# [various] Intel Pentium G3258 (Anniversary Edition) Reviews



## Tennobanzai

Those temps seems great considering it's on the stock cooler.

I'd like to see gaming benchmarks.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

What was with that Sisoft Crypto score? I have no idea what it is, so I'm clueless why it was so far off.


----------



## fateswarm

Something purely multithreaded I'm sure.

Hrm.. no AVX2.0 on the Pentium

Could be that.

It is that apparently http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/?d=qa&f=cpu_sha_mb


----------



## Olivon

PCLab.pl made a good review too :

http://pclab.pl/art57691.html

*Translated*


----------



## AlphaC

PCLab's review is what I expect.

AutoCAD = single threaded ... 4.7GHz Pentium exceeds locked i5
CATIA = single threaded
Photoshop = single threaded in terms of layers only, but the Pentium @ 4.7GHz does not exceed i5
3dsmax = multithreaded

MS Word = single threaded

Adobe Premiere = interesting result, the Pentium @ 4.7GHz matches a FX-6300

Games: Starcraft 2 / Flight sim = singlethreaded it isn't even funny

Poor 7-zip / TrueCrypt scores are from lack of crypto linked features such as AVX

edit:
See also Hexus' review
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/70977-intel-pentium-anniversary-edition-g3258/?page=5


----------



## monstercameron

I know it is kinda pointless But I would love to see this unlocked pentium vs an oc'd athlon 5350.

Also another note, I always hear how an unlocked dual core would rule the world...


----------



## Deletive

This is Offically going to be my next CPU till broadwell.. coming from a Core 2 Quad it'll be a huge improvement


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monstercameron*
> 
> I know it is kinda pointless But I would love to see this unlocked pentium vs an oc'd athlon 5350.
> 
> Also another note, I always hear how an unlocked dual core would rule the world...


Because it's cheap and most games aren't multithreaded.


----------



## akromatic

i want to see what LN2 can do to it


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monstercameron*
> 
> I know it is kinda pointless But I would love to see this unlocked pentium vs an oc'd athlon 5350.
> 
> Also another note, I always hear how an unlocked dual core would rule the world...


I don't think you can OC Athlon 5350.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> 
> 
> *Reviews*
> 
> DigitalStorm
> Hexus (thanks to @AlphaC)
> PClab [PL] [Translated-EN] (thanks to @Olivon)
> Great price to performance from what I see so far, still waiting for other reviewers...


I'm not trying to be a dick







but how is the "Digitalstorm" article even a review? It has like 2 graph's. We should start limiting reviews linked to actual reviews from trusted sources like TPU, Guru and so on


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> I'm not trying to be a dick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but how is the "Digitalstorm" article even a review? It has like 2 graph's. We should start limiting reviews linked to actual reviews from trusted sources like TPU, Guru and so on


Not much is it? Complain to them


----------



## hollowtek

exactly what I'd expect! too bad microcenter pricing makes choosing this over the i3 4340 irrelevant.


----------



## jurezgez

I'd like to see gaming benchmarks.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jurezgez*
> 
> I'd like to see gaming benchmarks.


My epic benchmarks say it does well in single threaded games, so basically anything where the 8350 is outperformed by the i5s and i7s.

IMO for gaming this is better than any of the locked intels and probably better than any of the FX CPUs... Pair it with a ~$100 motherboard and you are set for a nice low power, low cost gaming rig.


----------



## hollowtek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jurezgez*
> 
> I'd like to see gaming benchmarks.


on the igpu? it obviously sucks. if you go this route, best option is to grab the a discreet gpu such as 750ti. I'm pretty sure it'll be just as good as an i3 4340 whenever it comes to gaming since most games are still optimized for 2 cores.


----------



## lolwatpear

would anyone upgrade from a 3rd gen i3 (3225) to this, or would it pretty much be a sidegrade (assuming I wouldn't lose much/any money if I sell the i3 and mobo)?


----------



## BinaryDemon

What kind of cooling did the pclabs use? I didn't spot it at a quick glance, and reading google's translation is painful. I know part of the appeal is the low price but I'd like to see a review that uses something better than stock cooling to see if there really is any potential here for > 4.5ghz.


----------



## BinaryDemon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolwatpear*
> 
> would anyone upgrade from a 3rd gen i3 (3225) to this, or would it pretty much be a sidegrade (assuming I wouldn't lose much/any money if I sell the i3 and mobo)?


Based on the reviews and if ~4.5ghz is near the chip's maximum potential, it doesnt look worth it. Stick with your i3, save for an i5.


----------



## akromatic

4.5ghz is for air though, water might give it abit more head room.

i want to see its gaming performance with a mid end GPU and LN2 OC


----------



## fateswarm

I'm eventually not impressed at all since it will tank anything multithreaded and there are some delicate nuanses that may tank it, e.g no AVX support at all (reason it fails on a cryptography benchmark). Couple it with the requirement of a +$100 for a Z97 and it's not even cost effective.

It might save it if I find a reliable solution with a hacked board on ~$40, e.g. an MSI.


----------



## rainmaker

Thinking about this guy for a FreeNAS build. Should be awesome for that price


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> I'm eventually not impressed at all since it will tank anything multithreaded and there are some delicate nuanses that may tank it, e.g no AVX support at all (reason it fails on a cryptography benchmark). Couple it with the requirement of a +$100 for a Z97 and it's not even cost effective.
> 
> It might save it if I find a reliable solution with a hacked board on ~$40, e.g. an MSI.


It's the fastest proc for running Starcraft 2 and similar games, short of an overclocked 4670k.










You might not want it, but there's a list of people waiting to buy a CPU that has decent singlethreaded performance, but costs less than i5 + a midrange z87/z97 board + a decent cooler. Intel doesn't have that option, nor does AMD.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *akromatic*
> 
> 4.5ghz is for air though, water might give it abit more head room.
> 
> i want to see its gaming performance with a mid end GPU and LN2 OC


They might be hitting the 'safe' limit for volts though. Some chips hit volt limit first, others will hit thermal wall. (My 8350 hits temperature wall far before volt)


----------



## Pandora51

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> I don't think you can OC Athlon 5350.


I read from very shy OC with some 100mhz. But its not very useful and with asrock boards it seems not even possible to undervolt the cpu.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> They might be hitting the 'safe' limit for volts though. Some chips hit volt limit first, others will hit thermal wall. (My 8350 hits temperature wall far before volt)


It looks easy to cool them to 1.3-1.4v, which is about where people will stop adding volts, ofc always some crazy people running 1.5


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> You might not want it, but there's a list of people


You might not think it true but I know that







.


----------



## Partol

Some older gamers, such as myself, play both new and old games.
I love to play games with well-made fan missions such as:
Thief 1/2 fan missions, Dark mod for original Doom 3 engine, various source engine mods/fan missions, Morrowind: Artwend mod, Oblivion: Nehrim mod, and this upcoming total conversion mod for Skyrim.

http://www.moddb.com/mods/enderal

Many older game engines are poorly multi-threaded. Some fan missions contain large cities with many NPC's.
One of my all-time favorite mods is Oblivion: Nehrim. There are some places in that mod where frame rate drops to high single digits in 3D with my first gen core i3.
Anyone who remembers playing the original Morrowind will recall how cities are almost empty of people.
Cities are mostly empty in Morrowind because frame rate would be too low on many PC's if numerous NPC's were added.

I want a cpu which will be able to play these wonderful fan missions at as high frame rate as possible and also be able to play new games too.

An overclocked G3258 will be excellent for playing these older games and should be able to play most new games too.
In a gaming cpu, it's more important to avoid a very low frame rate, than to achieve a very high frame rate, because low frame rates are very annoying and/or unplayable.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Yeah for less demanding games this is far better than anything AMD has. 10/10 would recommend this for $600-700 builds. Pair with a 750Ti or 660 and you have a sweet low power system.

I'd think it would do fine on the low end Z87/Z97 boards, judging by the power consumption they wouldn't have much trouble handling 4+GHz. And at that point you are already looking at multi threaded performance to rival the top i3s. Let alone single thread performance.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Yeah for less demanding games this is far better than anything AMD has. 10/10 would recommend this for $600-700 builds. Pair with a 750Ti or 660 and you have a sweet low power system.
> 
> I'd think it would do fine on the low end Z87/Z97 boards, judging by the power consumption they wouldn't have much trouble handling 4+GHz. And at that point you are already looking at multi threaded performance to rival the top i3s. Let alone single thread performance.


660 isn't low power.


----------



## Redwoodz

Great single-threaded performance. Great for Starcraft2 and Skyrim.If that's all you use your PC for then this is the CPU for you. Otherwise spending $15 to $40 more for a FX 4300 or i3 is a better option. Not very impressed.Unlocked i3 would have been much better.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Yeah for less demanding games this is far better than anything AMD has. 10/10 would recommend this for $600-700 builds. Pair with a 750Ti or 660 and you have a sweet low power system.
> 
> I'd think it would do fine on the low end Z87/Z97 boards, judging by the power consumption they wouldn't have much trouble handling 4+GHz. And at that point you are already looking at multi threaded performance to rival the top i3s. Let alone single thread performance.


The power consumption would be like even less than half that of i5 at a given voltage for a ton of 4 threaded loads, given the i5 has twice as many cores and extra instructions etc


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> 660 isn't low power.


660 at stock is 5 smx, 192 bit bus, 980mhz + gpu boost 1.0

780ti OC is 15 smx, 384 bit bus, 1300mhz should be achievable (so like 3x the power)

relatively, 660 is a pretty low power card. I mean power consumption is not particularly high, at what, like 120 watts? It shouldn't come close to the near-200 of OC'd 770 (which has wider memory bus, 60% more cudas etc) and even those cards are quite easy to keep at 60-70c at high clocks for them or run in an enclosed space


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> 660 isn't low power.


Definitely on the lower mid range. With the dual core it should run trouble free on a decent 400w PSU... That's pretty low power if you ask me.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Definitely on the lower mid range. With the dual core it should run trouble free on a decent 400w PSU... That's pretty low power if you ask me.


Any solid <350w could do that TBH. (I know nothing of that range though







)


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redwoodz*
> 
> Great single-threaded performance. Great for Starcraft2 and Skyrim.If that's all you use your PC for then this is the CPU for you. Otherwise spending $15 to $40 more for a FX 4300 or i3 is a better option. Not very impressed.Unlocked i3 would have been much better.


Yeah, that's my reasoning too. Also add the cost of Z97, unless you find an obscurely good way to hack a lowbie m/b like MSI does (or a used Z87). I had it in mind for a budget office pc but now I'm not sure, but I may still do it for the lols







if I first secure a low cost motherboard solution (I'd probably not do it if I had to resort to a Z97).


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Definitely on the lower mid range. With the dual core it should run trouble free on a decent 400w PSU... That's pretty low power if you ask me.


450w is kinda crazy

I mean, 750ti is comparable performance, maybe even better than 660 at OC? I'm not really sure of performance comparison numbers - yet we've had OCN members showing sub-100w power consumption on 750ti+i3 in certain games, when both are not loaded heavily simultaneously. There's suddenly more of a market for PSU's below 450w that are decent.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> 450w is kinda crazy
> 
> I mean, 750ti is comparable performance, maybe even better than 660 at OC? I'm not really sure of performance comparison numbers - yet we've had OCN members showing sub-100w power consumption on 750ti+i3 in certain games, when both are not loaded heavily simultaneously. There's suddenly more of a market for PSU's below 450w that are decent.


Do you know of any solid sub 400w units that are still pretty cheap? I need to get a few suggestions for lower end/weaker builds. I've got some friends that are looking to get into PC gaming.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Do you know of any solid sub 400w units that are still pretty cheap? I need to get a few suggestions for lower end/weaker builds. I've got some friends that are looking to get into PC gaming.


Not really, i bought 550w unit recently, but i don't think there's a ton of 200 watt 80+ gold units at $20.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Seasonic G series goes down to 450w I think. 80+ gold rated, build quality seems pretty damn solid too.
350w would probably still leave a good bit of headroom...
Look, TTL got a 780 ti running with a 4770k on an RM450, if that works, a dual core and 660 will easily go on a 350w.

I don't know if those B85 gaming boards still allow overclocking, but those would probably do quite fine...

Wait these aren't K-series are they >.> heh heh heh heh

I got my i5-4440 running at 3.3 on all cores on my H87-D3H, so I don't see why it won't go up to 50x with the G3258...
Just have to convince my dad to get one to mess around with, then I'll try to sell it off later, or just buy it from him. My own wallet is a bit tight ATM, but 70 bucks for a CPU is pretty cheap.

EDIT:

Here ya go, SS 360w G-series.


----------



## twerk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Do you know of any solid sub 400w units that are still pretty cheap? I need to get a few suggestions for lower end/weaker builds. I've got some friends that are looking to get into PC gaming.


You can still find the Seasonic G-360 around, though it's a tad expensive for a 360W unit.

Some other good cheap options are the Antec BP300P, EA-380D Green, VP350, VP350P (basically any low wattage Antec Delta unit), Seasonic SS-300ET/ES, SS-350ET and S12II 380B.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Don't think S12II is Haswell compatible.


----------



## twerk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Don't think S12II is Haswell compatible.


Not really a big deal. Just means you have to disable the new C6/C7 states.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *twerk*
> 
> Not really a big deal. Just means you have to disable the new C6/C7 states.


Ah ok.


----------



## Dynamo11

Seems like a decent upgrade for people like myself but are on a tighter budget. Considering games aren't multi core optimized anyway then there's no point wasting money on a 4690k when you'll get similar single threaded performance.


----------



## fateswarm

It might be best to go to a 4590 on a budget on general gaming, meaning you don't know what games will be needed.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Lol 4.5Ghz Pentium can't even beat a 3.5Ghz i3. Count me out.

Who has a spare i5 4570K lying around


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Lol 4.5Ghz Pentium can't even beat a 3.5Ghz i3. Count me out.
> 
> Who has a spare i5 4570K lying around


In all loads, nah. The ones that take advantage of HT, AVX and AVX2 for example. But many other loads gain nothing from those. It's definately a tradeoff, but you are guaranteed strong singlethreaded performance with the pentium


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> The ones that take advantage of HT, AVX and AVX2 for example. But many other loads


You make it sound as if 4 virtual threads is a luxury nowdays. It's a two threaded cpu that is a niche. People will be perfectly right if they tailor their special gaming needs to a pentium, nothing wrong about that, but don't imply that someone with a general gaming need may be ok.

We were talking about general gaming there, not a special confirmed need for few threads.

They will not be ok with it if they have abstract general needs. Better off with a cheap i5.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I'd dispute that...

The amount of games that are heavy on single thread performance is huge... And either way, on multi threaded loads it still does reasonably well, especially when you look at the competing price brackets of the FM2+ socket... Keep in mind that an i5 costs around as much as one of these and a motherboard to go with it.


----------



## hobgoblingobble

I wanted to upgrade my old E6300 anyway, keeping the following components:

Coolermaster COSMOS s case
Corsair 650 W bronze PSU
GTX 650 Ti

I have ordered the following:

G3258
ASUS Z97-A
H-60 liquid cooler
and won 8Gb Corsair platinum 2133 CL9 on EBAY for £60

Total cost of upgrade, which was planned anyway, has been £ 310

pretty good value for a gaming rig for WOT which is future proof, and if the CPU doesn't work I will wait for 5th generation........

oh and btw, i dont have a clue how to O/C so will leave it to ASUS Software


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I'd dispute that...
> 
> The amount of games that are heavy on single thread performance is huge... And either way, on multi threaded loads it still does reasonably well, especially when you look at the competing price brackets of the FM2+ socket... Keep in mind that an i5 costs around as much as one of these and a motherboard to go with it.


Yeah, OK. You are asked "for games" abstractly and you give a pentium. Then he runs a multithreaded game and you are wrong.

It'd suggest the i5-4590 to those people. It's the cheapest possible solution on heavy duty cores and high level features.

And they can run a crippled iGPU that is not completely bad if they are waiting for a dGPU.


----------



## hobgoblingobble

£140 for that i5, this one was £50, and that is a big difference to me.......


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Yeah, OK. You are asked "for games" abstractly and you give a pentium. Then he runs a multithreaded game and you are wrong.
> 
> It'd suggest the i5-4590 to those people. It's the cheapest possible solution on heavy duty cores and high level features.
> 
> And they can run a crippled iGPU that is not completely bad if they are waiting for a dGPU.


Price... ehem ehem


----------



## kifinas

I dont think G3258 supports 2133Mhz RAM..


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> 660 at stock is 5 smx, 192 bit bus, 980mhz + gpu boost 1.0
> 
> 780ti OC is 15 smx, 384 bit bus, 1300mhz should be achievable (so like 3x the power)
> 
> relatively, 660 is a pretty low power card. I mean power consumption is not particularly high, at what, like 120 watts? It shouldn't come close to the near-200 of OC'd 770 (which has wider memory bus, 60% more cudas etc) and even those cards are quite easy to keep at 60-70c at high clocks for them or run in an enclosed space


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Any solid <350w could do that TBH. (I know nothing of that range though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


That depends on number of hard disks, optical drives and other things. OC as well.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> That depends on number of hard disks, optical drives and other things. OC as well.


HDD and peripherals don't really matter. All of that stuff runs off a different rail. Quality PSUs are rated for 12v (450W Rosewill has 444W on the 12V rail). HDDs/fans run off 5V IIRC. You can basically run any single GPU + CPU combo on a quality 450-550W with water cooling + OC.


----------



## Rezard

Quite possibly the last great dual-core processor we'll ever see. Gonna get me one some day.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> HDD and peripherals don't really matter. All of that stuff runs off a different rail. Quality PSUs are rated for 12v (450W Rosewill has 444W on the 12V rail). HDDs/fans run off 5V IIRC. You can basically run any single GPU + CPU combo on a quality 450-550W with water cooling + OC.


Actually, desktop drives does use the 12V rail. But it uses so little power compared to the CPU that you can ignore it.


----------



## JSTe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kifinas*
> 
> I dont think G3258 supports 2133Mhz RAM..


Support does not mean "Will only run at maximum of: x"

It depends on the motherboard and MC how far you can push it. My Ivy Pentium does 2133 without any problems. It would probably go even higher, but I haven't tried.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Actually, desktop drives does use the 12V rail. But it uses so little power compared to the CPU that you can ignore it.


Ah. All I know is that my drives have been measured to use a max of 8W. Fans use something similar to that as well... Either way, they do use too little power to worry about them.


----------



## ladcrooks

mmmmm! Am I missing something here ? Are games moving on to more cores/threads?

Seems a backward approach, Intel trying to get rid of old stock


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Price... ehem ehem


If you want to be serious about pricing discussions, tell them to not ignore the fact Z97 or Z87 is more expensive. Unless you violate Intel's rules with MSI's hacks. That's an option.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

More threads doesn't need more cores... As long as you are not running 50+ threads per core you will not be running into problems with the time it takes to switch threads.

The performance on haswell cores is so good that two cores is good enough to run most games at 60 FPS... OK if you are going to make a CPU bottleneck by running a 780 and turning down all the settings you will see that many CPUs outperform it on well threaded games. But keep in mind that these are $75 parts, not $200 i5s...


----------



## Imglidinhere

Wow...

Not a big fan of the rather overrated BF4 game, but *this* speaks leagues about how much more advanced Intel is than AMD. I'm sorry, AMD, but I can't give you credit for making budget processors anymore...









A PENTIUM branded dual core clocked at the same frequency as the FX-4300 still favors the PENTIUM dual core, in a game that takes a liking to CPUs with more cores/threads. This is their LOWEST possible branding aside from Celerons and the like. That's sad AMD. That's really really REALLY sad.


----------



## Horsemama1956

Shame they're worried about losing i5 sales, as this would have been amazing with hyper threading. For $70 it's ok, but you would probably get mor out of an overclocked Athlon X4 for 10 bucks more.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imglidinhere*
> 
> Wow...
> 
> Not a big fan of the rather overrated BF4 game, but *this* speaks leagues about how much more advanced Intel is than AMD. I'm sorry, AMD, but I can't give you credit for making budget processors anymore...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A PENTIUM branded dual core clocked at the same frequency as the FX-4300 still favors the PENTIUM dual core, in a game that takes a liking to CPUs with more cores/threads. This is their LOWEST possible branding aside from Celerons and the like. That's sad AMD. That's really really REALLY sad.


Multi benchmarks are awful because you can never get the same results. Who knows how things went in each benchmark.


----------



## ladcrooks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> More threads doesn't need more cores... As long as you are not running 50+ threads per core you will not be running into problems with the time it takes to switch threads.
> 
> The performance on haswell cores is so good *that two cores is good enough to run most games at 60 FPS*... OK if you are going to make a CPU bottleneck by running a 780 and turning down all the settings you will see that many CPUs outperform it on well threaded games. But keep in mind that these are $75 parts, not $200 i5s...


Exactly! Most games but not all!

So tomorrows games ?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Horsemama1956*
> 
> Shame they're worried about losing i5 sales, as this would have been amazing with hyper threading. For $70 it's ok, but you would probably get mor out of an overclocked Athlon X4 for 10 bucks more.
> Multi benchmarks are awful because you can never get the same results. Who knows how things went in each benchmark.


Setting up a rig with one of these is around the same as a 750k, but you get the same multi-thread performance and double the single thread performance... Give me one of these any day of the week...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ladcrooks*
> 
> Exactly! Most games but not all!
> 
> So tomorrows games ?


As I said above, the multi threaded performance is around the same as a 750k/FX4350...


----------



## fateswarm

If you are a general computer enthusiast, you are going to hate this cpu on your personal machine. I guarantee it. If you research it and you realize it's adequate for a special need, fine, but don't assume this isn't going to be extremely annoying for anything as simple as opening multiple chrome tabs in the morning, to not go to anything more taxing like software requiring advanced instruction sets.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Ok, I'm going to buy one when the local shop get's stock... Testing with my 760 in my brother's rig. I'll see if he notices a difference.

Fingers crossed that it can be overclocked on the H87 board.


----------



## meowth2

really good price though


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meowth2*
> 
> what socket is this? 775?


1150


----------



## meowth2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> 1150


just found out, thanks


----------



## ladcrooks

wouldn't invest in near yesterdays tech. if you have some spares lingering around a cheap part fits the bill then ok


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Well I have a full build with a different CPU...

$75 is not too much money, and either way I'll probably end up selling it after I'm done benching.


----------



## Majentrix

Are the days of 5GHz on air finally back?


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majentrix*
> 
> Are the days of 5GHz on air finally back?


The highest I've seen one clock so far is 4.7. I haven't seen one go higher and it hasn't been due to thermals.


----------



## Majentrix

Was that using the garbage stock cooler? Every review I can find uses the packaged one, and I think we're all extremely interested in what clocks this Pentium can get when properly cooled.


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majentrix*
> 
> Was that using the garbage stock cooler? Every review I can find uses the packaged one, and I think we're all extremely interested in what clocks this Pentium can get when properly cooled.


Yeah it was using the garbage stock cooler at 4.5/4.7 its in the low 80s so probablynyou could get it in the sixties when you have proper cooler maybe even lower with a h100 and some good thermal paste.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Yeah, OK. You are asked "for games" abstractly and you give a pentium. Then he runs a multithreaded game and you are wrong.
> 
> It'd suggest the i5-4590 to those people. It's the cheapest possible solution on heavy duty cores and high level features.
> 
> And they can run a crippled iGPU that is not completely bad if they are waiting for a dGPU.


Seeing how games will be optimized for 8 Jaguar cores I don't think this is really so bad when slightly OC'ed this one's multi threaded performance will be a lot better than 8 Jaguar cores.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majentrix*
> 
> Was that using the garbage stock cooler? Every review I can find uses the packaged one, and I think we're all extremely interested in what clocks this Pentium can get when properly cooled.


Someone got a little over 6 GHz with after market cooler.


----------



## Majentrix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Someone got over a little over 6 GHz with after market cooler.


Got a link to that?


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Seeing how games will be optimized for 8 Jaguar cores I don't think this is really so bad when slightly OC'ed this one's multi threaded performance will be a lot better than 8 Jaguar cores.
> Someone got a little over 6 GHz with after market cooler.


I would crap purple Twinkies of that was prime and video game stable.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

http://hwbot.org/submission/2502430_battlecryawesome_cpu_frequency_core_i7_4770k_5287.38_mhz
http://hwbot.org/submission/2238751_jouathen_cpu_frequency_core_i7_2600k_5766.01_mhz


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majentrix*
> 
> Got a link to that?


Here you go

http://www.overclock.net/t/1493903/fb-g3258-overclocked-to-4-5ghz-with-cinebench-score-matching-stock-7850k/180#post_22389921


----------



## Themisseble

Heh, kinda dont believe them... i mean i7 4770K with 2 cores at 5.0Ghz just sucks. Athlon x4 750K is much better choice and it will destroy that pentium (4.7Ghz) at multitasking.

Dx12 is comming ... I dont think that pentium 4.7Ghz will defeat athlon x4 3.0Ghz in Bf4 MP (64 maps) using mantle.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Heh, kinda dont believe them... i mean i7 4770K with 2 cores at 5.0Ghz just sucks.


lol

Not really. Haswell @5ghz, 2 core 4 thread is ridiculously powerful.

I mean in multi-threaded performance alone, that's around as fast as an i7 950 at stock for video encoding - half as many cores - frequency and IPC advantages make up for it - but in lower than 8 threaded loads, everything gets wrecked so hard that it goes from funny to sad and then back to funny again


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> lol
> 
> Not really. Haswell @5ghz, 2 core 4 thread is ridiculously powerful.
> 
> I mean in multi-threaded performance alone, that's around as fast as an i7 950 at stock for video encoding - half as many cores - frequency and IPC advantages make up for it - but in lower than 8 threaded loads, everything gets wrecked so hard that it goes from funny to sad and then back to funny again


I was talking about 2C/2T
yeah i3 at 5.0ghz is powerfull so it is FX 4300 at 5.0Ghz..


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I was talking about 2C/2T
> yeah i3 at 5.0ghz is powerfull so it is FX 4300 at 5.0Ghz..


Nah the i3s beat the 2 module BDs by around 10-20% for equal clock rates. Even in multi threaded applications.

The pentium might fall behind in some very heavily threaded applications, but in most practical cases the G3258 is by far the best gaming CPU for under $200 (when paired with motherboard)


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Nah the i3s beat the 2 module BDs by around 10-20% for equal clock rates. Even in multi threaded applications.
> 
> The pentium might fall behind in some very heavily threaded applications, but in most practical cases the G3258 is by far the best gaming CPU for under $200 (when paired with motherboard)


Your wrong... when game engine is based for MT or le tmes 8 cores FX 4300 becomes extremely powerful against i3 4***... But pentium G3258 4.5Ghz wont be able to run BF4 MP 64 maps at steady 30 fps...


----------



## NuclearPeace

According to this,

http://www.overclock.net/t/1493307/lightbox/post/22353892/id/2038917

the only 2 module CPU that even comes close to the i3-4150 in a workload that has four threads is the 7850k. The i3 43XX CPUs, which come with one more megabyte of L3$ and higher clock rates are going to pull further away from the 7850k/760k/4300.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Your wrong... when game engine is based for MT or le tmes 8 cores FX 4300 becomes extremely powerful against i3 4***... But pentium G3258 4.5Ghz wont be able to run BF4 MP 64 maps at steady 30 fps...


The pentium, clock for clock, beats the FX Piledriver 4-thread CPU's in bf4 MP with either nvidia GPU + directx or AMD GPU + mantle, according to two reviews i saw. One of them is in the OP - and bf4 is one of the most threaded games out there.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> The pentium, clock for clock, beats the FX Piledriver 4-thread CPU's in bf4 MP with either nvidia GPU + directx or AMD GPU + mantle, according to two reviews i saw. One of them is in the OP - and bf4 is one of the most threaded games out there.


No it is not true.... Athlon x4 3.5Ghz will beat pentium at 4.5Ghz in BF4 MP using mantle


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Your wrong... when game engine is based for MT or le tmes 8 cores FX 4300 becomes extremely powerful against i3 4***... But pentium G3258 4.5Ghz wont be able to run BF4 MP 64 maps at steady 30 fps...


If you have two threads you can run them just as fast on a single core, providing that that core is twice as powerful, which is what Haswell is. Each haswell core is twice as powerful on a single thread as a BD core. Due to the insignificantly small time it takes to switch between two threads, that sole fact will allow a Haswell CPU with half the core count of a BD CPU to be roughly equal clock for clock.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> No it is not true. Athlon x4 3.5Ghz will beat pentium at 4.5Ghz in BF4 MP using mantle


Numbers man, they are stacked against you...

Just wait for mdocod to arrive with his big brainzzzz

Either way, I invite you to prove me otherwise. I'll be getting myself one of these pentiums around the end of the month, so if you have an AMD to compete with it, I'll be happy to 1v1 u


----------



## darealist

Lol the Hexus review is half baked to the max. iGPU-only... really? Thank goodness there are other reviews out there.


----------



## fateswarm

The way I understand it this cpu is fine to run for the lols, provided the motherboard does not raise the price to levels that make it worse than equivalent solutions. So, the real question is what motherboard to use.

It most probably needs very low current capacity, so the number of total phases and the mosfets/chokes ability will likely not matter at all. But it might be a benefit to have 4 digital phases at least.

Hrm, it seems one has to resort to analog controllers since the ones with digital are unlikely to be economical in the comparison. So this goes straight to the worst Z97 or the MSI hacks.

It will probably be fine with any board that isn't totally abysmal, so it might be best to research what is unlocked. And what is unlocked on non-Z97 that isn't buggy/Intel will stop it/etc.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Yeah that's one thing I wanted to figure out when I got my hands on one. I have a H87-D3H, which has a 4 phase AFAIK digital (I haven't checked) but it seems to be the same VReg as many other lower end GB boards (including some Z97 ones)

Also, interestingly, intel says it should work on the board, while GB doesn't list it.

I sent in a support ticket a few days back but no reply.


----------



## fateswarm

If all else fails we might have to go to Z87 or used Z87 if accessible. Though the MSI BIOS hacks on other chipsets might be a sweet spot. But are the BIOSes reliable and accessible?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I'm pretty sure the BIOSes with the hacks for all the vendors are available somewhere.

TPU just got an unlocked BIOS for a couple of MSI H97 boards.


----------



## fateswarm

That might be the best route for this. No way this makes a good decision with a high end Z97/Z87 unless it's a super ebay deal. I'd rather buy an i3 or better in that case.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Well I doubt it would have trouble running on the $100 Z97 boards, even at 4.5GHz


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> If you have two threads you can run them just as fast on a single core, providing that that core is twice as powerful, which is what Haswell is. Each haswell core is twice as powerful on a single thread as a BD core. Due to the insignificantly small time it takes to switch between two threads, that sole fact will allow a Haswell CPU with half the core count of a BD CPU to be roughly equal clock for clock.
> Numbers man, they are stacked against you...
> 
> Just wait for mdocod to arrive with his big brainzzzz
> 
> Either way, I invite you to prove me otherwise. I'll be getting myself one of these pentiums around the end of the month, so if you have an AMD to compete with it, I'll be happy to 1v1 u


Numbers are stack against me... i have i7 and i have FX.. i know the truth.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Well I doubt it would have trouble running on the $100 Z97 boards, even at 4.5GHz


Yeah I meant I'd rather have something on €45 than €100. Something with a hacked BIOS on an old chipset or a used one. It's not a devastating price, but the principle, if it's going to reach near 200 total, I'd rather get an i3, maybe, or it won't be as much a 'success'.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Yeah I meant I'd rather have something on €45 than €100. Something with a hacked BIOS on an old chipset or a used one. It's not a devastating price, but the principle, if it's going to reach near 200 total, I'd rather get an i3, maybe, or it won't be as much a 'success'.


Yeah but IMO the thing that you have to ask is how does it stack up against AMDs offerings?

I wouldn't feel comfortable with a 4.5GHz 750k on a cheap board, much less so than putting one of these on a cheap board...


----------



## vidal

I think this CPU with a Z97 mobo have a nice config. you can Run that little devil for a long time when u get tired. you can get a (5770k) 5670k. you can't change anything just swap your damn cpu.
I have started on my machine with an i3 3225 (hd4000) / 3470 running 4.0ghz / 3770k 4.6ghz. buy and sell.

maybe i get this cpu and a z97-itx mobo. will be nice 189 dollar the badass coller will have more value than the cpu and mb.
lol


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Silverstone RVZ01 with a H55 and one of these...

Only thing is those ITX boards are quite pricey


----------



## Redwoodz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Yeah but IMO the thing that you have to ask is how does it stack up against AMDs offerings?
> 
> I wouldn't feel comfortable with a 4.5GHz 750k on a cheap board, much less so than putting one of these on a cheap board...


750K overclocked to the max will still only draw 100w or so,not much needed for that. $80-90 board but you get much more features than a similarly priced Intel board.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> No it is not true. Athlon x4 3.5Ghz will beat pentium at 4.5Ghz in BF4 MP using mantle




Deal with it.


----------



## ivanlabrie

AMD might offer better value overall, but talking overclock fun, I'd 1000% get the Pentium. Plus it was my first first cpu, feels good having a Pentium that can overclock again







(miss me 478 rig snif)


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Numbers are stack against me... i have i7 and i have FX.. i know the truth.


You can upgrade this to an i5, i7 in a year or 2 and you'll be set for the years to come. More features on the motherboard too, hell I'd never buy some old 2011 Socket for the fx anyways. it's pretty much a 2009 chipset tweaked (am3) and i'm sure most people would agree. This processor gives simple/better performance to a quad core amd. Fx6300 is the lowest Fx processor that people really care about. and the Pentium overclocked is on par ~5-10% of it. and a lot less wattage, sure you can overclock it but. at 4.7ghz 80 watts is still a lower than 95-125 watts of a stock 6300.

