Soldato
I've always thought "what's the best 'bang for buck' gaming CPU?" should be thought of as a question answered on a sliding scale. It depends on how much you want to spend. It also depends on when you ask the question.
An i5 750 is not the best bet if you want to spend £60 for example (although by 2012 it might be...).
I would suggest that people should be making recommendations depending on how much people want to spend.
Perhaps the best currently published format for these recommendations is the monthly advice fromTomshardware. Here's the latest: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-cpu,review-31857-7.html
What do you think of the advice? Is an i7 really 'past the point of reason' for gaming? Should you consider an Phenom II 965 for a new build when for only a little more you can build an i5 750 rig?
They seem to be rating the dual core i5s about on par with triple core Athlon IIs. I think I agree with that. From benchmarks I've seen the tri-core AIIs are generally slower but when games are fully multi-threaded (as is becoming the case more frequently) performance between the two can be rather similar.
I must confess, I do look at both their CPU and GPU monthly guides when considering upgrades - mainly for the final table. They advise that if you aren't going to move up at least 3 'tiers' in the chart by upgrading it's not worth the money / hassle. I tend to agree with that (performance arguments aside).
An i5 750 is not the best bet if you want to spend £60 for example (although by 2012 it might be...).
I would suggest that people should be making recommendations depending on how much people want to spend.
Perhaps the best currently published format for these recommendations is the monthly advice fromTomshardware. Here's the latest: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-gaming-cpu,review-31857-7.html
What do you think of the advice? Is an i7 really 'past the point of reason' for gaming? Should you consider an Phenom II 965 for a new build when for only a little more you can build an i5 750 rig?
They seem to be rating the dual core i5s about on par with triple core Athlon IIs. I think I agree with that. From benchmarks I've seen the tri-core AIIs are generally slower but when games are fully multi-threaded (as is becoming the case more frequently) performance between the two can be rather similar.
I must confess, I do look at both their CPU and GPU monthly guides when considering upgrades - mainly for the final table. They advise that if you aren't going to move up at least 3 'tiers' in the chart by upgrading it's not worth the money / hassle. I tend to agree with that (performance arguments aside).
Last edited: