Best CPUs Under $150

[Ranulf]

Dear God man, what are your electricty rates?

 

[R0H1T]

Not reading into this thread, but if someone suggests a 220w AMD cpu and doesn't link the costs per year versus the Intel equivalent, then you aren't getting the full story. Last time I did the math the AMD 220W TDP 24/7 running in California would cost me $630 a year, versus the under 300 the Intel would give me.

Umm then how come you're bringing that particular model into the equation, there are just 2 CPU's from AMD with that TDP & are mainly aimed at extreme overclockers/modders, no one here has advocated these extreme parts & you're justifying your arguments in whatever way you feel appropriate !

Again, TDP matters. Unless you're in Antarctica and can afford extra heat/have spare electricity, make SURE you factor those into your processor choice.

No one runs their system 24/7 at 100% load not even corporate establishments or research institutes, so your argument has no valid basis as most (general user) systems idle 90% of the time so the actual difference is much much lesser than what you're imagining !

 

[gill77]

Again, TDP matters. Unless you're in Antarctica and can afford extra heat/have spare electricity, make SURE you factor those into your processor choice.

You must be a really smart guy. I was thinking the same thing

Perhaps consumption at idle and percentage of overall system usage should be brought into consideration, but don't want to hijack the tread.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Not reading into this thread, but if someone suggests a 220w AMD cpu and doesn't link the costs per year versus the Intel equivalent, then you aren't getting the full story. Last time I did the math the AMD 220W TDP 24/7 running in California would cost me $630 a year, versus the under 300 the Intel would give me.

Again, TDP matters. Unless you're in Antarctica and can afford extra heat/have spare electricity, make SURE you factor those into your processor choice.

This is a thread about <$150 processors.

I would be willing to bet even the 220 watt TDP processors won't make a blip on the radar for most budgets as far as what it costs to operate. But if what you do means 100% load 24/7/365, than the AMD FX 9xxx CPU's will probably never be a good buy compared to other options.

Also, unless my math is off, if the CPU uses 220 watts x 24 hours x 365 days a year, you'd have to be paying ~$.33/kilowatt hour to get $630/year. That seems expensive, but I don't live there so couldn't tell you (my rate is about half that).

 

[TerryMathews]

Not reading into this thread, but if someone suggests a 220w AMD cpu and doesn't link the costs per year versus the Intel equivalent, then you aren't getting the full story. Last time I did the math the AMD 220W TDP 24/7 running in California would cost me $630 a year, versus the under 300 the Intel would give me.

Again, TDP matters. Unless you're in Antarctica and can afford extra heat/have spare electricity, make SURE you factor those into your processor choice.

Were you comparing max TDP consumption or idle?

 

[shady28]

There may be some other graphs, but this was the first one I found.

System load 8350 vs i5-3570 :

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7


At Idle, the FX-8350 has 2W less load.

At full load, the FX-8350 has 52W higher consumption.

Let's set a use case and see what happens :

Computer on 12hrs/day 365 days / yr
30% of the 12hrs is spent at full load
70% of the 12hrs is spent at idle
Average cost per KWH is 10.35c (from EIA : http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/end_use.cfm)


We know that much of the time it won't be idle, but we know it will very rarely be full load either. Since we only have full load / idle numbers, I inflated the full load %.

I should point out whoever is using their computer that much every single day of the year, is truly an enthusiast (or a hermit).

30% * 12hrs = 3.6 hrs/day full load
70% * 12hrs = 8.4 hrs/day idle

At full load the difference was 52W :
3.6H/day * 52W * 365 days = 68, 323 WH
ie : 68.323 KWH
68.323 KWH * 10.35 = + $7.07 per year extra for the FX-8350

During idle

8.4hrs/day * -2W * 354 days = 6132WH
ie -6.132 KWH
6.132 HWH * 10.35c = -63.46c

7.07 + (-63.46c) = $6.43

So if you run that FX-8350 12hrs/day 365 days/yr and make heavy use of the machine on average, you would on average incur an additional $6.43 in electric bills (edit: $6.43 per year).


