Best CPU for under $100

[SirJangly]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: SirJangly
Ahhh. From what I read, AMD might be dying out. That true?

okey i hate to do this to you, but you sound really confused now.

Can you goto this section:
http://forums.anandtech.com/ca...tid=27&flcache=4882671

Read the stickys about system recomendation and fill out that form and make a new post there.

The guys over there can help you out much better then in here in complete budget system packages. Make sure you define your wants and complete budget, and your location. So read the sticky.

If we keep fighting amd vs intel, your only going to get lost even more. :T

Done thanks so much guys!

 

[Vesku]

If you aren't planning to overclock at all go for the AMD recommendation. If you want to play around with overclocking, go with the Intel. Intel has better chip manufacturing processes and so their chips tend to have a lot of headroom.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: alfa147x

Originally posted by: SirJangly

Originally posted by: myocardia
If you aren't going to be overclocking, get the parts that IL2SturmovikPilot recommended. That processor is much faster out of the box than any of the E21x0's are, at least for gaming.

Thanks How well would the on board ati hd 3200 run World of Warcraft? Preferably at 1440x900

personally, no hard feelings myocardia but get the intel and even if you dont (you should) overclock it you can always in the future mount a E8x00 on it OR even a quad

No offense taken. You're doing anyone who says they won't be overclocking a huge disservice, if you recommend they buy 21x0's over AMD's faster chips, though: http://www23.tomshardware.com/...2&model2=883&chart=421 According to my calculator, the 5600 is 222% faster an E2160, at stock speeds, at least with Supreme Commander, which is one of the more CPU-bound games out today. Then again, maybe Tom was just drunk when he did those tests?

 

[Vesku]

I'm on the AMD boat for non overclocking price/performance. I think it's getting into fanboi type talk to not acknowledge that AMD is competitive in price-performance when not Overclocking. Only have to look at reviews on this site and others to see that it's true. Why else is Intel frequently updating their price sheets? Hurray for competition!

 

[IL2SturmovikPilot]

Originally posted by: SirJangly
Ahhh. From what I read, AMD might be dying out. That true?

What Intel fanboy told you that? AMD isn't winning in the performance wars when it comes to CPU's sure,but that doesn't mean they're dying,going by that logic,Intel and AMD have died many times over.

Oh,and IDK about WoW,but that game is far from demanding,and tends to require more CPU power than GPU power,HD 3200 is at least as strong as the minimum recommended cards for WoW,you should run it fine.

 

[lopri]

Plus A64 will handle 4 sticks of memory a lot better especially on budget boards.

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: alfa147x

Originally posted by: SirJangly

Originally posted by: myocardia
If you aren't going to be overclocking, get the parts that IL2SturmovikPilot recommended. That processor is much faster out of the box than any of the E21x0's are, at least for gaming.

Thanks How well would the on board ati hd 3200 run World of Warcraft? Preferably at 1440x900

personally, no hard feelings myocardia but get the intel and even if you dont (you should) overclock it you can always in the future mount a E8x00 on it OR even a quad

No offense taken. You're doing anyone who says they won't be overclocking a huge disservice, if you recommend they buy 21x0's over AMD's faster chips, though: http://www23.tomshardware.com/...2&model2=883&chart=421 According to my calculator, the 5600 is 222% faster an E2160, at stock speeds, at least with Supreme Commander, which is one of the more CPU-bound games out today. Then again, maybe Tom was just drunk when he did those tests?

heard

 

[lightstar]

We frequently use our computers to kill horde on WoW. in fact, our whole family plays- from my kids to uncles, aunts & grandmother. . . .it's not too GPU intensive/dependent- any low mid-range or better will do. . . .if you can pick up an old X1900/1950- they work great for WoW

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: myocardia
No offense taken. You're doing anyone who says they won't be overclocking a huge disservice, if you recommend they buy 21x0's over AMD's faster chips, though: http://www23.tomshardware.com/...2&model2=883&chart=421 According to my calculator, the 5600 is 222% faster an E2160, at stock speeds, at least with Supreme Commander, which is one of the more CPU-bound games out today. Then again, maybe Tom was just drunk when he did those tests?

