't know what you mean by extra $100-$200. People right now can get a 2500K for $200-$220 and overclock with ease to 4.5GHz or a 2400 for $180 if they don't. I would take either of those over a BD anyday. Neither of those processors have a premium in my mind either.
FPS example doesn't make sense either. If a CPU is really that much weaker why do you want that? It will not last nearly as long vs the other.
Zulthus
2012-05-01, 09:06 PM
I don't know what you mean by extra $100-$200. People right now can get a 2500K for $200-$220 and overclock with ease to 4.5GHz or a 2400 for $180 if they don't. I would take either of those over a BD anyday. Neither of those processors have a premium in my mind either.
FPS example doesn't make sense either. If a CPU is really that much weaker why do you want that? It will not last nearly as long vs the other.
We're talking about the Ivy Bridge though, which costs at least $320. The Zambezi is able to OCed to at least 4.2GHz too.
I don't see how the FPS example doesn't make sense. Why would you need more power if you don't even notice a difference? 70 FPS looks exactly the same as 140 FPS to the human eye.
Also, they'll last as long as you take care of them... not really sure why you think it would die faster than an Intel processor..
There is a 3470 for $200 and 3570K for $250 that are Ivy Bridge, so your price figure is incorrect.
Once more FPS example is bad. This is now. What about a few years from now? That CPU that is running 70 frames will not be running nearly as good as the other. Major bottleneck for newer GPUs as well.
No idea what you mean by CPU dieing either.
Zulthus
2012-05-01, 09:35 PM
There is a 3470 for $200 and 3570K for $250 that are Ivy Bridge, so your price figure is incorrect.
Once more FPS example is bad. This is now. What about a few years from now? That CPU that is running 70 frames will not be running nearly as good as the other. Major bottleneck for newer GPUs as well.
No idea what you mean by CPU dieing either.
On the CPU dying for some stupid reason I thought you meant burning out... disregard that heh
But still. Games are more reliant on the GPU. If my years old 2.8GHz processor can still run BF3 maxed out, I wouldn't worry about the AMD becoming useless any time soon either. I'm really not one to have a top of the line build and honestly mine is pretty shitty compared to most everyone's here, but if it can max out BF3 at 30-40FPS right now, you wouldn't have to upgrade the bulldozer for at least two years.
Yes, there are Ivy Bridge processors for that cheap, but they are marginally slower than the bulldozer stock. Sorry, I was meaning the higher end IB's.
I couldn't stand running BF3 at low of a FPS. If it suites you thats fine.
Still the $200 IB is still a better buy verse any BD.
Vancha
2012-05-01, 09:44 PM
The people who bought it in the reviews seemed to be happy about their purchase :D
How many of them also owned a comparable Intel? (Not just used, but owned)
People always think highly of what they've bought if it works for them, even if they could have bought something better for the same price.
Zulthus
2012-05-01, 09:51 PM
How many of them also owned a comparable Intel? (Not just used, but owned)
People always think highly of what they've bought if it works for them, even if they could have bought something better for the same price.
Hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right? :p
Zulthus
2012-05-01, 09:56 PM
I couldn't stand running BF3 at low of a FPS. If it suites you thats fine.
Still the $200 IB is still a better buy verse any BD.
Runs silky smooth, at least to my perception... then again I'm really not that picky when it comes to performance.
Maybe you're right, because you go deeper into the technical side of things... I go by what I know works, and the BD doesn't have any real flaws from what I can tell.
You have most likely bought many more pieces of hardware than I ever have, so I have no doubt that my posts are flawed... sorry if I try to disprove what you're saying... it's not my intention. I just try to explain the difference from what I've actually seen from my end.
I never used a BD. I'm on a Core i5 2500K atm. Previously I was on my Athlon II X2 250 from selling my Phenom II 955 BE over the summer. Was so slow I couldn't stand it anymore. Though didn't help I was using a old 4770. My secondary has a Phenom II X6 in it now that I got over the winter. Phenom II>BD IMO anyway.
My over progression Athlon X2 4200+ (K8/S939) -> C2D E8400 -> Phenom II 955 BE -> Ahtlon II X2 250 -> Core i5 2500K. That was since 2005 or 6.
Back last summer I purchased a 990FX motherboard waiting for BD. Yet when I heard about the delay going into the fall I said screw it and sold that with my 955 BE. I was all ready to get one, thankfully I didn't. I was really hoping for it to be a proper competitor to SB, but AMD failed big time.
xSquirtle
2012-05-02, 02:20 AM
Intel or nothing. AMD from my experience just does not run nearly as good as a solid intel product. They cost more, but you also get more for your buck.
Rbstr
2012-05-02, 10:56 AM
Intel or nothing. AMD from my experience just does not run nearly as good as a solid intel product. They cost more, but you also get more for your buck.
That's a misscharacterisation. AMD had great success around the Athlon, and earlier in the Athlon XP line. Only a few years ago the first gens of Athlon 64s and x2s ran all over Intel's later P4 and initial dual core chips in price/performance.
Intel wins the ~$200 bracket right now for nearly everything in performance. If that's your budget that's where you should go. There's no reason other than it being the better performer. If the i5 was an AMD chip, it'd still be the recommendation.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.