Personally that's not even worth thinking about in my book. Spend 15 minutes cleaning out the fins on your home HVAC heat pump and you'll probably save 10x that, but to each their own.

 

[Rinaun]

This is a thread about <$150 processors.

I would be willing to bet even the 220 watt TDP processors won't make a blip on the radar for most budgets as far as what it costs to operate. But if what you do means 100% load 24/7/365, than the AMD FX 9xxx CPU's will probably never be a good buy compared to other options.

Also, unless my math is off, if the CPU uses 220 watts x 24 hours x 365 days a year, you'd have to be paying ~$.33/kilowatt hour to get $630/year. That seems expensive, but I don't live there so couldn't tell you (my rate is about half that).

Dear God man, what are your electricty rates?

I pay .31/kilo, PG&E Fourth tier. We run some heavy stuff including some servers from my house.

Umm then how come you're bringing that particular model into the equation, there are just 2 CPU's from AMD with that TDP & are mainly aimed at extreme overclockers/modders, no one here has advocated these extreme parts & you're justifying your arguments in whatever way you feel appropriate !

No one runs their system 24/7 at 100% load not even corporate establishments or research institutes, so your argument has no valid basis as most (general user) systems idle 90% of the time so the actual difference is much much lesser than what you're imagining !

Whoa bro, calm down. Stop trying to negate what I said because I pointed things out for others to think about. I simply stated that energy efficiency has to be factored into your purchase, especially for higher wattage processors like the AMD series. I don't know what AMD has released recently, but I'd hope it's not 220W TDP because I had atleast 8-10 clients whom wanted one but I had to explain why not to get said CPU.


FYI, your post is exactly why I want almost zero participation in threads like this. People in this section and the video card section on many sites get all fanatical and don't take into account actual facts, which is what matters over personal opinion.

No one runs their system 24/7 at 100% load not even corporate establishments or research institutes, so your argument has no valid basis as most (general user) systems idle 90% of the time so the actual difference is much much lesser than what you're imagining !

For the record, I use my PC 24/7 and most of my clients use their workstations 12-18 hours a day. I consult for several large companies in the silicon valley, and I've been to enough facilities around here to tell you that what you just said was so ignorant that it's hard to take anything you say seriously. Nobody runs their system 24/7? Do you have any information to back this up? It's pretty embarrassing that you would say that; we all know you can't back that statistic up.

As a systems analyst for several companies in the Bay Area, I can confirm that a large portion of businesses leave their PCs on overnight because workers are lazy. I care about power consumption so much because of this and several other reasons, like heating costs. If you don't care about energy consumptions thats fine, just don't try to negate my warning to others by misinforming them. What you did is the textbook reason why people like me avoid these forums.

 

[shady28]

....
Nobody runs their system 24/7? Do you have any information to back this up?

What he said was :

Originally Posted by R0H1T
"No one runs their system 24/7 at 100% load"


And for 99+ % of situations, even corporate servers, that is a 100% true statement.

 

[Ranulf]

Ahh, you're in sillycone valley. Take up your power costs with your state government.

As for misinforming them, most people here are not going to be worried about 24/7 load power usage, its an issue but generally not much of one.

 

[crashtech]

The most convincing fact about this thread is that too much time gets spent rationalizing and defending purchasing decisions after they are made.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Some don't even have a sig
but we both share the same talent, let me see if i can guess what you're defending... Intel user detected

 

[AtenRa]

Again, TDP matters.

TDP is not energy consumption. Just to let you know.

 

[blackened23]

The most convincing fact about this thread is that too much time gets spent rationalizing and defending purchasing decisions after they are made.

Well when you can't win on performance or even price/performance, as is the case with many AMD CPUs these days. You gotta make that fringe argument somehow. The silly argument. The WINGNUT argument. I found the background application argument quite amusing. And the malware argument. Gotta give that malware room to breathe with a faster CPU, you know. At least I can get a daily dose of humor here on AT.

It wouldn't even be an issue if these arguments were reality based. Because AMD does have some nice price performance at the below 110$ segment. I can completely appreciate some of their CPUs because they are great price performance. But when you get into the 180$+ area? Not so much. It's like, no one can admit the obvious flaw with extremely poor IPC. I mean if IPC didn't matter we'd all run 3-4 generation old Xeon or Opteron processors which are cheap. Hell i'd own a dual Xeon box on the cheap and have a multicore powerhouse right? And we all know that would translate into REAL WORLD performance in PC games and daily tasks right. Yeah, I don't think so.

As we know IPC still matters. Cry over it, but it's true. Time for some people to get over it. It it didn't matter, those Xeons and opterons multitask ridiculously well. Does that matter in the real world? Are the older xeons gaming powerhouses? Of course not in most cases because IPC still matters. Maybe someday people will get over it and ask AMD to deliver better IPC. Or not.

 

[crashtech]

Some don't even have a sig
but we both share the same talent, let me see if i can guess what you're defending... Intel user detected

:thumbsup: Yes, I am very specifically not leaving myself out of the equation. I'm just as human as the rest.

In the price range delineated by the OP, it could be said that Intel advocates overstate the ability of 2 fast cores (even with HT) to handle the demands of the average user, yet AMD advocates also tend to overstate the ability of more, slower cores to make up for their large IPC deficit.

I do try to make it clear to readers that an analysis of individual usage patterns is very helpful in deciding which way to go.

But yeah, I like faster cores at this time, since the dream of most all apps being multithreaded hasn't come close to being a reality, not in MY experience anyway.

 

[996GT2]

Best CPU for under $150, you ask?

 

[frozentundra123456]

There may be some other graphs, but this was the first one I found.

System load 8350 vs i5-3570 :

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/06/amd-fx-8350-review/7


At Idle, the FX-8350 has 2W less load.

At full load, the FX-8350 has 52W higher consumption.

Let's set a use case and see what happens :

Computer on 12hrs/day 365 days / yr
30% of the 12hrs is spent at full load
70% of the 12hrs is spent at idle
Average cost per KWH is 10.35c (from EIA : http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/end_use.cfm)


We know that much of the time it won't be idle, but we know it will very rarely be full load either. Since we only have full load / idle numbers, I inflated the full load %.

I should point out whoever is using their computer that much every single day of the year, is truly an enthusiast (or a hermit).

30% * 12hrs = 3.6 hrs/day full load
70% * 12hrs = 8.4 hrs/day idle

At full load the difference was 52W :
3.6H/day * 52W * 365 days = 68, 323 WH
ie : 68.323 KWH
68.323 KWH * 10.35 = + $7.07 per year extra for the FX-8350

During idle

8.4hrs/day * -2W * 354 days = 6132WH
ie -6.132 KWH
6.132 HWH * 10.35c = -63.46c

7.07 + (-63.46c) = $6.43

So if you run that FX-8350 12hrs/day 365 days/yr and make heavy use of the machine on average, you would on average incur an additional $6.43 in electric bills (edit: $6.43 per year).


Personally that's not even worth thinking about in my book. Spend 15 minutes cleaning out the fins on your home HVAC heat pump and you'll probably save 10x that, but to each their own.

Here is data that includes the 4770K bit tech power consumption figures

I charitably lowered the delta at full load to 100 watts instead of the 140 the article actually showed.

Calculating it out shows 35kwh per year saved at idle with intel and 146kwh at load, assuming 12 hours at idle and 4 hours at load per day. That is a total difference of 180 kwh per year total. Assuming a more realistic 12 cents per kwh including taxes and fees(which actually is quite low) that comes out to 21.60 dollars per year.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Not reading into this thread, but if someone suggests a 220w AMD cpu and doesn't link the costs per year versus the Intel equivalent, then you aren't getting the full story. Last time I did the math the AMD 220W TDP 24/7 running in California would cost me $630 a year, versus the under 300 the Intel would give me.

Again, TDP matters. Unless you're in Antarctica and can afford extra heat/have spare electricity, make SURE you factor those into your processor choice.

You may be overstating the case a bit, but as many learned the hard way years ago when running Pentium D processors (especially heavily-overclocked 820Ds), power consumption can cost you in the long run, and sometimes it can cost you in the short run.

