Best GAMING CPU under 80$ - TEST

PC Hardware & Gaming Gaming, Consoles & Gear
1

The test compares the following:-

Pentium E6500 2.93GHz - 3.5k ??
Pentium G9650 2.8GHz - ??k??

Athlon II X2 250 3GHz - 3k
Athlon II X3 445 3.1GHz - 4k ?

Four sub $80 CPU Games review
In the review we see the 3 core Athlon absolutely pawn the rest. Even in earlier inpai.com.cn reviews, we saw Athlon II X3 take on and own the Core i3 5xx processors.

Safe bet to assume the 100$ Athlon II X4 would crap the 2 core new Core i3 processors which are priced between 117$-137$

This review is also significant as it shows that with a GPU like HD6850, a dual core CPU doesnā€™t cut it, and more cores simply are offering better performance, across many many games. Seems we have truly moved on into the BEYOND DUAL CORE Era.

1 Like
2

Athlon II x3 440 performs better than i3 dual cores coz most games are tri core optimizedā€¦ the reason for this is xbox 360 which has triple core processorā€¦

3

For under $100, yes the AMD wins.

However, i3 beats the Athlon X4 fair and square in gaming under the $120 category.

Check this:

Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: December 2010 : December Updates

4

umm PS3 has 8 cores

and Xbox 360 has 3 cores with HT, so 6 virtual cores. If support is really there, then the COre i3s with HT should be rocking this, but sadly not.

5

upto rs.9500 cpu range there is no option for intel. only two options i5 750-60 10k and 14k i7.

6

The API for X360 games is totally different from PC games. PS3 is a cell processor CPU..

Something is not quite right with the review, almost all sources places the i3 560 faster then the AMD quadcores..

Intelā€™s ā€˜Sandy Bridgeā€™ Core processors - The Tech Report - Page 8

Games are not as multi-thread efficient yet

1 Like
7

^^^other reviews use different mobos, memory and a HD5870 or GTX580.

8

If you are comparing processors, you should always use best platforms, and thats what the better sites do. Graphics cards should not play a huge role, as processor performance would not fluctuate with gfx cards as long as its not gpu bound. And also to check gaming performance it makes sense to use the lower resolution where the game is not gpu bound.

Intel since core 2 duo days always had a upper hand in games, and core i3 was amongst the better performer in its range. AMD benefited from multi threaded applications, and games were not made to take advantage of multiple cores traditionally.

9

No, I like inpaiā€™s concept. They state that a person buying such a cpu say Athlon II X3 445 would go for a gfx of that budget, i.e. a HD6850/HD6870 or HD5770 or HD5850 or nVidia equivalent. So their review is justified.

10

^^ The numbers are incorrect as I mentioned the gfx card should not play a role.

11

umm, but why not??? Why shoudnā€™t a review be more realistic??? Do you suppose we should all fantasize about made in dream reviews or ones that are realistic, and what consumers tend to buy and keep for themselves?? Doesnā€™t the latter give a more accurate picture?

12

Actually I just noticed the i3 560 is significantly faster then the G6950, the extra cache plays a role. In addition you are drawing conclusions that the AMD quadcore will be faster, when they have not tested or mentioned it in the review. Other reliable sites have tested and proved otherwise.

The siteā€™s game selection lacks Civilization which is the only game which is CPU intensive at the moment.

Your other assumption that extra cores helps in games is also not entirely correct, as a 4 core i5 760 outperforms the AMD X6 proccies.

13

^^ No no look at their previous reviews with X4 620 and i3 530