• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Best "bang for buck" CPU at the moment?

Good thread, as i am currently pricing up a new PC build myself.
Bang for your buck is relative to your budget, for me a when i started looking i was considering AMD FX-8350 or 70, I even recently found a FX-9590 that went for £80 on eBay. I was tempted, even though it is power hunger CPU. This was due to years ago i would have always said that AMD was the best bang for your buck. But it does appear that it is now Intel, mostly down to the AMD architecture being so old now and with zen around the corner the current FX series seems a poor choice. But the prices do seem to reflect this on certain websites.
I am find myself being drawn towards a I5-6500, i would like a a i7 but stretch the budget that far.
 
Armageus said:
Absolutely not.

£115.99 - i3-6100 3.7Ghz 2 Cores 4 Threads 3Mb Cache
£139.99 - i3-6300 3.8Ghz 2 Cores 4 Threads 4Mb Cache
£179.99 - i5-6400 2.7Ghz (3.3Ghz Turbo) 4 Cores 4 Threads 6Mb Cache
£199.99 - i5-6500 3.2Ghz (3.6Ghz Turbo) 4 Cores 4 Threads 6Mb Cache
£218.99 - i5-6600 3.3Ghz (3.9Ghz Turbo) 4 Cores 4 Threads 6Mb Cache
£248.99 - i5-6600k 3.5Ghz (3.9Ghz Turbo) 4 Cores 4 Threads 6Mb Cache


The i5-6400 is a poor buy, as for only £20 more a i5-6500 gives you a 500Mhz clock speed boost, and higher turbo limit. On the other hand, for £64 less a i3-6100 will deliver similar performance on nearly everything (except for well multithreaded apps), due to the higher clock speed and still supporting 4 threads.

i3-6300 is similarly a poor buy, as £24 more than a i3-6100 only buys you 100Mhz and 1Mb more cache.

A i5-6600 isn't necessarily bad, as while £19 only buys you 100Mhz base clock over the i5-6500, if you still need single threaded performance the higher turbo is worth it.

The i5-6600k is only worth considering assuming you are overclocking, otherwise the £49 over a i5-6500 isn't going to give you much of a jump.
Click to expand...

I discounted the i3's since OP said "Jack of all trades".

An i3 will get demolished in any kind of adobe suite work, or similar.

If "Jack of all trades" wasn't specified, then I agree.

Also the base clocks don't really mean anything these days, they'll all sit at their boost clocks comfortably if you ask a lot from them. And indeed if you're doing light work, they'll all sit well below their base clocks.
 
Last edited:
AllBodies said:
I discounted the i3's since OP said "Jack of all trades".

An i3 will get demolished in any kind of adobe suite work, or similar.

If "Jack of all trades" wasn't specified, then I agree.

Also the base clocks don't really mean anything these days, they'll all sit at their boost clocks comfortably if you ask a lot from them. And indeed if you're doing light work, they'll all sit well below their base clocks.
Click to expand...

Turbo frequency only applies to single core though right?

I found an i5 6400 bundle with Z170 board and RAM for £250 (b grade). Even at that price, I was not tempted. Games will max out single core before the benefit of the other cores will noticeable.

The i3 6100 gives 2 cores / 4 threads at 3.7Ghz, that is good IMO. Better than 1 core at 3.2 with others at 2.7 with only really the first 2 cores at max being pushed.

We are nowhere near saturation point for games being consistently multi threaded.
 
Last edited:
Gimpymoo said:
Turbo frequency only applies to single core though right?
Click to expand...

Different number of Turbo bins depending on how many cores are loaded
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005647.html

e.g.

Code: 
                 Processor	i5-6400-2.7 GHz	1 Bin = 100 MHz
           Processor Cores	Quad-core
              Active Cores	4C	3C	2C	1C
Max Turbo Boost Bin Upside	4	5	6	6
 Max Turbo Boost Frequency	3.1	3.2	3.3	3.3


* Although some motherboards have a setting to "force" maximum Turbo mode for all cores regardless as I understand it.
 
Armageus said:
Different number of Turbo bins depending on how many cores are loaded
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005647.html

e.g.

Code: 
                 Processor	i5-6400-2.7 GHz	1 Bin = 100 MHz
           Processor Cores	Quad-core
              Active Cores	4C	3C	2C	1C
Max Turbo Boost Bin Upside	4	5	6	6
 Max Turbo Boost Frequency	3.1	3.2	3.3	3.3


* Although some motherboards have a setting to "force" maximum Turbo mode for all cores regardless as I understand it.
Click to expand...

Good info, thanks.

So effectively, if kept cool, the chip would run games at 3.3Ghz, assuming game runs no more than 2 cores? Which at present, is not many anyway and is not intended for "uber" gaming anyway.
 
Just as a indication of i3-6100 vs i5-6400:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...kylake-i5-6500-i5-6400-i3-6100-review-13.html

Yes the i5 is noticeably faster in multithreaded "serious" apps, but in gaming the lead decreases (and in a few cases the i3 is faster).