Now, if you buy an 8320 (for example), leave it off or idle most of the time with all the power-saving features enabled, and avoid anything but stock volts, the power consumption will never get up to 220W. And you can probably use a cheap-ish motherboard with questionable power delivery without too many problems.

If you do like many enthusiasts do, you will probably turn off most or all of the power saving features, you will overvolt and overclock the processor at least moderately (and buy a snazzy heatsink or go with water), and you will get a board with better power delivery that won't die a horrible death. You will also get a better PSU with a different efficiency curve than the lower-wattage PSU you could use on an i3 Haswell (for example). Then you will do something sufficiently enthusiastic with your overclocked 8320 to keep it pegged at or near 100% load to make the TDP numbers far more relevant to the situation than others have suggested here.

Or, to put it another way . . . one of the major benefits of the 8320 is that you can overclock it. Doing so with extra volts is going to get you in the ballpark of that 220W TDP. Then you're going to run that processor and do something with it to justify the expense of buying all that extra processing power - folding, multitasking heavily, encoding/transcoding, whatever. The effect is somewhat mitigated in the winter since your computer actually makes it easier for your heater to keep the house warm, but this gain is mostly lost in the summer when it makes it harder for your AC to keep the house cool.

Of course, the other thing to consider is that, after all that overclocking, you're looking at a better performance picture for the 8320 than you would see @ stock, so there is that to consider.

If you're going to do any kind of overclocking that involves extra voltage, really, the FX chips do not belong in a thread about sub-$150 processors. Whatever you save buying the chip will be spent on board + cooling + PSU, and you'll spend more after that besides. Maybe not too much more, but still . . .

The i3, on the other hand, can't be overclocked at all. It's kind of boring, really.

I would not nominate any FX *or* any modern i3 for "best CPU under $150" because you have to pay too much to tame the FX at or near its limits and because the i3s are crushingly boring. Maybe that unlocked Pentium will be interesting, whenever that shows up. On the AMD side, Flank3r has made some good progress with BCLK-overclocking Kabini. The 132 mhz BCLK he achieved would push a 5350 into 2.7 ghz territory, which is so-so.

Then there's the A8-7600 which would be awesome if:
1). You could buy one
2). Anyone could reliably get BCLK higher than 105 mhz on a Kaveri chip.

I think there was one guy who had luck with an Extreme 4+ board going high on BCLK, and all he had to do was disable power-saving settings, but most folks have had no luck with it.

Oh yeah, the 760k probably belongs on the list. Too bad it's a Richland and not a Kaveri.

 

[Madpacket]

All of this talk about power consumption...

In reality, the amount of money spent on electricity for short spurts of 50-100% load throughout the day will not add up as much as long idle periods therefore idle power is generally more important when quantifying power usage over the life of a product.

This is why I like the trend towards the integration of components (newer Intel CPU's with decent IGP's, APU's and especially SOC's like Kabini) and look for motherboards (generally MSI) with lower idle power characteristics.

Getting idle power usage down to 40W or less today on a modern computer is not hard however it becomes harder when adding in stuff like inefficient video cards, Killer NIC's, dedicated sound cards, multiple 7200 RPM drives, improperly sized power supplies and unnecessary power hungry case fans etc.

A common observation is folks who oversize power supplies thinking they're being smart and safe by having loads of headroom where in reality they're just wasting money up front on the cost of the supply as well as long term consuming 10-20 watts idling.

A good balance of parts along with the proper configuration goes along way to reducing power consumption and heat/noise. Worrying about the differences in power consumption between AMD/Intel CPU's is just one variable but the other factors people often ignore may end up costing the consumer more money.

My 2 cents.

 

[schmuckley]

Best CPU for under $150, you ask?

That's an ES chip;They don't clock very well.Wrong stepping.
Better off with X5650.(retail) SLBV3

 

[ultimatebob]

X5650 go about $150 bucks these days, but I guess the X58 boards required and getting old.

I'll still be happy awhile, have had X58 in the main rig at least 5 years now.

This looks cool... how do I join this competition?

 

[schmuckley]

This looks cool... how do I join this competition?