The truth is amd doesn't have much going for it. Fm2+ is dead in 2015 unless carrizo is something special it's not worth even moving to. Am3+ is already dead. This Pentium has upgrade paths, and good performance per dollar.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deletive*
> 
> You can upgrade this to an i5, i7 in a year or 2 and you'll be set for the years to come. More features on the motherboard too, hell I'd never buy some old 2011 Socket for the fx anyways. it's pretty much a 2009 chipset tweaked (am3) and i'm sure most people would agree. This processor gives simple/better performance to a quad core amd. Fx6300 is the lowest Fx processor that people really care about. and the Pentium overclocked is on par ~5-10% of it. and a lot less wattage, sure you can overclock it but. at 4.7ghz 80 watts is still a lower than 95-125 watts of a stock 6300.
> 
> The truth is amd doesn't have much going for it. Fm2+ is dead in 2015 unless carrizo is something special it's not worth even moving to. Am3+ is already dead. This Pentium has upgrade paths, and good performance per dollar.


Sniff


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Numbers are stack against me... i have i7 and i have FX.. i know the truth.


And the truth is the i7 decimates the FX.

I think I can complete a an hour video rendering run in about half the time you can with your FX.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> And the truth is the i7 decimates the FX.
> 
> I think I can complete a an hour video rendering run in about half the time you can with your FX.


LoL... if we use pov-ray FX 8350 will smash your i7 4770...


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I smell extreme fanboyism kicking in...


----------



## alancsalt

Rude/disrespectful answers to rude disrespectful posts are not permitted. Do not respond, just report.
Cleaned the last few pages.

Any more of that and expect warnings/infractions as appropriate. Keep it civil. Keep on topic.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

May I quote myself again
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Numbers man, they are stacked against you...


I think it has been made clear enough in more than enough different threads that for gaming Haswell is far better than FX... Sure, there are artificial benchmarks that would say otherwise, but those are hardly representative of typical gaming workloads.


----------



## Clocknut

LOL, i3 are still equal performance against OCed Pentium.









I guess there is quad core i7 with HT has performance that hasnt unlocked yet due to games are not doing well on 8 thread.









time to search for a used i7-3770K to upgrade from i5-2400.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> LoL... if we use pov-ray FX 8350 will smash your i7 4770...




I have 4930K but 4770K is still faster than FX 8350.


----------



## fateswarm

AMD fans trying to beat the Intel high end. It's like watching Leonidas at Thermopylae.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ivanlabrie*
> 
> AMD might offer better value overall, but talking overclock fun, I'd 1000% get the Pentium. Plus it was my first first cpu, feels good having a Pentium that can overclock again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (*miss me 478 rig snif*)


Yup, main reason I want one... P4 2.53ghz (used rambus pc800 for it!) then a p4 2.8E prescott then a 3.4c northwood, all s478.. good times. Until I turned to the A64 and was blown away








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> AMD fans trying to beat the Intel high end. It's like watching Leonidas at Thermopylae.


And respectfully, that's fine by me. As I understand it they did put up quite a fight (if history is correct), but much like that timeframe, Intel's R&D department outnumbers and out budgets AMD by an amount where they have no other choice then to do what they can in the meantime.

FX is not the ideal gaming platform, but does very well overall and in certain workloads does extremely well considering it's price point. However, much the pentium at discussion here, it does well at what it does regardless of it's drawbacks and I'd happily pair a 290x/780ti to this pentium if I was mostly into recent single player games.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> LoL... if we use pov-ray FX 8350 will smash your i7 4770...


Stop - seriously. I've probably got more FX badges slapped on a post then any one here but you are just out of place with your incorrect statements on how an 8350 performs.


----------



## Ctekcop

When are other reviews supposed to come out ?


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> 
> 
> Deal with it.


Do seriously people still quote pclab.pl? Even tom's is more credible.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ctekcop*
> 
> When are other reviews supposed to come out ?


Few days before June 20 I guess.

Comparing FX 8350 and i3 4770K is not fair. One is from a tweaked architecture from 2011 another is from 2013.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Comparing FX 8350 and i3 4770K is not fair. One is from a tweaked architecture from 2011 another is from 2013.


People compare the mainstream cpu's, 8320 and 4670k are the budget/competing options but intel has better processors at higher price points, AMD does not really


----------



## jsc1973

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Comparing FX 8350 and i3 4770K is not fair. One is from a tweaked architecture from 2011 another is from 2013.


AMD still sells it as a current part and positions it in the mid-range segment, so comparing it to comparable Intel chips is totally fair, regardless of how long it's been out. It's not fair to compare it to a 4770K, since that's in a different market segment/price point, but it is fair to compare the FX-8350 to a 4670K. And they're really both 2011 tweaked architectures, anyway. Ivy Bridge and Haswell are nothing but die-shrunk and tweaked Sandys.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ivanlabrie*
> 
> AMD might offer better value overall, but talking overclock fun, I'd 1000% get the Pentium. Plus it was my first first cpu, feels good having a Pentium that can overclock again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (miss me 478 rig snif)


I'd personally find the AMD funner to OC, it's got more than multi OCing in that the bclk adjustments aren't limited.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Comparing FX 8350 and i3 4770K is not fair. One is from a tweaked architecture from 2011 another is from 2013.


There's barely any reason to consider the FX series at all these days, bar the FX-6300 or if you know you'll be able to use an FX 8 core well. They never really made sense to compare against the i7 as a product either...You got the rare victory and occasional tie but for the most part the FXs were either behind the i5 or between the i5 and i7.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

IMO the biggest problem of the 8 core FX CPUs is the difficulty and cost to implement them. To get the most out of the OC headroom on those chips you need quite a good motherboard and cooler. On top of that an extra 100 or so watts on your PSU.

With Haswell pushing a chip to its air cooled limits can be done with relative ease on the cheaper Z87/Z97 boards, the ones that fall under the $120 price bracket. And a Hyper 212 EVO is enough to cool them in most cases.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> People compare the mainstream cpu's, 8320 and 4670k are the budget/competing options but intel has better processors at higher price points, AMD does not really


AMD hasn't released a desktop high performance processor in almost two years now... And no, FX9xxx parts don't count. They're just higher clocked FX83xxs.


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monstercameron*
> 
> I know it is kinda pointless But I would love to see this unlocked pentium vs an oc'd athlon 5350.


In case anyone wonders, and to change the topic back to this Pentium (I hate all the bickering about FX and i5), I do have some CPU scores with an overclocked Athlon 5350 to compare against the Pentium G3258, so I'll post them along with Hexus ones.


Spoiler: PiFast



Pentium:


Athlon 5350:






Spoiler: Cinebench R15



Pentium:


Athlon 5350:






Spoiler: wPrime



Pentium:


Athlon 5350:


Only 20s away!










I could push it up to 2.7GHz but I don't like the temps I get on that stock cooler. Why are there still no aftermarket coolers?!









Anyway, this Pentium is pretty impressive for it's price point, I'm seriously considering picking one up just to see how far can I overclock it. Last time I've been overclocking a Pentium was way back in 2002 (still got that old Coppermine) so nostalgia hits me every time I see an article about G3258. It'll likely cost an arm and a leg here though, I hate local prices, but the used market is awesome cause these will be there within a few days after launch being sold by guys like me who only want to overclock it for science and pass it to the next guy.


----------



## Artikbot

I'm more interested in other things, like its media capabilities. I know it's not really the scope of an overclockable Pentium, but parts in its price range do offer them as well.

CPU wise, we already know it performs rather nicely. Despite being a dual core.


----------



## fateswarm

It's very relevant because the cpu might be a good idea for an office pc on office software. I'm considering it seriously for one if I manage to get a motherboard that isn't making the price nonsensical. With a mid-end air cooler, I believe it might be formitable unless I figure a common need it tanks at.

Say you open a multithreaded browser on heavy websites. Will it be slower?


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm* 21814]
> 
> I
> 
> Say you open a multithreaded browser on heavy websites. Will it be slower?


Doubt it. Especially with even a mild oc to 4ghz it would power through anything like that without issue.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> It's very relevant because the cpu might be a good idea for an office pc on office software. I'm considering it seriously for one if I manage to get a motherboard that isn't making the price nonsensical. With a mid-end air cooler, I believe it might be formitable unless I figure a common need it tanks at.
> 
> Say you open a multithreaded browser on heavy websites. Will it be slower?


Why would you invest in such a solution when you can just grab an i3 which has all the extensions (which means it will often match or surpass the o/c pentium in ST workloads) and can barely be matched by a heavily o/c pentum in MT workloads? A basic cheap pentium may be a nice placeholder untl you get an i5 or i7 later on, the unlocked one is just a toy,or so it seems to me.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Why would you invest in such a solution when you can just grab an i3 which has all the extensions (which means it will often match or surpass the o/c pentium in ST workloads) and can barely be matched by a heavily o/c pentum in MT workloads? A basic cheap pentium may be a nice placeholder untl you get an i5 or i7 later on, the unlocked one is just a toy,or so it seems to me.


Can't argue with this really. I honestly think it's more about the fun factor over anything. Plus, it has its own music video!

It's all about the Pentiums!


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Can't argue with this really. I honestly think it's more about the fun factor over anything. Plus, it has its own music video!
> 
> It's all about the Pentiums!


Yeah,and I can't argue with the o/c "fun factor" either. I mean, this is o/c net,I too get an urge to grab one of those and play


----------



## pyra

I think i missed something, sorry... What is this MSI mobo hack you keep talking about?


----------



## Collins00

who doesn't want a 4.4ghz pentium? I need to find an excuse to buy one just to be able to stick one of these
on the case







budget steam machine for less demanding titles possibly.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pyra*
> 
> I think i missed something, sorry... What is this MSI mobo hack you keep talking about?


MSI did published pics with overclocked 4790K and Pentium K on B85 and H97 mobos.

http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/msi_h97_h87_and_b85_will_all_get_devils_canyon_support.html


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pyra*
> 
> I think i missed something, sorry... What is this MSI mobo hack you keep talking about?


Some non-Z series motherboards (not just MSi) have had BIOSes which allow overclocking for K-series CPUs, as not intended by intel. Basically you could get yourself a $60 board and go to town with a 4670k... Now that the unlocked CPUs are in the lower price brackets intel is possibly losing more due to H87/B85 etc boards allowing overclocking.


----------



## pyra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pyra*
> 
> I think i missed something, sorry... What is this MSI mobo hack you keep talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> Some non-Z series motherboards (not just MSi) have had BIOSes which allow overclocking for K-series CPUs, as not intended by intel. Basically you could get yourself a $60 board and go to town with a 4670k... Now that the unlocked CPUs are in the lower price brackets intel is possibly losing more due to H87/B85 etc boards allowing overclocking.
Click to expand...

nice! are there certain boards that can definitely be hacked or is more a luck of the draw thing?

very much interested in this CPU if I can get a mobo cheap enough


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Each manufacturer seemed to have a long list of the ones that these BIOSes affected, but I don't know where to find these.

I intend to get one of these Pentiums to bench and play around with on a Gigabyte H87-D3H I have in my brother's build.


----------



## MeanBruce

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Can't argue with this really. I honestly think it's more about the fun factor over anything. Plus, it has its own music video!
> 
> It's all about the Pentiums!


I love that Pentium video.

"What kinda chip you got in there, a Dorito?"









pyra's avatar is going to give me nightmares tonight, I just know it.

Keeping a weapon loaded, waiting on the devil bunny.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Collins00*
> 
> who doesn't want a 4.4ghz pentium? I need to find an excuse to buy one just to be able to stick one of these
> on the case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> budget steam machine for less demanding titles possibly.


why would anyone buy pentium for gaming? Every new game is more demanding also they will split CPU render to more and more threads....
i7 4770K is really good, but when you try to run frostbite 3 on max settings...
Frostbite 4 is coming also Cry engine 4 is coming... games will support game engine with great physics?

who will need dual core in 2015? 2016? ... blah, you will be replacing your pentium with i7 soon.

BF3 utilize 3 threads (no difference between FX 4300 and FX 6300)
BF4 utilize 4 threads DX11 (not big difference between FX 6300 and Fx 4300)
BF4 utilize more than 6 treads when you use mantle (huge difference between Fx 4300 and FX 6300)

If we look at next gen of game engines... we will need more Vram, more cores (better to have 4 slower cores than 2 fast cores).


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> IMO the biggest problem of the 8 core FX CPUs is the difficulty and cost to implement them. To get the most out of the OC headroom on those chips you need quite a good motherboard and cooler. On top of that an extra 100 or so watts on your PSU.
> 
> With Haswell pushing a chip to its air cooled limits can be done with relative ease on the cheaper Z87/Z97 boards, the ones that fall under the $120 price bracket. And a Hyper 212 EVO is enough to cool them in most cases.


Eh, hardly. I've ran an FX gaming rig on a 500w PSU (HD7950, too) and so long as you stick with the $150+ Gigabyte and ASUS boards you're fine. You can get away with a cheap Intel board but as someone who did that, it's way better to just pay the extra for a better board...It's worth it even if you don't get insanely different OCs.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> It's very relevant because the cpu might be a good idea for an office pc on office software. I'm considering it seriously for one if I manage to get a motherboard that isn't making the price nonsensical. With a mid-end air cooler, I believe it might be formitable unless I figure a common need it tanks at.
> 
> Say you open a *multithreaded browser on heavy websites*. Will it be slower?


My Core2 Duo doesn't have a problem with 30 or so tabs in FireFox or Chrome. I don't think this will have any problem with that many tabs.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> why would anyone buy pentium for gaming? Every new game is more demanding also they will split CPU render to more and more threads....
> i7 4770K is really good, but when you try to run frostbite 3 on max settings...
> Frostbite 4 is coming also Cry engine 4 is coming... games will support game engine with great physics?
> 
> who will need dual core in 2015? 2016? ... blah, you will be replacing your pentium with i7 soon.
> 
> BF3 utilize 3 threads (no difference between FX 4300 and FX 6300)
> BF4 utilize 4 threads DX11 (not big difference between FX 6300 and Fx 4300)
> BF4 utilize more than 6 treads when you use mantle (huge difference between Fx 4300 and FX 6300)
> 
> If we look at next gen of game engines... we will need more Vram, more cores (better to have 4 slower cores than 2 fast cores).


Keep in mind those engines have to work on 8 weak Jaguar cores in PS4 and XB1 so they may not really need that many desktop cores.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Keep in mind those engines have to work on 8 weak Jaguar cores in PS4 and XB1 so they may not really need that many desktop cores.


8 threads is not considered heavy threading. The time it takes to switch between them is minimal until you are dealing with ~10 threads per core. This will outperform a 2 module FX CPU at similar clock speeds in both single and multithreaded workloads.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> 8 threads is not considered heavy threading. The time it takes to switch between them is minimal until you are dealing with ~10 threads per core. *This* will outperform a 2 module FX CPU at similar clock speeds in both single and multithreaded workloads.


You mean the Pentium or the Jaguar cores?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> You mean the Pentium or the Jaguar cores?


Pentium


----------



## Clocknut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Keep in mind those engines have to work on 8 weak Jaguar cores in PS4 and XB1 so they may not really need that many desktop cores.


I think PS4/XB1 only allow 6 cores for games, the other 2 cores are system reserve for OS.

even then being i7 might make a massive diff vs i5 later, all due to capable to run 8 threads at 1 time.


----------



## Levelog

This makes me very tempted to hold onto the MSI Z87-G41 I'm trying to sell. Throw this on it with my old 212 EVO, and pick up a 750ti. Would make a nice little backup rig/one for playing older games.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Yeah might as well try it out before you commit to selling it... Although there is a good chance you might not be able to run the new CPU on the older chipset.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pyra*
> 
> nice! are there certain boards that can definitely be hacked or is more a luck of the draw thing?
> 
> very much interested in this CPU if I can get a mobo cheap enough


Actually with the new DC processors MSi said this.......

https://www.facebook.com/MSINBCanada/posts/800939179938666
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MSi Canada*
> Did you know that ‪#‎MSI‬ H97, H87 and B85 motherboards could also OC the new Devils Canyon Intel CPU's? Overclocking is no longer limited to Z97!


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Yeah might as well try it out before you commit to selling it... Although there is a good chance you might not be able to run the new CPU on the older chipset.


No, this Pentium will run on Z87. Intel announced it will be compatible with 8 and 9 series chipset.


----------



## Levelog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Yeah might as well try it out before you commit to selling it... Although there is a good chance you might not be able to run the new CPU on the older chipset.


Should be no problem with a Z87 board. At worst I'll have to update the bios for DC


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levelog*
> 
> Should be no problem with a Z87 board. At worst I'll have to update the bios for DC


This is not DC.


----------



## Levelog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> This is not DC.


Yeah. Don't know why I said that. My point still stands, though


----------



## Levelog

Also, is there any confirmation that these will require a bios update for Z87 boards? It's my understanding that all the DC ones will, but I can't seem to figure out for certain on the pentium


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levelog*
> 
> Also, is there any confirmation that these will require a bios update for Z87 boards? It's my understanding that all the DC ones will, but I can't seem to figure out for certain on the pentium


This Pentium doesn't require BIOS update on Z87. All Haswell refresh doesn't require update of the BIOS and they are backwards compatible with 8 series chipset.


----------



## fateswarm

There are reports of Z87 boards having problems with Refresh (not DC) cpus. Not confirmed, but I wouldn't discount it. It's probably though not an Intel omission but a motherboard bug, e.g. the motherboard having special profiles for each known cpu but not a profile for new cpus.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Keep in mind those engines have to work on 8 weak Jaguar cores in PS4 and XB1 so they may not really need that many desktop cores.


Jaguar 8 at 1.6Ghz will outperform Fx 8350 at 1.8Ghz... running mantle Fx 6300 at 2.0ghz will easily outperform any dual core.

Actually Fx 6300 at 2.0Ghz should be enough for any low end GPu like R7 260X with mantle in Bf4.

I am not sure but 6 core at 2.0Ghz will easily beat FX 4300 at 3.0Ghz running mantle.

Look optimization works like this.
if game is optimized :
for dual cores - huge bottleneck to 8 cores
for 8 cores - big bottleneck to dual cores

http://forum.oktabit.gr/topic/thief-mantle-cpu-scaling-and-power-evaluation

pentium is very powerfull for DX9,DX10 even DX11 (frostbite 2) but further optimization just destroys pentium

( it is better to have 4 core at 2.0Ghz than 4 cores 2 cores for at 4.0Ghz if game is well optimized and support lov lvl API - try it yourself)

it is great deal if you like to OC or to have fun... but you can get pentium G3220 for almost half of the price also athlon x4 750K is cheaper and faster.


----------



## sepiashimmer

x4 750K is hard to find here and whenever it's available it costs as much as FX 4300 or FX 6300. G3220 was $128 here and now it's few rupees less than $100.

Why would anyone want to downclock 8350? Mantle isn't supported on all games.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> x4 750K is hard to find here and whenever it's available it costs as much as FX 4300 or FX 6300. G3220 was $128 here and now it's few rupees less than $100.
> 
> Why would anyone want to downclock 8350? Mantle isn't supported on all games.


downclocking CPU is to see real difference between 4 - 6 cores. It means that FX with 6 cores 2.0ghz will at 100% usage when you will play game- same for 4 cores. So if you do i test you will see difference between FX 6300 and FX 4300 when are both at 95%+ usage about:
6 cores - 171% (100%)
4 cores - 100% (58%)
This is difference you may see soon.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> downclocking CPU is to see real difference between 4 - 6 cores. It means that FX with *6 cores 2.0ghz will at 100% usage* when you will play game- same for 4 cores. So if you do i test you will see difference between FX 6300 and FX 4300 when are both at 95%+ usage about:
> 6 cores - 171% (100%)
> 4 cores - 100% (58%)
> This is difference you may see soon.


Depends on the game. You would only see 50% max in PS2 or 33% usage in Skyrim


----------



## burticus

If my local Microcenter drops this with a halfway decent motherboard for a hundy or less I'll pick one up to play with. Slap my Hyper 212+ on it and see what happens.


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Jaguar 8 at 1.6Ghz will outperform Fx 8350 at 1.8Ghz... running mantle Fx 6300 at 2.0ghz will easily outperform any dual core.
> 
> Actually Fx 6300 at 2.0Ghz should be enough for any low end GPu like R7 260X with mantle in Bf4.
> 
> I am not sure but 6 core at 2.0Ghz will easily beat FX 4300 at 3.0Ghz running mantle.
> 
> Look optimization works like this.
> if game is optimized :
> for dual cores - huge bottleneck to 8 cores
> for 8 cores - big bottleneck to dual cores
> 
> http://forum.oktabit.gr/topic/thief-mantle-cpu-scaling-and-power-evaluation
> 
> pentium is very powerfull for DX9,DX10 even DX11 (frostbite 2) but further optimization just destroys pentium
> 
> ( it is better to have 4 core at 2.0Ghz than 4 cores 2 cores for at 4.0Ghz if game is well optimized and support lov lvl API - try it yourself)
> 
> it is great deal if you like to OC or to have fun... but you can get pentium G3220 for almost half of the price also athlon x4 750K is cheaper and faster.


a little off topic: but I also notice those little jaguar cores in the Athlon 5350 is actually pretty powerful compared to the bigger cores of steamroller... and considering they're 1/3 of the size.

Mantle is never really going to take off. with enchanted directx 11 from nvidia and directx12. mantle is not really a worry. these pentiums are not made to be your daily driver for a year or 2, it's just something you can upgrade to till you get money for something else like broadwell


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deletive*
> 
> a little off topic: but I also notice those little jaguar cores in the Athlon 5350 is actually pretty powerful compared to the bigger cores of steamroller... and considering they're 1/3 of the size.


Yeah, Jaguar is incredibly powerful for its size. Perhaps AMD is going to use Jaguar-derived cores for their next FX?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> Yeah, Jaguar is incredibly powerful for its size. Perhaps AMD is going to use Jaguar-derived cores for their next FX?


You mean a desktop FX? Depends on how closely derived you mean.

Jaguar is relatively potent transistor for transistor, but it's still too narrow, and still geared for fairly low clocks/power.

I'm sure some aspects of Jaguar will make it into the next performance architecture from AMD, should there be one, but for Jaguar to offer competitive lightly threaded performance would require some radical chances.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deletive*
> 
> a little off topic: but I also notice those little jaguar cores in the Athlon 5350 is actually pretty powerful compared to the bigger cores of steamroller... and considering they're 1/3 of the size.
> 
> Mantle is never really going to take off. with enchanted directx 11 from nvidia and directx12. mantle is not really a worry. these pentiums are not made to be your daily driver for a year or 2, it's just something you can upgrade to till you get money for something else like broadwell


mantle = DX12... low lvl APi need more resources . More Ram, more VRAM.... If you get pentium K now and next year you will have to upgrade. Why dont you just get Fx 6300 instead. More optimization more performance. I think that AMD FX 6300 might be faster then i5 4670K clock per clock. I know that it is kind weird.... BUT quad cores are at full maximum performance these days... they cannot get better against 6-8-12 cores. 6-8 cores will get only better - they cannot get worst.

If you compare i5 4670K to FX 8320 with totally different CPU usage (90%+ vs 50%+ in well threaded games). All games are optimized for quad cores.. but now we have consoles with 8 cores. When DX12 comes optimization will be easier. When i played BF:Hardline i7 OC-ed becomes huge bottleneck using DX11 with nvidia GPU. Frostbite 4 is coming - frostbite 3 is very cpu intensive.

what i am trying to tell you - Great game needs great engine. Great engine has a lot of physics that is rendered by CPU.
Then we have to compare past with future. If we just compare minimum/recommend specs from 2012 and 2013 and 2014 for new games you will see huge difference.( compare i7 to i5 in BF3 vs BF4/crysis 3) BF3 wont give you difference, while....

*SO WHO ever say that pentium IS GREAT budget BUILD, HE IS TOTALLY WRONG!!!*

Budget = FX 6300 + low/mid gpu (even r9 280).. even more on budget = athlon x4 750K.

pentium K is not good for budget .. if you will upgrade soon get the cheapest pentium or get i3 - next year upgrade with i5,xeon (cheap i7) Overclocking is for fun...


----------



## monstercameron

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> ... I think that AMD FX 6300 might be faster then i5 4670K *clock per clock*. ...


I don't think you did that correctly...


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *monstercameron*
> 
> I don't think you did that correctly...


why?
When bost CPU are at same clock/usage FX 6300 and FX 4300 - Fx 6300 will be around 71% faster -
so Fx 4300 100% (58%)
Fx 6300 171% (100%)

How much faster is i5 4670k than FX 4300?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

A haswell core performs around the same as a FX module for the same clock speed on double thread workloads. On single thread a Haswell core performs pretty close to twice as fast...

There is really no argument, Haswell equals or outperforms FX on almost any common workloads. Maybe the 6300 is still competition to the G3258, but other than that Haswell is clearly the better buy than almost any of the AMD offerings.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> They might be hitting the 'safe' limit for volts though. Some chips hit volt limit first, others will hit thermal wall. (My 8350 hits temperature wall far before volt)


It's a 75 dollar chip. Who cares if you push the voltage and kill it


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I think that AMD FX 6300 might be faster then i5 4670K clock per clock.


I usually chuckle when people post dumb things, but this pearl made me laugh so much I nearly fell out of my chair. Bravo!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> why?
> When bost CPU are at same clock/usage FX 6300 and FX 4300 - Fx 6300 will be around 71% faster -
> so Fx 4300 100% (58%)
> Fx 6300 171% (100%)
> 
> How much faster is i5 4670k than FX 4300?


FX 6300 is 50% faster than FX 4300 at the same clock, unless architecture changed dramatically between the two (it isn't). FX 8320 is 100% faster at the same clock speed, exactly double since it has double the modules.

i5-4670K is roughly as fast as an entire 8320 clock-for-clock, making it 100% faster than 4300. Exactly that much.









Now to make this very simple since most of the stuff you posted in these forums seems to be nothing but fanboy crap I'm getting tired of reading...


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



All four modules combined on the 8320 are roughly as fast as four non-HyperThreaded Haswell cores clock-for-clock, this is something I actually tested on an i5 I borrowed and can confirm. The one game/engine you actually take as a good example is designed specifically for AMD hardware, meaning that it's also crap for Intel vs AMD CPU comparisons.

And to make something else very simple - when you have a quad-core and an octa-core that are equally powerful, you take the quad-core. Not because of the brand or benchmarks or crap, because it's more diverse. Games will run better on it cause they can easily saturate a quad-core,half of the games today are still made for freakin' dual-cores and only 3-4 titles can actually scale to 8 cores. The quad.cpre has a strong core and strong multi-threading, acing in most workloads. It's not about which will be better in 10 years when it will be useless anyway, it's about here and now and right now, an i5 is a better choice, i7 being even better but has a pretty big price tag.

Yes, games will scale into multithreading, just like they did in the past, but neither Piledriver nor Haswell will be here to see it. It took the gaming industry nearly 6 years to have half the year's game releases, HALF, made for dual-cores, and in 6 years my 8320 will be nothing more than a CPU to keep around in case there's a benchmarking competition on HWBOT that needs it. That's what the future will bring for Piledriver, the same thing it brought to Athlon 64 X2 and Core 2 Quad/Phenom X4 - nothing. FYI, those were the old "more cores is better future-proof" CPUs, true but by the time the gaming industry optimized games for them, they were largely inadequate and long gone.

And in case you consider me am Intel fanboy, I don't even have any Intel hardware in my possession, but I'm not a numbnut fanboy either. I know why I bought my CPU for, I know what it can do and don't have any false hopes like you. I've been around long enough to see and overclock plenty of "future-proof" CPUs and I saw each and every one of them flop when their time to shine came. It won't be any different this time.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> It's a 75 dollar chip. Who cares if you push the voltage and kill it


That is what I like to hear on OCN


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> How much faster is i5 4670k than FX 4300?


Clock for clock, 4690k is a hair faster than FX-8k/9k for video encoding with x264, which scales almost linearly onto 16+ threads. The two-module four-thread CPU's are half as fast.

FX can clock a bit higher - like 200mhz or so - but you do require a good motherboard and cooling to do it. i5 has the advantage of not needing that - it doesn't make sense to pay extra for a super strong FX motherboard and a 280mm+ CLC etc just to take a slight performance lead, when there is an objectively superior CPU at a cheaper price point than the cost of all of that stuff, because 4690k can pretty much top out at ~4.5-4.8ghz with little thought for board and cooling


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> It's a 75 dollar chip. Who cares if you push the voltage and kill it


No kidding!

Crank the living snot out of the voltage and clock, just below the crash and burn point, and run it stupid for 6 months or whatever you get out of it. Hell, buy two or three so you have backup when you burn out the first!


----------



## Boinz

Can anyone comment how effective this pentium might be for an htpc build with a dedicated cheap gpu?


----------



## BinaryDemon

OP, Add this review - http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/1000621/#axzz34rXQ121a

and maybe - http://www.jagatreview.com/2014/06/hands-on-review-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-murah-dan-overclockable/


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> OP, Add this review - http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/1000621/#axzz34rXQ121a
> 
> and maybe - http://www.jagatreview.com/2014/06/hands-on-review-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-murah-dan-overclockable/


Quote:


> The sweet spot for our particular CPU would be 4300MHz at 1.25Vcore. For 4400MHz we needed 1.3Vcore and for 4500MHz required a whopping 1.41Vcore.
> 
> Read more: http://www.madshrimps.be/articles/article/1000621/Intel-Pentium-20th-Anniversary-Edition-G3258-CPU-Review/6#ixzz34s5CCvLc


*mumbles something about not adjusting anything aside from Vcore correctly and screwing up OC*


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> mantle = DX12... low lvl APi need more resources . More Ram, more VRAM.... If you get pentium K now and next year you will have to upgrade. Why dont you just get Fx 6300 instead. More optimization more performance. I think that AMD FX 6300 might be faster then i5 4670K clock per clock. I know that it is kind weird.... BUT quad cores are at full maximum performance these days... they cannot get better against 6-8-12 cores. 6-8 cores will get only better - they cannot get worst.
> 
> If you compare i5 4670K to FX 8320 with totally different CPU usage (90%+ vs 50%+ in well threaded games). All games are optimized for quad cores.. but now we have consoles with 8 cores. When DX12 comes optimization will be easier. When i played BF:Hardline i7 OC-ed becomes huge bottleneck using DX11 with nvidia GPU. Frostbite 4 is coming - frostbite 3 is very cpu intensive.
> 
> what i am trying to tell you - Great game needs great engine. Great engine has a lot of physics that is rendered by CPU.
> Then we have to compare past with future. If we just compare minimum/recommend specs from 2012 and 2013 and 2014 for new games you will see huge difference.( compare i7 to i5 in BF3 vs BF4/crysis 3) BF3 wont give you difference, while....
> 
> *SO WHO ever say that pentium IS GREAT budget BUILD, HE IS TOTALLY WRONG!!!*
> 
> Budget = FX 6300 + low/mid gpu (even r9 280).. even more on budget = athlon x4 750K.
> 
> pentium K is not good for budget .. if you will upgrade soon get the cheapest pentium or get i3 - next year upgrade with i5,xeon (cheap i7) Overclocking is for fun...


I thought about getting the 6300, but with Broadwell around the corner (late 2014 -). this little thing will do till then. Since I'll be upgrading from a 750ti to a 8xx I'll make a HTPC for some light gaming on my couch with a xbox one controller.

The pentium is a great budget CPU, it may not have the performance of a stock i3 at stock but when overclocked. it can hold it's own. I don't really care much about the gaming performance so much. but if this thing can trade blows and win most of the time in after effects, CS6, autocad, 3ds max, premiere pro and probably, Archicad and other adobe programs. It's better than picking up a 6300 because when the pentium isn't holding up enough then I can pick a i7 to last me till ddr 4 becomes mainstream.

You keep comparing the fx 4300 to things... at 4.7 ghz, the pentium at the same clock beats it in games by about 5fps, and the x4 760 at 4.5ghz by like 10-15. the pentium in bf4 MP is still neck and neck to the 6300 which it the most demanding. whether you think so or not. this little cpu is better than most of was AMD can offer. in the FX, athlon, and APU line.


----------



## Themisseble

No you are wrong. Even OC-ed pentium cannot keep with i3.

Why dont you guys get it. *TIME OF DUAL CORES IS OVER, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY NEW GAMES*.
Pentium will cause you a lost of FPS drops so game will be unplayable.

I actually recommend you FX 6300 with cheap board you may get better GPU. Maybe used R9 290 (you may get it quite cheap)


----------



## fateswarm

> implying most people want it for a main performance machine.

Most here want it for the lols or for specialized needs.

Though granted, those thinking it's 'amazing', wrong.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> No you are wrong. Even OC-ed pentium cannot keep with i3.
> 
> Why dont you guys get it. *TIME OF DUAL CORES IS OVER, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY NEW GAMES*.
> Pentium will cause you a lost of FPS drops so game will be unplayable.
> 
> I actually recommend you FX 6300 with cheap board you may get better GPU. Maybe used R9 290 (you may get it quite cheap)


OK, G3258 with a 290 is overkill on the GPU side, but with something like a 270 or 660 it does fine.

The fact is that most people don't play the bleeding edge games, and regardless, a dual core will perform fine in quad core optimized games.

I will again repeat myself: The time it takes to switch threads is so small that when you are running anything less than a dozen threads on ONE CORE you will not see a noticeable loss in performance.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> OK, G3258 with a 290 is overkill on the GPU side, but with something like a 270 or 660 it does fine.


They're nice for dropping in with tiers below that, for godly LoL/sc2 machines ;p (750-750ti)

There is a range of cpu bound games that can be maxed on a gpu like that, but really like a single thread and nvidia DX driver efficiency. I wonder how this thing would run Wildstar too


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> OK, G3258 with a 290 is overkill on the GPU side, but with something like a 270 or 660 it does fine.
> 
> The fact is that most people don't play the bleeding edge games, and regardless, a dual core will perform fine in quad core optimized games.
> 
> I will again repeat myself: The time it takes to switch threads is so small that when you are running anything less than a dozen threads on ONE CORE you will not see a noticeable loss in performance.


Pentium K.... If you want to play new games just get FX 6300 and r9 270/GTX 760


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

No? Why get a 6300 if the Pentium is cheaper and performs the same or better in games....


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> No? Why get a 6300 if the Pentium is cheaper and performs the same or better in games....


Are you serious?
pentium at 6.0ghz cannot keep up with FX 6300...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Er-wXiPyjE
- mantle wont give more speed to dual cores

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmKVNLwZF3A
with or without mantle.

pentium is great for users who want to have pentium K and intel CPu. Yes you will be able to play BF4 MP 64 (60fps) maps - all at low (still you wont have steady fps). While FX 6300 will get only better and better.

http://gamerthumbs.com/?p=56

if you want intel get i3 instead


----------



## jsc1973

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> My Core2 Duo doesn't have a problem with 30 or so tabs in FireFox or Chrome. I don't think this will have any problem with that many tabs.


Neither does mine. I've got a Dell 1545 laptop that I dropped a T9800 into (2.93 GHz C2D), and I can't tell the difference between it and my FX-8350 when it comes to web browsing, even when I've got a dozen tabs going at once.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Jaguar 8 at 1.6Ghz will outperform Fx 8350 at 1.8Ghz... running mantle Fx 6300 at 2.0ghz will easily outperform any dual core.
> 
> Actually Fx 6300 at 2.0Ghz should be enough for any low end GPu like R7 260X with mantle in Bf4.
> 
> I am not sure but 6 core at 2.0Ghz will easily beat FX 4300 at 3.0Ghz running mantle.


I'm sure all of that is true, but how many games are using Mantle? How many games will use it in the future, and of those that do, how many of them won't also run very well on some other API? Very few people on OCN buy hardware for long-term use. By the time Mantle becomes relevant, if it becomes relevant, AMD's Vishera FX processors and their derivatives will be so out of date as to be irrelevant.
Quote:


> Look optimization works like this.
> if game is optimized :
> for dual cores - huge bottleneck to 8 cores
> for 8 cores - big bottleneck to dual cores
> 
> http://forum.oktabit.gr/topic/thief-mantle-cpu-scaling-and-power-evaluation
> 
> pentium is very powerfull for DX9,DX10 even DX11 (frostbite 2) but further optimization just destroys pentium
> 
> ( it is better to have 4 core at 2.0Ghz than 4 cores 2 cores for at 4.0Ghz if game is well optimized and support lov lvl API - try it yourself)
> 
> it is great deal if you like to OC or to have fun... but you can get pentium G3220 for almost half of the price also athlon x4 750K is cheaper and faster.


There's no way that an Athlon 750K is going to be faster than a G3258 in most gaming scenarios when you overclock them both to their apparent capabilities. The Intel part's cores are just too much stronger for that to be the case. Like I said, Mantle is completely irrelevant to this discussion because its support for the foreseeable future is basically nonexistent. And I think AMD knew that all along when they pushed it out. Mantle was and is: 1) a marketing gimmick; and 2) something AMD put out there to encourage developers to incorporate programming techniques into the own API's that would help AMD hardware. The last proprietary API from a graphics card company that was a success was Glide, and that was more than 15 years ago.

If you offered me a 750K or a G3258 right now, I'd take the 750K, but only because gaming performance isn't the paramount issue for me. If I were building a cheap gaming rig and had the choice, the G3258 would be a no-brainer.


----------



## Exilon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Are you serious?
> pentium at 6.0ghz cannot keep up with FX 6300...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Er-wXiPyjE
> - mantle wont give more speed to dual cores
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmKVNLwZF3A
> with or without mantle.
> 
> pentium is great for users who want to have pentium K and intel CPu. Yes you will be able to play BF4 MP 64 (60fps) maps - all at low (still you wont have steady fps). While FX 6300 will get only better and better.
> 
> http://gamerthumbs.com/?p=56
> 
> if you want intel get i3 instead


A 4.5 GHz Pentium can do 50 fps on Siege of Shanghai on Ultra with 99.5% of frames being above 45 FPS. In DX11. Mantle would be 60 fps easy. Get out of here.


----------



## PostalTwinkie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boinz*
> 
> Can anyone comment how effective this pentium might be for an htpc build with a dedicated cheap gpu?


Extremely effective, if not down right overkill.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exilon*
> 
> A 4.5 GHz Pentium can do 50 fps on Siege of Shanghai on Ultra with 99.5% of frames being above 45 FPS. In DX11. Mantle would be 60 fps easy. Get out of here.


Sure sure... empty map. Eve i7 will somen fall under 40 fps.

dont tell me how much is pentium capable i have tested it with i7 mimic - convincing my friend that pentium is not enough for gaming.

http://gamerthumbs.com/?p=56 - here is on LOW - full map shanghai

BTW - in 2015 DX12 (same as mantle) will support most of the games. Also consoles have 8 low power cores.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Are you serious?
> pentium at 6.0ghz cannot keep up with FX 6300...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Er-wXiPyjE
> - mantle wont give more speed to dual cores
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmKVNLwZF3A
> with or without mantle.
> 
> pentium is great for users who want to have pentium K and intel CPu. Yes you will be able to play BF4 MP 64 (60fps) maps - all at low (still you wont have steady fps). While FX 6300 will get only better and better.
> 
> http://gamerthumbs.com/?p=56
> 
> if you want intel get i3 instead


OK cool, 480p is pretty nice... We all know everyone here plays games at 480p...


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> OK cool, 480p is pretty nice... We all know everyone here plays games at 480p...


480P - to reduce GPU bottleneck. So CPu bottleneck ONLY


----------



## Exilon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Sure sure... empty map. Eve i7 will somen fall under 40 fps.
> 
> dont tell me how much is pentium capable i have tested it with i7 mimic - convincing my friend that pentium is not enough for gaming.
> 
> http://gamerthumbs.com/?p=56 - here is on LOW - full map shanghai
> 
> BTW - in 2015 DX12 (same as mantle) will support most of the games. Also consoles have 8 low power cores.


Nope, 64-man full server. Pentium-K 4.5 GHz is fully playable in Nvidia DX11. I don't know what's wrong with your system though. 40 fps is very low for a i7, so I suspect you have no idea what you're doing.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exilon*
> 
> Nope, 64-man full server. Pentium-K 4.5 GHz is fully playable in Nvidia DX11. I don't know what's wrong with your system though. 40 fps is very low for a i7, so I suspect you have no idea what you're doing.


HAHA stop trolling man.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1480050/battlefield-4-benchmarks-ht-on-vs-off-win8-1-vs-win7-new-nvidia-337-50-drivers

you must have super Pentium inside.
mantle wont speed up Pentium


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exilon*
> 
> Nope, 64-man full server. Pentium-K 4.5 GHz is fully playable in Nvidia DX11. I don't know what's wrong with your system though. 40 fps is very low for a i7, so I suspect you have no idea what you're doing.


Maybe he disabled two cores and HT. He included the word 'mimic' in his post.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Maybe he disabled two cores and HT. He included the word 'mimic' in his post.


he is trolling ... People always lie about their performance... usually they use USER.CFG (sett all setting to lowest as possible) - then in video you see all on max.

here you can see i7 under 50 fps.... in some scenario may deep below 40 fps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9NT2-ooVq0

if i7 would be perfect CPu nobody would want Mantle or DX12... yes i7 OC is bottleneck even for the GTX 770. Thats why if your on budget get AMD ... you wont feel difference (FX 8320,Fx 6300).


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> he is trolling ... People always lie about their performance... usually they use USER.CFG (sett all setting to lowest as possible) - then in video you see all on max.
> 
> here you can see i7 under 50 fps.... in some scenario may deep below 40 fps.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9NT2-ooVq0
> 
> if i7 would be perfect CPu nobody would want Mantle or DX12... yes i7 OC is bottleneck even for the GTX 770. Thats why if your on budget get AMD ... you wont feel difference (FX 8320,Fx 6300).


Mantle reduces CPU overlay. so yeah the pentium would get more performance. If we wanted AMD we would have gone AMD already. But it's a dead socket and no upgrade path, I've said before Intel you can upgrade all the way to Broadwell i7's. the pentium faster in 90% of the IT programs and directx games there are when it's at 4.5ghz.

AMD product of course makes AMD products perform better. but if it's in windows I want Directx mainly. Directx 12 was coming for the xbox one and pc anyways. Games barely use hyperthreading and now games are starting to use hyperthreading so i7's can do games better than a 8350/6300 and it programs. Honestly UBC uses Intel processors, from i3's to i7's in their Engineering/ Software design and everything in between because Intel offers more performance across the board AND THATS WHAT MATTERS. I don't care if the 6300 is a little better in games. when the pentium can do the basically the same thing in games plus out perform it in other tasks


----------



## Themisseble

http://forum.oktabit.gr/topic/thief-mantle-cpu-scaling-and-power-evaluation

here you have pentium G3220 in mantle. thief is not optimized game.

pentium with GTX 480
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2nNCJq7cDc&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Aonex

What's the cheapest mITX mobo that can overclock this chip?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

3.2 GHz pentium is pretty scary
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aonex*
> 
> What's the cheapest mITX mobo that can overclock this chip?


I'd think it would do quite fine on the lower end Z87/Z97 boards, just want to check for compatibility on the Z87 ones. I'm not sure the overclockability on non-Z motherboards will stay, but as long as you are not going for the absolute limits of the silicon most boards out of the $70 El-Cheapo range will probably do quite fine.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsc1973*
> 
> If you offered me a 750K or a G3258 right now, I'd take the 750K, but only because gaming performance isn't the paramount issue for me. If I were building a cheap gaming rig and had the choice, the G3258 would be a no-brainer.


No brainer? Pentium is still castrated (lacks extensions) and the amount of games that pretty much require 4 threads to run properly (Watch Dogs seems to be the latest addition to the list) is increasing with every passing day. Even a bog standard locked down haswell i3 is a match for a heavily o/c 3258. This cpu seems like a nice toy but the dual core era is long gone imho.


----------



## Boinz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> No brainer? Pentium is still castrated (lacks extensions) and the amount of games that pretty much require 4 threads to run properly (Watch Dogs seems to be the latest addition to the list) is increasing with every passing day. Even a bog standard locked down haswell i3 is a match for a heavily o/c 3258. This cpu seems like a nice toy but the dual core era is long gone imho.


Long gone? I disagree, but with "next gen" ( I use that term loosely when referring to Watch Dogs) ports on the rise, we may be coming to an end. But so long as there are enough indie games, emulators, low settings and tweaked versions and mods out there, there will always be those few individuals STILL rocking core2duos and athlons. Just saying.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> No brainer? Pentium is still castrated (lacks extensions) and the amount of games that pretty much require 4 threads to run properly (Watch Dogs seems to be the latest addition to the list) is increasing with every passing day. Even a bog standard locked down haswell i3 is a match for a heavily o/c 3258. This cpu seems like a nice toy but the dual core era is long gone imho.


http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,review-32974-17.html
Quote:


> Although the Pentium gets kicked around in a few of our benchmarks, *it does beat the Athlon in every game we test-sometimes by a lot*. As a value-oriented gaming processor, this thing is just awesome. I'd love to see what Paul Henningsen could do with it in our System Builder Marathon, where he'd pick a more suitable graphics complement than the Titan I used to alleviate graphics bottlenecks. Powering a quiet, lightly-tuned home theater PC, it'd be right as rain. And although I wouldn't want to rely on the G3258's on-die HD Graphics engine, the chip's Quick Sync technology is a real boon if you're watching or converting video content.


/thread

AMD's core performance is so weak it doesn't really matter. Even the Pentium has better core performance than AMD FX. Pathetic.


----------



## robertparker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,review-32974-17.html
> /thread
> 
> AMD's core performance is so weak it doesn't really matter. Even the Pentium has better core performance than AMD FX. Pathetic.


That's old news and not relevant. They are talking about dual core pentium vs. a dual module athlon. Yes a very fast core can overcome some threading situations as shown but there is a limit.


----------



## granno21

Quote:


> AMD's core performance is so weak it doesn't really matter. Even the Pentium has better core performance than AMD FX. Pathetic


I really would have liked to see them compare the pentium versus the AMD 760K.

The 760K has the newer richland cores which have higher IPC and overclock much higher. The prices are also dropping and should be around the same price as the pentium on sale. Combined that with the higher cost of the pentium boards and they should be equal or have the AMD solution a little cheaper.


----------



## Avexrion

Does anyone know if this chip is natively based on a nerfed quad core die (aka i7), a nerfed dual core die (aka i3), or its own native die?

I am under the assumption that all dual core models are based on the same chip, a dual core hyperthreaded die with 4MB of cache, and they determine whether it is a Laptop i7/i5/i3/ect... (i7-4600M), Desktop i3, Desktop Pentium, or Desktop Celeron by binning it and lasering off hyperthreading and cache.

There does appear to be a size difference between the dual and quad core laptop chips as demonstrated by this:

i7-4600M:
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NzczWDc3Mw==/z/Xd0AAMXQ3kNTgqeB/$_12.JPG

i7-4900MQ:
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTExMlgxMTM3/z/n00AAOxyvuVSDf2R/$%28KGrHqN,!o0FIKpvPrr-BSDf2RURjg~~60_12.JPG

Note that these chips have the same specs (minus clockspeed) as the Desktop counterparts.


----------



## mutantmagnet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> No you are wrong. Even OC-ed pentium cannot keep with i3.
> 
> Why dont you guys get it. *TIME OF DUAL CORES IS OVER, IF YOU WANT TO PLAY NEW GAMES*.
> Pentium will cause you a lost of FPS drops *so game will be unplayable.*


A drop in FPS doesn't mean you can't play the games.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> http://forum.oktabit.gr/topic/thief-mantle-cpu-scaling-and-power-evaluation
> 
> here you have pentium G3220 in mantle. thief is not optimized game.
> 
> pentium with GTX 480
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2nNCJq7cDc&feature=youtu.be


I love how a I7 920 destroys an 8350 in that bench


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,review-32974-17.html


So they tested the Pentium overclocked to 4.8GHz against an Athlon 750K running at 4.3GHz, and they figured out Pentium steamrolls it. That doesn't surprise me at all, that Athlon's entire module is as fast as a Haswell core clock-for-clock and it's a first-generation Piledriver APU core which couldn't overclock very well.

What does surprise me though is that they didn't test it against a Richland-based 760K (second-generation Piledriver APU core) which is capable of reaching as high clocks as 6800K and Vishera, 4.8GHz should be reachable even by total numbnuts on that thing as long as it's cooled adequately. AMD should have gotten that junk of a 750K out of the way and replaced it with a 760K at the same price point.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> AMD's core performance is so weak it doesn't really matter. Even the Pentium has better core performance than AMD FX. Pathetic.


Pentium cores are the same as i5/i7 cores, just with less cache and lacking some useless instructions, so an unlocked Pentium does have one hell of a punch when it comes to single-threaded performance. Clock-for-clock it's core is a lot stronger than a Piledriver/Steamroller core, competing directly against an entire Piledriver module.

I'd actually be very surprised if a Pentium were to have lower performance than a lower clocked dual-module Piledriver unit.


----------



## TheLaggingMan

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asus-overclocking-h87-h97-b85,27076.html

Does anyone know whether H87, B85, H81 motherboards need a BIOS update before you can use the Pentium with them? Or can I just buy a cheap 8-series board and dump this Pentium chip in, OC as much as it can go for a budget gaming rig?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Pentium cores are the same as i5/i7 cores, just with less cache and lacking some useless instructions


avx/avx2 are far from useless. They make a significant change for a lot of stuff, probably most notably video encoding.

It it was useless, Intel+AMD wouldn't have adopted it with sandy bridge and FX, then Intel wouldn't have pushed for avx2 and coming avx3.2 while AMD went for avx2 themselves


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> avx/avx2 are far from useless. They make a significant change for a lot of stuff, probably most notably video encoding.
> 
> It it was useless, Intel+AMD wouldn't have adopted it with sandy bridge and FX, then Intel wouldn't have pushed for avx2 and coming avx3.2 while AMD went for avx2 themselves


It will make no difference for almost any gamer on a tight budget...


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> avx/avx2 are far from useless. They make a significant change for a lot of stuff, probably most notably video encoding.
> 
> It it was useless, Intel+AMD wouldn't have adopted it with sandy bridge and FX, then Intel wouldn't have pushed for avx2 and coming avx3.2 while AMD went for avx2 themselves


I meant for games, I don't know of a any games that utilize AVX/AVX2 instruction sets.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Werne*
> 
> I meant for games, I don't know of a any games that utilize AVX/AVX2 instruction sets.


Ya but the point is that it adds to the weakness outside of games. It's a bit of a one-trick pony for those CPU limited games that like strong cores but don't scale well onto many cores like sc2, WoW, wildstar, LoL etc - still runs 4c stuff quite well but it will suffer in some places. I want one though ;p


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boinz*
> 
> Long gone? I disagree, but with "next gen" ( I use that term loosely when referring to Watch Dogs) ports on the rise, we may be coming to an end. But so long as there are enough indie games, emulators, low settings and tweaked versions and mods out there, there will always be those few individuals STILL rocking core2duos and athlons. Just saying.


I was talking about nowadays system builders and not people rocking older machines or niche cases. Eg. abandonware fans still have operational PIIIs and voodoo cards, that doesn't mean it is a proper gaming platform. System reviewers usually bench games with fresh or largely unlittered windows installations and without running anything else in the background ,for the sake of repetition (keeping variable at a bare minimum). Under normal conditions (loaded registry, lots of background stuff going on, from gaming mouse software and antispyware to browser services etc) dual cores get oversaturated very easily, even at poorly threaded games. In well threaded ones (and they are slowly becoming the norm now) things are just ugly. Getting the unlocked pentium and a proper aftermarket cooler in order to achieve high clocks brings price and performance roughly equal to a locked down i3 which makes it redundant from a performance perspective. It is a nice toy, that's all there is to it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Ya but the point is that it adds to the weakness outside of games. It's a bit of a one-trick pony for those CPU limited games that like strong cores but don't scale well onto many cores like sc2, WoW, wildstar, LoL etc - still runs 4c stuff quite well but it will suffer in some places. I want one though ;p


WoW scales beyond two threads and that has been the case for years.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I was talking about nowadays system builders and not people rocking older machines or niche cases. Eg. abandonware fans still have operational PIIIs and voodoo cards, that doesn't mean it is a proper gaming platform. System reviewers usually bench games with fresh or largely unlittered windows installations and without running anything else in the background ,for the sake of repetition (keeping variable at a bare minimum). *Under normal conditions (loaded registry, lots of background stuff going on, from gaming mouse software and antispyware to browser services etc) dual cores get oversaturated very easily*, even at poorly threaded games. In well threaded ones (and they are slowly becoming the norm now) things are just ugly.


Why I will always need a quad from here on out. I play PS2 which uses three threads, add in the fourth core to control Windows and background application. I completely agree with you, although it is a powerful chip, you could still use another core (or HT at least).


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Still noone taking into account how huge the single thread performance of Haswell is. You can't compare an old AMD 6 core with the dual core haswell for the simple reason of the difference in single core performance. Note that also, two threads have little latency when switching between eachother in a single core.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> I was talking about nowadays system builders and not people rocking older machines or niche cases. Eg. abandonware fans still have operational PIIIs and voodoo cards, that doesn't mean it is a proper gaming platform. System reviewers usually bench games with fresh or largely unlittered windows installations and without running anything else in the background ,for the sake of repetition (keeping variable at a bare minimum). Under normal conditions (loaded registry, lots of background stuff going on, from gaming mouse software and antispyware to browser services etc) dual cores get oversaturated very easily, even at poorly threaded games. In well threaded ones (and they are slowly becoming the norm now) things are just ugly. Getting the unlocked pentium and a proper aftermarket cooler in order to achieve high clocks brings price and performance roughly equal to a locked down i3 which makes it redundant from a performance perspective. It is a nice toy, that's all there is to it.
> WoW scales beyond two threads and that has been the case for years.


But it likes one fast thread, it likes a 4670k over an 8350. If it scaled equally onto 4-6+ threads, pentium wouldn't be ahead. A lot of these games scale past 1-2 cores, but they can't really split their workload into 5-8 equal chunks very well.










That's why Pentium dominates for a lot of these games, there's a whole category of CPU bound games that don't have support for something like Mantle and are strongly reliant on one thread, often running far between on Haswell than FX or Nvidia than Radeon (because nvidia has a massive lead right now in directx driver efficiency for CPU bound situations)


----------



## Quantum Reality

From what I'm seeing this CPU looks like a good stopgap backup in the event a mainbox fails, heh.


----------



## Levelog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> From what I'm seeing this CPU looks like a good stopgap backup in the event a mainbox fails, heh.


Yeah. Fun to mess around with, and I'm a strong proponent of having a cheap chip in your socket in case of emergencies


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> But it likes one fast thread, it likes a 4670k over an 8350. If it scaled equally onto 4-6+ threads, pentium wouldn't be ahead. A lot of these games scale past 1-2 cores, but they can't really split their workload into 5-8 equal chunks very well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why Pentium dominates for a lot of these games, there's a whole category of CPU bound games that don't have support for something like Mantle and are strongly reliant on one thread, often running far between on Haswell than FX or Nvidia than Radeon (because nvidia has a massive lead right now in directx driver efficiency for CPU bound situations)


Play WoW. See how it behaves on various situations and loads (with many players around it threads more or eg. when you run a crapton of addons) and you will realize that a dual core will not offer a comfortable experience under demanding circustances. In extreme cases even SB-E can drop to its knees. You really want at least 4 threads for this game, especially if you are serious about it ,you will want to run extra stuff on top (keyboard/mouse software,vent/ts/mumble,all sorts of intensive addons, logs etc.) . Graphs are ok, the real world is different more often than not. Getting a dual core for heavy gaming is asking for isses in this day and age.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Play WoW. See how it behaves on various situations and loads (with many players around it threads more or eg. when you run a crapton of addons) and you will realize that a dual core will not offer a comfortable experience under demanding circustances. In extreme cases even SB-E can drop to its knees. You really want at least 4 threads for this game, especially if you are serious about it ,you will want to run extra stuff on top (keyboard/mouse software,vent/ts/mumble,all sorts of intensive addons, logs etc.) . Graphs are ok, the real world is different more often than not. Getting a dual core for heavy gaming is asking for isses in this day and age.


If it runs one way in the game (better average fps, way better mins) that won't suddenly change when you run some addons and teamspeak. Two really strong cores are not neccesarily worse than four bad ones. I'm not debating that it would run badly on either, at times, but i'd expect pentium to still be ahead.

That was just one example, league/sc2 etc are more focused on a low number of threads, as well as a ton of other games

when you stress sc2 hard enough for pentium to have 50fps, 9590 has 30fps, for example. There's quite a few games like it, those are the target market for this processor


----------



## Shogon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Play WoW. See how it behaves on various situations and loads (with many players around it threads more or eg. when you run a crapton of addons) and you will realize that a dual core will not offer a comfortable experience under demanding circustances. *In extreme cases even SB-E can drop to its knees*. You really want at least 4 threads for this game, especially if you are serious about it ,you will want to run extra stuff on top (keyboard/mouse software,vent/ts/mumble,all sorts of intensive addons, logs etc.) . Graphs are ok, the real world is different more often than not. Getting a dual core for heavy gaming is asking for isses in this day and age.


Probably due to bad coding and lack of optimization for multiple threads, which isn't out of the ordinary for a MMO (or even triple A titles..).

Yes 4 cores would be better for the future, but you have to pay 3x the price of the Pentium for those extra 2 cores and even then a lot of games out there can barely spread the load among those 4 cores. Some people still play older dx9 games, and even some new dx11 games are only coded for 1, or 2 cores max. Like the Total War games for instance.


----------



## bluedevil

I found this to be quite interesting comparing a 4690K vs G3258 in BF4.



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849-5.html


----------



## Shogon

All those graphs seem weird to me. I would of expected BF4 of all titles to use those 4 cores to it's advantage. My guess for BF4 is that it was done in SP.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shogon*
> 
> All those graphs seem weird to me. I would of expected BF4 of all titles to use those 4 cores to it's advantage.


That's single player. BF does just fine with modern dual core chips. Spite the odd NPC not there due to the lack of cores I suspect.


----------



## Shogon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> That's single player. BF does just fine with modern dual core chips. Spite the odd NPC not there due to the lack of cores I suspect.


I suspected as much.


----------



## FlashFir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I was talking about 2C/2T
> yeah i3 at 5.0ghz is powerfull so it is FX 4300 at 5.0Ghz..
> 
> 
> 
> Nah the i3s beat the 2 module BDs by around 10-20% for equal clock rates. Even in multi threaded applications.
> 
> The pentium might fall behind in some very heavily threaded applications, but in most practical cases the G3258 is by far the best gaming CPU for under $200 (when paired with motherboard)
Click to expand...

What kind of VRMs should you care to have and cooling for this? This MIGHT. trump value for some of my friends but I'm thinking the cost of a decent cooler ($20-30) plus the time invested into overclocking it might not make it a good value for me if I'm spending the time building it for them.


----------



## iRUSH

It's been said here many times that the new G3258 will overclock on the stock cooler. NavDigitalStorm hit 4.6 on the stock cooler (stress tested of course). He also used a water cooler. Its OC ability isn't held back thermally.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlashFir*
> 
> What kind of VRMs should you care to have and cooling for this? This MIGHT. trump value for some of my friends but I'm thinking the cost of a decent cooler ($20-30) plus the time invested into overclocking it might not make it a good value for me if I'm spending the time building it for them.


Judging by the reviews it does fine on the stock cooler.

A $95 motherboard will probably cope fine with it, even under a relatively heavy OC. Z87/97M-D3H for example.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Judging by the reviews it does fine on the stock cooler.
> 
> A $95 motherboard will probably cope fine with it, even under a relatively heavy OC. Z87/97M-D3H for example.


i7 will draw more than twice as much power so it's quite easy to run


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> If it runs one way in the game (better average fps, way better mins) that won't suddenly change when you run some addons and teamspeak. Two really strong cores are not neccesarily worse than four bad ones. I'm not debating that it would run badly on either, at times, but i'd expect pentium to still be ahead.
> 
> That was just one example, league/sc2 etc are more focused on a low number of threads, as well as a ton of other games
> 
> when you stress sc2 hard enough for pentium to have 50fps, 9590 has 30fps, for example. There's quite a few games like it, those are the target market for this processor


If you don't play wow it is hard to understand but yeah, overclocked 3960X/3770k/4670k will drop to ~30fps often in 25man raiding ,o/c 8350 will dip to 25fps and locked pentiums way lower, yes they get saturated and get the occasional choke.I know this one is unlocked, but In all seriousness. this chip physically isjust tiny bit less than half an i5-4670k and 4670k is by no means overkill for today's games. League is largely irrelevant ,I could even hit 30fps on a 2007 C2D [email protected] with it ,all desktop processors are fine for it (at least normal 5v5, not sure how ARAM plays). The cases you would pick it over an i3 for a contemporary games can be probably counted on the fingers of one hand (ARMA III or WoT perhaps). Disable HT on your processor and half the cores, play around and remember that what you get is still a bit better than this chip.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boinz*
> 
> Long gone? I disagree, but with "next gen" ( I use that term loosely when referring to Watch Dogs) ports on the rise, we may be coming to an end. But so long as there are enough indie games, emulators, low settings and tweaked versions and mods out there, there will always be those few individuals STILL rocking core2duos and athlons. Just saying.


This. Especially the last part, I just picked up an ASUS nForce 590i motherboard for my E6700 and have been mucking around with it over the past week or so, it's surprising how fast it still is in modern games. Truth be told, it's making me consider just getting a cheap i3 or one of these and going ITX with a decent GPU.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> AMD's core performance is so weak it doesn't really matter. Even the Pentium has better core performance than AMD FX. Pathetic.


That means nothing when the Athlon still has twice as many cores and even AMDs lesser single-threaded performance is generally enough for most people.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Werne*
> 
> lacking some useless instructions


AVX, AVX2 and VT-d are anything but useless. The first two allow you to get big gains when programs use them, the latter allows you to game in a VM with >90% of native performance.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Werne*
> 
> I meant for games, I don't know of a any games that utilize AVX/AVX2 instruction sets.


I doubt there are many people who literally only game on a PC and plan to get this chip for that PC. Most would likely do other things as well or likely not be up for an upgrade for a while which in either case gives having AVX/AVX2 a benefit. (Especially if you emulate..I believe PS2 and Wii emulators already use AVX)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Why I will always need a quad from here on out. I play PS2 which uses three threads, add in the fourth core to control Windows and background application. I completely agree with you, although it is a powerful chip, you could still use another core (or HT at least).


Definitely. People seem to forget that even if a game is only dual threaded, you'll still likely get a decent performance increase from being able to leave Windows tasks, etc on the otherwise idling cores..Hell, I don't even bother closing anything that I have running and it barely effects my performance in games at all these days. That said...I think I'd get one of these simply because it can make up for the lack of HT through overclocking, doesn't need an expensive motherboard, etc and uses bugger all power.


----------



## granno21

Anyone find a review of the Pentium G3258 versus the AMD 760K?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *granno21*
> 
> Anyone find a review of the Pentium G3258 versus the AMD 760K?


I could've sworn I saw an AMD 7x0 vs a G3258 as a matter of fact! The G3258 held its own rather well even though it has two less cores and no HT, IIRC.


----------



## Doomtomb

A dual-core single-threaded CPU has no place in 2014.

My NAS literally has a more powerful CPU than this.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Doomtomb*
> 
> Honestly this seems pretty bad. It is significantly worse than the Core i family. A dual-core single-threaded CPU has no place in 2014. I'm sorry guys but the dream ain't happening.
> 
> My NAS literally has a more powerful CPU than this.


More powerful than Haswell @4.7ghz? What's that, Haswell @4.8ghz in your NAS?


----------



## BinaryDemon

That man is serious about his NAS.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> avx/avx2 are far from useless. They make a significant change for a lot of stuff, probably most notably video encoding.


Not many people are going to be looking at a dual core for an encoding or streaming box.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> System reviewers usually bench games with fresh or largely unlittered windows installations and without running anything else in the background


My Windows installation is unlittered, and there is minimal stuff running in the background.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> lots of background stuff going on, from gaming mouse software and antispyware to browser services etc


Most of these aren't at all demanding when idle. Not that I'd use them either way.

I don't run any persistent anti-virus or any peripheral software of any sort.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FlashFir*
> 
> What kind of VRMs should you care to have and cooling for this?


Most four or even three phase crapboards have enough current capacity. Stock cooler should be fine.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> A $95 motherboard will probably cope fine with it, even under a relatively heavy OC. Z87/97M-D3H for example.


I wouldn't dream of spending more than 75 dollars on a board for this part.

You don't need a Z series. ASUS, ASRock, and others support OCing on the lesser chipsets. Even though this is not officially supported/condoned by Intel, if you get a CPU/board combination that works, they can take it away from you.


----------



## granno21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I wouldn't dream of spending more than 75 dollars on a board for this part.


I 2nd this...Why on earth would you pay more a motherboard than the chip???

You would be way better off just buying a better chip


----------



## djsi38t

A great cpu,but today I personally would never consider a cpu without hyper thread for gaming.

Sure when my I-5 came out hyper thread wasn't really needed for gaming but today a high performance gaming pc should have ht.

I remember the benchmarks for crysis 2 with and without ht and the difference was considerable.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Most four or even three phase crapboards have enough current capacity. Stock cooler should be fine.
> I wouldn't dream of spending more than 75 dollars on a board for this part.
> 
> You don't need a Z series. ASUS, ASRock, and others support OCing on the lesser chipsets. Even though this is not officially supported/condoned by Intel, if you get a CPU/board combination that works, they can take it away from you.


I can't wait to get my hands on one for my H87-D3H... If that works and multi is fully unlocked I'll believe you... I have not seen anything from the vendors since intel said it was going to release new microcode etc.


----------



## jsc1973

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> No brainer? Pentium is still castrated (lacks extensions) and the amount of games that pretty much require 4 threads to run properly (Watch Dogs seems to be the latest addition to the list) is increasing with every passing day. Even a bog standard locked down haswell i3 is a match for a heavily o/c 3258. This cpu seems like a nice toy but the dual core era is long gone imho.


There are very few games that won't run properly on two cores with the power of a G3258 overclocked to the 4.5 GHz range. They might run a little better on a quad, but there's only so much distribution of workload that you can do on games. A quad-core is a better choice, but this Pentium is a very viable alternative for a budget gamer's rig, and that's not going to change anytime soon.

And the AVX extenions, as others have already said, are basically useless in a chip like this, because they're not used in gaming, and no one's going to use a dual-core Pentium for encoding or rendering. If you want a cheap machine to do those types of tasks well, get an FX-8350.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *granno21*
> 
> I really would have liked to see them compare the pentium versus the AMD 760K.
> 
> The 760K has the newer richland cores which have higher IPC and overclock much higher.


The cores in the Richland APU's and Athlons are ordinary Piledriver cores, the same as the ones in the second-generation FX (x3x0 series) chips. Richland was just a minor revision to the Trinity series that allowed for better clock speeds at lower power consumption. The CPU cores themselves didn't change. If you want a better CPU core on FM2+, you have to move up to Kaveri, and there are no Kaveri-based Athlons yet. And there may never be, because the 28nm bulk process Kaveri's on doesn't allow for as much clock speed, and therefore a Kaveri Athlon wouldn't be much (if any) faster than a Richland Athlon, even with the better Steamroller cores.


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> AVX, AVX2 and VT-d are anything but useless. The first two allow you to get big gains when programs use them, the latter allows you to game in a VM with >90% of native performance.


And I shall repeat myself...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Werne*
> 
> I meant for games, I don't know of a any games that utilize AVX/AVX2 instruction sets.


Guy I was responding to was talking about how games run on Haswell cores vs Piledriver cores. I was just stating that the instructions Pentium lacks don't impact game performance, I don't know of any games utilizing AVX/AVX2. Also, not many people would opt for a dual-core to do video encoding/3D rendering/stuff that benefits from AVX when there' a slightly more expensive i3 that has HyperThreading and AVX/AVX2 enabled. Or i5 2500 that go for prices in the Pentium/i3 range around here, maybe even a 6300 or 8320 if AMD is a consideration.

And gaming in a VM? I mean, I run VMs (I got AMD-V and hate dual-booting when playing with different Linux distros so I thought why the hell not) but I don't get the benefit of gaming in one, unless the user is running Linux and wants to play Windows games which could be solved easily with dual-booting and having 100% native performance. Having VMs with direct hardware access is nice but dual-cores start choking fast with a lot of processes running on them. I personally wouldn't run virtual machines on anything less than an i5, preferably on an el-cheapo 8-threads (or more) Xeon/Opteron/FX or a mainstream locked i7.

Unlike gaming, running VMs (and especially if running multiple VMs simultaneously) is one of those tasks where more cores/threads actually is better.


----------



## Partol

Grid 2 has AVX mode. But cpu's without AVX can still run grid 2.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1387577/gd-grid-2-system-requirements

My plan is to buy a Pentium G3258 and overclock it on a $50 motherboard with 3-phase power and no VRM heatsink.
I have a feeling the motherboard will work fine if there is some air flow by the VRM's.
Total price for the Pentium and motherboard will be approximately the same as a core i3 without motherboard.
gaming performance to price ratio is incredible.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Hmm, I wonder how much you can get out of it. If you can get 4.5 on a $50 motherboard it is even better value than I was expecting.

If I were to make a rig with one of these I'd be looking more in the direction of the $70-80 B85 boards, but would entirely depend on the ability for these to OC the CPU.


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Hmm, I wonder how much you can get out of it. If you can get 4.5 on a $50 motherboard it is even better value than I was expecting.


I'd say 4.5GHz or higher as long as mobo supports overclocking and it supports a stock i7 without throttling due to VRM overheating. I highly doubt an overclocked dual-core would use more power than a stock quad-core with HT.


----------



## Redwoodz

Well,now you can get a 6 core FX 6300 for $97. Kind of takes some of the wind out of this chip,expect the 4300 to drop even farther.
http://www.frys.com/product/7355964?site=sa:adpages%20page29_FRI%20date:062014


----------



## Themisseble

Dual core in 2014 is a joke. It cannot run smooth BF4 MP, Crysis 3.... Gte FX 6300 or Fx 8320. If you want intel then go with i3 or i5 or i7. Just dont buy intel pentium for gaming special in 2015... Also mantle is coming to linux.


----------



## hojnikb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Dual core in 2014 is a joke. It cannot run smooth BF4 MP, Crysis 3.... Gte FX 6300 or Fx 8320. If you want intel then go with i3 or i5 or i7. Just dont buy intel pentium for gaming special in 2015... Also mantle is coming to linux.


So you hate intel.We get it.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hojnikb*
> 
> So you hate intel.We get it.


No i just dont get you guys. Why should buy pentium K, good board and CPU cooler instead of i5 4440 + B85 board...? where is the point?


----------



## hojnikb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> No i just dont get you guys. Why should buy pentium K, good board and CPU cooler instead of i5 4440 + B85 board...? where is the point?


You can overclock even on the cheapest asus board (even h81) and stock cooler is adequte for a light OC.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hojnikb*
> 
> You can overclock even on the cheapest asus board (even h81) and stock cooler is adequte for a light OC.


Stock cooler has been shown to be enough for its max OC average of 4.6.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redwoodz*
> 
> Well,now you can get a 6 core FX 6300 for $97. Kind of takes some of the wind out of this chip,expect the 4300 to drop even farther.
> http://www.frys.com/product/7355964?site=sa:adpages%20page29_FRI%20date:062014


Isn't Fry's a small chain? So a significantly smaller amount of the US cannot access them?


----------



## AgentHydra

I don't know if someone has mentioned this already but apparently AsRock is making special cut-down low cost Z97 Anniversary boards just for this CPU. Makes me want to put together an Anniversary setup just for the lulz.

Video is cheesy as hell but you can see what the boards look like at least.


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AgentHydra*
> 
> I don't know if someone has mentioned this already but apparently AsRock is making special cut-down low cost Z97 Anniversary boards just for this CPU. Makes me want to put together an Anniversary setup just for the lulz.
> 
> Video is cheesy as hell but you can see what the boards look like at least.


Might be worth getting the mirco atx version. if I want to go x99 in september because my Pc is annoyingly slow instead of just going mainstream z97 with a i7 later on


----------



## Partol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Dual core in 2014 is a joke. It cannot run smooth BF4 MP, Crysis 3.... Gte FX 6300 or Fx 8320. If you want intel then go with i3 or i5 or i7. Just dont buy intel pentium for gaming special in 2015... Also mantle is coming to linux.


We don't care about multiplayer BF4 and Crysis 3.
By the way, core i3 may stutter in MP BF4.
core i3 works well in games which use 1-3 cpu cores.
If game uses four (or more) cpu cores, core i3 may stutter because of hyperthreading.


----------



## Redwoodz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Isn't Fry's a small chain? So a significantly smaller amount of the US cannot access them?


Several stores throughout the U.S. and this deal ships for free anywhere in the U.S. I believe. Also valid for price matching at other retailers.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Dual core in 2014 is a joke. It cannot run smooth BF4 MP


It can't?




Havent even been installed into the case yet. 4.6Ghz G3258 BF4 Multi Shadowplay




Anyone having issues with the newest Afterburner beta? I couldn't even get BF4 to load with it open


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> So a Dual Core cant play BF4 Multiplayer? More like an "AMD" Dual Core cant play BF4 Miultiplayer


Oh the burn...

In all honesty that i3 probably runs it as good as (if not better than) my 3630QM...

Still waiting for the Pentium video to process


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> It can't?


In all fairness - that's a four thread cpu regardless of how well it takes to hyper threading. Though I believe the pentium at 4ghz would provide adequate performance on multiplayer, not good like an i5/FX-8 + but ok enough to stay above 30fps at all times. And if you paired it with mantle i'm sure it's more than playable.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Though I believe the pentium at 4ghz would provide adequate performance on multiplayer, not good like an i5/FX-8 + but ok enough to stay about 30fps at all times. And if you paired it with mantle i'm sure it's more than playable.


Don't think so, looks GPU limited to me...


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> In all fairness - that's a four thread cpu regardless of how well it takes to hyper threading. Though I believe the pentium at 4ghz would provide adequate performance on multiplayer, not good like an i5/FX-8 + but ok enough to stay above 30fps at all times. And if you paired it with mantle i'm sure it's more than playable.


The comment was "Dual core in 2014 is a joke. It cannot run smooth BF4 MP" and i just totally proved him wrong. HT or not the I3 is a dual core.

Video is up. No sound tho.. What the heck shadowplay


----------



## hojnikb

Yeah, saying only 2 cores is a joke is a little bit harsh, considering how strong intel cores are. And in all fairness, its almost always better to have fewer stronger cores than lots of weaker ones. Amdahl law and such


----------



## fateswarm

AMD hasn't got real cores either lately but their marketing was convincing. inb4 "they are nearly real cores, more nearly that intel's". Still not full cores.

Intel's HT threads are not full cores by any stretch but they have real hardware representation. They have physically extra registers.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> AMD hasn't got real cores either lately but their marketing was convincing. inb4 "they are nearly real cores, more nearly that intel's". Still not full cores.
> 
> Intel's HT threads are not full cores by any stretch but they have real hardware representation. They have physically extra registers.


Regardless, the dual cores perform better than you said they would.


----------



## fateswarm

What did I say? I'm sure it's fine for some games, I wouldn't know what games those are perfectly. But it's obvious for "general gaming" it's a risky bet (they don't know what they will be playing in the future).

Perfect CPU if you know what game you need it for though.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Actually that pentium has obvious stutters (and it shows in the overlay too) but in all fairness it runs shadowplay, no matter how light on the cpu it is,it eats resources. Impressive but still wouldn't like to play BF4 in that, those hiccups are a game breaker for me. I suspect under mantle it will be rather playable though.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Actually that pentium has obvious stutters (and it shows in the overlay too) but in all fairness it runs shadowplay, no matter how light on the cpu it is,it eats resources. Impressive but still wouldn't like to play BF4 in that, those hiccups are a game breaker for me. I suspect under mantle it will be rather playable though.


What stutters?








It didnt have any stutters in the gameplay. Dont make excuses. For 74 dollars this chip is a steal


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> What stutters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It didnt have any stutters in the gameplay. Dont make excuses. For 74 dollars this chip is a steal


Excuses?It is in your own video, perfoverlay is jumpy quite often and when you tried to snipe from the skyscraper you had sudden drops from 80 to 40 (around 1:10).


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Actually that pentium has obvious stutters (and it shows in the overlay too) but in all fairness it runs shadowplay, no matter how light on the cpu it is,it eats resources. Impressive but still wouldn't like to play BF4 in that, those hiccups are a game breaker for me. I suspect under mantle it will be rather playable though.


Same question, what stutters, I think Puft answered it, there were none...

I'm sorry but the fact is that this CPU runs BF4 quite well, in contrary to what was said in several previous posts. The argument does not stand... I really don't see why people are blindly slamming the chip for being a dual core, we should know by now that any amount of threads that will appear in typical gaming load will not result in any major performance loss when running on dual cores.

The point is *you can run more than one thread on a core*...

To be honest the $75 price point offsets the fact that LGA1150 motherboards are more expensive than typical FM2(+) boards and unless you are going to be having specific workloads that the pentium can't deal with very well (AVX, etc) it makes a far more attractive option to any brand neutral buyer.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Same question, what stutters, I think Puft answered it, there were none...
> 
> I'm sorry but the fact is that this CPU runs BF4 quite well, in contrary to what was said in several previous posts. The argument does not stand... I really don't see why people are blindly slamming the chip for being a dual core, we should know by now that any amount of threads that will appear in typical gaming load will not result in any major performance loss when running on dual cores.
> 
> The point is *you can run more than one thread on a core*...
> 
> To be honest the $75 price point offsets the fact that LGA1150 motherboards are more expensive than typical FM2(+) boards and unless you are going to be having specific workloads that the pentium can't deal with very well (AVX, etc) it makes a far more attractive option to any brand neutral buyer.


See my above answer. I do not consider this playable for BF4,when overlay gets like this controls are jittery. It is quite possible that under mantle it will be smoother, though.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Interesting.

Anyone know if that overlay exists for BF3 because I have seen similar stutters when playing that game.


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> Anyone know if that overlay exists for BF3 because I have seen similar stutters when playing that game.


Yes, it existed for bf3 as well. You can add it in your config to always appear.


----------



## raisethe3

Wow, Stay Puft, that Intel Core i3 is no joke! Beats anything AMD has in its own dual-core. Was very surprised on how smooth it could play BF4. Especially, when quad-core was needed for the game in order to play it smoothly. Very impressed nonetheless.

Question: Why was it able to play smoothly? Is it because of the architecture inside the CPU that enables it?


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kuivamaa*
> 
> Excuses?It is in your own video, perfoverlay is jumpy quite often and when you tried to snipe from the skyscraper you had sudden drops from 80 to 40 (around 1:10).


Just watched the video again. Those arent stutters. They're simply cpu usage jumps.

1st jump is from enabling Shadowplay
2nd jump is when i brought up the settings menu
3rd is when i jumped out of the window

Jumps dont mean the game is stuttering because the game was fluid and perfect while recording. Again if you want to make excuses go right ahead but show me an FX4300 at 5Ghz being that fluid


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Every good APP is already or will become multithreaded


What magical world do you live in where this is easy or even possible









the best we can realistically hope for is better usage of 4+ threads like next year with AAA dx12 games


----------



## Kuivamaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> Just watched the video again. Those arent stutters. They're simply cpu usage jumps.
> 
> 1st jump is from enabling Shadowplay
> 2nd jump is when i brought up the settings menu
> 3rd is when i jumped out of the window
> 
> Jumps dont mean the game is stuttering because the game was fluid and perfect while recording. Again if you want to make excuses go right ahead but show me an FX4300 at 5Ghz being that fluid


You took a peek with the scope and when the whole scene revealed your cpu choked. It is pretty straighforward and it is beyond me you are trying to defend this.You also get a pretty wavy CPU (yellow) line in general besides the time you are in that secluded roof. I would have deactivated half my cpu and run the same map for comparison's sake (although it is apples to oranges with a 560Ti) but I have moved countries and it stayed in the other side of europe. Someone else will probably be more than willing to take a look. My guess is that even an Athlon X4 [email protected] will be smoother than the pentium, let alone a [email protected]


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I don't think it is to do with the CPU, there is no reason it would take 5-10 times longer than usual to render a frame compared to the ones right next to it.


----------



## Mkemrtn

Very helpful - thank you!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> 
> 
> *Reviews*
> 
> Tom's Hardware
> DigitalStorm
> Hexus (thanks to @AlphaC)
> MadShrimps (thanks to @BinaryDemon)
> PClab [PL] [Translated-EN] (thanks to @Olivon)
> JagatReview-Indonesian (thanks to @BinaryDemon)
> 
> Great price to performance from what I see so far, still waiting for other reviewers...


----------



## Exilon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I don't think it is to do with the CPU, there is no reason it would take 5-10 times longer than usual to render a frame compared to the ones right next to it.




It also barely affected GPU frame time... so who cares?


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exilon*
> 
> 
> 
> It also barely affected GPU frame time... so who cares?


Guys I would have flat out said that the game played like crap if the chip couldn't handle a full 64 player multiplayer server but the video speaks for itself. I didn't have one issue at all with it. Makes me realize why Intel never released the I3 K. It would kill sales of the quads as well as Amd's processors


----------



## fateswarm

I doubt pentium-K is going to be an one-time thing as they implied. They figured overclockers are going to get this chip as a temporary replacement chip or as a toy on mid-end systems. It can't be just an one-time thing if they think it would hurt them in the future since the present is also important, unless the future product collection design changes.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> Guys I would have flat out said that the game played like crap if the chip couldn't handle a full 64 player multiplayer server but the video speaks for itself. I didn't have one issue at all with it. Makes me realize why Intel never released the I3 K. It would kill sales of the quads as well as Amd's processors


Yeah, an unlocked Core i3 would be very nice. I used to own a Core i3 530

I agree with the unlocked Core i3 Haswell killing AMD CPU's (FX-4300 and FX-6300) but it wouldn't be a threat to Core i5 Haswell

*Overclocking: Get The Performance Of A Core i5 From Core i3*
Tom's Hardware http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i3-530-overclock-lga-1156,2626.html
May 14, 2010


















Those who want/need more performance would still probably buy a Core i5 4670K / 4690K


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> Guys I would have flat out said that the game played like crap if the chip couldn't handle a full 64 player multiplayer server but the video speaks for itself. I didn't have one issue at all with it. Makes me realize why Intel never released the I3 K. It would kill sales of the quads as well as Amd's processors


Not bother you too much by this, but can HT be disavbled on that i3? And if so, can you run it again without it? I just want to see how much of a factor HT plays here compared to a strict actual one thread per core performance. I3 Also has higher cache as well, but it will atleast give us a rough idea of how much of a hit it takes on 64 player maps.

I know on my old 8120, dropping it down to four cores cut the frames a lot - it's not nearly as bad on my 9590 but it still was a drop regardless.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> I doubt pentium-K is going to be an one-time thing as they implied. They figured overclockers are going to get this chip as a temporary replacement chip or as a toy on mid-end systems. It can't be just an one-time thing if they think it would hurt them in the future since the present is also important, unless the future product collection design changes.


I believe that the pentium K is a market feeler for a potential I3K with broadwell.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I'd think that if it sells well they would seriously consider an i3 K.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> It can't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Havent even been installed into the case yet. 4.6Ghz G3258 BF4 Multi Shadowplay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone having issues with the newest Afterburner beta? I couldn't even get BF4 to load with it open




Puts my 4.5 year old Phenom II X4 to shame.
This chip is an absolute steal, I can't imagine how well it would do in emulators or MMOs OC'd.

I think I'm gonna have to pick this up for a separate HTPC/Console build.
It's becoming ever so more affordable to build a decent or damn good gaming PC.

Imagine i3-K though...


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> I believe that the pentium K is a market feeler for a potential I3K with broadwell.


But you were right it may kill the i5, well for some budget gamers at least. The i5 is like an abandoned child. It lacks a good feature even an i3 has.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I don't think it will threaten the i5 too much. Many gamers will still take an i5k over a i3k or i7k. Considering the price difference that would exist between each of them (~$70), the performance difference between the i3 and i5 would be more than enough to warrant the extra spending, much more so than the i5 to the i7.


----------



## fateswarm

Yeah, though the i5 has become strictly a money-saving solution lately. More and more people with tech sense and money do not go with i5s now, unless they only play a single game they know its requirements in advance. This is because if they do not know what they will game next month, or if they do multithreaded stuff on the desktop, an i7 is a benefit.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Yeah, though the i5 has become strictly a money-saving solution lately. More and more people with tech sense and money do not go with i5s now, unless they only play a single game they know its requirements in advance. This is because if they do not know what they will game next month, or if they do multithreaded stuff on the desktop, an i7 is a benefit.


Since HT only helps for a small number of games and when it does, it still worsens performance per dollar by a ton. It doesn't make sense to get say a 4770k and a gtx770 instead of a 4670k and a 780, because a 40% FPS boost in every game being limited by GPU is a much wider scale choice than +10-20% FPS in Crysis 3 or Battlefield 4 and almost no other game

Nobody thinks that i7 isn't a benefit, it's just usually considered a "premium" feature, little boost for some loads as opposed to the core product which is much cheaper. If you have extra money to use and can't afford 6+ core or make more significant changes to your system for the stuff you want to use it for, it helps


----------



## fateswarm

I said or use multithreaded applications on the desktop. I think most of us here aren't just gamers.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> I said or use multithreaded applications on the desktop. I think most of us here aren't just gamers.


I (and a couple guys i know) do a lot of video encoding, but in the end~

20fps on an encode for £165+£100+£33 (CPU, Mobo, Cooler)

or

23fps on an encode for £240+£100+£50?

It's a decent boost and nice to have available, but it doesn't make or break the platform choice


----------



## fateswarm

You did a bad choice there seeing you got an i7.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> You did a bad choice there seeing you got an i7.


LOL
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Nobody thinks that i7 isn't a benefit, it's just usually considered a "premium" feature, little boost for some loads as opposed to the core product which is much cheaper. *If you have extra money to use and can't afford 6+ core or make more significant changes* to your system for the stuff you want to use it for, it helps


----------



## Deletive

Wow that pentium is pulling double the frames I do at low with a Q8300


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> You did a bad choice there seeing you got an i7.


Thought i'd need HT to make i7 950 @4g to Haswell worth it. I was wrong.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deletive*
> 
> Wow that pentium is pulling double the frames I do at low with a Q8300


dat IPC and 4.6ghz baby


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> But you were right it may kill the i5, well for some budget gamers at least. The i5 is like an abandoned child. It lacks a good feature even an i3 has.


It will only kill locked I5 sales. The 5670K will still be a strong seller. If i was Intel

Broadwell Pentium K - 79.99
Broadwell I3 K - 149.99


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Yeah sounds about right.

Kind of an odd product stack though in the long run... Almost $100 extra for HT on each CPU, doesn't necessarily add up as far as performance in many cases... Then again, the fact that an 8320 is $50 less than an 8350 which is around $100 less than a 9590 doesn't really work either.

Actually as for locked i5 sales IDK...
The more educated buyers will usually get the i3k unless they are looking for heavy multi-threaded use, while the less knowledgeable will usually pick a quad core over a dual core. That said, it would be invading the price bracket of locked i5s


----------



## fateswarm

There is a lot of exaggeration about HT's "uselessness" among gamers. They usually saw a benchmark on a few games on a certain card and got an opinion. HT has real hardware representation and each pseudo-core has its own registers hence it is a *big* benefit on purely multithreaded applications.

And a lot of people aren't only gamers.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> There is a lot of exaggeration about HT's "uselessness" among gamers. They usually saw a benchmark on a few games on a certain card and got an opinion. HT has real hardware representation and each pseudo-core has its own registers hence it is a *big* benefit on purely multithreaded applications.
> 
> And a lot of people aren't only gamers.


I used to own a Core i3 530

I run benchmarks on both HT on and HT off with Core i3 @ 2.93 GHz

DiRT 2 benchmark tool
- enabling HT increases the minimum framerate by 12.5%, average framerate increased by 7.5%

Handbrake (AVI to MP4)
- enabling HT reduces encoding time by 21.2%

It was a long time ago. I don't know if the scaling of HT for current Intel Core i3 will be the same


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deletive*
> 
> Wow that pentium is pulling double the frames I do at low with a Q8300


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Thought i'd need HT to make i7 950 @4g to Haswell worth it. I was wrong.
> dat IPC and 4.6ghz baby


Pssh, my BF3, BF4 and Hardline Beta dip to 30 at times and can hardly hold 50+ in MP, it's all over the place because of my CPU.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> There is a lot of exaggeration about HT's "uselessness" among gamers. They usually saw a benchmark on a few games on a certain card and got an opinion. HT has real hardware representation and each pseudo-core has its own registers hence it is a *big* benefit on purely multithreaded applications.
> 
> And a lot of people aren't only gamers.


The way how I see it, is most games only use 4 cores/threads properly, some games benefit from 6 to 8 and this number appears to be increasing.
An I3 would benefit from hyperthreading over a Pentium because there's 2 more threads at it's disposal, and i7 is less likely to gain benefit in games from hyperthreading because not many games are optimized to use more than 4 threads.

An i7 is not useless, but it's not a necessity either for gaming and that's because not many games utilize or are optimized for more than 4 threads currently, and because most games are optimized for 4 threads that's where an i3 would gain benefit over a Pentium, and an i5 would be "ideal" in some sense thanks to it's 4 cores, because that's how the software is designed, i7s are highly beneficial for productive work like video editing, encoding or music production and so on, because most of the software out there are able to utilize more than 4 threads.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Incidentally, has anyone got a firm release date? NCIX says the release is June 20, but I haven't seen any indication that they have this beastie in stock yet.


----------



## fateswarm

For America, shopblt which reports to take its ETAs directly from Intel has it on the same date with i7, the 2nd of July. Newegg also seems trustworthy and it has them a week earlier.


----------



## TPCbench

edit:

sorry, it double posted


----------



## ryouiki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Incidentally, has anyone got a firm release date? NCIX says the release is June 20, but I haven't seen any indication that they have this beastie in stock yet.


Amazon (US) also had June 20th listed, but the minute the 20th rolled over in the PST time zone, it went out of stock. Right now I still see an estimated delivery date for the 24th, but very skeptical they can deliver on that...I have had some pre-orders in the past where they shipped something without even sending a notification e-mail/updating their site, but never for anything computer hardware related.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> Havent even been installed into the case yet. 4.6Ghz G3258 BF4 Multi Shadowplay
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone having issues with the newest Afterburner beta? I couldn't even get BF4 to load with it open


People actually believe this? sure
User.cfg?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE66cR8DOZo
huge cpu bottleneck by i7 4770K!
and NVIDIA GPU (better DX11) - i7 3770k 4.6Ghz deeps under 60 - TDM!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh_HAwhu1Ic

--- reality for pentium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Er-wXiPyjE


----------



## Exilon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> People actually believe this? sure
> User.cfg?


There's been multiple driver updates from Nvidia (not to mention game updates from DICE) since *Oct 2013* and that video is in no way representative of how the game performs. If you actually watched the video you linked instead of cherry picking the pixels you wanted, you would have seen that it was GPU bottlenecked by one of the 780s because SLI was broken on BF4 release.

All you have done in this thread so far is spread poorly spell checked FUD and call other members of the community liars. Piss off.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

3.2 is a lot less than 4.5


----------



## lolwatpear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> People actually believe this? sure
> User.cfg?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE66cR8DOZo
> huge cpu bottleneck by i7 4770K!
> and NVIDIA GPU (better DX11) - i7 3770k 4.6Ghz deeps under 60 - TDM!!!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh_HAwhu1Ic
> 
> --- reality for pentium
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Er-wXiPyjE


Right... I'm sure the guy has some reason to lie and ruin his reputation. I'm thinking you're butthurt that intel just destroyed any AMD budget option.


----------



## Deletive

We can prove him wrong and he still doesn't believe it :|

I'm soo excited for this chip, it probably won't bottleneck my programs anymore at 4.5ghz,


----------



## Themisseble

Like i said i have the chip (i7) i can make it dual core (BIOS) at 4.5Ghz.. and i know the performance. Anyway it is your money...

Okay - reality...
I5 4670K 4.5Ghz vs G3258 4.5Ghz

this video shows good performance... so i5 performance is about x2? wwe all know that this game is made for more cores... so what about i7 4.5Ghz x2.3 perf. of pentium? NAH

But you will believe it anyway..


----------



## Exilon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Like i said i have the chip (i7) i can make it dual core (BIOS) at 4.5Ghz.. and i know the performance. Anyway it is your money...


Prove it.


----------



## Themisseble

http://www.overclock.net/t/1480050/battlefield-4-benchmarks-ht-on-vs-off-win8-1-vs-win7-new-nvidia-337-50-drivers
Here are benchmarks maybe you will notice difference... just dont say that BF4 is bad about MT.

PS: Prove it?!! YOu wont believe me anyway


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I don't see your point...

All I see is that the G3258 is capable of running BF4 without any noticeable stuttering.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I don't see your point...
> 
> All I see is that the G3258 is capable of running BF4 without any noticeable stuttering.


HOW? dont you see that i7 at 4.5Ghz (empty map) is almost slower than that pentium 4.6Ghz (full map) while recording (shadowplay)..

PS:So i5 4670K is 2x faster than pentium ....


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Almost slower...

So basically the same... More proving of my point that the Pentium is actually quite a damn good CPU for the price.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Almost slower...
> 
> So basically the same... More proving of my point that the Pentium is actually quite a damn good CPU for the price.


heh? you really believe it? this is BF4 and frostbite 4... just dont say there is no difference between dual and quad core

http://gamerthumbs.com/?p=56
more Bf4 benchmarks ... pentium doesnt shine... even OCed to 4.5Ghz shouldnt be fast as i3 at stock.


----------



## AlphaC

http://nl.hardware.info/reviews/5445/intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-review-unlocked-cpu-voor-e-65 <---- Hardware info netherlands, the US one should be coming soon.

http://www.pcgamer.com/review/intel-pentium-anniversary-edition-g3258-review/ <---- PCGamer short review


----------



## JunkoXan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Almost slower...
> 
> So basically the same... More proving of my point that the Pentium is actually quite a damn good CPU for the price.
> 
> 
> 
> heh? you really believe it? this is BF4 and *frostbite 4*... just dont say there is no difference between dual and quad core
> 
> http://gamerthumbs.com/?p=56
> more Bf4 benchmarks ... pentium doesnt shine... even OCed to 4.5Ghz shouldnt be fast as i3 at stock.
Click to expand...

actually, it's still using Frostbite 3... not 4...


----------



## Citra

Anyone know the release date of this chip? Dates vary by each retailer.


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Citra*
> 
> Anyone know the release date of this chip? Dates vary by each retailer.


anytime between now and July 2nd


----------



## jmcosta

this pentium its haswell?
i tested my 2500k 4.6 2cores disabled and it run around 40 50fps ultra(massive bottleneck gpu 50%) and if its haswell it has better performance per clock compare to sandy
so lets say 20% makes around 60fps
Pentium is capable to run this game *with overclock*


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Pssh, my BF3, BF4 and Hardline Beta dip to 30 at times and can hardly hold 50+ in MP, it's all over the place because of my CPU.


Yea, i don't play BF largely because of EA's business practices (and preferring other game types) and aside from BF and Crysis there's little use going from 4c4t to 4c8t in terms of game performance in 2013-2014. I wish there were - most of my CPU bound troubles are stuff like Sc2, Wildstar (single thread highly dominant) or even Planetside 2 (three threads) but >4 threads, CPU bound is not a very mainstream thing yet. I don't have the graphical capability to have to worry about my CPU nearly as much in Crysis 3 yet, and those that have it should definitely consider i7.
Quote:


> Pssh, my BF3, BF4 and Hardline Beta dip to 30 at times and can hardly hold 50+ in MP, it's all over the place because of my CPU.


I don't think they have this kind of issue when you're using a 4670k @4.6ghz with Nvidia or Mantle, not since wonder driver from green side, mantle exclusive to red and game updates

The nvidia driver alone posted like a 1.4x FPS increase in bf3 when cpu bound


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Never had major problems running BF3 on my laptop... Only that my CPU has a tendency to TDP throttle down to 800MHz when I run it at over 3GHz. And when it does that I drop from 70ish FPS (GPU limited) to around 40.

OK, when you run a 290 or 780 with a G3258 you will see that you are CPU limited.. But I doubt any other $75 CPUs will hold their ground either.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Never had major problems running BF3 on my laptop... Only that my CPU has a tendency to TDP throttle down to 800MHz when I run it at over 3GHz. And when it does that I drop from 70ish FPS (GPU limited) to around 40.
> 
> OK, when you run a 290 or 780 with a G3258 you will see that you are CPU limited.. But I doubt any other $75 CPUs will hold their ground either.


While FX 6300 will be much faster in BF4 and cost only 97$ and it will easily handle GTX 770 or R9 280X... Cant say that for pentium also i dont know if will get any boost from mantle or lov lvl API.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AIuEt11Ar4 - GTX 770
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRkeecebIHI - mantle

As you can see there is no point of buying Pentium for gaming new games also MT programs


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> While FX 6300 will be much faster in BF4


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Dual core in 2014 is a joke. It cannot run smooth BF4 MP, Crysis 3.... Gte FX 6300 or Fx 8320.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Thats why if your on budget get AMD ... you wont feel difference (FX 8320,Fx 6300).


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> pentium at 6.0ghz cannot keep up with FX 6300...
> 
> FX 6300 will get only better and better.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Pentium K.... If you want to play new games just get FX 6300 and r9 270/GTX 760


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I actually recommend you FX 6300 with cheap board you may get better GPU. Maybe used R9 290 (you may get it quite cheap)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Why dont you just get Fx 6300 instead.
> 
> I think that AMD FX 6300 might be faster then i5 4670K clock per clock.


Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?


----------



## Boinz

And this would be a good time to wrap up the thread, and put themisseble on ignore.


----------



## TPCbench

When is the release date of Intel Pentium G3258 ? Is it the same for all countries/regions ? I'm from the Philippines

I'm very excited about this unlocked Pentium especially when I saw the review at Tom's Hardware

I'll be betting this and compare it with my AMD A10-5800K @ 4.1 GHz. My graphics card is Palit GTX 750 Ti StormX Dual 2GB


----------



## Partol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1480050/battlefield-4-benchmarks-ht-on-vs-off-win8-1-vs-win7-new-nvidia-337-50-drivers
> Here are benchmarks maybe you will notice difference... just dont say that BF4 is bad about MT.


Why is that link relevant to this discussion?
Topic is Pentium G3258 which is a dual core cpu without hyperthreading.
I searched that link for a test in dual core mode without hyperthreading but could not find any such tests.
Also searched the whole page for the text "dual" but found nothing.


----------



## darealist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Werne*
> 
> Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?


We found an AMD salesman.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boinz*
> 
> And this would be a good time to wrap up the thread, and put themisseble on ignore.


I was considering doing that around 300 posts ago, but I am not one to back down... Also, I wanted to see how far we could take it


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> *AMD FX 6300 might be faster then i5 4670K clock per clock.*
> ..


Bahhaha thanks for the good laugh during my work day.

AMD fans are really delusional.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=699

Slower in every single benchmark, whether it was lightly threaded or heavily threaded workload.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darealist*
> 
> We found an AMD salesman.


Seriously, we must have, bashing a £52 processor really?
It's single threaded performance is a ton better than AMD's offerings, especially once overclocked. I'm guessing it would be very useful in Emulators or HTPCs, the I5-K editions are really highly regarded as the go-to processors for emulation back when I was heavily following the emulation scene which is only just last year or early this year, I'm still following it now but not as intensively, emulators like PCSX2 and Dolphin only use 2 threads to their fullest, the others have little to no performance impact, this processor is basically ideal for emulation at a crazily low price point even AMD's offerings are unable to contest.

Does anybody know if Intel are planning to do an unlocked Pentium in their next lineup of chips or is this a one off? I really would love to grab this chip for experimentation, I could throw together a lovely HTPC or a secondary build, so much potential uses for this chip. Would go along nicely next to an i5 or i7 I'm saving for.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Bahhaha thanks for the good laugh during my work day.
> 
> AMD fans are really delusional.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/837?vs=699
> 
> Slower in every single benchmark, whether it was lightly threaded or heavily threaded workload.


Pssh AMD's cores are at-least 3 gens behind, I like how their aiming for the future and all with mutli-cores of upto 8, but what's the use of having a ton of cores and half of them aren't utilized properly because of how games are designed, hopefully their next chips will step up their per core performance.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I was considering doing that around 300 posts ago, but I am not one to back down... Also, I wanted to see how far we could take it


I dont really see anything wrong with the thread, It's quite informative on a few pages.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I dont really see anything wrong with the thread, It's quite informative on a few pages.


