Jump to content

Best cpu for 100 bucks?

Jun10R
By Jun10R
in CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory
 Share
Posted

The question is simple...

 

What's the best CPU for around 100 bucks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition would be my guess.

My Build:

Spoiler

CPU: i7 4770k GPU: GTX 780 Direct CUII Motherboard: Asus Maximus VI Hero SSD: 840 EVO 250GB HDD: 2xSeagate 2 TB PSU: EVGA Supernova G2 650W

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

don't do that.

 

there is a point when you get to a price that the things in that price range are useless.

 

someone can give you the best dual core out there listed at 100$, but you're not going to see good returns out of it. you'd be better off spending twice as much for something that will last more than twice as long.

We can't Benchmark like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to shove more GPUs in your computer. Like the time I needed to NV-Link, because I needed a higher HeavenBench score, so I did an SLI, which is what they called NV-Link back in the day. So, I decided to put two GPUs in my computer, which was the style at the time. Now, to add another GPU to your computer, costs a new PSU. Now in those days PSUs said OCZ on them, "Gimme 750W OCZs for an SLI" you'd say. Now where were we? Oh yeah, the important thing was that I had two GPUs in my rig, which was the style at the time! They didn't have RGB PSUs at the time, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big green ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I'd suggest the Intel Pentium G3258 :)

Spoiler

CPU | Intel Core i7 4790k @4.0ghz   

Cooler | Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO  

Motherboard | MSI Z97S SLI Krait Edition   

RAM | Kingston Hyperx Blu 8gb (2x4gb) @ 1600mhz   

GPU | EVGA GeForce GTX 780 Classified 3072MB   

Case | Corsair Carbide Air 540 Cube Case (White)   

Storage | 1x Corsair Force LX 256GB SSD & 1x Seagate Barracuda 7200 rpm 1TB HDD   

PSU | Corsair RM1000 1000W PSU 

Spoiler

Mouse | Razer Deathadder 2013 6400dpi  

Keyboard | Corsair K95 RGB Mechanical Keyboard Cherry MX Red Switches  

Headset | Sennheiser hd558 Headphones

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

FX6300 in my opinnion, if it has to be below $100,-

 

the i3-4150 cost slightly more then $100,- wont be a bad choice either.

its $105 on NCIX.

But $123,- on Newegg so yeah...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author

don't do that.

 

there is a point when you get to a price that the things in that price range are useless.

 

someone can give you the best dual core out there listed at 100$, but you're not going to see good returns out of it. you'd be better off spending twice as much for something that will last more than twice as long.

so what's your suggestion then? for... lets say... 200 bucks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

If you are just working with a cpu and no graphics card, amd 860k. 4 cores will always be better than 2. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

i3 4160, its around 115 USD.

 

That's just me of course, I've researched this a lot and even asked myself and the i3 is your best bet for around the $100 mark.

I have no idea what I'm doing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

For $100 I'd say i3-4150

 

For $200 I'd say i5-4590

 

so what's your suggestion then? for... lets say... 200 bucks?

see above.

We can't Benchmark like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to shove more GPUs in your computer. Like the time I needed to NV-Link, because I needed a higher HeavenBench score, so I did an SLI, which is what they called NV-Link back in the day. So, I decided to put two GPUs in my computer, which was the style at the time. Now, to add another GPU to your computer, costs a new PSU. Now in those days PSUs said OCZ on them, "Gimme 750W OCZs for an SLI" you'd say. Now where were we? Oh yeah, the important thing was that I had two GPUs in my rig, which was the style at the time! They didn't have RGB PSUs at the time, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big green ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

mhm... He didn't even say what will be the usage for it.

would you like to run more than 1 task at a time?

We can't Benchmark like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to shove more GPUs in your computer. Like the time I needed to NV-Link, because I needed a higher HeavenBench score, so I did an SLI, which is what they called NV-Link back in the day. So, I decided to put two GPUs in my computer, which was the style at the time. Now, to add another GPU to your computer, costs a new PSU. Now in those days PSUs said OCZ on them, "Gimme 750W OCZs for an SLI" you'd say. Now where were we? Oh yeah, the important thing was that I had two GPUs in my rig, which was the style at the time! They didn't have RGB PSUs at the time, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big green ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

like i said if the cpu has to be below $100,- then the FX6300 is the best you can get hands down.

If you on a tight budget, then you also cannot afford a highend gpu, so the FX6300 wil be a decent choice.

Next to that an i3 for slightly more then $100,- would be a slightly better choice for mmo / rts games.

But remember that the gpu will be the potentional limited factor on low budget anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

like i said if the cpu has to be below $100,- then the FX6300 is the best you can get hands down.

If you on a tight budget, then you also cannot afford a highend gpu, so the FX6300 wil be a decent choice.

Next to that an i3 for slightly more then $100,- would also be a slightly better choice. But remember that the gpu will be the potentional limited factor on low budget.

wow. i hadn't realized how much the price on the fx6300 had fallen.

