Which intel core i5 processor to choose. Do I need a powerful processor for computer games

21.10.2019

When it comes to gaming builds, the focus is on the graphics card. It is logical, because it is the graphics adapter that is responsible for supporting certain technologies, as well as for the level of performance in games. However, only a well-chosen central processor will allow it to reach its full potential. The question often arises: will such and such a chip “pump” such and such a video card? This material is an attempt to determine in practice the main characteristics of the central processor that affect the performance of a 3D accelerator in modern games.

The first quad-core processor was released in the fall of 2006. They became the Intel Core 2 Quad model, based on the Kentsfield core. At the time, bestsellers such as The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion and Half-Life 2: Episode One were considered popular games. The "killer of all gaming computers" Crysis has not appeared yet. And the DirectX 9 API with shader model 3.0 was in use.

But it's the end of 2015. On the market, in the desktop segment, there are 6- and 8-core central processors, but 2- and 4-core models are still considered popular. Gamers are raving about the PC versions of GTA V and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, and yet there is no gaming graphics card in nature that can deliver a comfortable level of FPS in 4K resolution at maximum settings graphics quality in Assassin's Creed Unity. In addition, the release of the Windows 10 operating system took place, which means that the era of DirectX 12 has officially begun. As you can see, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge in nine years. Therefore, the question of choosing a central processor for a gaming computer is more relevant than ever.

The essence of the problem

There is such a thing as the effect of processor dependence. It can appear in absolutely any computer game. If the performance of the video card rests on the capabilities of the central chip, then they say that the system is processor-dependent. It must be understood that there is no single scheme by which the strength of this effect can be determined. It all depends on the features of a particular application, as well as the selected graphics quality settings. However, in absolutely any game, tasks such as the organization of polygons, lighting and physics calculations, artificial intelligence modeling, and many other actions fall on the “shoulders” of the central processor. Agree, there is plenty of work.

In processor-dependent games, the number of frames per second can depend on several parameters of the "stone": architecture, clock speed, number of cores and threads, as well as cache size. The main purpose of this material is to identify the main criteria that affect the performance of the graphics subsystem, as well as to form an understanding of which central processor is suitable for a particular discrete video card.

Frequency

How to identify processor dependence? Most effective way- empirically. Since the CPU has several parameters, let's analyze them one by one. The first characteristic, which most often pay close attention to, is the clock frequency.

The clock frequency of the central processors has not been growing for quite a long time. At first (in the 80s and 90s), it was the increase in megahertz that led to a frenzied increase in the overall level of performance. Now the frequency of AMD and Intel CPUs is frozen in the delta of 2.5-4 GHz. Everything below is too budget and not quite suitable for a gaming computer; anything higher is already overclocking. This is how processor lines are formed. For example, there is an Intel Core i5-6400 running at 2.7GHz ($182) and there is a Core i5-6500 running at 3.2GHz ($192). These processors have the same absolutely all characteristics, except for the clock frequency and price.

On sale you can find chips with an unlocked multiplier. It allows you to independently overclock the processor. At Intel, such "stones" have the letters "K" and "X" in the name. For example, Core i7-4770K and Core i7-5690X. Plus, there are separate models with an unlocked multiplier: Pentium G3258, Core i5-5675C and Core i7-5775C. AMD processors are marked in a similar way. So, hybrid chips in the name have the letter "K". There is a line of FX processors (AM3+ platform). All "stones" included in it have a free multiplier.

Modern AMD and Intel processors support automatic overclocking. In the first case, it is called Turbo Core, in the second - Turbo Boost. The essence of its work is simple: with proper cooling, the processor during operation increases its clock frequency by several hundred megahertz. For example, the Core i5-6400 operates at a speed of 2.7 GHz, but with the active Turbo Boost technology, this parameter can permanently increase to 3.3 GHz. That is exactly 600 MHz.

I'll take the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X video card - the most powerful single-chip gaming solution of our time. And the Intel Core i5-6600K processor is a mainstream model equipped with an unlocked multiplier. Then I'll fire up Metro: Last Light, one of the most CPU-intensive games of our day. The graphics quality settings in the application are selected in such a way that the number of frames per second each time rests on the performance of the processor, but not the video card. In the case of the GeForce GTX TITAN X and Metro: Last Light - the maximum graphics quality, but without anti-aliasing. Next, I will measure the average FPS level in the range from 2 GHz to 4.5 GHz in Full HD, WQHD and Ultra HD resolutions.

The most noticeable effect of processor dependence, which is logical, is manifested in light modes. So, in 1080p, as the frequency increases, the average FPS also steadily increases. The results were very impressive: when the speed of the Core i5-6600K increased from 2 GHz to 3 GHz, the number of frames per second in Full HD resolution increased from 70 FPS to 92 FPS, that is, by 22 frames per second. With an increase in frequency from 3 GHz to 4 GHz - another 13 FPS. Thus, it turns out that the processor used, with the given graphics quality settings, was able to “pump” the GeForce GTX TITAN X in Full HD only from 4 GHz - it was from this mark that the number of frames per second with an increase in the CPU frequency stopped growing.

As the resolution increases, the effect of processor dependence becomes less noticeable. Namely, the number of frames stops growing, starting from 3.7 GHz. Finally, in Ultra HD resolution, we almost immediately ran into the potential of the graphics adapter.

There are many discrete graphics cards. It is customary in the market to catalog these devices in three segments: Low-end, Middle-end and High-end. Captain Evidence suggests that different processors with different frequencies are suitable for different performance graphics adapters.

Now I'll take the GeForce GTX 950 video card - a representative of the upper Low-end segment (or lower Middle-end), that is, the absolute opposite of the GeForce GTX TITAN X. The device belongs to the entry level, however, it is able to provide a decent level of performance in modern games in Full HD resolution. As you can see from the graphs below, the processor, operating at a frequency of 3 GHz, “pumps” the GeForce GTX 950 in both Full HD and WQHD. The difference with the GeForce GTX TITAN X is visible to the naked eye.

It is important to understand that the less load falls on the “shoulders” of the video card, the higher the frequency of the central processor should be. It is irrational to purchase, for example, an adapter of the GeForce GTX TITAN X level and use it in games at a resolution of 1600x900 pixels.