Damn, never knew Sup Com was that cache dependant!

Still, you are comparing a $122 CPU to a $69 CPU (Newegg prices), so its not exactly a fair fight.

An E4500 for $120 would be a better comparison. It'll still be slightly slower than the X2 5600+ at stock, but it won't be the massacre that you're suggesting.

AMD has priced their products well, and it generally falls in line with the price/performance curve. Of course overclocking makes Intel the better value but since the OP is not interested its a moot point.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: harpoon84

Originally posted by: myocardia
No offense taken. You're doing anyone who says they won't be overclocking a huge disservice, if you recommend they buy 21x0's over AMD's faster chips, though: http://www23.tomshardware.com/...2&model2=883&chart=421 According to my calculator, the 5600 is 222% faster an E2160, at stock speeds, at least with Supreme Commander, which is one of the more CPU-bound games out today. Then again, maybe Tom was just drunk when he did those tests?

Damn, never knew Sup Com was that cache dependant!

Still, you are comparing a $122 CPU to a $69 CPU (Newegg prices), so its not exactly a fair fight.

An E4500 for $120 would be a better comparison. It'll still be slightly slower than the X2 5600+ at stock, but it won't be the massacre that you're suggesting.

AMD has priced their products well, and it generally falls in line with the price/performance curve. Of course overclocking makes Intel the better value but since the OP is not interested its a moot point.

They've increased prices (at least at the Egg) for the oem X2 5400+ at 2.8GHz from $78 to $88 and the 9500 from $169 to $195.

Good for the Egg. Not so good for us

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
They've increased prices (at least at the Egg) for the oem X2 5400+ at 2.8GHz from $78 to $88 and the 9500 from $169 to $195.

Good for the Egg. Not so good for us

Gotta love that Newegg AutoGouger 9000!

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
They've increased prices (at least at the Egg) for the oem X2 5400+ at 2.8GHz from $78 to $88 and the 9500 from $169 to $195.

Good for the Egg. Not so good for us

Gotta love that Newegg AutoGouger 9000!

I for one am glad that they've increased prices, that means that they're selling some amd chips! Of course, if I was looking to buy one I might be singing a different tune...

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
They've increased prices (at least at the Egg) for the oem X2 5400+ at 2.8GHz from $78 to $88 and the 9500 from $169 to $195.

Good for the Egg. Not so good for us

Gotta love that Newegg AutoGouger 9000!

I for one am glad that they've increased prices, that means that they're selling some amd chips! Of course, if I was looking to buy one I might be singing a different tune...

no bryan it means someone linked it on a public forum where massive amounts of people clicked on the link to see what the OP was talking about.

This in turn made the counter go up, and then the program automatically increases the price.

Originally posted by: harpoon84


Damn, never knew Sup Com was that cache dependant!

LOL... why else you think i dropped a hugh bill on myself to get this game running smoothly @ my resolution.

 

[taltamir]

C2D is 10-15% faster at the same clockspeed then any AMD at the moment. It also oces more AND has better power consumption.
If you don't OC you should still get the intel because you can always do a drop in replacement for a much better processor later on.
penryn is the last socket 775 intel plans to make, Which is significantly faster then the low ends.
the phenom is the last AM2 AMD plants to make (even it is actually only backwards compatible with AM2). And the phenom is BARELY faster then the currently cheap AM2 CPUs.

So if you wanna buy a 50$ process now and upgrade in a year or two for another 50$ intel is the way to go.

Intel should also age better since it is high on cache.

Lastly, If you don't plan on upgrading OR overclocking AND you don't care at ALL about power consumption...
Then add up the price of the motherboard + CPU and see which is cheaper, an intel C2D or an AMD with 10% higher clockspeed.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: SirJangly
Thanks How well would the on board ati hd 3200 run World of Warcraft? Preferably at 1440x900

I've got a 6150-based 939 rig with a 3800+ (not an X2), and it plays WoW like crap. 18FPS max, oftentimes much lower.

