Opinion time: What is the "best value" in a CPU today?

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

If you have a Microventer nearby, it's hard to beat the Celeron G550 ($35) or Pentium G645 ($49).

Just built a new Hackintosh with a G645 and MSI H77MA-G43. Fairly speedy machine, althoiugh it still loses out (though not by much) to my old E5200 @ 3.8GHz.

 

[Shephard]

Lucky bastards. Here in the Netherlands all webshops offer the 3570K for 210 euros. That's 270 USD. Our prices include 21% V.A.T. But still, the difference is ridiculous.

I bought mine in April. And the price didn't drop a single euro since. (So I am happy I bought mine on release day).

I have been waiting for a good price for a long time.

That sucks where you are. The Americans always get good prices on computer stuff. I am in Canada and it sucks!

I saw a 3570k for $149 at the Black Friday but in store only and I had no way of getting there. So I got a good deal it worked out to about the same after taxes/shipping.

Also I wanna know why people recommend the Pentium over Celeron. Celeron is $20 cheaper.

 

[Yuriman]

Also I wanna know why people recommend the Pentium over Celeron. Celeron is $20 cheaper.

On Newegg they're not.

G630 = $65
G550 = $60

The G630 is clocked 100mhz higher and has more L3 cache.

A G530 is a great chip at its price, but you lose a fair amount of clockspeed plus the cache for that $17. I'd typically opt for the Pentium in most builds.

 

[Hubb1e]

General use no gaming - Intel Pentium line. I like the G860 just because it's an even 3.0 ghz and that makes me feel better than 2.9 ghz for some reason. This is all the CPU 95% of people really need and with the expansion of mobile, developers will target their programs and websites at moderate performance needs so I think this will be enough performance for a LONG time.

General use with light gaming - AMD A8 5600K with a cheap tower cooler and fast ram. Again, the CPU performance is more than enough for general use and the GPU can even play some games at lowered detail. The perfect family use PC. My brother bought a $1000 Asus PC with a i7 3770 and an Nvidia 520 GT thinking it would be a good box for some gaming. It was actually quite pathetic since an A8 stomped all over it and the CPU was way overkill for his needs. These AMD chips are well balanced.

Budget gaming - AMD FX 6300 with a cheap tower cooler. I just don't trust 2 core chips for future gaming and the 3 module FX when given a moderate overclock can sustain nearly 60fps in nearly any title you throw at it. For $135 it allows the builder on a strict budget to spend more on the video card than he could have otherwise.

Performance general use and gaming - Intel 3570K. If I had to pick just one CPU though it would be the 3570K because you can get HUGE performance out of it and even though it is one of the most expensive mainstream CPUs available its value cannot be ignored. When you factor in the price of a gaming computer these days, it almost seems stupid to not opt for the 3570K. If you aren't on a strict budget, then spend the extra cash for it and it will still be a viable gaming chip years down the road.

 

[Torn Mind]

On Newegg they're not.

G630 = $65
G550 = $60

The G630 is clocked 100mhz higher and has more L3 cache.

A G530 is a great chip at its price, but you lose a fair amount of clockspeed plus the cache for that $17. I'd typically opt for the Pentium in most builds.

G550 only applies when using Microcenter; it is not the Celeron people refer to normally. The G540 and G530 go for 44.99 and 43.99 at Amazon.com, respectively.
The discrepancy in L3 cache is not a major loss. For 200 MHz loss in clockspeed, it might or might not be worth the extra $15.

 

[Shephard]

yes I am talking about the G540 Intel's cheapest cpu.

Also you can use it for gaming? It can't touch the 3570k but I am sure with an ok video card like a 7770 it could play some games on medium.

 

[tynopik]

E3-1230 V2 deserves honorable mention as Intel's cheapest quad core with hyperthreading

 

[bigrash]

$99 2500k was the best damn value of the century.

That was an awesome deal. I vote for this.

 

[frozentundra123456]

That was an awesome deal. I vote for this.

I agree, but I live near a microcenter and I never saw that advertized or available in store. Not saying that it didnt happen, but must have been a very limited opportunity.

 

[frozentundra123456]

General use no gaming - Intel Pentium line. I like the G860 just because it's an even 3.0 ghz and that makes me feel better than 2.9 ghz for some reason. This is all the CPU 95% of people really need and with the expansion of mobile, developers will target their programs and websites at moderate performance needs so I think this will be enough performance for a LONG time.

General use with light gaming - AMD A8 5600K with a cheap tower cooler and fast ram. Again, the CPU performance is more than enough for general use and the GPU can even play some games at lowered detail. The perfect family use PC. My brother bought a $1000 Asus PC with a i7 3770 and an Nvidia 520 GT thinking it would be a good box for some gaming. It was actually quite pathetic since an A8 stomped all over it and the CPU was way overkill for his needs. These AMD chips are well balanced.

Budget gaming - AMD FX 6300 with a cheap tower cooler. I just don't trust 2 core chips for future gaming and the 3 module FX when given a moderate overclock can sustain nearly 60fps in nearly any title you throw at it. For $135 it allows the builder on a strict budget to spend more on the video card than he could have otherwise.

Performance general use and gaming - Intel 3570K. If I had to pick just one CPU though it would be the 3570K because you can get HUGE performance out of it and even though it is one of the most expensive mainstream CPUs available its value cannot be ignored. When you factor in the price of a gaming computer these days, it almost seems stupid to not opt for the 3570K. If you aren't on a strict budget, then spend the extra cash for it and it will still be a viable gaming chip years down the road.

FX6300 maybe, although overclocked it will use a lot more power than an i3. I would probably go i3 for gaming and FX for productivity apps.

A8 5600K, Just cant see the place of an APU in a desktop. Too much compromise in the igpu and if you add a discrete card you are defeating the purpose of an APU and again using more power than an i3 with the same discrete card.

Your other recommendations I would agree with totally.

 

[NTMBK]

FX6300 maybe, although overclocked it will use a lot more power than an i3. I would probably go i3 for gaming and FX for productivity apps.

A8 5600K, Just cant see the place of an APU in a desktop. Too much compromise in the igpu and if you add a discrete card you are defeating the purpose of an APU and again using more power than an i3 with the same discrete card.

Your other recommendations I would agree with totally.

An A8-5600k in the UK is £78; the equivalent FX chip, the FX-4100, is £80. Same clock speed, same number of cores, but the A8 has slightly higher IPC thanks to Piledriver. The FM2 platform has more modern chipsets, with better SATA performance. Even if you're using a dGPU, the A8 is a better choice than the FX4, in my opinion.

 

[Hubb1e]

FX6300 maybe, although overclocked it will use a lot more power than an i3. I would probably go i3 for gaming and FX for productivity apps.

A8 5600K, Just cant see the place of an APU in a desktop. Too much compromise in the igpu and if you add a discrete card you are defeating the purpose of an APU and again using more power than an i3 with the same discrete card.

Your other recommendations I would agree with totally.

So you agree with my Intel recommendations but not with AMD because of why? You don't think that a general use computer should be able to play the occasional game? the A8 is a well balanced chip. Maybe some mom buys the kid a computer for school and that kid decides he wants to try Diablo III? It's a better experience on the A8 than on an i3 with HD2000 or HD2500 graphics. It's a good chip with good CPU speed, low idle, good graphics, and good driver support. It's a good chip for the average computer buyer and it's cheap. It's the equivalent of buying a $110 i3 and a $50 AMD 5570 for the price of that i3. Value right there. It may not be the best choice for you, but you can't deny that it is a good value for the price.

And that the FX 6300 uses more power at max load? Max load is pretty rare for most people, and even at that it's only a 50-75W lightbulb difference. Why do we care so much about power consumption these days? That 6300 has 6 cores, is unlocked, and is dirt cheap. That seems like a good value to me.

 

[SocketF]

If you can find said cpu

No problem here where I live ;-)

But you are right, it seems it is not yet available in US. I only found Canadian stores in my quick search:

http://www.directdial.com/AD750KWOHJBOX.html
http://www.cendirect.com/main_en/tech_specs_NF5140444.html

 

[2is]

$99 2500k was the best damn value of the century.

Was scrolling through the replies to see if anyone nominated this... I agree.

 

[tynopik]

Was scrolling through the replies to see if anyone nominated this... I agree.

the thread title says TODAY

the $99 deal isn't available today and thus isn't germane

 

[frozentundra123456]

An A8-5600k in the UK is £78; the equivalent FX chip, the FX-4100, is £80. Same clock speed, same number of cores, but the A8 has slightly higher IPC thanks to Piledriver. The FM2 platform has more modern chipsets, with better SATA performance. Even if you're using a dGPU, the A8 is a better choice than the FX4, in my opinion.

I wouldn't pick the FX either for gaming.

 

[frozentundra123456]

So you agree with my Intel recommendations but not with AMD because of why? You don't think that a general use computer should be able to play the occasional game? the A8 is a well balanced chip. Maybe some mom buys the kid a computer for school and that kid decides he wants to try Diablo III? It's a better experience on the A8 than on an i3 with HD2000 or HD2500 graphics. It's a good chip with good CPU speed, low idle, good graphics, and good driver support. It's a good chip for the average computer buyer and it's cheap. It's the equivalent of buying a $110 i3 and a $50 AMD 5570 for the price of that i3. Value right there. It may not be the best choice for you, but you can't deny that it is a good value for the price.

And that the FX 6300 uses more power at max load? Max load is pretty rare for most people, and even at that it's only a 50-75W lightbulb difference. Why do we care so much about power consumption these days? That 6300 has 6 cores, is unlocked, and is dirt cheap. That seems like a good value to me.

I have the right to agree or disagree with you whether it is AMD or Intel. I personally value efficiency unless using more power leads to a lot more performance. I did say the FX could be a good value for certain uses.