Video cards of the Low-end level (GeForce GTX 950, Radeon R7 370) will have enough of a central processor operating at a frequency of 3 GHz. Middle-end adapters (Radeon R9 280X, GeForce GTX 770) - 3.4-3.6 GHz. High-end flagship video cards (Radeon R9 Fury, GeForce GTX 980 Ti) - 3.7-4 GHz. Productive bundles SLI/CrossFire - 4-4.5 GHz

Architecture

In reviews devoted to the release of one or another generation of central processors, the authors continually state that the difference in performance in x86 calculations is a meager 5-10% year after year. This is a kind of tradition. Neither AMD nor Intel has seen any serious progress for a long time, and phrases like " I continue to sit on mySandyBridge, wait next year »become winged. As I said, in games, the processor also has to process a large amount of data. In this case, a reasonable question arises: to what extent is the effect of processor dependence observed in systems with different architectures?

For both AMD and Intel chips, you can define a list of modern architectures that are still popular. They are relevant, on a global scale, the difference in performance between them is not so big.

Let's take a couple of chips - Core i7-4790K and Core i7-6700K - and make them work at the same frequency. Processors based on the Haswell architecture are known to have appeared in the summer of 2013, and Skylake solutions in the summer of 2015. That is, exactly two years have passed since the update of the “so” processor line (this is how Intel calls crystals based on completely different architectures).

As you can see, there is no difference between Core i7-4790K and Core i7-6700K running at the same frequencies. Skylake is ahead of Haswell only in three games out of ten: in Far Cry 4 (by 12%), in GTA V (by 6%) and in Metro: Last Light (by 6%) - that is, in all the same processor-dependent applications. However, 6% is mere trifles.

A few platitudes: it is obvious that it is better to assemble a gaming computer based on the most modern platform. After all, not only the performance of the chips themselves is important, but also the functionality of the platform as a whole.

Modern architectures with a few exceptions have the same performance in computer games. Owners of processor families Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and Haswell can feel quite calm. With AMD, the situation is similar: various variations of the modular architecture (Bulldozer, Piledriver, Steamroller) in games have approximately the same level of performance

Cores and Threads

The third and perhaps the determining factor that limits the performance of a video card in games is the number of CPU cores. It's no coincidence that a growing number of games have a quad-core CPU in their minimum system requirements. Vivid examples include such modern hits as GTA V, Far Cry 4, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, and Assassin's Creed Unity.

As I said at the very beginning, the first quad-core processor appeared nine years ago. Now there are 6- and 8-core solutions on sale, but 2- and 4-core models are still in use. I will give a table of markings for some popular AMD and Intel lines, dividing them depending on the number of "heads".

2-core	4-core	6-core	8-core
	FX-4000, A8, A10, Athlon X4		FX-8000, FX-9000
Pentium, Celeron, Core i3	Core i5, Core i7	Core i7-3900, Core i7-4900, Core i7-5800

AMD hybrid processors (A4, A6, A8 and A10) are sometimes referred to as 8-, 10- and even 12-core. It's just that the company's marketers add elements of the built-in graphic module to the computing units. Indeed, there are applications that can use heterogeneous computing (when x86 cores and embedded video process the same information together), but this scheme is not used in computer games. The computational part performs its task, the graphic - its own.

Some Intel processors (Core i3 and Core i7) have a certain number of cores but double the number of threads. This is the responsibility of Hyper-Threading technology, which was first used in Pentium 4 chips. Threads and cores are slightly different things, but we will talk about this a bit later. In 2016, AMD will release processors based on the Zen architecture. For the first time, the "red" chips will acquire technology similar to Hyper-Threading.

Let's do a little experiment. I took 10 popular games. I agree that such an insignificant number of applications is not enough to state with 100% certainty that the effect of processor dependence has been fully studied. However, the list included only hits that clearly demonstrate the trends in modern game development. The graphics quality settings were selected in such a way that the final results did not rest against the capabilities of the video card. For the GeForce GTX TITAN X, this is the maximum quality (without anti-aliasing) and Full HD resolution. The choice of such an adapter is obvious. If the processor can "pump" the GeForce GTX TITAN X, then it will cope with any other video card. The stand used the top Core i7-5960X for the LGA2011-v3 platform. Testing was carried out in four modes: when activating only 2 cores, only 4 cores, only 6 cores and 8 cores. Hyper-Threading multithreading technology was not involved. Plus, testing was carried out with two frequencies: at nominal 3.3 GHz and overclocked to 4.3 GHz.

GTA V is one of the few modern games that use all eight "crusts" of the processor. Therefore, it can be called the most processor-dependent. On the other hand, the difference between six and eight cores was not so impressive. Judging by the results, the two cores are very far behind other modes of operation. The game slows down, a large number of textures are simply not drawn. The stand with four cores shows noticeably better results. It lags only 6.9% behind the six-core one, and 11% behind the eight-core one. Whether in this case the game is worth the candle - you decide. However, GTA V clearly demonstrates how the number of processor cores affects the performance of the video card in games.

The vast majority of games behave in a similar way. In seven out of ten applications, the system with two cores turned out to be processor-dependent. That is, the FPS level was limited by the central processor. At the same time, in three out of ten games, the six-core bench showed an advantage over the quad-core one. True, the difference cannot be called significant. Far Cry 4 turned out to be the most radical game - it stupidly did not start on a system with two cores.

The increase from the use of six and eight cores in most cases turned out to be either too small, or there was none at all.

The three games loyal to the dual-core system were The Witcher 3, Assassin's Creed Unity and Tomb Raider. In all modes, the same results were demonstrated.

For those who are interested, I will give a table with the full test results.

Four cores is the optimal number for today. At the same time, it is obvious that gaming computers should not be assembled with a dual-core processor. In 2015, just such a “stone” is the bottleneck in the system

We figured out the cores. The test results clearly show that in most cases four "heads" in a processor are better than two. At the same time, some Intel models (Core i3 and Core i7) can boast of supporting Hyper-Threading technology. Without going into details, I note that such chips have a certain number of physical cores and twice the number of virtual ones. In ordinary applications, Hyper-Threading is certainly useful. But how does this technology fare in games? This issue is especially relevant for the line of Core i3 processors - nominally dual-core solutions.