That's why I didn't try to shut it down when the IMO delusional posts started popping up, BUUUUUT...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Seriously, we must have, bashing a £52 processor really?
> It's single threaded performance is a ton better than AMD's offerings, especially once overclocked. I'm guessing it would be very useful in Emulators or HTPCs, the I5-K editions are really highly regarded as the go-to processors for emulation back when I was heavily following the emulation scene which is only just last year or early this year, I'm still following it now but not as intensively, emulators like PCSX2 and Dolphin only use 2 threads to their fullest, the others have little to no performance impact, this processor is basically ideal for emulation at a crazily low price point even AMD's offerings are unable to contest.
> 
> Does anybody know if Intel are planning to do an unlocked Pentium in their next lineup of chips or is this a one off? I really would love to grab this chip for experimentation, I could throw together a lovely HTPC or a secondary build, so much potential uses for this chip. Would go along nicely next to an i5 or i7 I'm saving for.
> Pssh AMD's cores are at-least 3 gens behind, I like how their aiming for the future and all with mutli-cores of upto 8, but what's the use of having a ton of cores and half of them aren't utilized properly because of how games are designed, hopefully their next chips will step up their per core performance.


This is a perfect example of how the thread has been going around in circles for the majority of 300 posts.

As for your question, everything we know so far says that it is a one-off, but I'd expect intel to seriously consider continuing a line of unlocked dual cores in the future, depending on how well these sell... So if you want unlocked dual cores, buy these









EDIT: Looked around a bit, and found the other times intel released unlocked dual cores, and they seem rather underhyped, which is sad because they do have quite a lot of potential. But, that said Haswell might be a better contender than pre-SB architectures because of the pretty sweet single core performances. On top of that the quad cores are a lot more relevant than back in 2010 and will be encroached on much less by unlocked dual cores.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> That's why I didn't try to shut it down when the IMO delusional posts started popping up, BUUUUUT...
> This is a perfect example of how the thread has been going around in circles for the majority of 300 posts.
> 
> As for your question, everything we know so far says that it is a one-off, but I'd expect intel to seriously consider continuing a line of unlocked dual cores in the future, depending on how well these sell... So if you want unlocked dual cores, buy these
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Looked around a bit, and found the other times intel released unlocked dual cores, and they seem rather underhyped, which is sad because they do have quite a lot of potential. But, that said Haswell might be a better contender than pre-SB architectures because of the pretty sweet single core performances. On top of that the quad cores are a lot more relevant than back in 2010 and will be encroached on much less by unlocked dual cores.


LOL are the questions a perfect example?, I'm unsure what you mean.
Weren't some of the Nehalems and Westermeres overclockable? not sure how many or if it was all of them which were.


----------



## Olivon

*Intel Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition Review - Bit-Tech*
Quote:


> We applied 1.3V vcore and all was well - nothing flagged in Prime95, so we bumped up the clock speed. We got to 4.6GHz but 4.7GHz resulted in a blue screen after 10 minutes so we headed back into the BIOS to push the voltage up a bit. We finally saw stability at 1.37V and we even managed to push the CPU one notch higher on the multiplier too, with this 3.2GHz CPU now sitting at a very impressive 4.8GHz.


Quote:


> The video encoding test saw an even bigger improvement, screaming all the way from 1,810 to 2,775. This was enough to better all the AMD CPUs and Intel Core i3's at stock speeds, but even the FX-8120 was faster once overclocked thanks to its additional CPU cores. Overall, its score of 2,208 at 4.8GHz was enough to pip all the AMD and Intel Core i3 CPUs - a fantastic result from a sub £60 CPU. The only way you'd get anything faster is a K-series Intel CPU.


Quote:


> Once overclocked, the Pentium G3258 really did give the AMD CPUs a run for their money, despite only having two CPU cores, bettering them in both game benchmarks, although it still exhibited some CPU bottlenecking with our high-end graphics card. In situations with few threads on the go, such as image editing, Intel's better clock-for-clock performance means the Pentium G3258 is faster at stock speed and miles ahead once overclocked than the likes of the FX-8350 too.


----------



## fateswarm

Ain't going near 1.37v on the cheap air cooling this would deserve. But still an interesting solution. A ~$30 air cooler, up to 1.3vs and whatever it can do.

I would still not buy it for general gaming, but it may be what I take for upgrading an office pc.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> *Intel Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition Review - Bit-Tech*


Nice, that is a 50% overclock too. What a little monster lol! For what this is (a dual core) it's hilarious what it can go toe to toe with....plus, it's cheap.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Core 2 was overclockable through the bclk/bus clock, 4GHz dual cores were not uncommon AFAIK

My point was you basically summed up 80% of the arguments that have been repeated in the thread for the last 300 posts.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> *Intel Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition Review - Bit-Tech*


Completely wipes the floor with the 8350 at 4.8GHz in Skyrim.




I wonder whats the likelyhood of obtaining 4.8GHz?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Core 2 was overclockable through the bclk/bus clock, 4GHz dual cores were not uncommon AFAIK
> 
> My point was you basically summed up 80% of the arguments that have been repeated in the thread for the last 300 posts.


lol oh, and yeah I've ran two of my Core 2s and Pentiums at 4GHz, they receive a nice speed bump at those clocks.


----------



## Roaches

Ah finally, the perfect CPU for HTPC, light gaming and old school console emulation box. Plus with all the latest board features! couldn't ask for a better chip.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Roaches*
> 
> Ah finally, the perfect CPU for HTPC, light gaming and old school console emulation box. Plus with all the latest board features! couldn't ask for a better chip.


For real, the power consumption is superb!
What a brilliant chip this is.

Could make a neat NAS too, but AMD's quad core offerings may put up a decent fight in that area, unless not so much power is needed and power consumption is a priority.


----------



## Quantum Reality

I've decided to grab one of these things - pre-ordered through NCIX just before their estimated product arrival date so probably I'll get the notification in early July.

I'm going to slap a 212 EVO on it + a midrange Z97 board and we'll see how high she can go before she canna overclock one bit more


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Yeah I think a 212 Evo and a chap 4 phase board and one of these and you can go to town for a budget gaming rig... Especially considering the fact that most games people on a tight budget would play don't really take advantage of a lot of threads...

Still seeing if I can get one of these to stick in my H87 board, but living abroad really sucks... Have to wait for my father to go to a conference, but I'm not sure if they will ship it before then...


----------



## fateswarm

The golden combination of low cost would be a non-Z97 board hacked to work with it. MSI claimed to allow it while Intel doesn't. The situation is hazy.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> The golden combination of low cost would be a non-Z97 board hacked to work with it. MSI claimed to allow it while Intel doesn't. The situation is hazy.


Leaning to MSI or ASRock. Any suggestions? I'm willing to lay out up to $200 for the right Z97 board after tax.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Ain't going near 1.37v on the cheap air cooling this would deserve. But still an interesting solution. A ~$30 air cooler, up to 1.3vs and whatever it can do.
> 
> I would still not buy it for general gaming, but it may be what I take for upgrading an office pc.


Why not? It's a freaking 74 dollar processor. I've already pumped 1.45v through mine to try and reach 5ghz. No go


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

IMO the H87-D3H is a pretty sweet board for the price, the VRM seems pretty decent, easily handles a 3.3GHz i5... Only thing I don't know is the unlocked multi for the 3258. IMO GB and ASUS are the way to go, at least for 8x series boards, the 9x series are a bit underwhelming from Gigabyte.

If you are looking to go broadwell in the future I'd go with a Z97, maybe a GD65 Gaming or Gaming 5 from MSI, Gaming 5 or UD5H from GB. To be completely honest the current lineup of Z97 boards is rather crappy, there is nothing that is particularly good and cheap at the same time... I really liked the Z87x-D3H because it had a good VRM, and no rubbish I don't need, and it was cheap, but I don't know about broadwell support for it


----------



## revanchrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Leaning to MSI or ASRock. Any suggestions? I'm willing to lay out up to $200 for the right Z97 board after tax.


As of today, all Asus H97 can overclock G3258. 3 particular MSI H97 can overclock too. And finally, all Asrock H97 supports overclocking both Devil's Canyon and G3258 (except for the mini-itx model which i've yet to confirm). No news from Gigabyte or ECS or Biostar on this matter yet. I''m talking about H97 chipset only 'coz i love new board with new features. Actually all other chipset from Asus and most if not all from Asrock and partial MSI board (such as B85 G43 Gaming) can overclock G3258 too.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *revanchrist*
> 
> As of today, all Asus H97 can overclock G3258. 3 particular MSI H97 can overclock too. And finally, all Asrock H97 supports overclocking both Devil's Canyon and G3258 (except for the mini-itx model which i've yet to confirm). No news from Gigabyte or ECS or Biostar on this matter yet. I''m talking about H97 chipset only 'coz i love new board with new features. Actually all other chipset from Asus and most if not all from Asrock and partial MSI board (such as B85 G43 Gaming) can overclock G3258 too.


Do you have a full list with sources on what's going on? That's very important information, thanks. The chip will gain a lot of value if ~$50 boards are capable with it.

Those boards are often abysmal for i7 because they are rarely able to go near 150-200W properly but a pentium might not need that.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Yeah, I'm wanting to leave myself open to snagging someone's nice 4770K a few months down the road when I migrate fully from my i7 950 (I'm already in the process of starting to decommission the i7 box) - but in the meantime a snappy lil guy like this would be fun to play with.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

There were some BETA Bioses from Gigabyte, but nothing official.

Problem is if you are using the G3258 as a placeholder for a later Broadwell you might have to go with a 9 series board, we don't know if 8 series boards will support broadwell. Also, if you are going for a quad core broadwell you might want to take one of the more powerful VRMs.


----------



## fateswarm

If you're upgrading to OCing an i7, yeah, definitely get a Z97.

BTW, there is a small probability Broadwell may work on 8.

But very questionable, just a guess at this point.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Yeah, they might decide to pull another Devil's Canyon... But I doubt it, especially seeing how most motherboard manufacturers still seem to have quite a lot of Z97 boards to release.

TBH I've lost interest in LGA1150, the motherboards are not remarkable by any standard and are probaby limited by the crummy IVR...


----------



## Internet Swag

Hey guys would this be an upgrade over a i3 2120 3.3 ghz?


----------



## fateswarm

mos def


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Internet Swag*
> 
> Hey guys would this be an upgrade over a i3 2120 3.3 ghz?


Could be. i3 2120 has HT which the G3258 doesn't have.


----------



## lolwatpear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> The golden combination of low cost would be a non-Z97 board hacked to work with it. MSI claimed to allow it while Intel doesn't. The situation is hazy.


Yeah, I really don't understand the whole non-Z overclocking situation. I actually planned on trying to overclock on a non-z board a long time ago (with an i5 or i7), but there was hardly any information out there on it, whether it be which boards work well, or if they even support it. I then read that intel did block it eventually, so I decided against it. I never actually saw a post or video on the internet of a person saying that used a non-z board to overclock a K proc.

Anyway, I just ended up buying a like-new asus z87 for $75, so I don't even have to worry about it.


----------



## daman246

Quote:


> Hey guys would this be an upgrade over a i3 2120 3.3 ghz?


not worth it, you have to switch to a new socket. thats an extra 100$+ for a decent mobo + the 70$ for the pentium, with that 170$ your better off buying a 2500k/3570k.


----------



## Quantum Reality

i3 2120? Nah, too much of a side-grade.

If you want a "placeholder" CPU, though, it's fine.

But I suggest poking around for someone selling an i5 3xxx or i5 4xxx + a motherboard and turn that i3 box into an HTPC.


----------



## mutantmagnet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daman246*
> 
> not worth it, you have to switch to a new socket. thats an extra 100$+ for a decent mobo + the 70$ for the pentium, with that 170$ your better off buying a 2500k/3570k.


A decent mobo can be found for $70 since manufacturers are providing support outside of Z97 chipset.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mutantmagnet*
> 
> A decent mobo can be found for $70 since manufacturers are providing support outside of Z97 chipset.


I have thought of that but I'm getting a Z97 board for Pentium G3258 because I will be upgrading to Broadwell next year


----------



## Quantum Reality

Here's the MSI Gaming 5 from NCIX:

http://www.ncix.com/detail/msi-z97-gaming-5-atx-4d-97043-1360.htm

And here's the ASRock Fatal1ty board:

http://www.ncix.com/detail/asrock-fatal1ty-z97-killer-lga1150-b0-97198-1215.htm

I have to say I rather like the clean lines of the ASRock board compared to the MSI, and I don't need triple Crossfire anyway.

So unless there's a huge groundswell of NO I'll probably get that soonish.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Ehh don't really like either of those...

The VRMs are pretty meh, although I doubt it will be any major issue, I'd spend a bit extra on a UD5H or Sabertooth. That MSi is pretty overpriced IMO...

Z97X-UD5H

Z97X-UD5H Black

Sabertooth Z97 Mk.2

Annoyingly the Mk.2 has no Sata Express...


----------



## sonnet

Sorry guys I read lot of pages of this thread , but still didn't find the info I'm looking for:
are z87 motherboard capable of overclocking this cpu?
I have a asrock z87m pro4


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Ehh don't really like either of those...
> 
> The VRMs are pretty meh, although I doubt it will be any major issue, I'd spend a bit extra on a UD5H or Sabertooth. That MSi is pretty overpriced IMO...
> 
> Z97X-UD5H
> 
> Z97X-UD5H Black
> 
> Sabertooth Z97 Mk.2
> 
> Annoyingly the Mk.2 has no Sata Express...


Here we go with the VRM bs. ANY Z97 board will max out a 4790K on air and water. You dont need super high end vrm's unless you're using LN2


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> Here we go with the VRM bs. ANY Z97 board will max out a 4790K on air and water. You dont need super high end vrm's unless you're using LN2


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## fateswarm

Hrm, a refurbished Z87 might be excellent. Z87 had some excellent voltage regulation boards too. e.g. The gigabyte Z87X-D3H had the calibre of the highest end at a medium-end price.


----------



## Roaches

Seems like they push the date back to July 1st...Before, preorder was up until the 25 of June.


----------



## Shogon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Roaches*
> 
> Seems like they push the date back to July 1st...Before, preorder was up until the 25 of June.


I know







, this wait on the Pentium is making me consider getting the 4690k instead and hoping they make a unlocked Broadwell dual core in the future.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shogon*
> 
> I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , this wait on the Pentium is making me consider getting the 4690k instead and hoping they make a unlocked Broadwell dual core in the future.


That is exactly what Intel wants you to do


----------



## jsc1973

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shogon*
> 
> I know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , this wait on the Pentium is making me consider getting the 4690k instead and hoping they make a unlocked Broadwell dual core in the future.


I wouldn't count on it. The fact they called this an "Anniversary Edition" suggests to me that it's a one-off, although I'd expect it to be available for a long time to come.

It's an excellent competitive response to AMD in that market segment, where AMD still is a very strong competitor to Intel. If this had been available a month ago, when I built my HTPC rig based on the AMD 6400K, I might have gone with this Pentium instead. Intel is going to sell a lot of these.


----------



## Whodie

***....tiger direct cancelled my "pre-order"


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Whodie*
> 
> ***....tiger direct cancelled my "pre-order"


"Sorry guys, Intel decided to recall their unlocked Pentiums after discovering their potential once OC'd to 4.2GHz and beyond!"
How comes? do TigerDirect cancel them when they cant guarantee them for the previously announced release date?


----------



## Shogon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> That is exactly what Intel wants you to do


I wouldn't hold it against them. I want the dual core but meh. Guess I'm just upset to see the quad cores released before this monster.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsc1973*
> 
> I wouldn't count on it. The fact they called this an "Anniversary Edition" suggests to me that it's a one-off, although I'd expect it to be available for a long time to come.


That's true, but you never know what they may do. They might do it again if the consumer response to this chip is positive, or as you said a short time thing. I really hope they do it again though, but improve on it in the future with possibly HT or instruction sets.

That happened to me Whodie...this was about a week ago when they cancelled my preorder while raising the price on the Pentium by $5. I ordered it from Amazon and I swore it said tomorrow (today) was the release date but over on Newegg it says July 1st.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsc1973*
> 
> I wouldn't count on it. The fact they called this an "Anniversary Edition" suggests to me that it's a one-off


Nah, the opposite, the marketing is probably smokes and mirrors. If Intel would do something that would harm its general plans on overclockable cpus, they would not even do it now, since it would also mess up their plans for the next year at least. The chip will most likely be repeated on the next version, and the next, and the next of the architecture.

That being said, the framework could change if they change the whole paradigm of their lineup (e.g. no i7s and i5s, only one big chip, and stuff like that).


----------



## Whodie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> How comes? do TigerDirect cancel them when they cant guarantee them for the previously announced release date?


No clue, first person I talked to said "we ran out of stock" but that I could "re-order". It's a damn pre-order....at least have a believable lie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shogon*
> 
> That happened to me Whodie...this was about a week ago when they cancelled my preorder while raising the price on the Pentium by $5. I ordered it from Amazon and I swore it said tomorrow (today) was the release date but over on Newegg it says July 1st.


Amazon shows out of stock currently, Newegg shows 7/1. When I re-ordered my pre-order the guy from Tiger Direct said 7/5


----------



## Internet Swag

Damn I want to upgrade my CPU but I dont have money lol.

If this was an unlocked i3 I'd buy it in a heartbeat cause i5s are expensive!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hmm. My NCIX pre-order is still in the queue but oddly, they haven't charged my CC yet.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Internet Swag*
> 
> Damn I want to upgrade my CPU but I dont have money lol.
> 
> If this was an unlocked i3 I'd buy it in a heartbeat cause i5s are expensive!


This thing already kicks butt once OC'd to 4.2GHz upwards, with hyperthreading it would be pretty insane.


----------



## Pip Boy

i want a tri-core with hyper threading to 6.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phill1978*
> 
> i want a tri-core with hyper threading to 6.


I would love to see a tricore from Intel. Price it between i3 and i5, but that might kill off i5's...


----------



## Pip Boy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> I would love to see a tricore from Intel. Price it between i3 and i5, but that might kill off i5's...


in the end though if it hits the right market and enthusiasts lap it up (which they would) then really those who wouldn't otherwise buy an i5 are catered for and the advertisement of that kind of chip for gamers at a budget price would push sales through the roof.

ergo, they should Release a Tri-Core G3258 with HT and 6mb of L3 cache


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> This thing already kicks butt once OC'd to 4.2GHz upwards


This thread makes me happy after reading countless posts over at the DC thread of people trying to reach 4.9-5GHz.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> Here we go with the VRM bs. ANY Z97 board will max out a 4790K on air and water. You dont need super high end vrm's unless you're using LN2


The lower end z97's are worse than many of the z87's like the z87x-d3h, many of the boards are only 4-phase and would probably show a difference if you're running 1.45v on an i7. For most OCers, probably not though - it's still worth mentioning that z97 is underbuilt compared to z87 in general. We've had documented stuff on OCN with some of the lower end z87 boards (and i guess some of those z97's) being less stable, requiring higher input voltage to be used etc


----------



## fateswarm

The worse gigabytes are probably broken for high level overclocking. Their 4 poor phases are rated to reach a max of 25 amps each, meaning they might overheat or simply shut down on overclocks that go near 170-180W. It might have explained why the Z97X-SLI couldn't compete with mid-ranged cards on a modest 4770K overclock.

The irony is the mid-ranged gigabytes on 8 true digital phases are the best value for money, though since they are not an overkill, cutting their phases in half is a slaughter.

For a pentium K though I doubt more than ~140W will ever be needed.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> The lower end z97's are worse than many of the z87's like the z87x-d3h, many of the boards are only 4-phase and would probably show a difference if you're running 1.45v on an i7. For most OCers, probably not though - it's still worth mentioning that z97 is underbuilt compared to z87 in general. We've had documented stuff on OCN with some of the lower end z87 boards (and i guess some of those z97's) being less stable, requiring higher input voltage to be used etc


That was kinda what I was pointing at... All the manufacturers, with the only possible exception being Asrock, seem to have cut down on the VRMs for Z97...

I would not say that the Z97 boards are not capable of reaching the similar levels of overclocking to the Z87 boards, but I would feel much less comfortable running a VRM at 50+% of its rated capacity (under normal workloads) simply because of the fact that I don't know how long I will need to keep my current rig running.

The 4-Phase gigabyte VRM on the G1 Sniper B5, which I think was used on various other <$100 boards on both 8 and 9 series chipsets (H87-D3H for example) seemed to be quite capable of pushing a 4.6GHz 4770k at over 1.25v, but even if it is capable of doing that in the short run, I again don't know how long I can keep it there, so the extra headroom provided by those 8 phase boards like the Z87x-D3H is a nice thing to have.


----------



## fateswarm

I suspect they would have done the same on 8 if they knew what would happen with broadwell/refresh. Now they probably knew the requirements of future processors so they didn't go to overkills. I haven't seen an 8 phase or even 6 phase to have any serious current capacity issues, but I think gigabyte overdid it on the cheapest cards (of 4-total phases, soc non-force excluded).


----------



## sepiashimmer

I think Intel is planning for a simultaneous global launch.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Well, I've about settled on the ASRock Z97 EXTREME4 board at NCIX. They have it for $189.99 pre-rebate, $35 mail in. I normally don't like doing the whole rebate thing, but before I pull the trigger and have NCIX prepare my order I'm wondering if anyone has any strong suggestions for other boards. I checked the VRM thing out, it looks like the Asrocks, while not top drawer, are pretty solid in the >$100 line.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Oh yeah that board seems pretty decent overall, don't like the colour scheme so I never gave it too much attention.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> The worse gigabytes are probably broken for high level overclocking. Their 4 poor phases are rated to reach a max of 25 amps each, meaning they might overheat or simply shut down on overclocks that go near 170-180W. It might have explained why the Z97X-SLI couldn't compete with mid-ranged cards on a modest 4770K overclock.
> 
> The irony is the mid-ranged gigabytes on 8 true digital phases are the best value for money, though since they are not an overkill, cutting their phases in half is a slaughter.
> 
> For a pentium K though I doubt more than ~140W will ever be needed.


I think 140w is crazy high for an air OC, probably won't happen. By 1.45v it's probably still only like 100 watts cpu only


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

For the dual core I would really be surprised to see it go over 100w... The stock intel cooler seemed to cope fine under OC, that has trouble when you get around 80w...


----------



## Quantum Reality

Welp! Trigger pulled!


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Hope you enjoy it


----------



## Levelog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Welp! Trigger pulled!


I do enjoy my Z87 Extreme6 quite a bit. Have fun!


----------



## Vesku

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> Here we go with the VRM bs. ANY Z97 board will max out a 4790K on air and water. You dont need super high end vrm's unless you're using LN2


Exactly, contemplating getting a G3258 and a bargain bin Z97 and I have no worries about being able to pop in a Broadwell K and OC it to full air or AIO water potential. Outside of "suicide" benching the main thing to check is that the motherboards being considered don't have any actual technical deficiencies.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> I think 140w is crazy high for an air OC, probably won't happen. By 1.45v it's probably still only like 100 watts cpu only


I think it goes a bit "degrade-y" after a point before it reaches max capacity because max capacity also goes together with high temps on the mosfets. It might explain all those low-level boards that while they seem fine for a range, they start not being able to compete with mid-range boards on higher clocks.

200W or more can happen on LN2. 180W has been mentioned on water.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> I think it goes a bit "degrade-y" after a point before it reaches max capacity because max capacity also goes together with high temps on the mosfets. It might explain all those low-level boards that while they seem fine for a range, they start not being able to compete with mid-range boards on higher clocks.
> 
> 200W or more can happen on LN2. 180W has been mentioned on water.


Nobody overclocking a Pentium on air is going to hit 180w on a 24/7 overclock

200 on pushed i7, sure - but not pentium


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

200w is a pretty tall order for even the quad cores lol


----------



## fateswarm

I said, I doubt pentiums will ever go more than 140W on a previous post.

The last comment was on the platform in whole.

Someone in here claimed i7 would be fine.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Werne*
> 
> Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?


did you?
Yes it is insanity to say that that dual core sucks... I HAVE BOTH CPUS.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> did you?
> Yes it is insanity to say that that dual core sucks... I HAVE BOTH CPUS.


AMD's problem is that they have many weak cores going against less significantly stronger ones, in the age of games failing to utilize over 4 threads effectively the core count doesn't matter if the cores are not being properly utilized, this dual core OC'd to 4.2GHz and above will annihilate AMD's processors in tasks like emulation, games which fail to use over 3 to 4 threads properly etc, its all in the benchmarks, while this may not be the chip with the most cores, the per core performance, price and uses are along the great things for this processor, let alone the upgrade options of an i5 or i7.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Regardless, I'd think that games that can use 4 threads will work quite decently on two cores, hardly any worse than on 4 half power cores...


----------



## TopicClocker

I've just found out what instruction sets Intel stripped from this chip.

AVX
MMX
SSE
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4

but has SSE4.1 and SSE4.2, not sure if it has others, going to look-into it.

These may not have an affect on general games but may affect emulation.

PCSX2 supports SSE4.1 so it still seems that it's capable.

Does anyone know what the lack of these instruction sets mean, as in what games or applications could this affect?


----------



## lolwatpear

amazon now says 1-3 months to ship..


----------



## Shogon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolwatpear*
> 
> amazon now says 1-3 months to ship..


Glad I just cancelled my pre-order and bought a 4690k from Fry's, it seems like they keep delaying this CPU. Annoying to see brick and mortar stores filled with these DC chips but that Pentium is no where in sight anywhere.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> AMD's problem is that they have many weak cores going against less significantly stronger ones, in the age of games failing to utilize over 4 threads effectively the core count doesn't matter if the cores are not being properly utilized, this dual core OC'd to 4.2GHz and above will annihilate AMD's processors in tasks like emulation, games which fail to use over 3 to 4 threads properly etc, its all in the benchmarks, while this may not be the chip with the most cores, the per core performance, price and uses are along the great things for this processor, let alone the upgrade options of an i5 or i7.


Yes you are right... But still if you will upgrade soon to i5/i7 then pentium G3220 + better GPu is still better choice.

Why i think pentium G3258 is bad??
Time of a dual cores is over. If we look at BF3 (frostbite 2)and all older games you will that game are designed for 2,3 cores... BUT now it is time! For me you are big fanboy if you buy pentium G3258 instead of FX 4300 or FX 6300. Why dont you guys try AMD... So pentium G3258 is NOT smart BUY.

Ofcourse it is good buy for fun.. if you already have i5 and you want to buy pentium just for fun then i recommend you to get FX 6300 or FX 4300 and try to OC it. Just try it like i did.. i bought a used one very cheap less than 70$ (great buy anyway).

Again this CPu is great for older games like MMOs but MMOs ... actually i recommend my friend this CPu for GW2. Again MMOs will get optimized... WHY? First one will be ArcheAGE - Cryengine 3 = Mantle.

So in 2012 i would expect unlocked pentium. In 2014 i would expect unlocked i3... Imagine i3 4330K for 135$...

I hate AMD because their playforms ARE OLD! I hate INTEL because INTEL is dirty...

I am very happy for AMD - They have MANTLE,HSA,GAME developers and even Steam OS + Linux will get mantle support... this shocked me
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2365909/intel-approached-amd-about-access-to-mantle.html
Is intel afraid of mantle? hehe


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I've just found out what instruction sets Intel stripped from this chip.
> 
> AVX
> MMX
> SSE
> SSE3
> SSE2
> Supplemental SSE3
> SSE4
> 
> but has SSE4.1 and SSE4.2, not sure if it has others, going to look-into it.
> 
> These may not have an affect on general games but may affect emulation.
> 
> PCSX2 supports SSE4.1 so it still seems that it's capable.
> 
> Does anyone know what the lack of these instruction sets mean, as in what games or applications could this affect?


http://ark.intel.com/products/82723/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G3258-3M-Cache-3_20-GHz

*low whistle*

They really went low-budget on this one, didn't they?

With this in mind I am debating cancelling my pre-order and waiting on a used 4770K instead.


----------



## HMBR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I've just found out what instruction sets Intel stripped from this chip.
> 
> AVX
> MMX
> SSE
> SSE3
> SSE2
> Supplemental SSE3
> SSE4
> 
> but has SSE4.1 and SSE4.2, not sure if it has others, going to look-into it.
> 
> These may not have an affect on general games but may affect emulation.
> 
> PCSX2 supports SSE4.1 so it still seems that it's capable.
> 
> Does anyone know what the lack of these instruction sets mean, as in what games or applications could this affect?


wrong, what is disabled compared to let's say the haswell i5/i3 is, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, just like any pentium/celeron haswell

other things you mentioned are present, like SSE 1/2/3, SSE3, MMX and so on...


----------



## Boinz

Quote:


> Instruction Set Extensions SSE4.1/4.2


For PCSX2 emulator, thats really all you need.


----------



## Quantum Reality

@HMBR:

It looks like you're correct:

http://ark.intel.com/products/75048/Intel-Core-i5-4670K-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_80-GHz

A 4670K shows "Instruction Set Extensions SSE 4.1/4.2, AVX 2.0".

Okay, NOT cancelling my pre-order.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HMBR*
> 
> wrong, what is disabled compared to let's say the haswell i5/i3 is, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, just like any pentium/celeron haswell
> 
> other things you mentioned are present, like SSE 1/2/3, SSE3, MMX and so on...


Oh that's great!







False alarm sorry guys.
Why doesn't Intel list it on their site? are they simply industry standard?

They had me worried for a bit there, I was thinking they couldn't of stripped it of that many instruction sets.
Not being able to find a CPU-Z screen didn't help either.


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Not being able to find a CPU-Z screen didn't help either.


For future reference, whenever you need a CPU-Z screen of a certain processor, add "hwbot" to your search. Every submission requires a CPU-Z CPU tab to be open on the validation screenshot.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Werne*
> 
> For future reference, whenever you need a CPU-Z screen of a certain processor, add "hwbot" to your search. Every submission requires a CPU-Z CPU tab to be open on the validation screenshot.


I'll keep that in mind, thanks.


----------



## dlee7283

This chip reminds me of the E5200, a purely middle class CPU with shades of luxury.

Will probably use this in future customer builds until the i3 can compete better pricewise with the A10


----------



## thebski

It has been mentioned in the thread, likely multiple times, but an unlocked i3 would be awesome for budget oriented builds. I think that would have been more exciting, IMO.


----------



## 66racer

I dunno but Im pretty excited about this cpu. Cheap overclocking fun on intel finally. Since my primary gaming rig is still on 1155, I think I will pick one of these up to get my foot in the door with 1150 and pick up a 4790k later on. The g3258 overclocked will make for a nice little web surfing pc the wife can use later on....Now to decide if I want to finally go itx or do another matx build


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *66racer*
> 
> I dunno but Im pretty excited about this cpu. Cheap overclocking fun on intel finally. Since my primary gaming rig is still on 1155, I think I will pick one of these up to get my foot in the door with 1150 and pick up a 4790k later on. The g3258 overclocked will make for a nice little web surfing pc the wife can use later on....Now to decide if I want to finally go itx or do another matx build


This chip doesn't require an mATX. But that's my opinion, you should ask your wife what she'd like.


----------



## 66racer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> This chip doesn't require an mATX. But that's my opinion, you should ask your wife what she'd like.


Well I meant as in for my 1150 gaming rig I need to decide if I want to go itx or matx. The mobo I plan on buying first would be the mobo I use on a 4790k. My wife would probably need an itx mobo since she likes small desktops.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I'd go ITX... Would work perfectly in something like a RVZ01 with a 750 ti, for a small, relatively cheap gaming rig. If you were going to use the iGPU I'd say you should stick to the i3s, 10 EUs is pretty meager.

If I do end up getting one of these chips over this holiday, I might consider doing myself an ITX build with it if I like how quick it is.


----------



## 66racer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I'd go ITX... Would work perfectly in something like a RVZ01 with a 750 ti, for a small, relatively cheap gaming rig. If you were going to use the iGPU I'd say you should stick to the i3s, 10 EUs is pretty meager.
> 
> If I do end up getting one of these chips over this holiday, I might consider doing myself an ITX build with it if I like how quick it is.


Ya know going itx out of the gate might not be a bad idea since I know it will get used in my wifes build, plus it will buy me time to figure out the formfactor I use on my next gaming rig. When I get the 3258 running though it will be with my gtx770 so it will be fun to compare bf3 and bf4 fps numbers.


----------



## SoloCamo

Alright, this may be a tall order of request, but does anyone have morrowind installed? I'd love to see the average FPS this cpu pulls on a game from 2002-2003 that still runs like crap on many modern processors...


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Alright, this may be a tall order of request, but does anyone have morrowind installed? I'd love to see the average FPS this cpu pulls on a game from 2002-2003 that still runs like crap on many modern processors...


Games like Morrowind runs terrifically on Intel CPUs where core performance matters.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Yeah, I'd agree with the above.

I'm actually interested in what this thing can pull in CoD4 or other quake engine games. 1000 FPS quake should be interesting


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Games like Morrowind runs terrifically on Intel CPUs where core performance matters.


Which is what I figured, but the game is ancient and still runs ok at best IMO on my 9590.. (mind you, it's modded but still). I'd like to actually see some numbers, anyone know if there are any benchmarks out there on these new intel platforms for it?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Why doesn't Intel list it on their site? are they simply industry standard?


Support for a stated SSE version generally implies support for all prior core versions.

There is no way that this part doesn't support SSE2, because the bulk of x86 software in existence now is SSE2. SSE 4.1/4.2 wouldn't work without the prior instructions, and most software would need to run in x87 mode if SSE2 didn't exist, which would make this CPU useless.

There is no reason to disable support for the older instruction sets.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Alright, this may be a tall order of request, but does anyone have morrowind installed? I'd love to see the average FPS this cpu pulls on a game from 2002-2003 that still runs like crap on many modern processors...


I do actually have Morrowind installed.

The game has run well for me since I was on a 1.2GHz Athlon Thunderbird, and my 6 year old first gen i5 laptop (2.26GHz, two core, four thread, Lynnfield) runs it very well. None of my modern systems have any trouble what so ever.

I don't have a G3258 yet, but I would be surprised if it had any difficulty maintaining 60-120 fps, depending on settings.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Which is what I figured, but the game is ancient and still runs ok at best IMO on my 9590.. (mind you, it's modded but still). I'd like to actually see some numbers, anyone know if there are any benchmarks out there on these new intel platforms for it?


What sort of mods and settings are you using. I might be able to come up with a close approximation.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Which is what I figured, but the game is ancient and still runs ok at best IMO on my 9590..


Isn't that game singlethreaded? If that's the case, wouldn't surprise me to see Haswell pentium @ OC 1.5x faster than 9590


----------



## cyb

I want to build a dedicated MAME and console emulation ITX rig (retroarch, dolphin, PCSX2) and this seems like the perfect cpu for that purpose. I was set to get an i3 until I found out about the pentium.

Single threaded performance is very impressive according to this: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

And single threaded perf. is king in MAME and many other emulators as far as i understand. Any modern intel CPU is probably overkill for most MAME games but I do enjoy some of the newer CHD games like blitz and gauntlet legends which can be more cpu intensive.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cyb*
> 
> I want to build a dedicated MAME and console emulation ITX rig (retroarch, dolphin, PCSX2) and this seems like the perfect cpu for that purpose. I was set to get an i3 until I found out about the pentium.
> 
> Single threaded performance is very impressive according to this: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
> 
> And single threaded perf. is king in MAME and many other emulators as far as i understand. Any modern intel CPU is probably overkill for most MAME games but I do enjoy some of the newer CHD games like blitz and gauntlet legends which can be more cpu intensive.


The amazing thing is that, when overclocked, it trades blows with a 4770/4790K at stock in gaming, according to the benches I've seen.

Now if that doesn't blow your doors off....


----------



## revanchrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Isn't that game singlethreaded? If that's the case, wouldn't surprise me to see Haswell pentium @ OC 1.5x faster than 9590


Clock to clock, Haswell is 40-50% faster than Vishera in single thread performance. 1.5 time faster is impossible.


----------



## IMKR

Does anyone know if Intel will quit production of this chip soon? I wanna buy one in the future for cheap ocing fun


----------



## hojnikb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Oh that's great!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False alarm sorry guys.
> Why doesn't Intel list it on their site? are they simply industry standard?
> 
> They had me worried for a bit there, I was thinking they couldn't of stripped it of that many instruction sets.
> Not being able to find a CPU-Z screen didn't help either.


It doesnt even make sense to strip older SSE version, because that would effectivly make the cpu useless (you even couldn't install windows 8 for example). They just don't advertise it, because its the norm.


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Games like Morrowind runs terrifically on Intel CPUs where core performance matters.


Funny thing is, it will run better on old hardware than new. I've seen Oblivion and Morrowind running better on an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and a GeForce 6800GT than on my machine. Morrowind and Oblivion also don't like most ATI/AMD drivers for some reason (or drivers don't like the games) and run like absolute crap cause of that, which might explain why my hardware gets beaten by a museum exhibit.


----------



## fateswarm

Games don't "fail" to utilize cores. That's a layman's fallacy. Games nowadays throw buckets of money on the best engine coders and they know very well how things work.

The real reason you find it hard to utilize multiple cores is that your game has to keep account of what is going on in the gameworld, and this is an interractive application.

Unlike non-interractive applications (video encoding etc.) you must lag a lot while you are syncing data between threads, plus the global loop must be fast enough.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cyb*
> 
> I want to build a dedicated MAME and console emulation ITX rig (retroarch, dolphin, PCSX2) and this seems like the perfect cpu for that purpose. I was set to get an i3 until I found out about the pentium.
> 
> Single threaded performance is very impressive according to this: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
> 
> And single threaded perf. is king in MAME and many other emulators as far as i understand. Any modern intel CPU is probably overkill for most MAME games but I do enjoy some of the newer CHD games like blitz and gauntlet legends which can be more cpu intensive.


Emulation is one of the major things I have in mind for this chip, if emulation is the only thing or a major thing you want to do this chip is perfect, you don't need to buy a K edition i5 because of this anymore.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *revanchrist*
> 
> Clock to clock, Haswell is 40-50% faster than Vishera in single thread performance. 1.5 time faster is impossible.


OC'ing to 4.2GHz and beyond could bring it up, but his statement was likely hyperbole.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hojnikb*
> 
> It doesnt even make sense to strip older SSE version, because that would effectivly make the cpu useless (you even couldn't install windows 8 for example). They just don't advertise it, because its the norm.


Yup I should of known lol.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *revanchrist*
> 
> Clock to clock, Haswell is 40-50% faster than Vishera in single thread performance. 1.5 time faster is impossible.












I could write a rant.. but i don't have to. There you have ~82% faster, and there's another one for rome 2 which was like 1.7-1.75x, IIRC.

1.5x to ivy bridge maybe, but if Haswell is 1.1x faster than ivy bridge.. then 100 * 1.5 = 150%, *1.1 = 165%

you also just can't assume a static "ipc" value which is the same for every task
Quote:


> OC'ing to 4.2GHz and beyond could bring it up, but his statement was likely hyperbole.


It was completely serious


----------



## Themisseble

dont belive these benchmarks.. reality is much different.
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/gta-iv-real-graphics-mod-test-gpu.html
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/sniper-elite-3-test-gpu.html

- Rome total WAR
http://gamegpu.ru/rts-/-strategii/total-war-rome-ii-patch-2-test-gpu.html

how they get so much different benchmarks?

new MMO - good one
http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/archeage-test-gpu.html

WoT/warthunder
http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/war-thunder-versii-1-39-test-gpu.html
http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/world-of-tanks-9-0-test-gpu.html

I am not saying that these benchmark are totally right. More benchmark than you look more you are confused - so many different number.

who cares about dual cores...


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> dont belive these benchmarks.. reality is much different.
> http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/gta-iv-real-graphics-mod-test-gpu.html
> http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/sniper-elite-3-test-gpu.html
> 
> - Rome total WAR
> http://gamegpu.ru/rts-/-strategii/total-war-rome-ii-patch-2-test-gpu.html
> 
> how they get so much different benchmarks?
> 
> new MMO - good one
> http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/archeage-test-gpu.html
> 
> WoT/warthunder
> http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/war-thunder-versii-1-39-test-gpu.html
> http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/world-of-tanks-9-0-test-gpu.html
> 
> I am not saying that these benchmark are totally right. More benchmark than you look more you are confused - so many different number.
> 
> *who cares about dual cores...*


Would love to know what your point is, from most of those benches the i3s are onpar performance-wise with AMD's 8350 and 6320 at stock, and there's also three different I3s in those benchmarks.

Also Haswell cores are a ton faster than Vishera cores, AMD are going for the more cores approach to cope with slower processor cores and to sorta pave the way for programs and games which have better multi-threading to use more threads. (The next gen systems have octa cores thanks to AMD)


----------



## Themisseble

Look at the difference between FX 4300 and FX 6300 and Fx 8300... - games support 2-4cores. So FX 8350 5.0Ghz = Fx 4300 5.0Ghz.... My point? look at BF4! Simply you cannot compare CPUs in empty map...


----------



## 66racer

Glad to see the CPU listed on the Fry's web page today







yesterday it wasn't there, $71 but not available yet.

Might call them later just in case they have them. Is the newegg 7-1 date is the official launch date or just low supplies?


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Support for a stated SSE version generally implies support for all prior core versions.
> 
> There is no way that this part doesn't support SSE2, because the bulk of x86 software in existence now is SSE2. SSE 4.1/4.2 wouldn't work without the prior instructions, and most software would need to run in x87 mode if SSE2 didn't exist, which would make this CPU useless.
> 
> There is no reason to disable support for the older instruction sets.
> I do actually have Morrowind installed.
> 
> The game has run well for me since I was on a 1.2GHz Athlon Thunderbird, and my 6 year old first gen i5 laptop (2.26GHz, two core, four thread, Lynnfield) runs it very well. None of my modern systems have any trouble what so ever.
> 
> I don't have a G3258 yet, but I would be surprised if it had any difficulty maintaining 60-120 fps, depending on settings.
> What sort of mods and settings are you using. I might be able to come up with a close approximation.


Hey, thanks..

I'm using the final release "Morrowind Overhaul" by| Ornitocopter.. turns Morrowind into quite the beautiful game.

Out and about I'm doing very well,locked at 60fps without issue, but heading into towns with tons of NPC's will drop me into the 40-50's and I've seen it even dip below 30fps in towns like Balmora while looking from a distance..

I know Vishera is hardly a powerful core, but I've got my 9590 set to boost to 5.1ghz and it does so playing that game... something just isn't right and it might be drivers, etc. As I recall playing the game this smoothly on a socket 939 board... albeit without the mods but cpu strain is similar.

__

Might just pick up this pentium and slap my gts450 with it.. decent low powered box with plenty of cpu grunt for older games and more than adequate gpu power for them, too. Would love a 750ti instead, though.


----------



## amd-dude

This is a great little gaming chip, just saw the review on linus tech tips, overclocked it runs games like a beast.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amd-dude*
> 
> This is a great little gaming chip, just saw the review on linus tech tips, overclocked it runs games like a beast.


Linus has a vid?
I'm gonna go find that now.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

In the OP









Added the link yesterday.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> dont belive these benchmarks.. reality is much different.
> http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/gta-iv-real-graphics-mod-test-gpu.html
> http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/sniper-elite-3-test-gpu.html
> 
> - Rome total WAR
> http://gamegpu.ru/rts-/-strategii/total-war-rome-ii-patch-2-test-gpu.html
> 
> how they get so much different benchmarks?
> 
> new MMO - good one
> http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/archeage-test-gpu.html
> 
> WoT/warthunder
> http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/war-thunder-versii-1-39-test-gpu.html
> http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/world-of-tanks-9-0-test-gpu.html
> 
> I am not saying that these benchmark are totally right. More benchmark than you look more you are confused - so many different number.
> 
> who cares about dual cores...


For pure CPU performance, Haswells are 50%-100% faster clock for clock per core compared to Vishera. Games are terrible benches because the bottleneck is on the GPU, not the CPU unless you're testing low resolution scenarios or RTS. Video rendering, mathematical calculations etc purely tests CPU performance.

Haswell blows Visheras out of the water in terms of pure performance.


----------



## Themisseble

For testing CPu power i use povray 3.7... can anyone test it with pentium haswell 4.6-5.0Ghz


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> For testing CPu power i use povray 3.7... can anyone test it with pentium haswell 4.6-5.0Ghz


Povray is highly multi-threaded and will take advantage of all threads. The Pentium has no chance against 8 core Vishera. However if we compare lets say an 8 core Haswell-E at the same clock speeds as an 8 core Vishera (ignoring the price variance), results will definitely not be pretty (for Vishera).


----------



## Themisseble

actually Fx 8350 is on pair with i7 4770K in pov ray 3.7


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

8350 is 8 core, 4770k is 4 core...

So if you have an 8 core Haswell (TWO 4770ks) you destroy the 8350.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> 8350 is 8 core, 4770k is 4 core...
> 
> So if you have an 8 core Haswell (TWO 4770ks) you destroy the 8350.


And 8 core Haswell will be cheaper (if intel wanted to).


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> 8350 is 8 core, 4770k is 4 core...
> 
> So if you have an 8 core Haswell (TWO 4770ks) you destroy the 8350.


offtopic
FX 8350 is 4 module CMT
INTEL is 4 core SMT

I would like to see pentium at 4.6Ghz in watchdogs


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> offtopic
> FX 8350 is 4 module CMT
> INTEL is 4 core SMT
> 
> I would like to see pentium at 4.6Ghz in watchdogs


lol, you're still going at Intel vs AMD and attempting to knock this £52 chip?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> lol, you're still going at Intel vs AMD and attempting to knock this £52 chip?


GTAIV benchmark from PCLabs.

Beautiful performance, I can hardly hold 35fps in this game, and people I know with 6300s complaing about how bad this game runs on AMD hardware.

Watch Dogs benchmark from PCLabs.


Not looking too good, but the weird thing is I was getting almost those exact frames when I disabled two of my cores.








Something is wrong here and It's likely Watch_Dogs which almost every PC Gamer is complaining about, the performance doesn't make sense here, considering the G3258 clocked at 4.7GHz would rip my processor to shreds which I ran at 4GHz at the time of benching.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Okay, so with two cores enabled the performance got hit hard, I'd say it was averaging at 20fps and was an un-smooth experience jumping up and down with stutter, this doesn't happen with 4 of my cores enabled. GPU utilization was ranging between 30-60 with perhaps an average in-between 45-50, the cores are practically completely maxed out.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> For pure CPU performance, Haswells are 50%-100% faster clock for clock per core compared to Vishera. Games are terrible benches because the bottleneck is on the GPU, not the CPU unless you're testing low resolution scenarios or RTS.


MMO, too, is historically CPU bound. People with FX, Phenom II or even first gen core are complaining left and right about their bad performance in Wildstar while pentium g3258 is laughing
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Look at the difference between FX 4300 and FX 6300 and Fx 8300... - games support 2-4cores. So FX 8350 5.0Ghz = Fx 4300 5.0Ghz.... My point? look at BF4! Simply you cannot compare CPUs in empty map...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gzReaFZUIE


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> actually Fx 8350 is on pair with i7 4770K in pov ray 3.7


For single threaded workloads the Pentium will outperform FX 8350, no question about it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> offtopic
> FX 8350 is 4 module CMT
> INTEL is 4 core SMT
> 
> I would like to see pentium at 4.6Ghz in watchdogs


You can make all the excuses you want but FX 8350 is 8 cores. (Each module still has 2 separate integer cores, but they now share the front end and the FPU).


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> MMO, too, is historically CPU bound. People with FX, Phenom II or even first gen core are complaining left and right about their bad performance in Wildstar while pentium g3258 is laughing
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gzReaFZUIE


Not just Wildstar, my god Guild Wars 2!








World Vs World 8-15fps drops in zergs, 30 fps average in towns, and ranging from 30-60 inconsistently while traveling or so, it's all over the place.

Tried bro's 2600K. was a heavenly experience.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> MMO, too, is historically CPU bound. People with FX, Phenom II or even first gen core are complaining left and right about their bad performance in Wildstar while pentium g3258 is laughing
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gzReaFZUIE


This video about Bf4 and pentium g3258 is fake...


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> This video about Bf4 and pentium g3258 is fake...


So are you implying StayPuft is lying?


----------



## Themisseble

Look at other benchmarks with pentium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgCNmJfhcqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6la8xnjBUE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2nNCJq7cDc

Nvidia drivers are good for more cores...

that pentium should be really strong in BF3 MP


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Look at other benchmarks with pentium
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgCNmJfhcqg
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6la8xnjBUE
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2nNCJq7cDc


Are you being serious?
Stay Puft's is OC'd to 4.6GHz, the G3220 is a Haswell at 3.0GHz, the g2120 is an Ivybridge pentium.
From the G3220 he has oc'd his CPU by 1.6GHz, how is the superior performance of his processor hard to comprehend?

The main big thing about this processor is that it has *unlocked multiplier*, because of this they can get to clocks of 4.2GHz and above and get insane single core performance for the price, and this chip really performs once OC'd to that.

Not everyone will be buying it to game, some are buying it for HTPCs, to run emulators (It is perfect for emulators, you dont need an i5 K edition chip now), and even when you do buy it to game it can perform really well against alternatives, especially for the cost of the processor.

Have you not seen the reviews and benches in the OP?


----------



## Themisseble

Yes i have seen them.. but that last benchmark as you can see is not true...

also pentium 4.7 Ghz cannot beat i3 at 3.5Ghz in BF4 MP.. dont be so naive

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/147501-ive-got-an-fx-8320-an-i7-2600-any-benchmark-requests/page-4

so here Fx 4300 is on pair with i5? Far cry 3 1.02

pehnom x2 is on pair with i3 530? FX 6300 kills with avg fps I7 3930K? yeah sure...


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes i have seen them.. but that last benchmark as you can see is not true...
> 
> also pentium 4.7 Ghz cannot beat i3 at 3.5Ghz in BF4 MP.. dont be so naive


I have to step in now.... You realize that HT barely gives any performance increase? You also know that when activating HT, you lose a lot of single threaded performance? If an i3 has all four threads under load, you can get the performance of 2.5 physical cores, while running on four threads. If the main thread of a game gets put on HT, there goes your frames.

Basically: Pentium = 2 threads; i3 = 2.5 threads

^ Measuring true performance.
I also don't know how well SMT is now. I believe these numbers are coming from the third generation core series.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes i have seen them.. but that last benchmark as you can see is not true...
> 
> also pentium 4.7 Ghz cannot beat i3 at 3.5Ghz in BF4 MP.. dont be so naive


Naive? says the person who thinks all Pentiums perform the same.
Why is it not true true exactly?


----------



## Exilon

I put him on ignore and you guys have to go and quote him.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exilon*
> 
> I put him on ignore and you guys have to go and quote him.


Your profile pic (minus the cards) is perfect for what you said


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Weeeeeeeee, I love going around in circles....
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> I have to step in now.... You realize that HT barely gives any performance increase? *You also know that when activating HT, you lose a lot of single threaded performance?* If an i3 has all four threads under load, you can get the performance of 2.5 physical cores, while running on four threads. If the main thread of a game gets put on HT, there goes your frames.
> 
> Basically: Pentium = 2 threads; i3 = 2.5 threads
> 
> ^ Measuring true performance.
> I also don't know how well SMT is now. I believe these numbers are coming from the third generation core series.


O rlly? Never knew that. From what I have seen single thread performance of i5 and i7 was the same clock for clock...

Are you referring to the performance of each thread in multi-threaded workloads? That would match up with what I've seen.\

Just remember, anything that makes a dual core intel CPU mildy relevant is complete and utter lie.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Weeeeeeeee, I love going around in circles....
> O rlly? Never knew that. From what I have seen single thread performance of i5 and i7 was the same clock for clock...
> 
> Are you referring to the performance of each thread in multi-threaded workloads? That would match up with what I've seen.\
> 
> Just remember, anything that makes a dual core intel CPU mildy relevant is complete and utter lie.


HT does decrease single thread performance by around 5% on an i3 550 is all I know. 5% is not a lot, but still noticeable.

I found out about this by messing with the HT on my i3 550 and running Cinebench R11.5 single thread.

Remember, i7s usually have more cache which probably makes up for the slight single thread performance hit caused by HT.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Weeeeeeeee, I love going around in circles....
> O rlly? Never knew that. From what I have seen single thread performance of i5 and i7 was the same clock for clock...
> 
> Are you referring to the performance of each thread in multi-threaded workloads? That would match up with what I've seen.\
> 
> Just remember, anything that makes a dual core intel CPU mildy relevant is complete and utter lie.


Yes, each thread drops to about 62.5% when HT activates in a core. A dual core ends up at +50% performance in tasks that can utilize four threads evenly. This is going from CineBench 11.5 on a 3rd generation core i7. It received 5x the performance when switching from 1 thread to all 8. After some math I'm too tired to go through, it turns out that each thread works at 62.5% efficiency. It does drop performance in single threaded applications, but only if HT is enabled. That is the beauty of SMT.


----------



## fateswarm

Hah. I realized how lenient we were on wattage/amps requirements of boards. My i7 on 4.6gigs on common air for which I also tried to keep voltages low, outputs to the cpu up to 185watts and the low side mosfets have to pass through 110 amps, according to the digital VRM controller of z97x-gaming 7 on HWInfo.

That means, a 4 total-phases board with 25amps mosfets would shut down in that occasion.

The Pentium-K hopefully doesn't go beyond 140W though I'd like to see it tested.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Is that 25 amps the maximum current, or the current rating at that certain dissipation? I'd like to see some of those new, cheap VRM Gigabyte boards pushed to the limits, they certainly don't look impressive on paper... Then again the SOC Force seems like a pretty sweet board, even if it's not brilliant on paper.

I actually think that if I were to chose a Z97 board ATM, I'd be going for either a SOC Force or maybe a Sabertooth, but I'm not sure if I could justify the extra money.


----------



## cutty1998

Can it play Crysis?


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cutty1998*
> 
> Can it play Crysis?


Yes and many more if you have the right graphics card.


----------



## hojnikb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes i have seen them.. but that last benchmark as you can see is not true...
> 
> also pentium 4.7 Ghz cannot beat i3 at 3.5Ghz in BF4 MP.. dont be so naive
> 
> http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/147501-ive-got-an-fx-8320-an-i7-2600-any-benchmark-requests/page-4
> 
> so here Fx 4300 is on pair with i5? Far cry 3 1.02
> 
> pehnom x2 is on pair with i3 530? FX 6300 kills with avg fps I7 3930K? yeah sure...


So basicly, what you're saying that, if a particular benchmark is no suited to you its now a lie ?

*This intel bashing is getting reduculus.*


----------



## ezikiel12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cutty1998*
> 
> Can it play Crysis?


Awwww the E8400/Q6600 & 8800/gtx260 days were the good old days.


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hojnikb*
> 
> So basicly, what you're saying that, if a particular benchmark is no suited to you its now a lie ?
> 
> *This intel bashing is getting reduculus.*


Agreed, guy is starting to sound like a broken record.

Can't people just accept the fact that a strong dual-core is still viable for gaming? Not the latest and greatest AAA titles but hell, it'll play most games just fine since even an overclocked Core 2 Duo can spit out acceptable framerates in a lot of non-AAA titles. I know cause I played games on a 3GHz C2D until January this year, and it ran games over 30FPS which I deem acceptable. A handful of games can saturate octa-cores, some can saturate quad-cores and a lot of them don't even need quad-cores, and this Pentium here beats even overclocked Phenom II X4 and Core 2 Quad units which a lot of people still use for $75. It's more than two times faster compared to an overclocked Core 2 Duo which is still a minimum requirement for a lot of titles.

Is accepting that a dual-core is viable so hard it requires 50 posts of bashing a $75 anniversary unit and going full-****** cause a handful of people want it for a small budget MMO/RTS gaming/emulator machine, not to mention acting as a fanboy in a whole plethora of posts? Most definitely! It's blatantly obvious that a bunch of people who know exactly what each processor can do can't think for themselves or make their own conclusions even after waves of reviews, and they need a guy in shiny red AMD armor with his 8-legged FX horse to come in and save the day!









There's a difference between choosing hardware based on results in games you play, software you use and performance it offers for platform price and choosing hardware based on brand and false sense of future-proofing through core count. Former is a choice made based on calculated requirements and hard facts while the latter is mental sickness.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Is that 25 amps the maximum current, or the current rating at that certain dissipation?


Well, truth be told the transistor of the mosfet itself could do much higher than 25Amps but the package of it is limited to max 25Amps. That means until it actually requires the whole 25Amps and then wants to surpass it, mainly then there would be a problem.

It explains why I was surprised the mosfets (on my board) aren't as hot as I thought. The board is fine with up to the 200Amps those can do while the temps are low enough. Though 4x boards might hit a total amps limit.

The mosfets in detail:



Notice the "package limited" line that appears early. The IR3553 (on SOC Force) are a total overkill on air or water since they could theoretically go up to ~700W output. The ~400Watts output of the SiRA12DP mosfets will be more than enough for anything on air or water though for LN2 world records you might want the tiny extra stability of at least the IR3580 controller since you'd already spend that much money.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Hey, thanks..
> 
> I'm using the final release "Morrowind Overhaul" by| Ornitocopter.. turns Morrowind into quite the beautiful game.
> 
> Out and about I'm doing very well,locked at 60fps without issue, but heading into towns with tons of NPC's will drop me into the 40-50's and I've seen it even dip below 30fps in towns like Balmora while looking from a distance..
> 
> I know Vishera is hardly a powerful core, but I've got my 9590 set to boost to 5.1ghz and it does so playing that game... something just isn't right and it might be drivers, etc. As I recall playing the game this smoothly on a socket 939 board... albeit without the mods but cpu strain is similar.
> 
> __
> 
> Might just pick up this pentium and slap my gts450 with it.. decent low powered box with plenty of cpu grunt for older games and more than adequate gpu power for them, too. Would love a 750ti instead, though.


I've never used Morrowind Overahaul before, but I have used similar combinations of graphics mods, without serious performance issue, even on AMD GPUs.

I'll try a fresh install with Morrowind Overhaul and see what sort of performance I get on one of my mid-range systems.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> You realize that HT barely gives any performance increase?


Depends on scenario.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> You also know that when activating HT, you lose a lot of single threaded performance?


Only if multiple demanding threads get scheduled to the same, which isn't going to happen unless you actually have multiple demanding threads, and even in these scenarios, total performance of those two threads is almost always going to be higher than one of those threads on it's own core.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Weeeeeeeee, I love going around in circles....
> From what I have seen single thread performance of i5 and i7 was the same clock for clock...


They are.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> It does drop performance in single threaded applications, but only if HT is enabled.


Almost never actually the case.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Of course, I AM AMD fanboy because i say that dual core cant run Bf4 Mp/watchdogs normally?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6la8xnjBUE


Well, you did just link something almost completely unrelated to support your argument.

Someone says, "A ~4.5GHz Haswell dual core can probably run BF4 MP just fine."

You retort with, "Here is someone's 2.8GHz Haswell dual core that has occasional issues running BF4 MP."


----------



## Themisseble

I am not saying that pentium cant run BF4... i am just trying to tell you that those setting are not ultra. No and it cannot match i3 or FX 4300


----------



## iRUSH

1) I don't think there is a better new chip for less money.

2) Why is BF4 the title people use to slam this CPU? The only example BF4 has set was how to not launch a game.

3) I think every game I play (all multiplayer) will work wonderfully with this CPU. That's currently 7 games, the oldest being Black Ops 1.

4) It may not work for some, but it will be perfect for many.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I am not saying that pentium cant run BF4... i am just trying to tell you that those setting are not ultra. No and it cannot match i3 or FX 4300


Those settings are not Ultra?
Stay Pufts rig he tested on has a 660Ti and a 4.6GHz G3258 at Ultra, you're comparing that against a 7770 and a stock Pentium?
Those cores annihilate the FX 4300's, alongside my CPU with it which can be OC'd to be onpar with the 4300.
i3 is debatable.

You cannot be serious.

That's like saying "an i5 4670 with a 7970 cannot run Ultra, here's a bench with a i5 4670 and a 5750 to prove it"


----------



## PunkX 1

^I heard rumors that the H-series motherboards may allow for overclocking this chip in the possible future.

If that DOES happen, I'll retire my Phenom to encoding and editing duty, pick up the Pentium K and a $40-$50 board


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Notice the "package limited" line that appears early. The IR3553 (on SOC Force) are a total overkill on air or water since they could theoretically go up to ~700W output. The ~400Watts output of the SiRA12DP mosfets will be more than enough for anything on air or water though for LN2 world records you might want the tiny extra stability of at least the IR3580 controller since you'd already spend that much money.


Only thing I can think of when you mention overkill VRM is the Z77x-UP7








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I seriously love this Pentium, it has a limited edition appeal to me, Intel might not do it next gen.


I really hope they don't. Just to keep myself happy I am going to stick with thinking they are looking at releasing an unlocked i3 in the future (broadwell)...

Either way, I don't think there is any other intel chip I would hesitate less to buy than this one, just the fact that it's unlocked and costs less than 50 quid makes me want to throw my money at it.


----------



## hojnikb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> ^I heard rumors that the H-series motherboards may allow for overclocking this chip in the possible future.
> 
> If that DOES happen, I'll retire my Phenom to encoding and editing duty, pick up the Pentium K and a $40-$50 board


Asus issued a bios update, that enables overclocking on pretty much all of their budget boards (including h81).¸


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> ^I heard rumors that the H-series motherboards may allow for overclocking this chip in the possible future.
> 
> If that DOES happen, I'll retire my Phenom to encoding and editing duty, pick up the Pentium K and a $40-$50 board


I plan to go Intel soon and get an i5 or an i7, still deciding which is more future-proof as I want to hold onto the chip for a couple of generations, but this CPU wipes the floor with mine, and for £52!
Can be a damn good hold me over until I make up my mind, and whether I'm going MATX or M-ITX, or getting a Devils Canyon or Broadwell, I can then just drop the i5 or i7 in my existing mobo which is why I'm aiming for Z97 currently, I can then put the Pentium in a H series board for cheap and have a secondary or backup build.

The thing is, I'll likely finally be able to play GW2 without it turning into a slideshow!








And emulate a couple PS2 and Dolphin games at fullspeed.

Heck. even ACIV and various other games will run better.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Only thing I can think of when you mention overkill VRM is the Z77x-UP7
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really hope they don't. Just to keep myself happy I am going to stick with thinking they are looking at releasing an unlocked i3 in the future (broadwell)...
> 
> Either way, I don't think there is any other intel chip I would hesitate less to buy than this one, just the fact that it's unlocked and costs less than 50 quid makes me want to throw my money at it.


For real, I love the potential this chip has.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hojnikb*
> 
> Asus issued a bios update, that enables overclocking on pretty much all of their budget boards (including h81).¸


So it's available to download now? I heard MSI, Asus and I think ASRock too said they were going to do that, but I was unsure if any went live, MSI posted an image on their Facebook with a H97 and this CPU OC'd to something like 4.4GHz.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

All of the major manufacturers have issued BIOSes which enabled multi OCing on non-Z boards, but I am not sure which ones still have 'official' support for it...

I saw a Gigabyte G1 Sniper B5 (B85) running a 4770k at 4.7GHz no prob, you can probably dig up the BIOSes that do allow it off the interwebz if you can't find them on the manufacturers websites.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> All of the major manufacturers have issued BIOSes which enabled multi OCing on non-Z boards, but I am not sure which ones still have 'official' support for it...
> 
> I saw a Gigabyte G1 Sniper B5 (B85) running a 4770k at 4.7GHz no prob, you can probably dig up the BIOSes that do allow it off the interwebz if you can't find them on the manufacturers websites.


Oh that's great!


----------



## 66racer

Hum looks like ncix usa has the cpu in stock and ready to ship....first one I have seen...
http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=97890


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *66racer*
> 
> Hum looks like ncix usa has the cpu in stock and ready to ship....first one I have seen...
> http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=97890


Too bad there's no stock in Canada: http://www.ncix.com/detail/intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-unlocked-d2-97890.htm

Surprisingly it's listed cheaper on the Canadian website.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *66racer*
> 
> Hum looks like ncix usa has the cpu in stock and ready to ship....first one I have seen...
> http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=97890


I noticed overclockers has an OEM one today.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-544-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=567


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Lambda-tek expects theirs on the 2nd... only 44 quid tho








http://www.lambda-tek.com/BX80646G3258-Intel-Pentium-Dual-Core-G3258-3-2GHz-Processor-3MB-L3-Cache-5GT-s-Bus-Speed-Boxed-~cs/B1887122


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Lambda-tek expects theirs on the 2nd... only 44 quid tho
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.lambda-tek.com/BX80646G3258-Intel-Pentium-Dual-Core-G3258-3-2GHz-Processor-3MB-L3-Cache-5GT-s-Bus-Speed-Boxed-~cs/B1887122


Never heard of them, what are they like?
And dat price...


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Seem pretty good from what I've heard. I haven't bought more than a pair of fans from them, but the prices are often better than what pcpartpicker can find.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Seem pretty good from what I've heard. I haven't bought more than a pair of fans from them, but the prices are often better than what pcpartpicker can find.


Oh cool, I'll have to give them a look.

I usually order from Overclockers, Novatech or Dabs, however I ordered a HDD from Amazon once.
Haven't really bought from other places but I've been considering Scan.

Wow £141 for a 4690K, impressive.


----------



## Pip Boy

i assume the answer is a definite yes, but would one of these be faster even in 2 core mode than an A10-5800k running all 4 cores against various benchmarks on CPU alone?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I found them when I was looking for places other than Overclockers and Scan because they had pretty terrible reviews... Remember you have to add VAT though, and if you go to checkout I think they charge like 2 quid for pickup at their warehouse or 5 for slow delivery.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I found them when I was looking for places other than Overclockers and Scan because they had pretty terrible reviews... Remember you have to add VAT though, and if you go to checkout I think they charge like 2 quid for pickup at their warehouse or 5 for slow delivery.


Overclockers and Scan had terrible reviews? I've always heard good things about Overclockers, not sure about Scan but they sound to be alright.
And oh yeah gotta pay attention to the VAT too.

However the G3258 including VAT seems to be around £44-50, quite a bit lower than other places I've checked still which is nice.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> 4.6GHz vs a stock Pentium? Are you that dense?


No it doesnt... game engine are very different it doesnt matter how powerfull cores you have, it depends how is game engine optimized.
Check this out.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-11.html
difference between i3 and pentium... When i did some benchmarks between i3 and pentium i was suprised. i3 is so much better.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> actually Fx 8350 is on pair with i7 4770K in pov ray 3.7


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> No it doesnt... game engine are very different it doesnt matter how powerfull cores you have, it depends how is game engine optimized.
> Check this out.
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-11.html
> difference between i3 and pentium... When i did some benchmarks between i3 and pentium i was suprised. i3 is so much better.


A) These aren't even the same generation of pentiums as this thread is about

B) They were not overclockable like these are, either

C) Why do we keep going in circles with this?

D) This is officially in my opinion the best bang for buck cpu you can get strictly for gaming


----------



## micromage

if the cpu+mobo for this g3258 and one of asus h81 overclockable motherboards are around the same price in total as an athlon x4 760k and an a88x motherboard which one would be considered better?


----------



## Themisseble

very hard choice, because of AAA title ... WHATs your GPU?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Avoid Bulldozer and Piledriver for LoL, it's really badly optimized. I have seen several people running 8350s and 7970s getting under 60 FPS, rito pls...

I'd suggest the pentium because of the upgrade options it gives on top of the above.


----------



## micromage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> very hard choice, because of AAA title ... WHATs your GPU?


I use a gts 450 for medium/low settings and i know its terrible lol
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Avoid Bulldozer and Piledriver for LoL, it's really badly optimized. I have seen several people running 8350s and 7970s getting under 60 FPS, rito pls...
> 
> I'd suggest the pentium because of the upgrade options it gives on top of the above.


The athlon x4 760k uses steamroller cores right?
Are they not much better than the piledrivers?

Also what are the differences between the 750k and 760k


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *micromage*
> 
> well i mostly play LoL , i also play some AAA titles such as tomb raider and metro.
> I bought gw2 as well but cannot play it due to terrible fps using a wolfdale e5400 so that is one game i'd like to run well


GW2, the Pentium will likely be great in that, It's horrendous on my 4GHz Phenom II, my friends with Piledrivers complain about the same thing.

You want high single-threaded performance for GW2 and MMOs in general.


----------



## 66racer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *micromage*
> 
> if the cpu+mobo for this g3258 and one of asus h81 overclockable motherboards are around the same price in total as an athlon x4 760k and an a88x motherboard which one would be considered better?


Well the nice thing about going with the pentium flat out is that its 1150 socket and has a much better upgrade path. You can get the g3258 and get a decent motherboard and later on you can upgrade even up to a 4790k. Thats the one thing that Im not a fan about with amd right now (i have owned an 1100t and 8150 so I an open minded) is that you either go fm2+ socket or am3+ socket and thats it. Going intel even allows you plenty of good matx and itx motherboard too for nice smaller builds. Cases like the corsair 350d or silverstone tj08-e for starters on the matx side.


----------



## HMBR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *micromage*
> 
> I use a gts 450 for medium/low settings and i know its terrible lol
> The athlon x4 760k uses steamroller cores right?
> Are they not much better than the piledrivers?
> 
> Also what are the differences between the 750k and 760k


760K is piledriver, it's richland with the IGP disabled, 750K is trinity with IGP disabled...
but trinity and richland are the same design, same process, just small tweaks, binning or whatever.. richland can run at higher clocks on average.

the 760K is basically the same as the Vishera (FX 4300) CPUs, but it lacks l3 cache, which have a negative impact in some games compared to the am3+ CPUs, and runs on a newer platform (with integrated PCIE controller and some other things), if you exclude the IGP.

760K and FX 6300 (oh and the 8320 is also good value) are by far my favorite AMD CPUs...
but if you can pay the extra for an i5, I highly recommend you do it, i5 are great performers and are probably going to stay relevant (no need for upgrade) for longer.

the g3258 is a nice CPU for specific usages, or for fun... but I would personally choose a 760K because 2 threads don't work so well for some games like BF4 or Watch Dogs... but, for emulation and some older heavy games (like FSX) the G3258 is going to beat any AMD CPU easily.


----------



## Bigm

This is the perfect chip for me. I can only afford so much at once. If I get a nice Z97 mobo and G3258 this month, then next month I can throw in a 4690k or 4790k.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Avoid Bulldozer and Piledriver for LoL, it's really badly optimized. I have seen several people running 8350s and 7970s getting under 60 FPS, rito pls...
> 
> I'd suggest the pentium because of the upgrade options it gives on top of the above.


LoL?!
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/league-of-legends-performance-benchmark,3484-8.html

your so wrong...

I recommend you to get pentium K if you will upgrade soon. if you want to upgrade to xeon (i7 cheap version) in two years get i3. If you dont want to upgrade then you may buy athlon x4 or even Fx 6300 should be great choice.

pentium is not weak but games will start to use more cores and it cant compare to athlon x4 in BF4. I just tryed on my mimic i7 4.0ghz with only dual core BF4 MP shanghai on lowest setting - yes FPS 50-60avg are good but CPu pikes are really noticable.

But then it is your GPU.. if you will upgrade to xeon you will need to upgrade your GPu!


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I'd say pentium and Z97 board now, then go with an i5/i7 and new GPU later.

That benchmark is pretty old, the performance of the game has gone down a lot because they have added a lot without optimizing the game.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I'd say pentium and Z97 board now, then go with an i5/i7 and new GPU later.
> 
> That benchmark is pretty old, the performance of the game has gone down a lot because they have added a lot without optimizing the game.


no need to buy z97 board even H97 (cheap one is good) + i3 is great even better choice. If you will need more power get xeon (i7) or cheapest i5. If this is to expensive for you get athlon x4 750K .


----------



## fateswarm

What? Wow still uses 2 cores it seems, or at least it only uses 2 fully. And they ask for 13 euros a month and 50 euros to get an expansion of a dying game?

Go away Blizzard, you drunk.

Playable in G3258 though.


----------



## Skrawrz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> What? Wow still uses 2 cores it seems, or at least it only uses 2 fully. And they ask for 13 euros a month and 50 euros to get an expansion of a dying game?
> 
> Go away Blizzard, you drunk.
> 
> Playable in G3258 though.


~8 million players paying $15/month = ~$120million/month isn't anywhere close to being a dying game. Yeah it doesn't excuse them for not utilizing 4 full cores, but Blizzard knows the majority of its player base run older cpus.


----------



## dogroll

Hey guys, thinking of upgrading from my Phenom II X4 965 to this G3258.

http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=27770&cPath=1491

I thought this thread would be the best place to ask: This motherboard is the cheapest Z97 I can get in Australia; but is the power delivery system enough for overclocking the G3258 to >4.5GHz?

Please don't tell me to get an FX-6300, I don't want a dead end! Later I will upgrade the Pentium to an i7 when I can afford.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> Hey guys, thinking of upgrading from my Phenom II X4 965 to this G3258.
> 
> http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=27770&cPath=1491
> 
> I thought this thread would be the best place to ask: This motherboard is the cheapest Z97 I can get in Australia; but is the power delivery system enough for overclocking the G3258 to >4.5GHz?
> 
> Please don't tell me to get an FX-6300, I don't want a dead end! Later I will upgrade the Pentium to an i7 when I can afford.


If you are planning on overclocking an i7 then this mobo should be alright.

If you only overclock the Pentium then this mobo is overkill. For the pentiums a H81 or H87 mobo should be enough. You can OC the pentium after doing a BIOS update on the non-Z mobos.


----------



## dogroll

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> If you are planning on overclocking an i7 then this mobo should be alright.
> 
> If you only overclock the Pentium then this mobo is overkill. For the pentiums a H81 or H87 mobo should be enough. You can OC the pentium after doing a BIOS update on the non-Z mobos.


Well firstly I don't want to risk the inevitable Intel microcode update that will disable the hack workaround of overclocking on those boards, and be stuck with a 3.2GHz Pentium, and second those hacks only allow multiplier tweaking and not voltage I believe? That's seriously limiting!

But I guess from your post that board even with 4 phase VRM is solid for overclocking G3258? I'm just used to AMD chips where you need 2048 phase diamond VRMs for any overclock at all!


----------



## Exilon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> Well firstly I don't want to risk the inevitable Intel microcode update that will disable the hack workaround of overclocking on those boards, and be stuck with a 3.2GHz Pentium, and second those hacks only allow multiplier tweaking and not voltage I believe? That's seriously limiting!
> 
> But I guess from your post that board even with 4 phase VRM is solid for overclocking G3258? I'm just used to AMD chips where you need 2048 phase diamond VRMs for any overclock at all!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4V5I-IDiHuc#t=2242

From the sounds of it, Intel is is going to be hands-off on this...


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skrawrz*
> 
> ~8 million players paying $15/month = ~$120million/month isn't anywhere close to being a dying game. Yeah it doesn't excuse them for not utilizing 4 full cores, but Blizzard knows the majority of its player base run older cpus.


A mammoth that is dying, is still a big mammoth.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'm planning to upgrade the folding rig at some point and this little chip will be bought along with a 4790K just to play with (well, if I can find some money some where). I think it will be delightfully ludicrous to slap this $75 chip into a Maximus VII and see what she'll do. Then put her in the spare parts bin and finish the build with a proper chip...


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Just picked up one of these little guys for $59.99 at Micro Center. I'm going to have fun with this next build.


----------



## 66racer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> Just picked up one of these little guys for $59.99 at Micro Center. I'm going to have fun with this next build.


What they are in stock? Ah man I saw preorder on the site so didnt bother going by today....its only like a 20min drive and I had nothing to do today too lol wife was out most of the day


----------



## Quantum Reality

Still waiting on my email from NCIX Canada.


----------



## dogroll

Guys that are getting the CPU now... Please upload temperatures and your overclocking results... I am very interested in this


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> No it doesnt... game engine are very different it doesnt matter how powerfull cores you have, it depends how is game engine optimized.
> Check this out.
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-11.html
> difference between i3 and pentium... When i did some benchmarks between i3 and pentium i was suprised. i3 is so much better.



















http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849.html


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> Hey guys, thinking of upgrading from my Phenom II X4 965 to this G3258.
> 
> http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=27770&cPath=1491
> 
> I thought this thread would be the best place to ask: This motherboard is the cheapest Z97 I can get in Australia; but is the power delivery system enough for overclocking the G3258 to >4.5GHz?
> 
> Please don't tell me to get an FX-6300, I don't want a dead end! Later I will upgrade the Pentium to an i7 when I can afford.


Look why spending more money with pentium if pentium is worse Cpu than phenom x4(You will throw away 70$). Dont upgrade.. get more $ then buy i7.

Yeah right now everybody is showing great performance of this chip... Just think about it. Can Pentium really mach phenom x4 and i5 750? NO!!


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Look why spending more money with pentium if pentium is worse Cpu than phenom x4(You will throw away 70$)


If you have such vastly different opinions than everyone else here then you might want to bring a pile of evidence with you or leave after making 25 posts saying the opposite of what everybody else is saying+showing


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> If you have such vastly different opinions than everyone else here then you might want to bring a pile of evidence with you or leave after making 25 posts saying the opposite of what everybody else is saying+showing


You have i5/i7? if you do disable 2 (+ht with i7) core OC it to 4.5Ghz and try Bf4 MP


----------



## Partol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Look why spending more money with pentium if pentium is worse Cpu than phenom x4(You will throw away 70$). Dont upgrade.. get more $ then buy i7.


You can go into every discussion on this forum and tell people "don't buy that cpu ... buy core i7" !!
If everyone here were as rich as you, we would all already own core i7's.

If you have nothing more to say about the Pentium G3258, then please leave and stop adding useless comments.


----------



## JakdMan

Well sheesh. LN2 will probably send this thing into 10GHz territory and be a beast in single threaded applications









Interesting to see how it's done. Pentium still worth it.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> If you have such vastly different opinions than everyone else here then you might want to bring a pile of evidence with you or leave after making 25 posts saying the opposite of what everybody else is saying+showing


For real, just spewing the same crap even after evidence is shown, and then bringing stock Pentiums into the equation against 4.6GHz ones.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Partol*
> 
> You can go into every discussion on this forum and tell people "don't buy that cpu ... buy core i7" !!
> If everyone here were as rich as you, we would all already own core i7's.
> 
> If you have nothing more to say about the Pentium G3258, then please leave and stop adding useless comments.


It's not even that, he's just continuously hating on this CPU and claiming it's performance is false, when there's a ton of benchmarks out there and proof shown on this thread where it's beating AMD CPUs with ease in quite alot of games, or at-least onpar with them, If half of the threads of the 8350 are underutilized which is in most of the games of today it's going to perform more or less like a FX 4320 @4GHz, the same thing with i5s and i7s in games, this is where this CPU can shine with it's high IPC and high overclocking potential in games or applications which fail to utilize 6-8 threads.

This CPU may not be the greatest for long term, as when 6-8 threads are properly utilized it'll likely fall behind, but it's certainly capable in most games of today.
If you know what you want to use it for and it's good in that field, for things like single threaded performance you'll likely find this is one of the best options, hence the reason why alot of people are excited for this, things like emulation, MMOs, HTPCs and having the upgrade paths of i5s and i7s.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JakdMan*
> 
> Well sheesh. LN2 will probably send this thing into 10GHz territory and be a beast in single threaded applications
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting to see how it's done. Pentium still worth it.


Certainly no 10 GHz for sure., 7GHz maybe but first on HWbot got 6.86 GHz :

http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cpu_frequency/rankings?hardwareTypeId=processor_3641#start=0#interval=20

Few results for the moment though.

edit : Don't feed it guyz


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> This CPU may not be the greatest for long term, as when 6-8 threads are properly utilized it'll likely fall behind, but it's certainly capable in most games of today.
> If you know what you want to use it for and it's good in that field, for things like single threaded performance you'll likely find this is one of the best options, hence the reason why alot of people are excited for this, things like emulation, MMOs, HTPCs and having the upgrade paths of i5s and i7s.


For me, I'll be having this Pentium G3258 as a temporary overclocking CPU while I wait for Broadwell Core i5

Anyone here knows the official release date (retail availability) of Pentium G3258 ?

All the reviews I have seen used an engineering sample


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> For me, I'll be having this Pentium G3258 as a temporary overclocking CPU while I wait for Broadwell Core i5
> 
> Anyone here knows the official release date (retail availability) of Pentium G3258 ?
> 
> All the reviews I have seen used an engineering sample


I'm thinking about getting it myself, and alot of my interest is to simply behold this unique inexpensive chip to run emulators and various other games which demand high single-threaded performance and maybe make a HTPC, run emulators and so on. (It has a limited edition appeal to me too, might as well grab it while it's hot)

I'm getting an i5 or i7 within a few months, I dont feel like waiting another year for Broadwell to release, as I did wait for DC to release and held off from buying a 4670K, I thought about getting the mobo I want for my i5 or i7, getting this chip and then within a few months get the processor I want.

Overclockers.co.uk have an OEM version, and I've heard Micro Center had some.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> For me, I'll be having this Pentium G3258 as a temporary overclocking CPU while I wait for Broadwell Core i5
> 
> Anyone here knows the official release date (retail availability) of Pentium G3258 ?
> 
> All the reviews I have seen used an engineering sample


OC.uk indicates 04/07/2014 for ETA.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-531-IN

Some e-tailes on my country said ~30 days left, around start august so.

edit : Topic Clocker is right, OC.uk got 10 OEM samples on sale :

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-544-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=567


----------



## TPCbench

I hope retail chips will overclock better or at least as good as the ES chips


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

That response from the intel guy was interesting. Guess they softened up over it for PR reasons...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> For real, just spewing the same crap even after evidence is shown, and then bringing stock Pentiums into the equation against 4.6GHz ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not even that, he's just continuously hating on this CPU and claiming it's performance is false, when there's a ton of benchmarks out there and proof shown on this thread where it's beating AMD CPUs with ease in quite alot of games, or at-least onpar with them, If half of the threads of the 8350 are underutilized which is in most of the games of today it's going to perform more or less like a FX 4320 @4GHz, the same thing with i5s and i7s in games, this is where this CPU can shine with it's high IPC and high overclocking potential in games or applications which fail to utilize 6-8 threads.


I said before this chip was confirmed that if it was under 100 bucks it would wreak havoc in the lower end AMD product stack... Guess this guy is living proof it is doing so right now...


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Look why spending more money with pentium if pentium is worse Cpu than phenom x4(You will throw away 70$). Dont upgrade.. get more $ then buy i7.
> 
> Yeah right now everybody is showing great performance of this chip... Just think about it. Can Pentium really mach phenom x4 and i5 750? NO!!


I'm basically doing the same thing: decommissioning my i7 950 in favor of a G3258 as a stopgap, followed by an i7 4xxxK when the used models start flooding the market.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I'm basically doing the same thing: decommissioning my i7 950 in favor of a G3258 as a stopgap, followed by an i7 4xxxK when the used models start flooding the market.


Just watch, you're going to end up getting a 5xxxk...


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *66racer*
> 
> What they are in stock? Ah man I saw preorder on the site so didnt bother going by today....its only like a 20min drive and I had nothing to do today too lol wife was out most of the day


Mine had two online listings(Boston/Cambridge if it matters). One said preorder, the other said only in store. I went to the store, it wasn't on the rack, but I asked for it and the sales guys winked at me and got one out of the back.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> OC.uk indicates 04/07/2014 for ETA.
> http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-531-IN
> 
> Some e-tailes on my country said ~30 days left, around start august so.
> 
> edit : Topic Clocker is right, OC.uk got 10 OEM samples on sale :
> 
> http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-544-IN&groupid=701&catid=6&subcat=567


It's already available in some stores. If you look carefully you will find it. Amazon US has it, for example. Some other etailers might but last time I checked amazon was the only one online and Micro Center had them in store but only if you asked nicely.

Unfortunately I can't post temps because my next payday is two weeks from Friday and that's when I'm going to be picking up an LGA1150 motherboard. I hope the ASRock Z97 Anniversary is out by then...


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> Mine had two online listings(Boston/Cambridge if it matters). One said preorder, the other said only in store. I went to the store, it wasn't on the rack, but I asked for it and the sales guys winked at me and got one out of the back.
> It's already available in some stores. If you look carefully you will find it. Amazon US has it, for example. Some other etailers might but last time I checked amazon was the only one online and Micro Center had them in store but only if you asked nicely.
> 
> Unfortunately I can't post temps because my next payday is two weeks from Friday and that's when I'm going to be picking up an LGA1150 motherboard. I hope the ASRock Z97 Anniversary is out by then...


I'm gonna have to look into the Z97 Anniversary, not sure what it is exactly.
I want to get to benchmarking when and if I get a hold of this chip, I want to benchmark half of the games I have installed.


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I'm gonna have to look into the Z97 Anniversary, not sure what it is exactly.
> I want to get to benchmarking when and if I get a hold of this chip, I want to benchmark half of the games I have installed.


You might not want it. It's a very barebones Z97 designed specifically for people who buy this processor on a budget and want to overclock it, I'm planning on getting it because it'll be cheap and I already have an expensive Z77 setup. It only has five phases, for example, but I think that'll be enough for overclocking a Pentium


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Yeah I was like, cool, board specially for this CPU, but I think it takes away from one of the main attractions of the G3258, the fact that it runs on the same platform as the 4xxxk and 5xxxk CPUs... Otherwise you might as well try a H or B series board.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I'm gonna have to look into the Z97 Anniversary, not sure what it is exactly.
> I want to get to benchmarking when and if I get a hold of this chip, I want to benchmark half of the games I have installed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not want it. It's a very barebones Z97 designed specifically for people who buy this processor on a budget and want to overclock it, I'm planning on getting it because it'll be cheap and I already have an expensive Z77 setup. It only has five phases, for example, but I think that'll be enough for overclocking a Pentium
Click to expand...

The microATX one, probably not. But the full-ATX one actually seemed pretty well kitted-out, so you might want to give it a go anyway.


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Yeah I was like, cool, board specially for this CPU, but I think it takes away from one of the main attractions of the G3258, the fact that it runs on the same platform as the 4xxxk and 5xxxk CPUs... Otherwise you might as well try a H or B series board.


It still runs other 1150 processors. The idea is that if you bought a G3258 you'd probably want a cheap board that you can over clock on. You could slap a 4790K in it too, but if you're buying an i7 you probably have more money for a swanky overclocking board.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> The microATX one, probably not. But the full-ATX one actually seemed pretty well kitted-out, so you might want to give it a go anyway.


Well unfortunately it only has one PCI-e 3.0 x16 slot. Frankly I'd say it's a fine omission because I'm probably just going to slap in an overclocked 750 Ti anyways. Then I can stick in my NIC in the mPCI-e slot and my Titanium HD in one of the PCI-e 2.0 x1 slots.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> It still runs other 1150 processors. The idea is that if you bought a G3258 you'd probably want a cheap board that you can over clock on. You could slap a 4790K in it too, but if you're buying an i7 you probably have more money for a swanky overclocking board.
> Well unfortunately it only has one PCI-e 3.0 x16 slot. Frankly I'd say it's a fine omission because I'm probably just going to slap in an overclocked 750 Ti anyways. Then I can stick in my NIC in the mPCI-e slot and my Titanium HD in one of the PCI-e 2.0 x1 slots.


Hmm If I was just getting the board for just the G3258 I'd consider it, but since I want either a 4690K or a 4790K and to overclock them in the future I'll likely want a board which can handle those processors at higher overclocks, but the Anniversary board sounds like a nice board still for those who aren't into all of that


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> It still runs other 1150 processors. The idea is that if you bought a G3258 you'd probably want a cheap board that you can over clock on. You could slap a 4790K in it too, but if you're buying an i7 you probably have more money for a swanky overclocking board.
> Well unfortunately it only has one PCI-e 3.0 x16 slot. Frankly I'd say it's a fine omission because I'm probably just going to slap in an overclocked 750 Ti anyways. Then I can stick in my NIC in the mPCI-e slot and my Titanium HD in one of the PCI-e 2.0 x1 slots.


Not saying you can't run a quad core in it, rather that I don't like the idea of running a 150w CPU on that kind of VRM.


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Hmm If I was just getting the board for just the G3258 I'd consider it, but since I want either a 4690K or a 4790K and to overclock them in the future I'll likely want a board which can handle those processors at higher overclocks, but the Anniversary board sounds like a nice board still for those who aren't into all of that


Yeah. You'd want a higher end board for that, which is what I was saying. Are ASRock boards of good quality in general?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Not saying you can't run a quad core in it, rather that I don't like the idea of running a 150w CPU on that kind of VRM.


It'll be fine. If it was dangerous they wouldn't sell it. My P8Z77-V LX only has EDIT: 6, not 4 VRMs and it runs my 3770K fine. Just don't overclock it...


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> Yeah. You'd want a higher end board for that, which is what I was saying. Are ASRock boards of good quality in general?
> It'll be fine. If it was dangerous they wouldn't sell it. My P8Z77-V LX only has EDIT: 6, not 4 VRMs and it runs my 3770K fine. Just don't overclock it...


I'm not sure, I usually go for Gigabyte, Asus and recently ASRock as my bro has one of their boards, an extreme 3 or 4 but he doesn't seem too fond of it, but the UEFI bios is a beauty.
I suppose they're okay, but I haven't looked at any reviews of any as of yet, I was originally going to go with a ROG board but my build plans have changed so not anymore I suppose.


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I'm not sure, I usually go for Gigabyte, Asus and recently ASRock as my bro has one of their boards, an extreme 3 or 4 but he doesn't seem too fond of it, but the UEFI bios is a beauty.
> I suppose they're okay, but I haven't looked at any reviews of any as of yet, I was originally going to go with a ROG board but my build plans have changed so not anymore I suppose.


Also, how many VRMs do you think are needed to max out the clocks on this Pentium? I was thinking about the lower end Z97M Anniversary, but it only has three phases. Would the five on the standard Z97 Anniversary be enough?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> Also, how many VRMs do you think are needed to max out the clocks on this Pentium? I was thinking about the lower end Z97M Anniversary, but it only has three phases. Would the five on the standard Z97 Anniversary be enough?


Hmm I dont know know, it's been awhile since I've made an Intel build.
Perhaps maybe half of what you need to decently max out clocks on a 4690K or 4790k or at-least reach 4.6GHz on those.

You might want to ask someone who's more knowledgeable on the subject.


----------



## bluedevil

Should one with a i5 3470 go with a g3258? Dunno....


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Nope, that'd be a downgrade


----------



## fateswarm

A lot of people are bound for a disappointment here. The tech people that were impressed by this chip did it specifically for single threaded or dual threaded apps or apps that do not require AVX etc. instructions. If you want it for multithreaded apps or for general heavy duty computing you are going to have a bad time.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> A lot of people are bound for a disappointment here. The tech people that were impressed by this chip did it specifically for single threaded or dual threaded apps or apps that do not require AVX etc. instructions. If you want it for multithreaded apps or for general heavy duty computing you are going to have a bad time.


To be honest, most people that would not know better certainly wouldn't be always running highly multithreaded applications. Obviously there are exceptions, but for your average consumer / gamer this will hold it's own very well.


----------



## fateswarm

Well yes, but there are various exceptions even for them. e.g. kids transcoding videos are a lot. Or some games are multithreaded.


----------



## BulletSponge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IMKR*
> 
> Does anyone know if Intel will quit production of this chip soon? I wanna buy one in the future for cheap ocing fun


If they are a limited production run I'll take 5.


----------



## fateswarm

No way. This is intel. Not some kind of obscure furniture producer from upper Belgium.


----------



## jsc1973

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Werne*
> 
> Funny thing is, it will run better on old hardware than new. I've seen Oblivion and Morrowind running better on an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ and a GeForce 6800GT than on my machine. Morrowind and Oblivion also don't like most ATI/AMD drivers for some reason (or drivers don't like the games) and run like absolute crap cause of that, which might explain why my hardware gets beaten by a museum exhibit.


Morrowind was developed and introduced at a time when most people were still running Win9x, and it was written with assembly tools that would have targeted a Pentium II. Something like that might as well be speaking Greek to some modern system running Win 8.1 and an FX-9590 processor. The farther that Windows and hardware have gotten from the practices of 2003, the more difficult it will be for them to execute such old code properly.


----------



## Blameless

Morrowind runs better on modern OSes with modern hardware than it ever did with the absolute best that was available at the time.

Most people complaining of performance issues in Morrowind are running mods that make the game vastly more demanding than it originally was.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsc1973*
> 
> The farther that Windows and hardware have gotten from the practices of 2003, the more difficult it will be for them to execute such old code properly.


x86 hardware can execute any x86 code, even if we are talking of a modern Vishera or Haswell and stuff that was written in 1979. Such backwards compatibility is how and why the ISA has persisted so long.

Windows 8.1 can run most Win32 programs just fine.


----------



## TPCbench

Intel Pentium G3258 review at Legit Reviews

http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-pentium-g3258-processor-review-quest-5ghz_145874/


----------



## Themisseble

here you can see that pentium with good OC doesnt get much more performance in well threaded games.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> here you can see that pentium with good OC doesnt get much more performance in well threaded games.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> here you can see that pentium with good OC doesnt get much more performance in well threaded games.


Please tell us are you part of AMD advocate group?


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Please tell us are you part of AMD advocate group?


I am trying to tell some people that are deciding between i3 and pentium K that i3 is better option.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I am trying to tell some people that are deciding between i3 and pentium K that i3 is better option.


i3 wins in some cases, loses in a bunch too.

In many of the cases where i3 wins, fx6300 is a better and affordable option.

The appeal of the pentium-k is that you have single-threaded performance than embarrasses AMD's fx9590 at such a low cost, and it runs amazingly for a ton of games which don't heavily utilize 3+ threads. For the ones that do, there's probably a better choice - but the Pentium still has insane price/performance. Is anyone REALLY going to complain that their £50 CPU "only" gets them 66fps average on Metro? What about that bf4 performance video?






The CPU shines in a ton of games, and it runs a ton more - like bf4, which is the perfect case against it - surprisingly well for a CPU that costs under 1/3'rd of what an i5 costs. That's why it's getting a lot of hype.

For three and a half years, if you wanted a CPU with singlethreaded performance anywhere near this level, you had no choice but to buy the 2500k-4670k or a more expensive option. Intel chose not to offer it, while AMD was incapable.
That's no longer the case, and you can do some amazing things with a £50 pentium, £50 motherboard and £80 to spare for a gtx750 or Radeon r7 265.

The i5 CPU alone can barely be afforded for that price.

Everyone buying this chip knows it's a dual core. They don't care - they have Haswell @4.5ghz for £100 between the CPU and mobo. A 4690k or FX-8 setup would cost like £280 after you account for mobo and cooling price. A ton of stuff is dependent on singlethreaded performance, now it runs great without having to buy an i5, and buy a gtx760 so that you don't have to look like an idiot running a [email protected] for the singlethreaded performance while using no SSD, a cheap case and a gtx 650ti, cannibalizing rest of system budget so that you're not stuck @3.4ghz.


----------



## Themisseble

This is not a pentium g3258K or this are not ultra settings!!! Fail video! look at GTX 660 Ti performance... This is LOW with some higher textures..


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> This is not a pentium g3258K or this are not ultra settings!!! Fail video! look at GTX 660 Ti performance... This is LOW with some higher textures..


It's a g3258 and he shows you -ALL- of the settings at the start of the video.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes of course that why i get totaly different resoult with mimic i7 5.0Ghz ... many people lies about their performance.


He's providing videos that clearly show settings and performance. If you'd like to not only state the opposite but claim that a respected OCN member who owns the hardware as well as other hardware is lieing, please provide at least some evidence of your claims to have worse performance and also such a good Haswell CPU capable of 5ghz stable

Since you have a Haswell CPU and Nvidia GPU with v337.88 or 340.43 to compare (don't you?), could you throw up a video using NVENC (with OBS or shadowplay) even like a 20 second clip to validate your statements?


----------



## Themisseble

On dual core you wont see difference between mantle, nvidia Dx or AMD DX...Pentium G3258 4.8Ghz is very powerfull dual core the problem is not power of that cpu THE PROBLEM is game engine and optimization.

Try Bad company 2 or BF3 you will see that pentium 4.8Ghz is monster but BF4 or Crysis 3 (jungle) dualcores sucks. Also mantle doesnt give more performance to a dual core.

Nobody is showing this CPu as a bad, they only show how the best of this CPU.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> On dual core you wont see difference between mantle, nvidia Dx or AMD DX...Pentium G3258 4.8Ghz is very powerfull dual core the problem is not power of that cpu THE PROBLEM is game engine and optimization.
> 
> Try Bad company 2 or BF3 you will see that pentium 4.8Ghz is monster but BF4 or Crysis 3 (jungle) dualcores sucks. Also mantle doesnt give more performance to a dual core.


Quote:


> On dual core you wont see difference between mantle, nvidia Dx or AMD DX..


You are wrong.

Two test systems.

System 1: 4770k, two cores and HT disabled, 4.6ghz - gtx770

System 2: 4670k, 4 cores enabled, 4.4ghz - r9 290

Neither GPU above 50% load, both heavily CPU bound - System 1 has a 40% performance lead in Wildstar.

There is no explanation at all other than the effect of Nvidia drivers being way more CPU efficient in some cases for directx applying to 2-core just as it applies to 4.. as FPS doesn't change disabling those cores.

Quote:


> Nobody is showing this CPu as a bad, they only show how the best of this CPU.


Welcome to OCN, where (some people) acknowledge weaknesses of CPU's and everyone else bandwagons on the strengths. You should be used to it by now with the last 3 years of FX

What hardware exactly do you have? You have a Haswell CPU capable of those clock speeds, but an Nvidia GPU also?


----------



## Themisseble

My main CPu is i7 4770k(used)... which i dont use right now. I bought Fx (used FX 6300) just for fun to OC for my personal record... And i was so surprised with performance of that chip that i am using it right now for gaming (BF4).

I have R9 270X(used) .. but i am getting R9 290(USED) really cheap.

If you have BF4 try it yourself.

I know that you all thuink that i am a big AMD fanboy, but i am not.. i dont care which one is better. But to recommend pentium G3258 for new games is WRONG! Yes it is great for GW2 or WoW or LoL or SC2...


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> My main CPu is i7 4770k(used)... which i dont use right now. I bought Fx (used FX 6300) just for fun to OC for my personal record... And i was so surprised with performance of that chip that i am using it right now for gaming (BF4).
> 
> I have R9 270X(used) .. but i am getting R9 290(USED) really cheap.
> 
> If you have BF4 try it yourself.
> 
> I know that you all thuink that i am a big AMD fanboy, but i am not.. i dont care which one is better. But to recommend pentium G3258 for new games is WRONG! Yes it is great for GW2 or WoW or LoL or SC2...


Or wildstar









or rome 2/total war series

or skyrim

etcetc

You can't simulate performance on a pentium and an nvidia GPU by using a Radeon GPU. They're terrible in CPU bound situations unless you use Mantle which is very different circumstances to just having better DX drivers, scales differently on 2-core CPU's like you said.

Nvidia was already ahead in driver efficiency before they got 1.3x performance in a single driver (337.5) and they still continued to improve it afterwards. If you have half the FPS of that bf4 video it's easily explained why.


----------



## fateswarm

It's important to note that even if you go to a game that is adequate, if you do things like recording video during the game, game over.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Intel Pentium G3258 review at Legit Reviews
> 
> http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-pentium-g3258-processor-review-quest-5ghz_145874/


Thanks.
The tested chip is retail :


Quote:


> The ASUS Z97-A motherboard we were using was already feeding 1.526V to the CPU and we certainly didn't feel comfortable going any higher. We know of one person inside ASUS that was able to get 5.0GHz up and running with 1.5V on the core and 1.4V on the cache, but ended up killing the chip when running the ASUS ROG RealBench torture test. Sure, this processor only cost us $65 after taxes, but we don't feel like killing it in the first 48 hours of owning it.


----------



## Partol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> But to recommend pentium G3258 for new games is WRONG! Yes it is great for GW2 or WoW or LoL or SC2...


Most people do not need to play every game at ultra settings with max graphics, or 2D/3D surround display, or 120+ fps.
Overclocked pentium G3258 should be adequate for most gamers needs (not wants).
Non-overclockers should choose a different cpu.


----------



## fateswarm

lol.... 1.526V on haswell. They should have 3 Tiers on reviews. Up to 1.3v for "super safe", up top 1.35v for "ok, probably safe", and up to 1.4v or 1.45v for "you crazy bro".


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Or wildstar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or rome 2/total war series
> 
> or skyrim
> 
> etcetc
> 
> You can't simulate performance on a pentium and an nvidia GPU by using a Radeon GPU. They're terrible in CPU bound situations unless you use Mantle which is very different circumstances to just having better DX drivers, scales differently on 2-core CPU's like you said.
> 
> Nvidia was already ahead in driver efficiency before they got 1.3x performance in a single driver (337.5) and they still continued to improve it afterwards. If you have half the FPS of that bf4 video it's easily explained why.


