This month we're talking about AMD's new Piledriver-based FX processors. Bearing the code-name Vishera, these new chips absolutely improve on the Bulldozer-based parts they replace. But are they any better as gaming-oriented CPUs? Read on for more!
If you don’t have the time to research benchmarks, or if you don’t feel confident enough in your ability to pick the right processor for your next gaming machine, fear not. We at Tom’s Hardware have come to your aid with a simple list of the best gaming CPUs offered for the money.
November Updates:
AMD
AMD's FX family is in the process of shifting from its Bulldozer architecture to the Piledriver refresh (though Bulldozer-based FX chips are still widely available. The result is a package called Vishera, which succeeds Zambezi. Mmm, alphabet soup. We love it.
Top-end Vishera-based processors have the same thermal ceiling as the older models. But they operate more efficiently, allowing AMD to coax more performance from the design. The new FX-4300, -6300, and -8300 CPUs are closer to what Bulldozer should have been, though they still find themselves going up against Ivy Bridge-based Core i5s, for the most part. Complicating the issue is Intel's comparatively low power consumption, which translates into significantly better performance per watt.
The saving grace for Vishera is that it boosts performance anywhere from 10 to 15% next to a comparable Zambezi-based chip. The shift from Sandy to Ivy Bridge was only good for somewhere in the three to five percent range. So, AMD does make up some of the difference that was hurting it before.
Unfortunately for gamers, the new FX chips are at their best in well-threaded applications, and games generally don't fall into that category. Vishera is better than what came before. However, it's not good enough to steal any wins from Intel in this one use case. Even so, let's consider the new models: FX-4300, -6300, -8320, and -8350.
FX-4300 features two Piledriver modules, adding up to what AMD calls four cores (but what performance suggests is something in between). It features a base clock rate of 3.8 GHz and benefits from Turbo Core technology that takes it up to 4 GHz under thermally-favorable conditions. That's a couple hundred megahertz faster than the FX-4100 and 200 MHz slower than the FX-4170's base frequency. Of course, the -4100 is a 95 W part, like the -4300, while AMD's FX-4170 needs a 125 W rating to sustain its higher clock rates. Priced at £95, we don't think this particular option is very attractive, since the FX-4170 sells for roughly the same anyway.
Next up is the FX-6300, armed with three active Piledriver modules. A 3.5 GHz base frequency ramps up to 4.1 GHz under the influence of Turbo Core in lightly-threaded applications. Selling for the same £102 as the FX-6200, it's probably a smarter buy thanks to an updated architecture and more modest 95 W TDP.
Finally, the quad-module FX-8320 and -8350. Both are 125 W chips like the -8120 and -8350 that came before. Sporting a 3.5 GHz base clock rate and 4 GHz maximum Turbo Core frequency, the £130 FX-8320 is only a little slower than AMD's former flagship. Consequently, its more efficient architecture fares well against the FX-8150. The new top-end part, FX-8350, boasts the same 4.2 GHz ceiling as the FX-8150. However, it enjoys a 4 GHz base clock, which is 400 MHz higher.
AMD claimed that the FX-8350 should sell for less than £150 at launch. But it's currently going just a little more than that, and more than the FX-8150. At that price, you have access to more attractive gaming processors from Intel. Hopefully, the flagship FX is pushed down to where we expected it to be soon, since that's where it actually becomes an attractive option. And, if you want to know more, check out AMD FX-8350 Review: Does Piledriver Fix Bulldozer's Flaws?
We haven’t yet had a chance to perform in-depth gaming performance analysis of all FX and Trinity processors from AMD. We'll put together a sub-£160 gaming CPU comparison in the near future, the results of which may have an effect on our recommendations.
Intel
The only new processor we've seen from Intel is the low-power Core i5-3470S. This 2.9 GHz CPU doesn't include Turbo Boost technology, it bears a 65 W thermal ceiling, and it comes equipped with HD Graphics 2500. Selling for just a shade over £150, it's not a good option for a gaming build.
Intel's Ivy Bridge-based Pentium G2120 drops a little to £70 (not a particularly significant reduction, but perhaps an indication of competition from AMD's budget APUs). The Core i7-2600K went up to nearly £235, and the Core i7-2700K is priced at £240. We're not particularly worried, since the Ivy Bridge-based models are going to be more popular anyway.
Some Notes About Our Recommendations
This list is for gamers who want to get the most for their money. If you don’t play games, then the CPUs on this list may not be suitable for your particular needs.
The criteria to get on this list are strictly price/performance. We acknowledge that there are other factors that come into play, such as platform price or CPU overclockability, but we're not going to complicate things by factoring in motherboard costs. We may add honorable mentions for outstanding products in the future, though. For now, our recommendations are based on stock clock speeds and performance at that price.
Cost and availability change on a daily basis. We can’t offer up-to-the-minute accurate pricing information in the text, but we can list some good chips that you probably won’t regret buying at the price ranges we suggest (and our PriceGrabber-based engine will help track down some of the best prices for you).
The list is based on some of the best US prices from online retailers. In other countries or at retail stores, your mileage will most certainly vary. Of course, these are retail CPU prices. We do not list used or OEM CPUs available at retail.