To determine the effectiveness of multithreading in games, I assembled two test benches: with a Core i3-4130 and a Core i7-6700K. In both cases, a GeForce GTX TITAN X graphics card was used.

In almost all games, Hyper-Threading technology has affected the performance of the graphics subsystem. Naturally, for the better. In some cases, the difference has been enormous. For example, in The Witcher, the number of frames per second increased by 36.4%. True, in this game without Hyper-Threading, disgusting friezes were observed every now and then. I note that the Core i7-5960X did not notice such problems.

As for the quad-core Core i7 processor with Hyper-Threading, support for these technologies made itself felt only in GTA V and Metro: Last Light. That is, only two games out of ten. They also noticeably increased the minimum FPS. Overall, the Hyper-Threaded Core i7-6700K was 6.6% faster in GTA V and 9.7% faster in Metro: Last Light.

Hyper-Threading in Core i3 is really dragging, especially if the system requirements indicate a quad-core processor model. But in the case of Core i7, the increase in performance in games is not so significant.

Cache

We figured out the main parameters of the central processor. Each processor has a certain amount of cache. Today, up to four levels of this type of memory are used in modern integrated solutions. The cache of the first and second levels, as a rule, is determined by the architectural features of the chip. The cache of the third level from model to model can change. I will give a small table for your reference.

No L3 cache					10 or more MB L3
A4, A6, A8, A10, Athlon X4				FX-6000, FX-8000, FX-9000
	Core i3, Pentium	Core i3, Core i5 Broadwell	Core i5, Core i7 Broadwell		Core i7-3900, Core i7-4900, Core i7-5800, Core i7-5900

So, the more productive Core i7 processors have 8 MB of cache in the third level, the slower Core i5 have 6 MB. Will these 2 MB affect performance in games?

It's very easy to check. To do this, you need to take two processors from the Core i5 and Core i7 lines, set the same frequency for them and disable Hyper-Threading technology. As a result, in the nine games tested, only F1 2015 showed a noticeable difference of 7.4%. The rest of the 3D entertainment did not respond in any way to the 2-MB cache deficit in the third level in the Core i5-6600K.

The difference in L3 cache between Core i5 and Core i7 processors in most cases does not affect system performance in modern games

AMD or Intel?

All tests discussed above were carried out with the participation of Intel processors. However, this does not mean at all that we do not consider AMD solutions as the basis for a gaming computer. Below are the results of testing using the FX-6350 chip used in the highest performing AMD AM3+ platform, using four and six cores. Unfortunately, I did not have an 8-core AMD "stone" at my disposal.

GTA V has already established itself as the most processor-intensive game. With the use of four cores in an AMD system, the average FPS level turned out to be higher than, for example, Core i3 (without Hyper-Threading). In addition, in the game itself, the image was rendered smoothly, without slowdowns. But in all other cases, the Intel cores turned out to be consistently faster. The difference between processors is significant.

Below is a table with full testing of the AMD FX processor.

There is no noticeable difference between AMD and Intel in only two games: The Witcher and Assassin's Creed Unity. In principle, the results lend themselves perfectly to logic. They reflect the real alignment of forces in the market of central processors. Intel cores are noticeably more powerful. Including in games. Four AMD cores compete with two Intel. At the same time, the average FPS is often higher for the latter. Six AMD cores compete with four Core i3 threads. Logically, eight "heads" of the FX-8000/9000 should impose a fight on the Core i5. Yes, AMD cores are absolutely deservedly called "semi-cores". These are the features of modular architecture.

The result is banal. For games, Intel solutions are better suited. However, among budget solutions (Athlon X4, FX-4000, A8, Pentium, Celeron), AMD products are preferable. Testing has shown that the slower four cores perform better in CPU-intensive games than the faster two Intel cores. In the middle and high price ranges (Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, A10, FX-6000, FX-8000, FX-9000), Intel solutions are already preferable

DirectX 12

As mentioned at the very beginning of the article, with the release of Windows 10, DirectX 12 became available for game developers. The DirectX 12 architecture finally determined the direction of development of modern game development: developers began to need low-level programming interfaces. The main task of the new API is to rationally use the hardware capabilities of the system. This includes the involvement of all computational threads of the processor, and calculations general purpose on the GPU, and direct access to graphics adapter resources.

Windows 10 has just arrived. However, there are already applications in nature that support DirectX 12. For example, Futuremark has integrated the Overhead subtest into the benchmark. This preset is able to determine the performance of a computer system using not only the DirectX 12 API, but also AMD Mantle. The way the Overhead API works is simple. DirectX 11 imposes limits on the number of processor drawing commands. DirectX 12 and Mantle solve this problem by allowing more draw commands to be called. So, during the test, an increasing number of objects are displayed. Until the graphics adapter can no longer cope with their processing, and the FPS does not fall below 30 frames. For testing, I used a stand with a Core i7-5960X processor and a Radeon R9 NANO video card. The results turned out to be very interesting.

It is noteworthy that in patterns using DirectX 11, changing the number of CPU cores has almost no effect on the overall result. But with the use of DirectX 12 and Mantle, the picture changes dramatically. Firstly, the difference between DirectX 11 and low-level APIs turns out to be just cosmic (somewhere by an order of magnitude). Secondly, the number of "heads" of the central processor significantly affects the final result. This is especially noticeable when moving from two cores to four and from four to six. In the first case, the difference reaches almost a two-fold mark. At the same time, there are no special differences between six and eight cores and sixteen threads.

As you can see, the potential of DirectX 12 and Mantle (in the 3DMark benchmark) is simply huge. One should not forget that we are dealing with synthetics, they do not play it. In reality, it makes sense to evaluate the profit from using the latest low-level APIs only in real computer entertainment.

The first PC games that support DirectX 12 are already on the horizon. These are Ashes of the Singularity and Fable Legends. They are in active beta testing. The other day colleagues from Anandtech conducted a large-scale testing of Fable Legends with DirectX 12. The results were not as impressive as we would like.

Testing was carried out with three Intel processors and two video cards: GeForce GTX 980 Ti and Radeon R9 Fury X. Processor dependence was observed only at a very low resolution of 1280x720 (720p), which is not surprising. At higher resolutions, the stands showed almost the same results.

