Best Gaming CPU for ~£60:
Athlon II X3 455
| Athlon II X3 455 | |
|---|---|
| Codename: | Rana |
| Process: | 45 nm |
| CPU Cores: | 3 |
| Clock Speed: | 3.3 GHz |
| Socket: | AM2+/AM3 |
| L1 Cache: | 3 x 128 KB |
| L2 Cache: | 3 x 512 KB |
| HyperTransport: | 4000 MT/s |
| Thermal Envelope: | 95 W |
The Athlon II X3 455 is the second-fastest model in the triple-core Athlon II stable. It sports a balanced combination of three execution cores, a high clock rate, a low price, and respectable overclocking headroom. Despite the affordable buy-in, this processor delivers some serious gaming headroom, qualifying it for the entry-level rung on our recommendation ladder.
AMD's own quad-core Athlon II X4 640 outperforms the X3 in modern titles better-optimized for threading. But at a price point that is this much cheaper, the Athlon II X3 455 remains a great low-budget option.
Best Gaming CPU for £80: Tie
Athlon II X4 640
| Athlon II X4 640 | |
|---|---|
| Codename: | Propus |
| Process: | 45 nm |
| CPU Cores: | 4 |
| Clock Speed: | 3.0 GHz |
| Socket: | AM3 |
| L1 Cache: | 4 x 128 KB |
| L2 Cache: | 4 x 512 KB |
| HyperTransport: | 4000 MT/s |
| Thermal Envelope: | 95 W |
Since the 3.2 GHz Phenom II X4 840 was discontinued, AMD's 3.0 GHz Athlon II X4 640 retakes its former position as the best £80 AMD CPU option. While it comes up 200 MHz short of its predecessor, it remains the best true quad-core option in the price range.
Pentium G860
| Pentium G860 | |
|---|---|
| Codename: | Sandy Bridge |
| Process: | 32 nm |
| CPU Cores/Threads: | 2 |
| Clock Speed: | 3.0 GHz |
| Socket: | LGA 1155 |
| L2 Cache: | 2 x 256 KB |
| L3 Cache: | 3 MB |
| Thermal Envelope: | 65 W |
The Pentium G860 is no slouch, either. It's only a two-core part, though, and it doesn't even have the Hyper-Threading technology needed to logically address four threads. Instead, it's forced to compete through a more modern architecture able to execute a greater number of instructions per cycle. It additionally offers higher efficiency (the Pentium is only a 65 W part, whereas AMD's Phenom II X4 needs up to 95 W to do its job).
Because these two similarly-priced CPUs are so different from each other, comparing their performance is difficult. When it comes to productivity-oriented apps, they trade blows, depending on whether the software is threaded or not. On average, though, both chips should facilitate similar gaming performance. We have seen plenty of titles that really benefit from at least three cores. In those, Intel stands a higher chance of falling behind.
Based on price/performance, from what I've read, including motherboard cost, I reckon the FX4100 is one of the best budget solutions around.
I estimate it delivers 75% - 80% of the gaming performance of a 2500K, but for 60% of the cost, (CPU & motherboard, AM3+ boards being significantly cheaper than 1155 boards).
Yet several months after launch, they still don't make it to what I consider to be the Rosetta Stone of CPU information.