Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Best Gaming CPU: Budget

Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: January 2012
By

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.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display 2 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    williehmmm , 16 January 2012 19:00
    Still no FX4100 or FX6100.

    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.
  • 0 Hide
    briggsy147 , 29 February 2012 18:42
    It's a bad time for buying CPUs. I'm waiting for Ivy Bridge.