I can't imagine any onboard would run it really well, although I know someone with C2D-based laptops that plays it using the onboard GMA graphics.

 

[taltamir]

people keep on making WOW out to be a really lite game, it isn't. And the newer areas are much much heavier in terms of graphics.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
Damn, never knew Sup Com was that cache dependant!

Still, you are comparing a $122 CPU to a $69 CPU (Newegg prices), so its not exactly a fair fight.

An E4500 for $120 would be a better comparison. It'll still be slightly slower than the X2 5600+ at stock, but it won't be the massacre that you're suggesting.

AMD has priced their products well, and it generally falls in line with the price/performance curve. Of course overclocking makes Intel the better value but since the OP is not interested its a moot point.

I can understand if you don't believe me, but it never occurred to me to make the comparison you're suggesting. I agree completely. Also, I mistakenly selected the 5600, and not the $80-something 5400 I meant to select. I didn't realize I was that tired last night. So, the 5400 is only ~195% faster than an E2160, but only in Supreme Commander. Then again, I'm as surprised as you that Supreme Commander is as cache dependent as it happens to be. I just picked it because it's fairly new, and is known to be very CPU-dependent.

BTW, I only selected the E21x0's because that's what kept being suggested to him. Also, (now that I can think clearly), the E2200, which is almost exactly the same price as the 5400 that was recommended to him would be much closer in performance to the 5400, assuming no overclocking, especially in the less cache dependent games. Of course, nearly all games are cache-dependent to some extent. That's why in games other than SupCom, the E21x0's need 500 more Mhz, to equal the performance of their 4MB relatives: http://www.tomshardware.com/20...m_dual_core/page8.html

 

[harpoon84]

In terms of 'overall' performance an E2200 is equal to an X2 5200+ according to Xbitlabs. In games it does fall behind a bit due to the smaller cache. I'm still struggling to comprehend the massive performance hit from the smaller cache in Sup Com. I always assumed a general 10 - 20% hit in games, not something like 50%! I guess its just an exception rather than the norm though.

I'm not sure how cache dependent WoW is, from what I've read its pretty CPU intensive but that doesn't necessarily make it cache dependent either.

 

[harpoon84]

Originally posted by: taltamir
people keep on making WOW out to be a really lite game, it isn't. And the newer areas are much much heavier in terms of graphics.

I don't play WoW but isn't it more CPU intensive than graphically intensive? Like during raids and stuff, I hear it can get pretty bogged down with a slower CPU, but in terms of graphics you can always tone things down if your GPU is underpowered.

 

[Vesku]

Judging from the fps listed for the 790G integrated graphics in reviews, I think it will actually run WoW at a decent clip. That's at 1024 resolution though.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: harpoon84
In terms of 'overall' performance an E2200 is equal to an X2 5200+ according to Xbitlabs.

That sounds about right to me.

I'm still struggling to comprehend the massive performance hit from the smaller cache in Sup Com. I always assumed a general 10 - 20% hit in games, not something like 50%! I guess its just an exception rather than the norm though.

Well, after thinking about it, any game or app that's both CPU-intensive and RAM-intensive is nearly always also cache-dependent (as in, the more, the merrier).

I'm not sure how cache dependent WoW is, from what I've read its pretty CPU intensive but that doesn't necessarily make it cache dependent either.

My best guess would be that it's not very cache-dependent. Here's why: it's nearly three years old, and although it's been graphically updated, the average gamer back then had 1GB of system RAM, with 2GB still considered overkill by most. That leads me to believe that it's almost certainly not extremely cache-dependent, and most likely not at all, more like your average FPS.

 

[tutelary]

At least going Intel would put the OP on an upgrade path with the same motherboard that wouldn't suck like it would with AMD.