Finally

Let's summarize all the information received. What should be the ideal central processing unit for a gaming computer? First, it must have at least four threads. As testing has shown, the Hyper-Treading technology in the Core i3 really contributes to an increase in the number of frames per second. If we are talking about Intel processors, then the Core i5 models are the golden mean. At the same time, several games have demonstrated that they are well optimized for working with 6- and 8-core "stones". Why Core i5? Unfortunately, the price difference between the quad-core Core i5-6600K and the six-core Core i7-5820K is no less than $147, and the difference in gaming performance is a few percent.

If we are talking about AMD processors, then for the top-level video cards of the Middle-end, as well as the High-end, only an 8-core FX-8000/9000 chip is required. At the same time, in the budget segment, 4-core AMD models (A8, Athlon X4) look better than dual-core Intel Pentium/Celeron. In the middle and high ranges, the situation is reversed. Here the superiority of Intel processors is noticeable.

If you try to make a recommendation for choosing a processor for a gaming computer in one phrase, it will turn out something like this: take the Core i5.

Secondly, the clock frequency of the processor is important. Video cards of the upper level Low-end and lower level Middle-end will suit models that operate at a speed of 3 GHz and higher. Adapters of the upper level Middle-end and initial High-end - 3.4-3.6 GHz. The flagship AMD Radeon and NVIDIA GeForce will require a CPU running at 3.7-4 GHz. Finally, tandems of top-end CrossFire/SLI video cards require a chip operating at frequencies of 4-4.5 GHz and higher. Do not forget about such a moment as the rational use of the graphics adapter.

As testing has shown, architectural features do not greatly affect performance in games. Therefore, solutions based on modern architectures are equally suitable for assembling a gaming computer: Intel has Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell and Skylake; AMD has Bulldozer, Piledriver and Steamroller.

In conclusion, I will give a table in which, according to my opinion, I will try to put processors and video cards in their places. I hope you find it useful.

Processor brand	CPU frequency	Examples of gaming graphics cards
AMD (4 cores): Athlon X4; FX-4000. Intel (2 cores, 4 threads): core i3.	3000-3300 MHz	AMD Radeon R7 370; AMD Radeon R7 265; AMD Radeon HD 7850/7870; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
	3000-3300 MHz	Initial Middle-end: AMD Radeon R9 270/270X.
AMD (6 cores): FX-6000. Intel (2 cores, 4 threads): core i3.	3400-3600 MHz	AMD Radeon R9 380; AMD Radeon R9 280/285; AMD Radeon R9 280X; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760.
AMD (8 cores): FX-8000. Intel (4 cores): core i5.	3400-3600 MHz	Initial High End: AMD Radeon R9 290/290X; AMD Radeon R9 390; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970.
AMD (8 cores): FX-8000; FX-9000. Intel (4 cores or more): Core i5; core i7.	3700-4000 MHz	AMD Radeon R9 Fury AMD Radeon R9 Fury X/NANO; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti; NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X.

The choice of a central processor for a computer must be approached with the utmost responsibility, because. The performance of many other computer components directly depends on the quality of the selected CPU.

It is necessary to correlate the capabilities of your PC with the data of the desired processor model. If you decide to build a computer yourself, then first of all decide on the processor and motherboard. It should be remembered, in order to avoid unnecessary expenses, that not all motherboards support powerful processors.

The modern market is ready to provide a wide range of central processors - from CPUs designed for low-performance, semi-mobile devices to high-performance chips for data centers. Here are some tips to help you make the right choice:

Choose a manufacturer you trust. Today, there are only two suppliers of home PC processors on the market - Intel and AMD. Read more about the benefits of each of them below.
Look beyond the frequency. There is an opinion that frequency is the main factor responsible for performance, but this is not entirely true. This parameter is also strongly influenced by the number of cores, the speed of reading and writing information, and the amount of cache memory.
Before buying a processor, find out if your motherboard supports it.
For a powerful processor, you will need to buy a cooling system. The more powerful the CPU and other components, the higher the requirements for this system.
Pay attention to how much you can overclock the processor. As a rule, low-cost processors that at first glance do not have high performance can be overclocked to the level of a premium CPU.

After buying a processor, do not forget to apply thermal paste to it - this is a mandatory requirement. It is advisable not to save on this item and immediately buy a normal paste that will last a long time.

Choose a manufacturer

There are only two of them - Intel and AMD. Both produce processors for desktop PCs and laptops, however, there are very significant differences between them.

About Intel

Intel supplies enough powerful and reliable processors, but at the same time their price is the highest on the market. The most modern technologies are used in production, which saves on the cooling system. Intel CPUs rarely overheat, so good system Cooling requires only top models. Let's look at the advantages of Intel processors:

Excellent distribution of resources. Performance in a resource-intensive program is higher (provided that no other program with similar CPU requirements is running besides it). all the power of the processor is transferred to it.
With some modern games, Intel products work better.
Improved interaction with RAM, which speeds up the entire system.
For laptop owners, it is recommended to choose this manufacturer, because. its processors consume less power, they are compact and do not get as hot.
Many programs are optimized to work with Intel.

Multitasking processors when working with complex programs leaves much to be desired.
There is a "overpayment for the brand."
If you need to replace the CPU with a newer one, then there is a high probability that you will have to change some other components in the computer (for example, the motherboard), because. "blue" CPUs may not be compatible with some older components.
Relatively small overclocking capabilities compared to a competitor.

About AMD

This is another processor manufacturer that has a market share roughly equivalent to Intel. It is mainly focused on the budget and mid-budget segment, but also produces top models of processors. The main advantages of this manufacturer:

Value for money. You won't have to "overpay for the brand" in the case of AMD.
Wide range of performance upgrade options. You can overclock the processor by 20% of the original capacity, as well as adjust the voltage.
Products from AMD work well in multitasking mode, compared to their counterparts from Intel.
multiplatform products. The AMD processor will work without problems with any motherboard, RAM, video card.

But products from this manufacturer also have their drawbacks:

CPUs from AMD are not exactly reliable compared to Intel. Bugs are more common, especially if the processor is several years old.
AMD processors (especially powerful models or models that have been overclocked by the user) get very hot, so you should consider buying a good cooling system.
If you have an integrated graphics adapter from Intel, then get ready for compatibility issues.

How important is the frequency and number of cores

There is an opinion that the more cores and frequency a processor has, the better and faster the system works. This statement is only partly true, because if you have an 8-core processor installed, but in conjunction with an HDD, then the performance will be noticeable only in demanding programs (and even that is not a fact).

For standard work at the computer and for games at medium and low settings, a processor for 2-4 cores in conjunction with. This configuration will please you with speed in browsers, in office applications, with simple graphics and video processing. If this configuration includes a powerful 8-core unit instead of the usual CPU for 2-4 cores, then ideal performance will be achieved in heavy games even at ultra-settings (although a lot will still depend on the video card).

Also, if you have a choice between two processors with the same indicators but different models, you will need to view the results of different tests. For many models of modern CPUs, they can be easily found on the manufacturer's website.

What to Expect from CPUs in Different Price Categories

The current pricing situation is as follows:

The cheapest processors on the market are supplied only by AMD. They can work well for simple office applications, web surfing and solitaire games. However, a lot in this case will depend on the configuration of the PC. For example, if you have little RAM, a weak HDD and no graphics adapter, then you can not count on the correct operation of the system.
Mid-range processors. Here you can already see quite productive models from AMD and models with average performance from Intel. For the former, a reliable cooling system will be required without fail, the costs of which can offset the benefits of a low price. In the second case, the performance will be lower, but the processor will be much more stable. A lot, again, depends on the configuration of the PC or laptop.
High-quality processors in a high price category. In this case, the characteristics of products from both AMD and Intel are approximately equal.

About the cooling system

Some processors may come with a complete cooling system, the so-called. "Boxing". It is not recommended to change the "native" system to an analogue from another manufacturer, even if it does its job better. The fact is that "boxed" systems are better adapted to their processor and do not require serious configuration.

If the CPU cores began to overheat, then it is better to install an additional cooling system to the existing one. It will come out cheaper, and the risk of damaging something will be lower.

The boxed cooling system from Intel is much worse than from AMD, so it is recommended to pay special attention to its shortcomings. Clips are mostly made of plastic, which is also very heavy. This causes such a problem - if the processor, along with the radiator, is installed on a cheap motherboard, then there is a risk that they will “bend” it, rendering it unusable. Therefore, if you still prefer Intel, then choose only high-quality motherboards. There is also another problem - with strong heating (more than 100 degrees), the clips can simply melt. Fortunately, such temperatures are rare for Intel products.

The "Reds" also made a better cooling system, with metal clips. Despite this, the system weighs less than its counterpart from Intel. Also, the design of the radiators allows you to install them on the motherboard without any problems, while the connection with the motherboard will be much better, which will eliminate the possibility of damaging the board. But keep in mind that AMD processors get hotter, so high-quality boxed heatsinks are a must.

Hybrid processors with integrated graphics

Both companies are also engaged in the release of processors, where there is an integrated graphics card (APU). True, the performance of the latter is very low and it is only enough to perform simple everyday tasks - working in office applications, surfing the Internet, watching videos, and even undemanding games. Of course, there are top APU processors on the market, whose resources are enough even for professional work in graphic editors, simple video processing and running modern games at minimum settings.

These CPUs are more expensive and heat up much faster than their conventional counterparts. You also need to take into account that in the case of an integrated video card, it is not the built-in video memory that is used, but the operational type DDR3 or DDR4. It follows from this that the performance will also directly depend on the amount of RAM. But even if your PC is equipped with several tens of GB of DDR4 RAM (the fastest type today), the integrated card is unlikely to be able to match the performance of a graphics adapter even from the middle price category.

The thing is that video memory (even if it is only one GB) is much faster than RAM, because. it is sharpened to work with graphics.

However, the APU-processor in conjunction with even a slightly expensive video card is able to please with high performance in modern games at low or medium settings. But in this case, you should think about the cooling system (especially if the processor and / or graphics adapter is from AMD), because. the resources of the default built-in radiators may not be enough. It is better to test the work and then, based on the results, decide whether the "native" cooling system copes or not.

Whose APU processors are better? Until recently, AMD was the leader in this segment, but in the last couple of years the situation has begun to change and AMD and Intel products from this segment have almost equaled in terms of power. The Blues try to take reliability, but at the same time, the price-performance ratio suffers a little. From the "red" you can get a productive APU processor for a not very high price, but many users consider budget APU chips from this manufacturer unreliable.

Integrated processors

Buying a motherboard that already has a processor soldered into it, along with a cooling system, helps the consumer get rid of different kind compatibility issues and save time by everything you need is already built into the motherboard. In addition, such a decision does not hit the pocket.

But it has its significant drawbacks:

There are no upgrade options. The processor that is soldered into the motherboard will become obsolete sooner or later, but in order to replace it, you will have to completely change the motherboard.
The power of the processor, which is integrated into the motherboard, leaves much to be desired, so you won’t be able to play modern games even at the minimum settings. But such a solution practically does not make noise and takes up very little space in the system unit.
Such motherboards do not have very many slots for RAM and HDD / SSD drives.
In case of any minor damage, the computer will have to be handed over either for repair, or (more likely) to completely replace the motherboard.

Several popular processors

The best state employees:

Mid-range processors:

TOP processors:

If you are assembling a computer from scratch, then it is better to initially buy the processor, and then other important components for it - a video card and a motherboard.

How to choose a processor for a gaming PC. We study the effect of processor dependence in practice

But it's the end of 2015. On the market, in the desktop segment, there are 6- and 8-core central processors, but 2- and 4-core models are still considered popular. Gamers are raving about the PC versions of GTA V and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, and yet there is no gaming graphics card in nature capable of delivering a comfortable level of FPS in 4K resolution at maximum graphics quality settings in Assassin's Creed Unity. In addition, the release of the Windows 10 operating system took place, which means that the era of DirectX 12 has officially begun. As you can see, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge in nine years. Therefore, the question of choosing a central processor for a gaming computer is more relevant than ever.

The essence of the problem

The most difficult thing is to choose a central processor for several graphics adapters at once

Frequency

How to identify processor dependence? The most effective way is empirically. Since the CPU has several parameters, let's analyze them one by one. The first characteristic, which most often pay close attention to, is the clock frequency.

The clock frequency of the central processors has not been growing for quite a long time. At first (in the 80s and 90s), it was the increase in megahertz that led to a frenzied increase in the overall level of performance. Now the frequency of AMD and Intel CPUs is frozen in the delta of 2.5-4 GHz. Everything below is too budget and not quite suitable for a gaming computer; anything above is already overclocking. This is how processor lines are formed. For example, there is an Intel Core i5-6400 running at 2.7GHz ($182) and there is a Core i5-6500 running at 3.2GHz ($192). These processors have the same absolutely all characteristics, except for the clock frequency and price.

Overclocking has long become a "weapon" of marketers. For example, only a lazy motherboard manufacturer does not brag about the excellent overclocking potential of their products.

It is important to remember: the higher the clock speed, the hotter the processor! So you need to take care of high-quality cooling of the “stone”

Processor dependency effect

The dependence of performance in games on the frequency of the central processor

Video cards of the Low-end level (GeForce GTX 950, Radeon R7 370) will have enough of a central processor operating at a frequency of 3 GHz. Middle-end adapters (Radeon R9 280X, GeForce GTX 770) - 3.4-3.6 GHz. High-end flagship video cards (Radeon R9 Fury, GeForce GTX 980 Ti) - 3.7-4 GHz. Productive bundles SLI/CrossFire - 4-4.5 GHz

Architecture

In reviews devoted to the release of one or another generation of central processors, the authors continually state that the difference in performance in x86 calculations is a meager 5-10% year after year. This is a kind of tradition. Neither AMD nor Intel has seen any serious progress for a long time, and phrases like " keep sitting on my Sandy Bridge, wait for next year»become winged. As I said, in games, the processor also has to process a large amount of data. In this case, a reasonable question arises: to what extent is the effect of processor dependence observed in systems with different architectures?

For both AMD and Intel chips, you can define a list of modern architectures that are still popular. They are relevant, on a global scale, the difference in performance between them is not so big.

Impact of architecture on game performance

Comparison of processor architectures in games (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980)

Modern architectures with a few exceptions have the same performance in computer games. Owners of processor families Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and Haswell can feel quite calm. With AMD, the situation is similar: various variations of the modular architecture (Bulldozer, Piledriver, Steamroller) in games have approximately the same level of performance

Cores and Threads

Some Intel processors (Core i3 and Core i7) have a certain number of cores but double the number of threads. Hyper-Threading technology is responsible for this, which was first used in Pentium 4 chips. Threads and cores are slightly different things, but we'll talk about this a little later. In 2016, AMD will release processors based on the Zen architecture. For the first time, the "red" chips will acquire technology similar to Hyper-Threading.

In fact, the Core 2 Quad on the Kentsfield core is not a full-fledged quad-core. It is based on two Conroe crystals, divorced in one package under the LGA775

Processor dependence in GTA V

The increase from the use of six and eight cores in most cases turned out to be either too small, or there was none at all.

Processor dependence in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

The three games loyal to the dual-core system were The Witcher 3, Assassin's Creed Unity and Tomb Raider. In all modes, the same results were demonstrated.

For those who are interested, I will give a table with the full test results.

performance of multi-core systems in games

Four cores is the optimal number for today. At the same time, it is obvious that gaming computers should not be assembled with a dual-core processor. In 2015, just such a “stone” is the bottleneck in the system

To determine the effectiveness of multithreading in games, I assembled two test benches: with a Core i3-4130 and a Core i7-6700K. In both cases, a GeForce GTX TITAN X graphics card was used.

Core i3 Hyper-Threading Efficiency

Hyper-Threading in Core i3 is really dragging, especially if the system requirements indicate a quad-core processor model. But in the case of Core i7, the increase in performance in games is not so significant.

Cache

So, the more productive Core i7 processors have 8 MB of cache in the third level, the slower Core i5 have 6 MB. Will these 2 MB affect performance in games?

The Broadwell family and some Haswell processors use 128 MB of eDRAM (Level 4 cache). In some games, it can seriously speed up the system.

Impact of L3 cache on gaming performance

The difference in L3 cache between Core i5 and Core i7 processors in most cases does not affect system performance in modern games

AMD or Intel?

Comparison of AMD and Intel in GTA V

Below is a table with full testing of the AMD FX processor.

Processor dependency in AMD system

The result is banal. For games, Intel solutions are better suited. However, among budget solutions (Athlon X4, FX-4000, A8, Pentium, Celeron), AMD products are preferable. Testing has shown that the slower four cores perform better in CPU-intensive games than the faster two Intel cores. In the middle and high price ranges (Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, A10, FX-6000, FX-8000, FX-9000), Intel solutions are already preferable

DirectX 12

As mentioned at the very beginning of the article, DirectX 12 became available for game developers with the release of Windows 10. You can get acquainted with a detailed overview of this API. The DirectX 12 architecture finally determined the direction of development of modern game development: developers began to need low-level programming interfaces. The main task of the new API is to rationally use the hardware capabilities of the system. This includes the use of all computational threads of the processor, and general-purpose calculations on the GPU, and direct access to the resources of the graphics adapter.

As you can see, the potential of DirectX 12 and Mantle (in the 3DMark benchmark) is simply huge. However, do not forget that we are dealing with synthetics, they do not play it. In reality, it makes sense to evaluate the profit from using the latest low-level APIs only in real computer entertainment.

The first PC games that support DirectX 12 are already on the horizon. These are Ashes of the Singularity and Fable Legends. They are in active beta testing. The other day colleagues from Anandtech

When choosing a processor, you need to pay attention not only to pure performance, frequency and number of cores. Do not forget about the calculated performance of the cooling system or TDP (Thermal Design Power).

Modern processors are no longer limited to 4 cores on board. There may be 8, 12, 16 ... and even more. True, such processors are already intended for professionals who need high computing power. If you are looking for a processor for a gaming system, then you can limit yourself to a chip with 6 cores. For example, such as .

Currently, two well-known brands, AMD and Intel, are fighting each other in the processor market. For a while, AMD remained an outsider, but the Ryzen processor line brought it back to the top of the processor Olympus, making life difficult for representatives from the Intel lines. Today, these two brands are fighting almost on an equal footing, ahead of each other with the release of each new model.

