Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   Reviews & Articles from the Web (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/reviews-articles-web/)
-   -   <$200 Gaming CPU shoot-out (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/reviews-articles-web/59655-200-gaming-cpu-shoot-out.html)

Bond007 February 12, 2013 06:22 AM

<$200 Gaming CPU shoot-out
 
As the title states. A review by tomshardware using new testing methodology of 18 sub $200 CPU in gaming. Overall AMD fared better than the last time tomshardware did a review like this, but it still has work to do. Read it all here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ance,3427.html

For those that don't like to read, here is the summary chart from the conclusion:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/F/2/371...al/Average.png

great_big_abyss February 12, 2013 07:59 AM

Hmm, AMD's chips are actually fairly competitive. With some exceptions, anyone who's buying a <$200 chip wouldn't buy a GTX680. They're more likely to buy a GTX660 or GTX660Ti, or a 7870/7950. Therefore I think they would be a little more gpu bound than with the GTX680 that they tested with. So, for the price, yes, I would consider that AMD's chips are keeping up with Intel quite nicely on the gaming front. Now, this test doesn't account for the 3570K, which once overclocked will give much higher framerates than the 3550 in the test. However, the 3570K is usually $40 more expensive than an 8350, so more expensive chip = more performance.

igot6strings February 13, 2013 03:33 AM

The 2500k is a beautiful chip. I received mine just a few weeks ago and am very impressed with its performance and ease to overclock. The performance compared to my old i7 960 in gaming is mind blowing.
Although AMD is catching up I still think they are lagging behind quite a bit when it comes to pricing. Their best chip to date is only comparable with intels mid-range 2500k/3570k which perform better, has more features and cost about the same. If the 8350 was priced around $169 it'd easily be the best chip for the money but at $199 it makes no sense. Sure it goes on sale from time to time but the regular price needs to come down. Not only that but the mobo you need to take full advantage of a 8350 can cost a pretty penny compared to the board you would need to run the above mentioned intels near their full potential.
I spent a great deal of time recently making up potential systems to purchase from NCIX and each time I always came out with the Intel setup costing less than the AMD in the end. I have nothing against AMD, I had actually wanted to go that route for my new setup but it just didn't make sense to do so at this time. AMD has always been good to me. The majority of my systems over time have been AMD based. I'd like to see what AMD has to offer us in 2013 though. They just may come out with something that will surprise us.

great_big_abyss February 13, 2013 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by igot6strings (Post 690253)
The 2500k is a beautiful chip. I received mine just a few weeks ago and am very impressed with its performance and ease to overclock. The performance compared to my old i7 960 in gaming is mind blowing.
Although AMD is catching up I still think they are lagging behind quite a bit when it comes to pricing. Their best chip to date is only comparable with intels mid-range 2500k/3570k which perform better, has more features and cost about the same. If the 8350 was priced around $169 it'd easily be the best chip for the money but at $199 it makes no sense. Sure it goes on sale from time to time but the regular price needs to come down. Not only that but the mobo you need to take full advantage of a 8350 can cost a pretty penny compared to the board you would need to run the above mentioned intels near their full potential.
I spent a great deal of time recently making up potential systems to purchase from NCIX and each time I always came out with the Intel setup costing less than the AMD in the end. I have nothing against AMD, I had actually wanted to go that route for my new setup but it just didn't make sense to do so at this time. AMD has always been good to me. The majority of my systems over time have been AMD based. I'd like to see what AMD has to offer us in 2013 though. They just may come out with something that will surprise us.

You can buy an M5A97 usually for about $90-$100...that's certainly not expensive.

Masteroderus February 13, 2013 05:19 AM

It's very biased to use games that are all lightly threaded. Where's my bf3?

great_big_abyss February 13, 2013 06:00 AM

I was wondering where BF3 was...

igot6strings February 13, 2013 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by great_big_abyss (Post 690259)
You can buy an M5A97 usually for about $90-$100...that's certainly not expensive.

True enough. There wasn't a huge difference in price but even if those setups I created were equal in price the intel setup would still perform better thus making it the better value in the long run. A low end z77 does run around $100, a z68 can be found for about $80.
I would love a 8350 to play with they seem like a lot of fun but there seems to be a premium price on that fun. Like I said if it was a few dollars cheaper at $169-179 I would have probably grabbed one but at $199 it just seems pointless in comparison to the intels at that price level.

great_big_abyss February 13, 2013 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by igot6strings (Post 690266)
True enough. There wasn't a huge difference in price but even if those setups I created were equal in price the intel setup would still perform better thus making it the better value in the long run. A low end z77 does run around $100, a z68 can be found for about $80.
I would love a 8350 to play with they seem like a lot of fun but there seems to be a premium price on that fun. Like I said if it was a few dollars cheaper at $169-179 I would have probably grabbed one but at $199 it just seems pointless in comparison to the intels at that price level.

But, it's not pointless. In most applications other than gaming, it's faster than a 3570K. In gaming, it comes pretty close, and it's $40 cheaper. Let's call the board prices a draw. Now, I'm not saying the 3570K isn't a better chip, but it is more expensive.

I think what's trying to be said is that the 8350 is turning out to be an acceptable replacement for the 3570K, especially for video editing and the like, and even to some extent when gaming. Some people may not like that, as AMD has had a reputation lately of producing hot, slow chips, and the Intel fanbois seem to want it to stay that way. Well, news flash, AMD finally seems to have a product that can more or less keep up.

All in all, when you're splurging on $400 worth of CPU, Motherboard and RAM, will an extra $40 for an Intel setup over an AMD setup really matter too much? Probably not. So, really, it comes down to two things. Do you want Intel? or AMD? Because at this point the two systems perform really quite similarly.

igot6strings February 13, 2013 07:22 AM

The thing is the 3570k is almost always on sale for $200 somewhere so unless the 8350 is on sale for less than its stand $199 I would still have to go with Intel. It was just on for $199 at NCIX for a surprise sale and is now sold out.
Of course if someone wanted a system for applications like you mentioned then yes its probably a better buy. All those cores make a big difference in production I admit. If you wanted a well rounded system I would think intel would be the better option. If its for applications than cost doesn't really matter if it suits the purpose of your work.

botat29 February 13, 2013 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by great_big_abyss (Post 690263)
I was wondering where BF3 was...

Tom already made a review with BF3, all the CPUs was about the same with BF3.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...rk,3120-4.html


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:12 AM.