Best gaming cpu

[JustinJgh]

can someone link me some of the best gaming cpus on the market.

[OhpUldum]

Here is a benchmark for the best CPU's for World of Warcraft. You can adjust the benchmark for other various titles.

I can tell you offhand though that the best cost to performance CPU is the i5 2500K in gaming.

[Deleted]

Here is a benchmark for the best CPU's for World of Warcraft. You can adjust the benchmark for other various titles.

I can tell you offhand though that the best cost to performance CPU is the i5 2500K in gaming.

Why isnt the 990X listed there?

[vesseblah]

If you need to count money i3-2100 + H67 motherboard. If you can pay $200 extra then i5-2500K + Z68 motherboard.

AMD Bulldozer might change the recommendations when it comes out somewhere in 2014 (with all these delays...)

---------- Post added 2011-10-06 at 12:06 AM ----------

Why isnt the 990X listed there?

They havent benchmarked it in WoW (yet).

[Doirdyn]

If you need to count money i3-2100 + H67 motherboard. If you can pay $200 extra then i5-2500K + Z68 motherboard.

AMD Bulldozer might change the recommendations when it comes out somewhere in 2014 (with all these delays...)

---------- Post added 2011-10-06 at 12:06 AM ----------



They havent benchmarked it in WoW (yet).

Why would you get a Z68 board without an i7... You're fine using P67 with i5

(Bulldozer has a release date of Oct. 12, 2011)

[Uggorthaholy]

Why would you get a Z68 board without an i7... You're fine using P67 with i5

(Bulldozer has a release date of Oct. 12, 2011)

Z68 has nothing to do with an i7?
A Z68 costs on avg about $10.00 more than P67. Provides on board video in case of a GPU dying, and also provides SRT. No reason NOT to get a Z68 board.

[everix]

Most bang for your buck: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115072

Best at the current time: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...5070&Tpk=2600k

In the near future: Intel is supposed to be releasing their enthusiast processors based on the Sandy Bridge architecture soon so that could be worth waiting for (don't know a ton abut it though).

Longer distance future: The AMD Bulldozer platform will be worth looking into (if it ever releases) and so will Ivy Bridge but those are both still a way off probably.

Edit: Take a look at this article for info about the Sandy Bridge Enthusiast chips http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ance,3026.html

[Doirdyn]

Most bang for your buck: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115072

Best at the current time: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...5070&Tpk=2600k

In the near future: Intel is supposed to be releasing their enthusiast processors based on the Sandy Bridge architecture soon so that could be worth waiting for (don't know a ton abut it though).

Longer distance future: The AMD Bulldozer platform will be worth looking into (if it ever releases) and so will Ivy Bridge but those are both still a way off probably.

Edit: Take a look at this article for info about the Sandy Bridge Enthusiast chips http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ance,3026.html

Bulldozer releases in less than 2 weeks.

[haxartus]

The Bulldozer is coming next week, but it's not really a gaming CPU.
At least not with the current generation of games (except BF3).

[Sephiracle]

The Bulldozer is coming next week, but it's not really a gaming CPU.
At least not with the current generation of games (except BF3).

Are there any benchmarks out there to support that?

[Varyk]

The i5-2500k will perform exactly the same as the i7 as far as computer gaming is concerned. the i5 actually performed better on WoW. the features that the i7 has that the i5 doesn't have nothing to do with gaming.

[BicycleMafioso]

Are there any benchmarks out there to support that?

There aren't any official benchmarks.

As for the releasedate, most of the CPUs the first few weeks will go to reviewers and such. Very few will actually be buyable by the consumers at that point.

[vesseblah]

Are there any benchmarks out there to support that?

No. And as long as BF3 is beta version, there will not be any reliable benchmarking possible with it.

The i5-2500k will perform exactly the same as the i7 as far as computer gaming is concerned. the i5 actually performed better on WoW.

Difference was so small that it fits well within margin of error and in theory the i7-2600K should be about 3% faster because of higher clock speed. HT processors used to have a problem with many games few years back, WoW included. It should be fixed now and WoW will not use HT cores at all and leaves those for OS and all background programs. But it is possible and plausible that the i5-2500K is performing slightly better in older games that dont detect the HT cores.

[haxartus]

Are there any benchmarks out there to support that?

The game appears to be well multithreaded.

[vesseblah]

The game appears to be well multithreaded.

