Best Gaming CPU for £95: Tie
FX-4300
| FX-4300 | |
|---|---|
| Codename: | Vishera |
| Process: | 32 nm |
| CPU Cores/Threads: | 2/4 |
| Clock Speed (Max. Turbo): | 3.8 GHz (4.0 GHz) |
| Socket: | AM3+ |
| L2 Cache: | 2 x 2 MB |
| L3 Cache: | 8 MB |
| Thermal Envelope: | 95 W |
At stock clock rates, AMD's FX-4300 is able to keep up with the Phenom II X4 965 and just about reach the Core i3-3220. However, its TDP is 35 W lower than the Phenom, and an unlocked multiplier is an advantage over the Core i3.
Read our review of the Vishera-based FX CPUs here.
Best Gaming CPU for £95:
Core i3-3220
| Core i3-3220 | |
|---|---|
| Codename: | Ivy Bridge |
| Process: | 22 nm |
| CPU Cores/Threads: | 2/4 |
| Clock Speed (Max. Turbo): | 3.3 GHz |
| Socket: | LGA 1155 |
| L2 Cache: | 2x 256 KB |
| L3 Cache: | 3 MB |
| Thermal Envelope: | 55 W |
Intel's Ivy Bridge-based CPUs are very capable gaming processors, though we're increasingly seeing dual-core derivatives of the design lagging behind in our favorite titles. Conversely, benchmark data makes it clear that the company's Hyper-Threading technology is effective in helping improve the performance of a dual-core CPU in threaded games.
Although a locked multiplier limits overclocking to a few-megahertz bump in BCLK frequency, we still consider Intel's Core i3-3220 to be a good starting point for gamers who might upgrade to a faster LGA 1155-based processor in the future.
Read our review of the Ivy Bridge-based CPUs here.
Best Gaming CPU for £140:
Core i5-3350P
| Core i5-3350P | |
|---|---|
| Codename: | Ivy Bridge |
| Process: | 22 nm |
| CPU Cores/Threads: | 4 |
| Clock Speed (Max. Turbo): | 3.1 GHz (3.3 GHz) |
| Socket: | LGA 1155 |
| L2 Cache: | 4 x 256 KB |
| L3 Cache: | 6 MB |
| Thermal Envelope: | 69 W |
Intel's Sandy and Ivy Bridge-based Core i5 processors are well-known for their gaming prowess at reasonable prices, and the Core i5-3350P is a particularly interesting option at £140.
The P suffix is an indication that Intel disables its HD Graphics engine, but we're perfectly alright with such a decision. If you're buying a gaming processor, you're going to want discrete graphics anyway. Consequently, this CPU ducks in under 70 W.
Read our review of the Ivy Bridge-based CPUs here.
HT-ing, if anything, decreases performance in games. You might get a gain in programs, but not in games.
Yes, except completely wrong.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/far-cry-3-performance-benchmark,3379-7.html
Look at those performance gains over the pentium in a quad-core-utilizing game. That's not just a few extra megahertz and slightly more efficient architecture. That's hyper-threading for you.
quad core is still a bit of a con for gamers .. with the exception of battlefield 3 mp most games are designed to run on dual core ( no HT ) and the pentiums deliver this at low power
I am only now thinking of an upgrade.
Much is made of new hardware before its needed.
Hang back and play out the games that become cheap i say.
It plays STO like a demon.
(DAMON?)
i Bet a g pentium duo would give plenty entertainment.
If you want to spend a pile to play 2 new games see the chinese Dr
for a bump feel session.
The gen after this yrs stuff will always be cheaper.
Actually, most DX11 games scale very well on quad-threaded CPUs and several scale well across even six or eight threads.
TDP is not relevant at all. It's not even directly comparable to power consumption and even that still has no bearing on performance.
Athlon II x4 and especially Phenom II x4 beat the Celerons and Pentiums in most modern games. From the recent games, it's just stuff such as SC2 that still doesn't scale across even four threads properly.
Furthermore, there are much newer CPUs such as the FX series and Trinity which, although not record breakers like Ivy Bridge in energy efficiency, are a lot more energy efficient than Athlon II and Phenom II.
Even the i3s beat the Pentiums and Celerons significantly in most games and that the i5s oftentimes significantly beat the i3s makes this even more obvious.
No, it doesn't. They simply don't compete as well in a price/performance standing compared to some quad-threaded parts at similar price points anymore since most games nowadays can quite well take advantage of four threads. The cheaper models are still able to compete effectively. For example, the Celeron 1610 at around $50 is probably unbeatable at its price point. However, a little more expensive are some quad core parts and they do beat it handily in most modern DX11 games.