 

@op, sintezza is right though, don't expect stellar combos with higher end GPUs. (if that's the route you're going)

We can't Benchmark like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to shove more GPUs in your computer. Like the time I needed to NV-Link, because I needed a higher HeavenBench score, so I did an SLI, which is what they called NV-Link back in the day. So, I decided to put two GPUs in my computer, which was the style at the time. Now, to add another GPU to your computer, costs a new PSU. Now in those days PSUs said OCZ on them, "Gimme 750W OCZs for an SLI" you'd say. Now where were we? Oh yeah, the important thing was that I had two GPUs in my rig, which was the style at the time! They didn't have RGB PSUs at the time, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big green ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author

so is this the old AMD vs INTEL again? 

seems that AMD wins this one... i mean 6 cores??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

agreed, 6300FX still games pretty good, dear god its not the best, ok intel guys I said it, BUT, most the time you can find the 6300 on sale for like 90 bucks US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I paid 100 for a a8 amd 6600k balckedtion 3.9 boost to 4.2 quad core apu ( i dont use the gpu side of it) and have no problems yet with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

so is this the old AMD vs INTEL again? 

seems that AMD wins this one... i mean 6 cores??

Cores doesn't mean much when their cores are very weak.  Very few games can take advantage of more than 4 cores, and the ones that do, are still being beaten by Intel processors.  The only game that I am aware of that an FX6 beats an i3 is BF4 multiplayer, and that requires an OC of 4.7Ghz.  Also, you cannot compare just the price of the processor alone.  Things like motherboard, cooling, and energy consumption come into play.

 

In order for you to even get the FX6 to run properly at stock settings, you are going to want a 4+2 VRM phase motherboard, costsing $60+  Ideally, you want 6+2 or 8+2 if you want to do any overclocking.  Bump that number to $75+.  Then you need cooling, add another $30+.  Energy cost of the FX6 over an i3 will probably be around $5 per year, a very conservative estimate.  All while falling behind an i3 in 99% of games, and with no upgrade path.

 

An i3, all you need is the $105 chip, and a $40 motherboard.  Better performance, and an upgrade path.

 

H93GZC3.png

---

67506.png

---

67507.png

---

67510.png

---

batman.png

---

civilization.png

---

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

---

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

---

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

---

Even this supposedly very good multi-threaded game, Call of Duty:Advanced Warefare runs better on an i3 than an FX9

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

---

d1b73da9_http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-sto

---

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

Really pitiful when modern games are playing so much better on an i3 than an FX9.

---

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

---

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test

---

60-Bioshock-R9-295X2.png

---

65-DiRT-3-R9-295X2.png

---

arma3_1920.png

---

bf4_cpu_radeon.png

You have to OC an FX8 to 5Ghz just to match an i5-4440 at stock in BF4 multiplayer with an R9 290X.

---

bf4_1920m.png

Even Mantle doesn't bridge the gap.  Too bad they don't show the minimums in this above graph.

---

civ_1920.png

---

csgo_1920.png

---

crysis3_1920_2.png

---

fc3_1920.png

---

fc4_n_1920.png

---

starcraft_1920.png

---

gta4_1920.png

---

rome2_1920.png

---

witchercpu_1920.png

This one above is Witcher 2

---

assassin_1920n.png

---

fsx_1920n.png

---

These are just a few games, and obviously skewed towards Intel, but my point is to try and illustrate that some games run very poorly on the weak cores on FX processors.  If you can find benchmarks from multiple sources that show something else, please share because in all of my research, I have not found any.  What benchmarks fail to show is in-game performance.  There is no substitute for actually playing these games on both processors.  Now, I will admit I haven't played all of the games listed above, but in the games I did play, there was a noticeable stutter that would happen.  It didn't happen in all games, but it happened often enough for me to be displeased with it.  My friend who owns the FX8 simply said "You get used to it"  Now...why buy a processor that can only play 4 out of 5 games, when you can pay the same and play 5 out of 5 games without issue?  In the 18 gaming graphs above that show both the FX8 processor and the 4th Gen Intel i3, the i3 is performing better than the FX8 in 16 of the games!  In not a single game does the i5 perform worse than the FX8.  A locked i5 + H81/B85 motherboard can be purchased for less than the cost of an FX8 + 8+2 VRM Phase Motherboard.  I will show that below in another spoiler.

 

 

Look through all of these sources... the i3 is handing it to the FX8s and FX9s in so many games!

Benchmarks:

http://www.hardcorew...-4340-review/2/

http://www.hardwarep...8-games-tested/

http://www.tomshardw...cpu,3929-7.html

http://www.anandtech...w-vishera-95w/3

http://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgamegpu.ru%2Ftest-video-cards%2Figry-2014-goda-protiv-protsessorov-test-gpu.html

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpclab.pl%2Fart57842.html

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i3-4340-vs-AMD-FX-8320E/2877vs2985

 

 

"To put it nicely, the FX-8370E is a true middle-of-the-road CPU. Using it only makes sense as long as the graphics card you choose comes from a similar performance segment.