Looking at the beta version benchmark it's pretty clear that:

a) Going from 2 cores to 4 cores will give 15-20% more speed.
b) Going from 4 cores to 6 cores may give ~5% speed boost (or it might be error in the benchmarking, see 'd').
c) Doing extreme overclocking on Sandy Bridge will give extra 5% from stock speed, meaning the game is GPU capped.
d) Numbers are all over the chart and totally illogical* which smells like the beta is not terribly well CPU optimized yet.
e) All CPUs besides AMD dual cores were powerful enough to run the game at full speed and be GPU capped.

*Being the only game currently in existence where Phenom II pulls better numbers than Sandy Bridges with same clock speed.

[haxartus]

But the general idea is consistent. When a game is properly multithreaded, any modern +4 core CPU is enough to power a graphics card like GTX 580.
In some non-optimized games you need an i5-2500k to fully power a GTX 580.

[vesseblah]

But the general idea is consistent. When a game is properly multithreaded, any modern +4 core CPU is enough to power a graphics card like GTX 580. In some non-optimized games you need an i5-2500k to fully power a GTX 580.

Problem with games like WoW is that there's just too much stuff happening that can't be split into threads. In BF3 and other modern first player shooters you have what... 32 players in multiplayer maximum? In WoW there are easily few hundred players in busy Orgrimmar or Stormwind at the same time. Drawing graphics on screen is easy, you can just chug in bigger GPU. Coordinating all movement and actions of players within millisecond is the killer and why WoW can never be multithreaded properly. Same deal with all MMOs really with varying degrees depending on the overall complexity of the game.

Splitting FPS into threads is whole lot easier since amount of players is lower and at the same time lot more processing time is spent on all kinds of visible fluff such as physics which is totally absent from WoW. BF3 looks prettier, no doubt about it, but the complexity of the game engine running on CPU is pretty low compared to graphics engine running on GPU mostly which is totally opposite from WoW.

[Sephiracle]

But the general idea is consistent. When a game is properly multithreaded, any modern +4 core CPU is enough to power a graphics card like GTX 580.
In some non-optimized games you need an i5-2500k to fully power a GTX 580.

Anything about the bulldozer series is completely speculation. It's very likely the bulldozers will follow suit with the rest of the AMD processors and be poop in comparison to the SB's for gaming, but we don't know that quite yet.

[Deleted]

Anything about the bulldozer series is completely speculation. It's very likely the bulldozers will follow suit with the rest of the AMD processors and be poop in comparison to the SB's for gaming, but we don't know that quite yet.

Considering AMD past CPUs, Bulldozer series will probably contain a few relatively cheap hexacores cpus with 32nm process technology (same tech as SB). However, the problem is that Ivy Bridge will be using 22nm process technology.

From what I know, the smaller the microscopic transistors are on your CPU, the more of them that can be fit in the same space compared to a previous generation. Smaller transistors also draw less power, so you can have more of them. If they require fewer watts, this means they won't get as hot as the larger predecessors and I think this means you can push even higher clockspeeds on the CPUs before they overheat or burn out.

Feel free to correct me on this info, however, I think it is clear enough that AMD is falling behind in tech compared to intel, they seem that they don't want to directly compete with Intel's powerhouses and instead produce quality CPUs for a very cheap price (since they're avoiding the researching costs).

[BicycleMafioso]

Anything about the bulldozer series is completely speculation. It's very likely the bulldozers will follow suit with the rest of the AMD processors and be poop in comparison to the SB's for gaming, but we don't know that quite yet.

Considering AMD past CPUs, Bulldozer series will probably contain a few relatively cheap hexacores cpus with 32nm process technology (same tech as SB). However, the problem is that Ivy Bridge will be using 22nm process technology.

From what I know, the smaller the microscopic transistors are on your CPU, the more of them that can be fit in the same space compared to a previous generation. Smaller transistors also draw less power, so you can have more of them. If they require fewer watts, this means they won't get as hot as the larger predecessors and I think this means you can push even higher clockspeeds on the CPUs before they overheat or burn out.

Feel free to correct me on this info, however, I think it is clear enough that AMD is falling behind in tech compared to intel, they seem that they don't want to directly compete with Intel's powerhouses and instead produce quality CPUs for a very cheap price (since they're avoiding the researching costs).

AMDs Phenom II x4 were quite competetive at the time of relase; But perhaps not so much at the time near Sandy Bridges release.
I'm not sure it's fair to compare them. Obviously the Phenom II's being years older are lagging behind.

As for Ivy Bridge being on 22nm, this is true. But also AMD is going to be releasing new lines of CPUs and APUs next year. If Trinity isn't going to be cancelled (I seem to find conflicting information about this), then they will have quite an edge in the market - if OEM builders jump to the potential.

And I'm quite sure that AMD isn't at all avoiding spending money on research.
However, I think it's quite fair to say that AMD has lost considerable ground to intel.