Rating leaders in terms of price / quality ratio

Each year, the CHIP test lab tests a huge number of processors. All our test results are presented as a summary rating in . It was she who guided us when we chose the best CPUs that satisfy the price-performance ratio. The final score, which determines the position of a particular model in the table, of course, consists of performance. But high power should cost reasonable money, so in this article we are considering just such processors.

First Place: AMD Ryzen 5 1600X

Despite the fact that Intel products currently occupy the leading positions in the overall rating, AMD chips win in terms of price / quality ratio, showing excellent results at an acceptable cost. Take, for example, our leader -. On average, for just 16,500 rubles, you get a 6-core processor on the modern Summit Ridge architecture, which offers impressive performance and high operating frequencies.

In normal operation, the frequency characteristics are at the level of 3600 MHz, but in the auto-overclocking mode, when you need to “throw firewood”, the processor shows an impressive 4000 MHz. Moreover, this parameter can also be overclocked, since X-marked CPUs are designed specifically for overclocking. TDP of 95 watts also speaks of this.

In our test, the processor scored 3629 points in the PC Mark 8 synthetic benchmark, showing that the difference in performance with 8-core processors is not very big. But in benchmarks that give marks for multithreading, the situation is a little different: eight-cores noticeably take the lead, which, however, is quite expected.

Runner-up: Intel Core i7-8700K

Compared to the leader of our rating, the six-core one no longer seems so affordable. Its cost is significantly higher and averages about 32,000 rubles, which is almost twice the price tag of AMD Ryzen 5 1600X. In terms of performance, it is the undisputed leader, but when assessing the ratio of price and quality, it loses to a competitor from AMD.

During the test tests, it distinguished itself by showing the highest maximum frequency - an impressive 4700 MHz. The nominal frequency in normal operation is 3700 MHz, and now it is comparable to the competitor. But in the auto-overclocking mode, the Intel Core i7-8700K simply puts other chips on the blades and there are no equals to it at the moment.

Let us note that IntelCore i7-8700K is not only the carrier of the latest Coffee Lake architecture. The name of the processor contains the letter "K", and this tells us about the good overclocking potential. When an enhanced power supply is applied to the processor, it is possible to overclock the nominal frequencies of the CPU itself, as well as DDR4 RAM modules. But there is a caveat - the changed power scheme makes this processor incompatible with the LGA 1151 socket. LGA 1151v2 is required.

Third place: AMD Ryzen 5 1600

In third place is another six-core AMD, but without the “X” marking. But the cost is even more gentle - about 14,000 rubles. Not a processor, but a gift! True, in comparison with its older brother, this model offers standard frequencies at the level of 3200 MHz and, if necessary, can be overclocked to 3600 MHz.

One of the differences from Intel processors lies in the absence of a graphics subsystem. If the choice of processors from the top two positions allows you to postpone the purchase of a video card, then in the case of a discrete video card, it is a necessity. But given the high cost of graphics cards, not everyone has the opportunity to buy this component from one salary.

Benchmark measurements are slightly behind the faster 1600X. This is especially noticeable in the test results in PCMark 8, Cinebench R15 and PovRay 3.7 RC3. But if you do not go into comparisons and take into account the TDP of 65 watts, we can say that the end results are very good. Recall that the 1600X version has this parameter much larger - 95 watts.

Fourth place: AMD Ryzen 7 1700

And again, the representative from the AMD camp shows the best value for money. We recommend buying an 8-core monster in the face of those who do not tolerate any compromises in games or work with resource-demanding programs. According to the results of our tests, this processor proved to be highly productive and efficient, including in multitasking mode.

The clock speeds are slightly lower than those of the rating leader. 3000 MHz in normal mode and 3700 MHz in auto overclocking mode. Despite this, in synthetic benchmarks, the processor performs very well and shows good results. Based on the latest, this CPU can be safely attributed to the top segment. At the same time, the cost of such a top-end processor is very affordable - about 25,000 rubles.

It is best suited for working in programs that use multi-core - here it has no equal yet. But for gaming systems, this processor will not be the best option, since many modern games are still poorly optimized for eight-core solutions from AMD. We see the best use case for this processor in a workstation.

Fifth place: Intel Core i7-7700K

In fifth place, AMD's expansion is diluted by another chip from Intel. It can be purchased for 25,000 rubles, if you are not confused by its belonging to the previous Kaby Lake architecture. - a mainstream chip that focuses on performance and does not offer any innovations compared to the novelties based on Coffee Lake.

Compared to previous CPUs that occupy the first four lines of our charts, it only offers 4 cores and 8 threads. But the base clock frequency starts at 4200 MHz. In the automatic overclocking mode, frequencies can reach 4500 MHz, which is almost comparable to the values of the 6-core Intel Core i7-8700K, which is in second place.

High clock speeds have benefited performance. In benchmarks, it shows very decent results, and in the PCMark 8 test, it even slightly outperforms the Intel Core i7-8700K. In the 3DMark test suites, both processors are also almost on a par. And given the focus of the processor on gaming systems, we recommend buying it specifically for assembling gaming PCs.

Top 10 Best Desktop Processors Value for Money

1.

: 70.4

Number of cores
Maximum frequency

: 4.0 GHz

Overall score: 70.4

Value for money: 82

2.

CPU performance (100%)

: 81.4

Number of cores
Maximum frequency

: 4.7 GHz

Overall score: 81.4

Value for money: 80

3.

CPU performance (100%)

: 66.5

Number of cores
Maximum frequency

: 3.6 GHz

Overall score: 66.5

Value for money: 81

4.

CPU performance (100%)

: 77.3

Number of cores
Maximum frequency

: 3.7 GHz

Overall score: 77.3

Value for money: 79

When building a gaming PC, the most important thing is getting a good graphics card. Yes, that's bad luck: because of the miners, GPU prices have seriously jumped over the year, find successful model became more difficult even after the extinction of the "gold rush". In order not to save on a graphics accelerator, the main component of a gaming PC, it is necessary to optimize the costs of other components that are not so critical in gaming tasks.

