Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Best Gaming CPU: High-end

Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: February 2013
By

Best Gaming CPU for £180:

Core i5-3570K

Core i5-3570K
Codename: Ivy Bridge
Process: 22 nm
CPU Cores/Threads: 4
Clock Speed (Max. Turbo): 3.4 GHz (3.8 GHz)
Socket: LGA 1155
L2 Cache: 4 x 256 KB
L3 Cache: 6 MB
Thermal Envelope:
77 W

The Core i5-3570K's base clock rate is only 300 MHz faster than the Core i5-3350P's. However, the K-series' unlocked ratio multiplier is a must-have for overclockers looking to unleash significant performance improvements. It is for this reason alone that you'll want to consider shelling out an additional £45 beyond Intel's more entry-level Core i5. After all, the pricier chip's HD Graphics 4000 engine is inconsequential to us.

If you don't plan to overclock, then there's little reason to spend any more than £135 on the Core i5-3350P.

Read our review of the Ivy Bridge-based CPUs here.

Diminishing Returns Kick In:

CPUs priced over £180 offer rapidly diminishing returns when it comes to performance in games. As such, we have a hard time recommending anything more expensive than the Core i5-3570K, especially since this multiplier-unlocked processor is easy to tune up to 4.5 GHz or so with the right cooler. Even at stock clocks, though, it matches or beats the old £800 Gulftown-based Core i7-990X Extreme Edition in game tests.

But now that LGA 2011 is here, there's certainly an argument to be made for it as the ultimate gaming platform. LGA 2011-based CPUs have more available cache and as many as two more execution cores than the flagship LGA 1155 models. Additionally, more bandwidth is delivered through a quad-channel memory controller. And with 40 lanes of third-gen PCIe connectivity available from Sandy Bridge-E-based processors, the platform natively supports two x16 and one x8 slot, or one x16 and three x8 slots, alleviating potential bottlenecks in three- and four-way CrossFire or SLI configurations.

Although they sound impressive, those advantages don't necessarily translate into significant performance gains in modern titles. Our tests demonstrate fairly little difference between a £170 LGA 1155 Core i5-2500K and a £800 LGA 2011 Core i7-3970X, even when three-way graphics card configurations are involved. It turns out that memory bandwidth and PCIe throughput don't hold back the performance of existing Sandy Bridge-based machines.

Where we do see the potential for Sandy Bridge-E to drive additional performance is in processor-bound games like World of Warcraft or the multiplayer component of Battlefield 3. If you're running a three- or four-way array of graphics cards already, there's a good chance that you already own more than enough rendering muscle. An overclocked Core i7-3970X or -3930K could help the rest of your platform catch up to an insanely powerful arrangement of GPUs.

To summarize, while we generally recommend against purchasing any gaming CPU that retails for more than £170/£180 from a value point of view (sink that money into graphics and the motherboard instead), there are those of you who have no trouble throwing down serious money on the best of the best, and who require the fastest possible performance available. If this describes your goals, the following CPU is for you:

Best Gaming CPU for £450: (or for any price)
Core i7-3930K

Core i7-3930K
Codename: Sandy Bridge-E
Process: 32 nm
CPU Cores/Threads: 6/12
Clock Speed (Max. Turbo): 3.2 GHz (3.8 GHz)
Socket: LGA 2011
L2 Cache:   6x 256 KB
L3 Cache: 12 MB
Thermal Envelope:
130 W

Take the £800 Core i7-3970X, remove 3 MB of L3 cache, and drop the base clock rate by 300 MHz. What do end up with? Three hundred pounds and change left over, and an Intel Core i7-3930K.

The 300 MHz difference in clock rate is hardly relevant, given unlocked multiplier ratios benefiting both CPUs. And you'd be hard-pressed to quantify the advantage of 15 MB of shared L3 cache over 12 MB. Moreover, a greater-than-£300 savings lets you buy a nice motherboard and cooler, while still getting the same four-channel memory subsystem and 40-lane PCI Express 3.0-capable controller.

Read our review of the Sandy Bridge-E based CPUs here.