At ~65% of the cost of the I5, the I3 delivers probably 85% of the performance.


edit:
Gimpymoo said:
Good info, thanks.

So effectively, if kept cool, the chip would run games at 3.3Ghz, assuming game runs no more than 2 cores? Which at present, is not many anyway and is not intended for "uber" gaming anyway.
Click to expand...

Yep, and even with 4 cores loaded, as long as power and thermal headroom is available, potentially it could run at 3.1Ghz on all 4 cores
 
Thanks.

The i3 6100 is exactly what I am after. Surprised it was not mentioned. Maybe the "jack of all trades" threw people off the scent.

Even then though, 3.7Ghz / 4 threads is still excellent bang for buck in my opinion.
 
Armageus said:
Yep, and even with 4 cores loaded, as long as power and thermal headroom is available, potentially it could run at 3.1Ghz on all 4 cores
Click to expand...

In my mind, current or older games, the extra 600Mhz clock from the 6100 will make a huge different in frame rate compared to the 6400.

We are a long way off multi core/threaded game being the norm. We are still heavily dependent on single core clock speed.

So, if you are doing a single task at a time, the i3 6100 will trump those tasks owing to a much higher clock.

I am even certain it will run Arma 3 better than most CPUs owing to the game being very heavily single threaded and loves clock.
 
Last edited:
the 6100 is great for sure but really depends how we are comparing it to other CPUs. For an office PC or a Home PC used for web, a little light CSGO type gaming then its high up there in terms of bang for the buck... but if we are comparing it against the i5 6400 for anything else such as multi core tasks or gaming then the 6400 wins hands down and to have 4 full cores and Mobo for around £230 brand new it seems like the sensible choice but im biased maybe as I own one... so id say even over the 6500 or 6600k imo, based on the premise of putting it in a board Z170 then it can easily clock up to 4.4/4.5ghz. Obviously risks involved there though.
 
darket said:
I wouldn't agree, i fell for the blurb and built one for a friend who wanted a budget do everything pc, it capable as a web browser/office pc but that was its limits, we paired it with a 7750 and it bottle-necked it badly, however it cured the stuttering watching 1080p you tube vids.
Click to expand...

Certainly it's a weak soc, but in itx format t is a very capable htpc and if clocked to 2.8ghz 3ghz it will just about keep up with a r7 360.

Disagree with the onboard igp video playback, you obviously didn't have a browser on that supports hardware acceleration for 1080p or Netflix, and instead was just using the cpu cores.
 
Brazo said:
Cheapest doesn't equate to best value. I've also had an AM1 5350 and a 5370. An i3 was twice the price but easily twice the performance at two less cores.
Click to expand...

Brazo said:
You can buy a 2nd hand haswell i5 for under £100. That's pretty good performance for not a lot of money.
Click to expand...

Guess it dpeends on your viewpoint of performance. For a htpc and general use machine the 5150/5350 is a great budget setup.
Most people haven't experienced a 2.8ghz-3ghz am1 system though.

Couldn't agree more though with your haswell i5 setup,
I bought a 3570k for 60 off of here and a found a cheap itx h61n-usb3 for 30.
Ok it can't be clocked but for the money it provides great performance, that could fit inside my elite 110.
 
Cool, I've repurposed mine as a server, mostly just nas duties. Currently powered by an old psu I took the fan out of for Complete silence.

Its worth saying though that overclocking Am1 isn't very practical and has big drawbacks. Good fun though.
 
pandem0nium said:
Cool, I've repurposed mine as a server, mostly just nas duties. Currently powered by an old psu I took the fan out of for Complete silence.

Its worth saying though that overclocking Am1 isn't very practical and has big drawbacks. Good fun though.
Click to expand...

Yeah my 5350 is now in Gf's htpc, I've put the 5150 in my garage for car/google duties. Agreed loss of usb3, and the power consumption with increased frequency/voltage is pretty high once over 2.8/1.45v.
 
Having to use ide mode for the ssd was a big one for me.

Ive got an FM1 mItx board now under the TV with an athlon 651k and an rx 470. So far seems pretty capable, even at 4k.
 
As mentioned above, the CPU market is stagnant, with only marginal improvements every incarnation, if you building a new rig on a budget, I would honestly get an older 2nd hand CPU an Intel K or even an FX83520/8350 and cheap(ish) compatible motherboard and a cheap AIO cooler and overclock as much as possible, save your money for what really counts on a gaming rig, the best GPU you can afford. Some games like a good CPU, and some games really don't like AMD CPUS, but the vast majority like a powerful GPU.

Black Friday, there's bound to be sales aplenty on older motherboards. *** Don't Mention Competitors - Thanks, Armageus ***
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 5820K is the best value CPU for someone that does not upgrade for 3+ years, it will give good performance a lot longer than any quad core. Also, a chance of cheap Xeons down the road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom