Gamers: Do You Need More Than An Athlon II X3?

Interesting article from the hand of THG; a must-read in my opinion.

There are some people who might get the impression that we're being unfairly hard on the Athlon II X3 440 by pitting it against the Core i7-920. In fact, the opposite is true. We have tremendous confidence in the gaming abilities of AMD's Athlon II X3 440, and that's why we think it's up to this kind of challenge. It's all too easy to look at benchmark graphs and get caught up in the trends, but let me point something out to you: in every single game we benchmarked at 1920x1080, the Athlon II X3 440 was capable of a playable average frame rate in excess of 40 FPS. All of the games we tested were benchmarked at attractive and demanding visual settings, and all of them have a reputation for higher-end hardware requirements. But to those suggesting that there is never a need for a better gaming CPU than the Athlon II X3 440, the facts show that this is simply not true. It is very clear that the Core i7-920 sports notable gaming advantages in a number of scenarios.


Belgium richba5tard says:

Good article, but I don't completely follow their conclusion. There's just one specific game that says the X3 is inferior: World in Conflict. For all other games, the X3 seems to perform more than sufficiently. And IMHO it's silly to bundle an expensive crossfire setup with a budget processor. :)

TaPaKaH says:

Personally, I wouldn't trust THG because they can be easily "bought", but yes, you don't really need a quad for gaming.

Please log in or register to comment.