Ask a Category Expert

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

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 10 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    Blahman11 , 21 February 2013 14:57
    It's nice to see AMD back on the recommendation list rather than an honorable mention. The Phenom 965 has to be one of the best value for money CPUs at the moment, especially if youre willing to overclock it.
  • 0 Hide
    aje21 , 22 February 2013 00:07
    I'd be interested to see how Lucid Logix MVP affects some of this - I have a Core i3 3225 in a media centre machine which I'm going to try out for gaming (HD4000 should be OK for some old titles), but when I get around to adding a discrete card for more modern titles will it prove to be a useful addition over the i3 3220?
  • 1 Hide
    MajinCry , 22 February 2013 05:20
    The AMD Radeon HD 5450 (Also named the 6450) is one tier, in terms of performance, above the HD 4000, so yeah. Even a 6570 ddr3 will be a significant gain.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html
  • 0 Hide
    aje21 , 23 February 2013 03:49
    My question was not "will a discrete card be better" but "will HD4000 and MVP be of benefit once a discrete card has been added". If you have a few pounds (dollars) unallocated during a build, is it better to go for a slightly higher spec discrete card or the i3 3225 and MVP over i3 3220 and no MVP?
  • 0 Hide
    megadelayed , 24 February 2013 21:45
    i don't get how on the hierachy chart how the X4 640 is on the same tier as i7-9xx series and the core 2 extremes and above the Q9550
    i think that the charts gets a bit confusing if you compare some of the intel processors to the AMD ones
  • 0 Hide
    sanilmahambre , 26 February 2013 03:08
    FX 4300 gets a Honorable mention!

    Its like a first step for AMD, next is steamrollar and Excavator
  • 0 Hide
    tornadohh , 27 February 2013 20:40
    Seriously, what are you writing about? You are still using the same games/benchmarks where you hyped the Pentium G860... Still the Pentium G860 performs better in these games for the money and if you wanna upgrade just buy the cheapest i5 (which performs way better then any current AMD CPU) for your existing 1155 mainboard. Nobody knows how will perform future AM3+ CPUs yet. IF you want AMD then go FM2 maybe ?? At least thats a new platform (with mini-itx mainboards as well). AMD Athlon II X4 750K for example and even that performs worse in games compared to the G860 right now ... about the future ? well, who knows but at the moment certainly these cpus are not a recommendation for me regarding gaming performance/power consumption/future upgrades.

    If you want a cheap upgradable modern gaming PC go 1155 + G860 + discrete graphics or if you want a cheap allround/gaming pc then go FM2 + AMD integrated graphics.
  • 1 Hide
    MajinCry , 27 February 2013 22:18
    The cheapest i5 performs way better than any AMD CPU? Boys, we have an intel fan o'er here!

    The 965 BE, AMD's price:p erformance beast, is only 20% slower, at worse, than the i5 2500k. And it costs 50% of the price.

    Keep your intel jargon to yourself, tornadohh.
  • 0 Hide
    tornadohh , 28 February 2013 02:03
    actually after my Pentium 3-500 until now (Pentium G860) i just had AMD CPUs the last one being Athlon II X3 425 which was quite decent but seriously these days AMD is some generations behind Intel.

    Pls show me some benchmarks where 965 BE is just 20% slower at worse than the i5 2500k. That is at best wishful thinking and no im not Intel fan... otherwise i would have bought this wonder AMD long time ago but the truth it its old technology by now and the i5 CPUs are very well worth their money.
  • 0 Hide
    tornadohh , 28 February 2013 03:05
    okay anyway lets keep it civilized im not saying the 965 BE is a bad CPU and certainly if you can live with that its sucking a lot of power and no mini itx boards are available its still an relative well performing cpu for gaming. just not cutting edge or efficient anymore compared to intel cpus... and yes the intel quad core cpus are somewhat more expensive but you also get more performance and low power consumption.

    and honestly tomshardware was hyping the G860 like its the best thing after sliced bread (beating the 965 BE in some of the same games they are still benchmarking now) but in 2013 a dual core cpu is not good anymore so the old AMD quadcores get the recommendation because they are cheaper than the i5 s - hhhhm interesting.

    actually when i compared my Athlon II X3 425 (4th core unlocked and overclocked to 3GHz) the G860 (dual core 3GHz) performs a lot better and im talking about current simulations not only shooters.

    on the other hand there is the FM2 plattform and for example the A10 5800k really kicks some ass when its comes to a cheap TINY itx allround gaming pc (with picu psu for example). WITHOUT discrete graphics card. other than that im sorry there is not so much AMD can offer at the moment.

    and really im not intel fanboy ...

    Honourable Mention:
    FX-4300

    i wish that would have been the i5 killer but unfortunately its just not there... competing with an intel dual core cpu :( 

    The way it is we have quite the odd battle AMD quadcore vs Intel dualcore in the same price range... which makes decision not so easy because yes sometime soon there might be really no place anymore for a dual core in gaming but right now there is.