Depending on the game in question, AMD’s new processor has the potential to keep you happy around the AMD Radeon R9 270X/285 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 760 or 660 Ti level.

A higher- or even high-end graphics card doesn’t make sense, as pairing it with AMD's FX-8370E simply limits the card's potential."

 

"In terms of raw single-core performance the flagship AMD FX-8350 is lagging behind intel's processor line-up by over two generations. The PassMark Single Thread scores for the i5-2500K vs the FX-8350 are 1863 to 1520 which shows that in terms of raw per-core processing the FX-8350 is lagging the two year old i5 by 23%. Where the AMD FX makes up is on multi-core performance, with a score of 9156 vs 6745, the AMD leads the Intel 2500K by 36% making it the far more capable multi-threaded server orientated performer. The AMD is also cheaper but significantly more power hungry which counts strongly against it as a sever proposition. The FX-8350 could be a good fit for specific server use cases but for general consumer use, which is single and dual core intensive, Intel's two year old i5-2500K will deliver better performance."

 

"This is a huge result – it wasn’t until we used a Haswell core CPU that the R9 280X  was able to deliver consistent frame times and a 60 FPS frame rate in Assassin’s Creed IV. All three AMD CPUs we used – even the FX 8350 – and the Ivy Bridge Core i3 would deliver a sub 60 FPS frame rate, with frame spikes throughout the benchmark run.

In this case, the Core i3 4340 allows the R9 280X GPU to run at maximum potential, just like the Core i5 (and Core i7 would)."

 

"Pop over to the gaming scatter, though, and the picture changes dramatically. There, the FX-8350 is the highest-performance AMD desktop processor to date for gaming, finally toppling the venerable Phenom II X4 980. Yet the FX-8350's gaming performance almost exactly matches that of the Core i3-3225, a $134 Ivy Bridge-based processor. Meanwhile, the Core i5-3470 delivers markedly superior gaming performance for less money than the FX-8350. The FX-8350 isn't exactly bad for video games—its performance was generally acceptable in our tests. But it is relatively weak compared to the competition.

This strange divergence between the two performance pictures isn't just confined to gaming, of course. The FX-8350 is also relatively pokey in image processing applications, in SunSpider, and in the less widely multithreaded portions of our video encoding tests. Many of these scenarios rely on one or several threads, and the FX-8350 suffers compared to recent Intel chips in such cases. Still, the contrast between the FX-8350 and the Sandy/Ivy Bridge chips isn't nearly as acute as it was with the older FX processors. Piledriver's IPC gains and that 4GHz base clock have taken the edge off of our objections.

The other major consideration here is power consumption, and really, the FX-8350 isn't even the same class of product as the Ivy Bridge Core i5 processors on this front. There's a 48W gap between the TDP ratings of the Core i5 parts and the FX-8350, but in our tests, the actual difference at the wall socket between two similarly configured systems under load was over 100W. That gap is large enough to force the potential buyer to think deeply about the class of power supply, case, and CPU cooler he needs for his build. One could definitely get away with less expensive components for a Core i5 system."

 

"The FX-8370E stretches its legs a little in terms of minimum frame rates, particularly in SLI, however it is handily beaten by the i3-4330."

 

"Average frametimes did not do AMD’s processors any justice either. As we already said the game was fluid with i7 and i5’s, and somewhat playable with the i3 processor line. When we switched to FX CPUs not only did we have worse framerate but the gameplay was simply put, laggy."

 

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/R24Y8d

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/R24Y8d/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-6300 3.5GHz 6-Core Processor  ($93.95 @ SuperBiiz)

CPU Cooler: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler  ($29.99 @ NCIX US)  <-- To be fair, this is optional, but highly, highly recommended, especially if overclocking

Motherboard: ASRock 970 Performance ATX AM3+ Motherboard  ($70.98 @ Newegg) <-- A less expensive motherboard and you will very likely run into VRM throttling

Total: $194.92

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-26 20:44 EDT-0400

 

Vs.

 

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Xn4RK8

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Xn4RK8/by_merchant/

CPU: Intel Core i3-4130 3.4GHz Dual-Core Processor  ($104.99 @ SuperBiiz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-B85M-DS3H Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard  ($49.98 @ Newegg) <-- Could even go with a less expensive mobo, such an MSI H81.

Total: $154.97

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-03-26 20:45 EDT-0400

"I genuinely dislike the promulgation of false information, especially to people who are asking for help selecting new parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

The question is simple...

 

What's the best CPU for around 100 bucks?

what are you gonna do with this system?

| CPU: Core i7-8700K @ 4.89ghz - 1.21v  |  Motherboard: Asus ROG STRIX Z370-E GAMING  |  CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 |
| GPU: MSI RTX 3080Ti Ventus 3X OC  |  RAM: 32GB T-Force Delta RGB 3066mhz |
| Displays: Acer Predator XB270HU 1440p Gsync 144hz IPS Gaming monitor | Oculus Quest 2 VR

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing CPUs, Motherboards, and Memory

×