Best Gaming CPUs for the money

[Jaketh]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ii,2620-6.html
Ranks CPUs by price for good gaming performance
This chart is interesting http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ii,2620-7.html

according to it my q6600 is better then all AMD CPUs except the new 6 core, im sticking with intel if my first generation quad core performs better then AMDs best quad core

[HansDuet]

Quite happy with i7 860.

[karamazovmm]

not quite happy with my P7350

[Jaketh]

ive been happy with my q6600 old but powerful as hell

[Bartzy]

e8500 still going strong!

[english tyrant]

e8500 still going strong!

ooo yeah.

[Top-Tier-Tech]

I'm happy with my i7-920. Although Price/performance wise I'd go with the i5-750.

[Vaz]

not happy with my travelmate 5720.

[craziii]

I check bench marks when new waves of cpus come onto the market, but so far, there is very little performance increase over my E8500 duo core in games. I don't see myself upgrading the cpu anytime soon.

[mrcrusty]

I'm happy with my unlocked Phenom II x2 555. It's a 955 at half the cost.

But in 90% of cases, games are GPU heavy anyways, as long as your CPU has enough cores for the game to utilise and is good enough not to bottleneck the graphics card, you won't see much of a difference between processors.

[Big Boss]

according to it my q6600 is better then all AMD CPUs except the new 6 core, im sticking with intel if my first generation quad core performs better then AMDs best quad core

It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. Both the Phenom II 955 and the 965 are recommended at their price point, and in the graph at the end they are in the next tier up from the q6600.

[Jaketh]

It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. Both the Phenom II 955 and the 965 are recommended at their price point, and in the graph at the end they are in the next tier up from the q6600.

yeah but the fact that my almost 4 year old processor can compete with brand new ones is pretty big win on Intels part, im never going AMD

[mrcrusty]

Well, considering that the Phenom II's were designed to compete with the Core 2 Quads and not the Core i7's, it makes sense to me.

C2Q -> PII = i5 -> i7 is basically how AMD wanted things to end with for gaming.

Really though, an Athlon II x4 635 would still work fine as a gaming CPU for a budget build. The difference between say, an Athlon II x4 635 and an i7 980x is most games is small, at higher resolutions, you could easily count the difference in fps on one hand.

[Triarii]

Not happy with my E6420.

[Nissedruva]

I have a i7-920 since a year back and i have never had any performance issue with it. Its still quite an overkill and i agree with the above suggestion that i5 is probably the more price worthy choice. i5 almost give identical performance but at a lower cost compared to i7.

[HansDuet]

Depends on what i7 but yes, for gaming performance they're pretty even.

[karamazovmm]

you're never going ati either

[karamazovmm]

I think you would need both hands in a variety of games

[mrcrusty]

I think you would need both hands in a variety of games

Well, I'm exaggerating to make a point. At 1080p though, a lot of games are levelled down to small differences. Usually when the 980x races miles ahead of the Phenom II's, the whole i7 range does.

Of course there are games where the i7's smacks the Phenom II around and beats it by like ~30-40 fps, but by that stage, the fps is already at 100+, so it's not noticable

[karamazovmm]

I agree with you there its just my way of saying anal is good