Hmm..Balla is on this forum;Maybe ask him
or Durvelle27

 

[AtenRa]

This looks cool... how do I join this competition?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2345574&highlight=cinebench+r15

 

[DrMrLordX]

A good balance of parts along with the proper configuration goes along way to reducing power consumption and heat/noise. Worrying about the differences in power consumption between AMD/Intel CPU's is just one variable but the other factors people often ignore may end up costing the consumer more money.

Power consumption (potential or actual) and part selection go hand in hand. If you've got a CPU that *could* be power-hungry at load when overclocked, and if you plan to actually make it work, you want a PSU that sits at its peak efficiency when the system is fully loaded, which is usually at or around 50% of its rated capacity. Buying a PSU according to that metric can also go a long way towards preventing unwanted PSU failures (jonnyguru used to preach that like gospel, despite naysayers).

You also want a board that isn't going to burn out due to power delivery problem. There are a LOT of cheap boards out there for AMD processors that can not handle the punishment of an overvolted Vishera.

Sure, you can save some money if you focus on idle power, and this works out great with CPUs that have low idle power and very little swing between idle and load. You will probably not kill a PSU or board running Linpack on an i3 non-stop for an extended period of time. A hungrier processor could be a problem (again, especially if it's overclocked + overvolted).

 

[shady28]

All of this talk about power consumption...

In reality, the amount of money spent on electricity for short spurts of 50-100% load throughout the day will not add up as much as long idle periods therefore idle power is generally more important when quantifying power usage over the life of a product.

This is why I like the trend towards the integration of components (newer Intel CPU's with decent IGP's, APU's and especially SOC's like Kabini) and look for motherboards (generally MSI) with lower idle power characteristics.

Getting idle power usage down to 40W or less today on a modern computer is not hard however it becomes harder when adding in stuff like inefficient video cards, Killer NIC's, dedicated sound cards, multiple 7200 RPM drives, improperly sized power supplies and unnecessary power hungry case fans etc.

A common observation is folks who oversize power supplies thinking they're being smart and safe by having loads of headroom where in reality they're just wasting money up front on the cost of the supply as well as long term consuming 10-20 watts idling.

A good balance of parts along with the proper configuration goes along way to reducing power consumption and heat/noise. Worrying about the differences in power consumption between AMD/Intel CPU's is just one variable but the other factors people often ignore may end up costing the consumer more money.

My 2 cents.

In all reality power consumption differences will not add up to anything noticable at all.

Prior assumptions / case scenarios in this thread do not reflect reality for 99% of users. I myself use a computer constantly at work, but at home -

I get up at 6:30am, usually get home between 4:30 and 5PM. On a really intense "PC day" I spend ~1 hr with family, then maybe play some games and cruise forums like these from 6pm - 10:30. That's 4.5 hours.

All assumptions have been based on 12 hours/day usage, 365 days/yr, and ~4 hours of that being 100% load time. This would be an extremely intense usage case.

And with that, we get either $7 or $20 / year depending on whose numbers you believe.

Reality, based on my personal case (and I consider my use case to be far more intense than average, just ask my wife), is going to be way less than 1/3 of one of those numbers.

Why? Because for one even I don't spend 4.5 hrs/day in front of my *home* PC every day. I spend 8-10 in front of my work PC, at work. For another, the time I do spend in front of my home PC is probably more like 90% idle (like typing this post), and 10% at half load. Then there are days that I skip - sometimes I watch TV instead, or go to a move, or read a book.

Now we are down to $2 - $7 / year just based on # of hours. This will buy you a #1 Whopper combo on the outside. On the inside, you can maybe get a soda out of a vending machine.

If you are spending 12+ hours in front of your home PC 365 days a year, you have much larger problems than CPU power utilization.

There are those that might want to be power conscious. Businesses, those leaving their PC on all the time as a file server , HTPCs, etc.

However, those folks should be looking at Kabini or Bay Trail, not i7, i5, i3, or FX processors.

 

[piasabird]

I have an i3 4330 and it seems to work great for watching HULU and as a general use Internet Computer. I like the larger Cache (4 Meg) and the Intel HD 4600? Video. I run it completely stock with the Retail Cooler. I bought it on sale at X-mass.