One of the most simple ways build a budget gaming PC with a decent graphics card - buy a good budget processor for games, as well as an inexpensive motherboard for it. Our selection includes 5 affordable entry-level and mid-range CPUs that can handle almost any modern game and are sold at prices up to 10 thousand rubles.

Intel Pentium Gold G5400 - Core i3 killer

The Intel Pentium G4560, released a year ago, played a cruel joke on the manufacturer. This processor for the first time in the Pentium series (except for Pentium 4 back in 2004) received support for HyperThreading, which allowed each core to process 2 data streams. This budget gaming processor is not much different from the Core i3 Skylake and Kaby Lake, which cost almost twice as much, and therefore it hit their sales. But in the fall of 2018, Intel chips went up in price, and now the company's most affordable option is the Pentium Gold G5400.

The Intel Pentium G5400 is the basic minimum sufficient to play all modern games. In combination with a budget gaming graphics card like the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, FPS problems in FullHD resolution should not be a problem. And another plus of this chip is compatibility with the cheapest motherboards based on the Intel H310 chipset.

The processor has 2 cores processing 2 threads of computation. Their clock frequency is 3.7 GHz, auto-overclocking in turbo mode is not provided. The amount of cache memory on the chip is 4 MB. Energy consumption is declared at the level of up to 58 W, but based on experience I can say that in practice it eats up to 30 W. Thanks to this, you also do not have to spend money on a cooler: the stock one copes with the task quite well, and at the same time it does not make any noise. You can buy an Intel Pentium Gold G5400 for 6,000 rubles (at the time of compilation).

AMD Ryzen 3 1200 is the most affordable quad-core

AMD Ryzen 3 1200 is the most budget gaming processor in 2019, equipped with 4 full cores. It does not have SMT support (analogous to HyperThreading), unlike Ryzen 5 and 7, but 4 cores for the money is very attractive. After all, with the transition to the Zen architecture, AMD cleared the bad reputation left by chips of past generations and managed to catch up with Intel.

The processor cores operate at a frequency of 3.1 GHz, there is automatic overclocking to 3.4 GHz. Also, unlike Intel, all AMD processors can be manually overclocked if cooling allows. And for this it is not necessary to buy a top-end motherboard, some overclocking options are available on budget motherboards with an AM4 socket. The cache of the chip is 8 MB, and it consumes up to 65 watts. By installing a video card like the Radeon RX 570, you can play any game at maximum settings in FullHD.

The only thing you shouldn't skimp on with the AMD Ryzen 3 1200 is RAM. The processors of this series work the better, the higher the speed of the RAM modules installed on the board. With high-quality 3200 MHz chips, this affordable gaming processor outperforms almost all competitors in its price category. It costs from 5800 rubles.

AMD Ryzen 3 2200G - almost the same, but slightly better

The AMD Ryzen 3 2200G is a slightly improved version of the previous processor. It differs from it by the presence of integrated graphics and a slightly raised frequency. Here it is 3.5 GHz, with auto overclocking up to 3.7 GHz. The chip has four cores, they do not support SMT. The cache volume differs from the "little brother", here it was cut down to 4 MB, which is the main disadvantage. But the graphics on board is a big plus.

The presence of integrated graphics makes this budget gaming processor good option for those who assemble a PC gradually. Integrated graphics chip does not allow you to play modern projects in high resolution, but it will work as a temporary solution. With the Radeon RX Vega 8, you can have fun in tanks or Dota (and something more demanding) until you have accumulated the required amount for a discrete graphics card.

As with the Ryzen 3 1200, buying an Intel Pentium G4620 can save on motherboard and cooling costs without sacrificing performance or quietness. After all, boards based on AMD A320 and B350 chipsets are affordable, but they allow you to unleash the potential of even powerful CPUs. This processor costs from 6.4 thousand rubles.

AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is the most affordable six-core chip

After the release of AMD Ryzen processors, Intel had to tighten up a bit. The response move of the "blue" was the release of a new, eighth generation of Core chips. The youngest in the series was the Intel Core i3-8100, the first processor in the budget line with 4 full-fledged cores. Initially, it cost about 7 thousand rubles, but now it is sold much more expensive and therefore gave way to AMD.

Now, for 9,000 rubles, the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 looks much more interesting than the Intel Core i5, which, on the contrary, has become a little cheaper over time. In single-threaded tasks, it is almost as good as the Core i5 6000, 7000 and 8000 series, but at the same time it costs less and outperforms them in multi-threading. This is a good inexpensive gaming processor that can work in tandem with powerful graphics cards and provide a high level of FPS in games.

The cost of the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 is slightly higher than that of the younger brothers in the face of the Ryzen 3 line, but less than the direct competitors of the Core i5. In Russian retail, this processor now costs from 9,000 rubles. If for some reason you don't like Intel, then this CPU is a very good (virtually unconditional) alternative to the blue ones.

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G - graphics card optional

Rounding out our pick of the best budget gaming processors of 2019 is the recently released AMD Ryzen 5 2400G. This CPU is equipped with 4 cores that support SMT. This means that it can process 8 data streams. The cores operate at a frequency of 3600 MHz. Also on the chip are 4 MB of third-level cache. The chip is compatible with socket AM4 motherboards.

Unlike the 2017 models, the AMD Ryzen 5 2400G is equipped with an integrated graphics core. The GPU is represented by the Vega module containing 11 clusters with 704 stream processors. This is the level of entry-level discrete graphics cards, like the GeForce GT 1030. You should not count on playing in FullHD at maximum settings, but AMD Ryzen 5 2400G satisfies basic gaming needs even without discrete graphics. In FullHD resolution, most games will run at low or medium settings, while in HD you can count on high settings.

The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G is the best budget processor for gaming in 2019 if you're not interested in demanding projects. Of course, to play something like Battlefield 1 at the maximum, you need a discrete GPU at least at a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti level. But if you are interested in something simpler - availability, low power consumption (up to 65 W) and the presence of an integrated GPU allow you to assemble a miniature PC for a gamer based on AMD Ryzen 5 2400G.

In conclusion, it can be noted that the best budget processor for gaming in conditions of very limited finances is the AMD Ryzen 3 1200. You can buy an inexpensive board on the A320 platform, a video card like the GTX 1050 or. From such an assembly, you can already expect games at maximum settings not only in FullHD, but also in a resolution of 2560x1440.