I still say that an APU for the desktop is in the category of "jack of all trades and master of none". Believe it or not, I was a great fan of Fusion when it was being introduced by AMD. I would like nothing better than to walk into a big box store and buy a gaming computer off the shelf. But fusion never really attained the performance I thought it would. If you dont want to game, any modern cpu will suffice. If you want to game, any pentium or higher cpu with a 7750 will give much better performance. Do you deny this??

 

[Yuriman]

I have the right to agree or disagree with you whether it is AMD or Intel. I personally value efficiency unless using more power leads to a lot more performance. I did say the FX could be a good value for certain uses.

I still say that an APU for the desktop is in the category of "jack of all trades and master of none". Believe it or not, I was a great fan of Fusion when it was being introduced by AMD. I would like nothing better than to walk into a big box store and buy a gaming computer off the shelf. But fusion never really attained the performance I thought it would. If you dont want to game, any modern cpu will suffice. If you want to game, any pentium or higher cpu with a 7750 will give much better performance. Do you deny this??

I imagine the reason Fusion never attained that performance was due to physical die size limitations. In order to get an HD7750 GPU on-die with 2-module Piledriver, you'd be at around 300mm², and you'd need a quad-channel memory controller to get anywhere near feeding the GPU so add some more mm's to that.

I don't think there would be a big market for a CPU that costs $200+ and performs somewhere between a Pentium and an i3, needs an expensive motherboard, and has a $90 iGPU.

 

[JerYnkFan]

I know the Bulldozer's have a bad rep, but for my secondary PC, I picked up a FX-4100 and MSI motheboard for 105AR at Microcenter this week.

 

[2is]

the thread title says TODAY

the $99 deal isn't available today and thus isn't germane

It's all relative. Thread was created yesterday and there are replies to it a day later.

 

[Idontcare]

I am hoping to get some community feedback on what the community feels is the best value in a CPU (either brand) as of today. "Best value" CPU is defined as the CPU that represents the most value from a price/performance perspective. The CPU may not be the fastest nor the least expensive ... but represents the biggest "bang" for the buck out there.

Feedback on why you feel that CPU is the best value would be appreciated.

Others have touched on this, but I'll weigh in with a similar opinion - a cpu does not make a computer/platform.

When it comes to the best value CPU you also need to look at the kind of value it enables in terms of platform expense.

Is an A10-5800k or A8-5600k a good value if you need to buy (relatively) spendy DDR3-2133 memory to enable the kind of iGPU performance you want out of the APU?

Is an i5-3570k a good value of you need to buy a (relatively) spendy motherboard/chipset to be able to OC the CPU to enable the kind of CPU performance you want out of your "k-chip" purchase?

To me, "best value" is a platform experience derived from a platform expense. And the "best value" cpu will be the one that balances the platform the best without requiring relatively more expensive components around it in order for the value to shine through.

Personally I think an FX-8320 is a good value CPU given how cheap of an AM3+ platform you can put together versus the performance of that platform when you OC the 8320.

Likewise a 2500k CPU in a comparably inexpensive platform build, once OC'ed.

If you are in a desktop format and are intending to do anything involving 3D gaming you are far better off avoiding all iGPU/APU variants and just get yourself an inexpensive (but still higher performing) discrete GPU. Your platform value will far exceed that of an iGPU/APU solution. (this changes completely if you are looking at a laptop format or a pure business/2D desktop app system)

Which is another way of saying that in the end the "best value" is entirely defined by the specific end-user in question and the apps they are using (i.e. the value the computer is creating for the user in question).

 

[DominionSeraph]

It's all relative. Thread was created yesterday and there are replies to it a day later.

Well, if you want to go full retard, someone on General Hardware was given a free Dell E530. So that's a C2D with another ~$100 in parts attached.
A -$100 C2D is infinitely better performance/$ than a $99 i5 2500k. Game; set; match.

 

[szvwxcszxc]

3770K is best value for me, but depends on what you're looking for. Me, I am looking for maximum performance within a budget that has a ceiling. As in, I would not pay $500 for a processor to get 20% increase in performance over $300 processor.

 

[2is]

Well, if you want to go full retard, someone on General Hardware was given a free Dell E530. So that's a C2D with another ~$100 in parts attached.
A -$100 C2D is infinitely better performance/$ than a $99 i5 2500k. Game; set; match.

Yes it would be... Except the title asked for "best value" which is also relative, not performance/price. Hard to win when you're playing the wrong game. Nice try though.

 

[Rhezuss]

Isn't best value based on personal needs?
Sure there's a lot of nice CPUs available out there for low prices but are these "best value" processors the right choice for you?

The best value for a gamer won't be the best value for a video editor or a serious student...

Sorry, i'm getting a bit too serious but I still think it depends on a lot of factors to answer this question.

If you're a gamer and already have a discrete GPU i'd say FX-8320
If you don't have a discrete GPU and want one integrated i'd say the i5 3450
If you only check your emails from time to time and write christmas invitations in Publisher or Word i'd say i3 3220