Nvidia drivers wont help you if your using dual core CPU... yes they will help six/four core CPU.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> lol.... 1.526V on haswell. They should have 3 Tiers on reviews. Up to 1.3v for "super safe", up top 1.35v for "ok, probably safe", and up to 1.4v or 1.45v for "you crazy bro".


What Voltage you need for 5.1Ghz on air?

Once I ran my FX6100 at 4.88Ghz 1.7V on air lol, that was a terrible chip.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> What Voltage you need for 5.1Ghz on air?


I'm not sure but I'm certain it was either 1.35v and something like 1.4v.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

All i can say is that it does better than the dual module AMD CPUs, which I *think* intel was aiming this CPU at... Not the 3 or 4 module ones...


----------



## Partol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> It's important to note that even if you go to a game that is adequate, if you do things like recording video during the game, game over.


Not according to this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gzReaFZUIE


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Partol*
> 
> Not according to this video.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gzReaFZUIE


One game. One test. e.g. WoW will certainly crap out since I noticed it uses fully 1 core plus 1 more almost fully.


----------



## Partol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> One game. One test. e.g. WoW will certainly crap out since I noticed it uses fully 1 core plus 1 more almost fully.


How do you know that Nvidia shadowplay will "crap out" in Wow on a dual core cpu?


----------



## fleetfeather

has intel silenced any attempts to detail overclocking these Pannies with non-Z97/Z87 boards? I think MSI briefly hinted at the possibility of it?

E: ahh don't worry, I see no H87 boards with heatsinks on the VRMs anyway....


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Partol*
> 
> How do you know that Nvidia shadowplay


lol. Now you made it even more tailored to your argument. I said video generation on the background, not whatever games or apps you cherry picked to be adequate.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> has intel silenced any attempts to detail overclocking these Pannies with non-Z97/Z87 boards? I think MSI briefly hinted at the possibility of it?
> 
> E: ahh don't worry, I see no H87 boards with heatsinks on the VRMs anyway....


You wouldn't have trouble OCing this to 4.4GHz on one of the cheap H87 boards, even without VRM heatsinks... And intel has not tried to stop companies from unlocking non-Z boards for OCing K series CPUs.


----------



## fateswarm

It might be cool for someone with a digital PWM controller to test their power input and amps needs. HWInfo may report detailed info from them (at least it certainly does for the Gigabytes). I don't expect it to go above 100watts and around 50amps, making even some very flimsy boards to be adequate but it'd be good to know.

Hrm. a 2-core i7 with disabled HT might be similar.

Wait.


----------



## Partol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> lol. Now you made it even more tailored to your argument. I said video generation on the background, not whatever games or apps you cherry picked to be adequate.


I am tailoring the argument to the youtube video of a dual core cpu recording video using shadowplay which you initially claimed would be "game over".

My guess is you presume video is recorded on the cpu (such as FRAPS) which is actually no longer necessary.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> You wouldn't have trouble OCing this to 4.4GHz on one of the cheap H87 boards, even without VRM heatsinks... And intel has not tried to stop companies from unlocking non-Z boards for OCing K series CPUs.


Ah righto. What's the actual difference between H87 and Z87? Obviously overclocking possibilities for most chips are severely limited without the Z series chipset, but in the case of a G3258, what sacrifices do I make?


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Partol*
> 
> I am tailoring the argument to the youtube video of a dual core cpu recording video using shadowplay which you initially claimed would be "game over".


You would make a good politician. *You* responded to *my* argument about an example with WoW+Video generation. You tailor made it to your needs while the argument was purely general on single or dual threaded games that may need extra jobs on the background.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Ah righto. What's the actual difference between H87 and Z87? Obviously overclocking possibilities for most chips are severely limited without the Z series chipset, but in the case of a G3258, what sacrifices do I make?


You will be facing a possibility of a burned down house if you overclock it on a MSI mobo with insufficient power phases.

But seriously, intel might do a firmware update then bye-bye overclock.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> You will be facing a possibility of a burned down house if you overclock it on a MSI mobo with insufficient power phases.
> 
> But seriously, intel might do a firmware update then bye-bye overclock.


Well yeah that's the thought im having; what componentry are the various mobo vendors skimping on I wonder.

I was considering grabbing a H87 mitx board, strapping on some copper heatsinks, and pushing for 5.0 @ 1.4 delidded hahaha... But as you said, I could be risking a fire.

I might just have to bite the bullet and go for a Z87/Z97 board instead...


----------



## iRUSH

I plan on picking one of these up today. I'm currently using a ASRock H97m Pro4 board. I want to see overclocking is an option as some have said. This board could be a solid option for some at $79.


----------



## fateswarm

Alright. i7 with HT-off and 2 cores only. Booted fast by the way.

So, prime95 blend mode, realistic heavy load on 4.6Ghz, 1.24v/1.74v (very safe settings)

up to 67W output

up to 40A needs

This is quite low. It makes some very flimsy 3-total-phases boards adequate.

prime95 "go full-on cpu, cache-only" (smallFFTs mode):

Hah. Interesting. The needs remain unchanged.

Hrm, the cache is bigger though.

Might be related.

There is a chance the results are not equal since it's a different chip. They might be lower or higher. Probably similar though.


----------



## jsc1973

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> x86 hardware can execute any x86 code, even if we are talking of a modern Vishera or Haswell and stuff that was written in 1979. Such backwards compatibility is how and why the ISA has persisted so long.
> 
> Windows 8.1 can run most Win32 programs just fine.


Yes, it can, but there are enormous differences between how x86 code is written today, and how it was written in 2003, or in 1997, or in 1979. A modern Vishera or Haswell can plow through anything due to the power available to it, but that doesn't mean it likes what is crappy (to it) code. And Windows 8.1 can run _most_ Win32 programs just fine, but it can't run your code from 1979 at all, unless you're running the 32-bit version, in which case it _might_ work at the expense of castrating the CPU you're running.

Newer isn't always better with old code. Ask anyone who tries to run DOS games under an NT kernel OS (I keep a K6-III laptop around, running 98se, mainly for this reason), or anyone with a Vishera who has run Skyrim and its Mesozoic x87 code on a Vishera. Modern x86 code has about as much relation to x86 or x87 code written many years ago as Beowulf does to the language of this forum. They're both English, but....


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> It's important to note that even if you go to a game that is adequate, if you do things like recording video during the game, game over.


Well, what do you say to this?






And this?






Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Nvidia drivers wont help you if your using dual core CPU... yes they will help six/four core CPU.


No, they're more efficient with CPU usage. Gains are similar on a 2 core CPU vs a 6-core. It's not like Mantle which gets some of its performance gains from handling stuff differently and threading more, necessarily


----------



## fateswarm

Cherry pick me more. The argument was general. I appreciate it may be adequate in some software bundles but it can not be generalized.

Also an i7 is not the same chip. The cache is more. Some features are turned on.

It shouldn't be very different though in some combinations.


----------



## Cyro999

I'm not cherry picking, didn't even see above posts because i just popped back in thread - just saying nvenc is perfectly capable of performing "necessary" functions with a £50 pentium, stock cooler, cheap mobo and £78 gtx750. In the Wildstar example above, it didn't noticably change CPU usage or performance - wouldn't surprise me if it was 5% FPS loss for 1080p30

It's nice to CPU encode stuff, but you don't HAVE to do it, especially with cpu intensive games


----------



## nullstring

I don't understand the arguments.
If you can find a CPU that will compete with this one in the $80 MSRP range, then perhaps you have a point.
But don't try to tell me that I need a processor that costs over 50% more...

There is nothing that can touch this at the $80 range, and this is the MSRP price.. you can already get it for $70 at microcenter before it's even released.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nullstring*
> 
> I don't understand the arguments.
> If you can find a CPU that will compete with this one in the $80 MSRP range, then perhaps you have a point.
> But don't try to tell me that I need a processor that costs over 50% more...
> 
> There is nothing that can touch this at the $80 range, and this is the MSRP price.. you can already get it for $70 at microcenter before it's even released.


It's just people hating the processor.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> All i can say is that it does better than the dual module AMD CPUs, which I *think* intel was aiming this CPU at... Not the 3 or 4 module ones...


Exactly, and in the games which have the 3 and 4 module chips performing like dual modules (Games which fail to utilize or scale to 6-8 threads) the Pentium will do well against a processor which is effectively performing as a 4300.

I might buy this processor just to bench, test it and prove it with a boatload of benchmarks, I'm still thinking if I want to however.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> It's a g3258 and he shows you -ALL- of the settings at the start of the video.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> He's providing videos that clearly show settings and performance. If you'd like to not only state the opposite but claim that a respected OCN member who owns the hardware as well as other hardware is lieing, please provide at least some evidence of your claims to have worse performance and also such a good Haswell CPU capable of 5ghz stable
> 
> Since you have a Haswell CPU and Nvidia GPU with v337.88 or 340.43 to compare (don't you?), could you throw up a video using NVENC (with OBS or shadowplay) even like a 20 second clip to validate your statements?


He's been shown evidence, it's clear that this processor puts a hurt on AMD's offerings if their threads are under utilized, that is exactly it, that's why this processor can shine, especially in games which demand high single threaded performance.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> i3 wins in some cases, loses in a bunch too.
> 
> In many of the cases where i3 wins, fx6300 is a better and affordable option.
> 
> The appeal of the pentium-k is that you have single-threaded performance than embarrasses AMD's fx9590 at such a low cost, and it runs amazingly for a ton of games which don't heavily utilize 3+ threads. For the ones that do, there's probably a better choice - but the Pentium still has insane price/performance. Is anyone REALLY going to complain that their £50 CPU "only" gets them 66fps average on Metro? What about that bf4 performance video?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CPU shines in a ton of games, and it runs a ton more - like bf4, which is the perfect case against it - surprisingly well for a CPU that costs under 1/3'rd of what an i5 costs. That's why it's getting a lot of hype.
> 
> For three and a half years, if you wanted a CPU with singlethreaded performance anywhere near this level, you had no choice but to buy the 2500k-4670k or a more expensive option. Intel chose not to offer it, while AMD was incapable.
> That's no longer the case, and you can do some amazing things with a £50 pentium, £50 motherboard and £80 to spare for a gtx750 or Radeon r7 265.
> 
> The i5 CPU alone can barely be afforded for that price.
> 
> Everyone buying this chip knows it's a dual core. They don't care - they have Haswell @4.5ghz for £100 between the CPU and mobo. A 4690k or FX-8 setup would cost like £280 after you account for mobo and cooling price. A ton of stuff is dependent on singlethreaded performance, now it runs great without having to buy an i5, and buy a gtx760 so that you don't have to look like an idiot running a [email protected] for the singlethreaded performance while using no SSD, a cheap case and a gtx 650ti, cannibalizing rest of system budget so that you're not stuck @3.4ghz.


/thread


----------



## Themisseble

pentium (clock per clock) cant compare to a dual module piledriver in MT


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> pentium (clock per clock) cant compare to a dual module piledriver in MT


clock for clock it's much faster, the advantage on PD quads coming from having twice as many cores. sounds about right for being half the price and power consumption

http://www.microcenter.com/product/434210/Pentium_G3258_32_GHz_LGA1150_Boxed_Processor_-_PREORDER
http://www.microcenter.com/product/414692/FX_4350_Black_Edition_42GHz_Quad-Core_Socket_AM3_Boxed_Processor


----------



## nullstring

For what's it worth, I am planning on using one of these in a development server / nas

I don't need alot of firepower, I am just looking to get a good value box.
I am pretty sure I can put something together for just over $300 with this cpu and be golden.

I was going to go with a celeron, but this seems to offer double the performance at double the price.., but still without costing too much.


----------



## Themisseble

http://www.microcenter.com/product/428114/FX_4130_Black_Edition_38-39_GHZ_Quad-Core_Tray_CPU

40$

also you can upgrade to Fx 8320


----------



## nullstring

I don't have a microcenter near by unfortunately. That does seem like quite a good value though.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I can also go around posting microcenter deals when they pop up, but they don't apply to everyone...


----------



## lolwatpear

How are there still doubters in the thread? I gamed with a g1610 and gtx 770 temporarily, and most games I played didn't have horrible fps as you would believe, and that was at 1440p. How are the benchmarks released so far not enough proof? The only thing this really fails at is video encoding, which I don't care about.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolwatpear*
> 
> How are there still doubters in the thread?


I doubt those that are excited abstractly without their special needs defined. I agree fully with the technical analysis that makes some games and some software combinations adequate. But those thinking this is going to be perfect for any game and anything they are going to do without defining what that is, they are going to have a bad time.


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> I doubt those that are excited abstractly without their special needs defined. I agree fully with the technical analysis that makes some games and some software combinations adequate. But those thinking this is going to be perfect for any game and anything they are going to do without defining what that is, they are going to have a bad time.


that's the case with lower end cpus. if intel it better have 4 threads and AMD it better have 6-8. otherwise it'll be decent in some tasks and horrible in others.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> But seriously, intel might do a firmware update then bye-bye overclock.


Only if you buy a CPU with a different/updated internal ID or deliberately flash your board with firmware that doesn't support OCing.

Once you settle on a BIOS where everything works as it should, just don't flash it to anything newer.


----------



## TopicClocker

Pretty tempted to give this chip a go, I guess I'll look around at what motherboard I want for my i5 and drop this chip in it for benchmarking.


----------



## TopicClocker

How much phases would you want in a board with an i5 or i7 to overclock to 4.6GHz?


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> How much phases would you want in a board with an i5 or i7 to overclock to 4.6GHz?


depending on the mosfet quality and how many amps the chokes are rated for, 4-6 phases is enough for these. higher phase count helps with load temperatures, but isn't necessary at 4.6ghz. heat and efficiency is a bigger concern than power is.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> depending on the mosfet quality and how many amps the chokes are rated for, 4-6 phases is enough for these. higher phase count helps with load temperatures, but isn't necessary at 4.6ghz. heat and efficiency is a bigger concern than power is.


Hmm I'm currently giving the Asus Z97M-PLUS a look, it looks to be decent, hard to find any reviews for it though.
I'm looking for a board to pair with the Pentium and then an i5 or i7 later.


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Hmm I'm currently giving the Asus Z97M-PLUS a look, it looks to be decent, hard to find any reviews for it though.
> I'm looking for a board to pair with the Pentium and then an i5 or i7 later.


looking for mATX?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> looking for mATX?


Yeah, it's a part of my build plan to downsize.


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Yeah, it's a part of my build plan to downsize.


i'd go Asrock Z97M OC Formula, Asus Gryphon Z97 or MSI Z97M Gaming.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> http://www.microcenter.com/product/428114/FX_4130_Black_Edition_38-39_GHZ_Quad-Core_Tray_CPU
> 
> 40$
> 
> also you can upgrade to Fx 8320


You're kidding, right?

The 41xx series is pure garbage. My Athlon II X3 massacres it.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> i'd go Asrock Z97M OC Formula, Asus Gryphon Z97 or MSI Z97M Gaming.


I'd take ASRock for the better bang to buck ratio. Heck, even their Z97m pro4 for $99 would do just fine with DC let alone this Pentium.


----------



## PunkX 1

Here's an old thread that I made outlining the (Cinebench) performance differences between an FX 4100, Athlon II X3 and Phenom II X4.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1286544/adventures-in-cinebenching-fx-4100-vs-phenom-ii-x4-b45-vs-athlon-ii-x3-445

Like I said, the 41xx was poop.


----------



## PureBlackFire

isn't the FX 4100 eol already?


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> isn't the FX 4100 eol already?


Themisseble quoted a 4130 on sale for $40 at Microcentre, suggesting _that_ would be better than the G3258.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Themisseble quoted a 4130 on sale for $40 at Microcentre, suggesting _that_ would be better than the G3258.


Hmmm... it will probably outperform a G3258

A downclocked one in AVX accelerated encoding...


----------



## nullstring

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Themisseble quoted a 4130 on sale for $40 at Microcentre, suggesting _that_ would be better than the G3258.


wow.. yeah.. pass on that

Hardly scientific, but:
=1807&cmp[]=2267]http://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=1807&cmp[]=2267

Since the G3258 is far more overclockable.. it surely will murder the FX-4130


----------



## Internet Swag

Is it possible for us users to unlock a CPU? Example, we have a i5 2500 and cause we are hackers we can make it a 2500k.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nullstring*
> 
> wow.. yeah.. pass on that


Lol first gen bulldozers were a pile of crap, Piledrivers were quite a bit better, perhaps an actual sucessor to the Phenom IIs, but this socket hasn't got much to offer after the 8350, the 9000x are just ridiculous unless you're using it for other things than pure gaming, hopefully AMD will put something new out soon for people with AMD systems.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I'd take ASRock for the better bang to buck ratio. Heck, even their Z97m pro4 for $99 would do just fine with DC let alone this Pentium.


I'm looking for something I could use for an i5 later as well as the Pentium initially, would like a motherboard that's capable of pushing 4.5GHz+ on an i5.

Currently looking at MATX boards, the MSI Gaming boards and the Asus Z97M-PLUS.

I feel like giving this Pentium a spin, and maybe posting benches on OCN if I get one.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Internet Swag*
> 
> Is it possible for us users to unlock a CPU? Example, we have a i5 2500 and cause we are hackers we can make it a 2500k.


ehh that unlock thread, no one really knows how the heck it got unlocked, nothing cemented yet and there's people like Gamester currently investigating what the heck happened and how it could be possible to replicate it, I wouldn't say we can do it as of yet, as we dont know what alterations the chip must go through to unlock it, but progress is definitely being made.


----------



## Internet Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> ehh that unlock thread, no one really knows how the heck it got unlocked, nothing cemented yet and there's people like Gamester currently investigating what the heck happened and how it could be possible to replicate it, I wouldn't say we can do it as of yet, as we dont know what alterations the chip must go through to unlock it, but progress is definitely being made.


Thanks









Wow Intel must have some smart people working for them then, I doubt we'll be able to unlock it at home then. Probably will need a lot of tools or software :s


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I wouldn't doubt it is simply a few lines of microcode determining the range of multis that the CPU can operate at. The hard thing is getting to that microcode and editing it.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I wouldn't doubt it is simply a few lines of microcode determining the range of multis that the CPU can operate at. The hard thing is getting to that microcode and editing it.


Impossible. The microcode is digitally signed. I assume there is at least a hash check of some kind so tampering would likely result in a rejected microcode.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> You're kidding, right?
> 
> The 41xx series is pure garbage. My Athlon II X3 massacres it.


If your living near mnicrocenter for 30$ this CPu is amazing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AOpnmDf-kk

Yes in benchmark i wouldmt say that for gaming
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjvKgj3Kb3o

- Cooler, easier to OC...

And just with little undervolting..


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Impossible. The microcode is digitally signed. I assume there is at least a hash check of some kind so tampering would likely result in a rejected microcode.


Copy 2500k microcode into 2400... A bit more, but not really any harder.

That 20 FPS when he fires a rocket.. rofl... Come one dude.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> If your living near mnicrocenter for 30$ this CPu is amazing!
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AOpnmDf-kk
> 
> Yes in benchmark i wouldmt say that for gaming
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjvKgj3Kb3o
> 
> - Cooler, easier to OC...
> 
> And just with little undervolting..


I'll tell you right now, that CPU is a POS, I honestly felt sorry for whoever bought a system with one, and I knew someone who did, they sold it as soon as they could. You're better off with a Phenom II.

This G3258 would wipe the floor with it like there's no tomorrow.

PunkX 1's thread he posted in the thread shows it.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1286544/adventures-in-cinebenching-fx-4100-vs-phenom-ii-x4-b45-vs-athlon-ii-x3-445


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I'll tell you right now, that CPU is a POS, I honestly felt sorry for whoever bought a system with one, and I knew someone who did, they sold it as soon as they could. You're better off with a Phenom II.
> 
> This G3258 would wipe the floor with it like there's no tomorrow.


About pentium G3258 depends on what game you play. But still i am not saying that phenom is slower clock per clock...FX 4100 OC easily to 4.5Ghz where it should be faster than phenom x4 3.5Ghz. I know that there is big difference between FX 4100 and FX 4300


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> About pentium G3258 depends on what game you play. But still i am not saying that phenom is slower clock per clock...FX 4100 OC easily to 4.5Ghz where it should be faster than phenom x4 3.5Ghz. I know that there is big difference between FX 4100 and FX 4300


Did you read his thread?
You can OC the Phenom II as well.
Quote:


> The Phenom (3.49 points) edges out the FX here (2.97 points). 3.1GHz vs 3.6GHz


Quote:


> The Phenom (4.68 points) edges out the 4100 (3.78 points) here as well. 4.14GHz vs 4.62GHz.


At 4.6GHz its hardly faster than a 3.1GHz Phenom II.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Did you read his thread?
> You can OC the Phenom II as well.
> 
> At 4.6GHz its hardly faster than a 3.1GHz Phenom II.


this is cinebench.. who cares about cinebench?? You buy CPu to benchmark? Gaming benchmarks are different = FX 4100 4.5Ghz is good.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> this is cinebench.. who cares about cinebench?? You buy CPu to benchmark? Gaming benchmarks are different = FX 4100 4.5Ghz is good.


It's not just Cinebench, but since you want to defend it so much why dont you provide proof?
this is just the 4100, the notoriously bad first installment of Bulldozer, who cares?, the 4300 is the processor people should be buying.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

The worse it is the harder you defend it...

I'm sorry but the first line of FX CPUs were rubbish and that's not going to change. They were a complete and utter disappointment even compared to the previous arch...


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> The worse it is the harder you defend it...
> 
> I'm sorry but the first line of FX CPUs were rubbish and that's not going to change. They were a complete and utter disappointment even compared to the previous arch...


The FX-8120 was mind blowing to me at the time... but I was coming from a circa 2004 socket 939 dual core cpu at the time... looking back, BD was pretty dissapointing. Now it sits happy undervolted at 2ghz with a one core per module setup (proper quad) for my linux box. Runs really well considering


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> The FX-8120 was mind blowing to me at the time... but I was coming from a circa 2004 socket 939 dual core cpu at the time... looking back, BD was pretty dissapointing. Now it sits happy undervolted at 2ghz with a one core per module setup (proper quad) for my linux box. Runs really well considering


I've thought about making a server with the 8 cores, would be pretty handy for things like VMs I guess, but I'd most definitely want to under volt them like you've done with yours, or simply turn my main build into one and drop a Phenom II hexa core in If I can find one for cheap.


----------



## fateswarm

A heads up. This chip has an upgraded heatsink in the box.


----------



## Tennobanzai

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> A heads up. This chip has an upgraded heatsink in the box.


It's only the core that is upgraded right? To copper?


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tennobanzai*
> 
> It's only the core that is upgraded right? To copper?


Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's the same cooler that comes with the i5/7. At least my last i5 came with the same one the new Pentiums comes with.


----------



## fateswarm

There is a chance it's adequate for realistic loads.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> There is a chance it's adequate for realistic loads.


Navdigitalstorm hit 4.6 using the stock cooler.


----------



## Exilon

It's the copper core one made for the 84W i5/i7s. No wonder the DS guys were able to hit 4.5 GHz with it.


----------



## lolwatpear

Is it worth saving the $30 cost of an 212 evo if I want to oc this to 4.7-4.8 ghz, or will that not be possible?


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolwatpear*
> 
> Is it worth saving the $30 cost of an 212 evo if I want to oc this to 4.7-4.8 ghz, or will that not be possible?


Only one way to find out







. I plan on starting with stock and going from there myself.


----------



## fateswarm

It might be enough before the voltage would start killing it, say 1.4v or more. It might be enough even when it's killing it on realistic stress tests.

The cpu has a small power usage as I showed on a previous post.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Anyone have one of these Pentium-K in hand?

How does the retail chips clock?


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I know that you all thuink that i am a big AMD fanboy, but i am not.. i dont care which one is better. But to recommend pentium G3258 for new games is WRONG! Yes it is great for GW2 or WoW or LoL or SC2...


Except it's so fast that it means nothing in the end as you'll still likely be GPU bottlenecked in most games at realistic settings. It manages to get a CPU bottleneck in areas I'd have a GPU bottleneck on my i5 because Windows and other background programs still need some CPU time (My i5 can assign them to be mostly idle 3rd and 4th core if a game only uses 2 cores effectively, while the Pentium has to take time off the game to give those other programs some CPU time) but for the price it's a great chip. If I was buying new I'd get one of those now and upgrade to a Broadwell Xeon later on simply because it's going to be as fast or nearly as fast as my i5 (Or faster for some programs) and gives me a cheap upgrade path along with a better motherboard as decent Z77 is already becoming hard to find at a decent price because most people on Z77 don't want to upgrade yet.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> You would make a good politician. *You* responded to *my* argument about an example with WoW+Video generation. You tailor made it to your needs while the argument was purely general on single or dual threaded games that may need extra jobs on the background.


Even beyond recording video it becomes obvious. I'm a fan of having a video of some description on in my second screen while I game on my main, with the i5 there's only one game that causes noticeable lag in either the video or game when I'm watching a video but not when there's no video and that's Civ V at late game, this Pentium would get it worse. It's a great budget chip but if you're planning on staying on a CPU for more than 2 years I'd go for something with more threads.

With videos the lag isn't that much but you can certainly see it's dropped a few frames, or that Civs FPS has dropped below 30.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> pentium (clock per clock) cant compare to a dual module piledriver in MT


It compares due to higher IPC, it just gets beaten iirc. Not by much...Which is more than could be said for a dual module piledriver in things that only use 1-2 cores. All in all the FX series is a non-starter these days and the APUs are (IMO) priced a little high to be useful.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> You're kidding, right?
> 
> The 41xx series is pure garbage. My Athlon II X3 massacres it.


That's funny, because my FX-4170 competed with my Phenom II 965 when both were OCed...Must be a magic Athlon II x3 that beats a chip that is exactly the same except it has L3 cache and an additional core.

You're basing your entire argument on Cinebench for the most part...I base my argument on more than one benchmark, the FX ended up being quicker when I converted music, when I encoded videos and when I was compressing/extracting files, it was equal to the Phenom II in most games and elsewhere with a few benchmarks and programs showing a loss...This is confirmed for me from running that one FX and about 5 different Phenom IIs over the years (Two separate x3 720s, an x2 550 that I ran unlocked, and an x4 965) and it being pretty obvious that while it has a lower IPC (15% iirc) it also generally clocks a hell of a lot higher...Phenom II is only faster if you were one of the lucky bastards with a 4.4-4.6Ghz daily stable Phenom II because FX can't outclock it enough then. Don't get me wrong, the G3258 is a far better option than any FX simply because you can always go for an i5 or i7 later but people really underestimate BD/PD because of benchmarks not really showing how fast they actually are.

Wish I hadn't sold those chips now, I'd do a comparison because as someone who has had both tri and quad core Phenom IIs and 2 module FX's as main rig CPUs anyone who still thinks Phenom II is actually faster overall than even the first gen FX really hasn't looked far into it, they're relatively even which is why FX was a disappointment..Not because it was actually a bad chip, just because it was the lesser chip compared to what Intel had and AMD promised.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Themisseble quoted a 4130 on sale for $40 at Microcentre, suggesting _that_ would be better than the G3258.


For some things it would be, but certainly not anything that relied on the performance of one or two primary threads.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Lol first gen bulldozers were a pile of crap, Piledrivers were quite a bit better


People frequently overstate this difference.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> There is a chance it's adequate for realistic loads.


I never really doubted it would be, even if it used the same tiny piece of junk that comes with the locked Pentiums.

Even at ~4.5GHz, you do not need that much cooling to keep a 22nm Intel dual-core at safe temperatures.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exilon*
> 
> It's the copper core one made for the 84W i5/i7s. No wonder the DS guys were able to hit 4.5 GHz with it.


I certainly wouldn't be buying a third party cooler specifically for this part.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Except it's so fast that it means nothing in the end as you'll still likely be GPU bottlenecked in most games at realistic settings. It manages to get a CPU bottleneck in areas I'd have a GPU bottleneck on my i5 because Windows and other background programs still need some CPU time (My i5 can assign them to be mostly idle 3rd and 4th core if a game only uses 2 cores effectively, while the Pentium has to take time off the game to give those other programs some CPU time) but for the price it's a great chip. If I was buying new I'd get one of those now and upgrade to a Broadwell Xeon later on simply because it's going to be as fast or nearly as fast as my i5 (Or faster for some programs) and gives me a cheap upgrade path along with a better motherboard as decent Z77 is already becoming hard to find at a decent price because most people on Z77 don't want to upgrade yet.
> Even beyond recording video it becomes obvious. I'm a fan of having a video of some description on in my second screen while I game on my main, with the i5 there's only one game that causes noticeable lag in either the video or game when I'm watching a video but not when there's no video and that's Civ V at late game, this Pentium would get it worse. It's a great budget chip but if you're planning on staying on a CPU for more than 2 years I'd go for something with more threads.
> 
> With videos the lag isn't that much but you can certainly see it's dropped a few frames, or that Civs FPS has dropped below 30.
> It compares due to higher IPC, it just gets beaten iirc. Not by much...Which is more than could be said for a dual module piledriver in things that only use 1-2 cores. All in all the FX series is a non-starter these days and the APUs are (IMO) priced a little high to be useful.
> That's funny, because my FX-4170 competed with my Phenom II 965 when both were OCed...Must be a magic Athlon II x3 that beats a chip that is exactly the same except it has L3 cache and an additional core.
> 
> You're basing your entire argument on Cinebench for the most part...I base my argument on more than one benchmark, the FX ended up being quicker when I converted music, when I encoded videos and when I was compressing/extracting files, it was equal to the Phenom II in most games and elsewhere with a few benchmarks and programs showing a loss...This is confirmed for me from running that one FX and about 5 different Phenom IIs over the years (Two separate x3 720s, an x2 550 that I ran unlocked, and an x4 965) and it being pretty obvious that while it has a lower IPC (15% iirc) it also generally clocks a hell of a lot higher...Phenom II is only faster if you were one of the lucky bastards with a 4.4-4.6Ghz daily stable Phenom II because FX can't outclock it enough then. Don't get me wrong, the G3258 is a far better option than any FX simply because you can always go for an i5 or i7 later but people really underestimate BD/PD because of benchmarks not really showing how fast they actually are.
> 
> Wish I hadn't sold those chips now, I'd do a comparison because as someone who has had both tri and quad core Phenom IIs and 2 module FX's as main rig CPUs anyone who still thinks Phenom II is actually faster overall than even the first gen FX really hasn't looked far into it, they're relatively even which is why FX was a disappointment..Not because it was actually a bad chip, just because it was the lesser chip compared to what Intel had and AMD promised.


If you still have that 4170, I'd love to bench against it with my Phenom at 4.2Ghz.

With a Phenom II (X4) at anything over 4.0Ghz+, an FX 41xx is just garbage, no matter how high it overclocks. I could be wrong, which is why I'd love to do any benches of your choice.

I'll back it up with benchmarks of my Phenom in real-time against the 4170 from HWbot entries


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> If you still have that 4170, I'd love to bench against it with my Phenom at 4.2Ghz.
> 
> With a Phenom II (X4) at anything over 4.0Ghz+, an FX 41xx is just garbage, no matter how high it overclocks. I could be wrong, which is why I'd love to do any benches of your choice.


I'll try to do some math for everyone wanting to know how people always get different numbers when comparing FX to Phenom II.

A first thing to note is that since the FX series shares part of the cores, they suffer from some performance loss when more than one core per module is being used. Each core drops to about 81% efficiency.So an octo core can use one core per module in a quad threaded task and not lose any performance per core. A quad core FX will lose a little single threaded performance in a quad threaded task, meaning it will need to clock higher to match it's octo core brother. The IPC is very similar between the Phenom II and the FX line, however, a 4GHz 8core PD will be a 4GH 4core PII is the same quad thread application.

The quad core FX will probably lose to a quad core PII in a quad threaded application due to this loss of performance at the same clock speed. With some fast math I would say for a quad core FX to match a quad core PII (@4GHz), it would need to be clocked at about 4.9GHz. I know that sounds pretty bad, but 4.9GHz minus the ~19% reduction when two corea per module are activated = 3.969GHz. That is some bad math, but this is only meant as an explanation of why these tests keep giving weird answers.

I see people comparing PII to an octo core and saying the other person is wrong. Tht other person is comparing to a quad core FX and saying the other person is wrong.

And to the person I'm quoting, I'm not trying to teach you anything. I'm pretty sure you understand how this works.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> I'll try to do some math for everyone wanting to know how people always get different numbers when comparing FX to Phenom II.
> 
> A first thing to note is that since the FX series shares part of the cores, they suffer from some performance loss when more than one core per module is being used. Each core drops to about 81% efficiency.So an octo core can use one core per module in a quad threaded task and not lose any performance per core. A quad core FX will lose a little single threaded performance in a quad threaded task, meaning it will need to clock higher to match it's octo core brother. The IPC is very similar between the Phenom II and the FX line, however, a 4GHz 8core PD will be a 4GH 4core PII is the same quad thread application.
> 
> The quad core FX will probably lose to a quad core PII in a quad threaded application due to this loss of performance at the same clock speed. With some fast math I would say for a quad core FX to match a quad core PII (@4GHz), it would need to be clocked at about 4.9GHz. I know that sounds pretty bad, but 4.9GHz minus the ~19% reduction when two corea per module are activated = 3.969GHz. That is some bad math, but this is only meant as an explanation of why these tests keep giving weird answers.
> 
> I see people comparing PII to an octo core and saying the other person is wrong. Tht other person is comparing to a quad core FX and saying the other person is wrong.
> 
> And to the person I'm quoting, I'm not trying to teach you anything. I'm pretty sure you understand how this works.


I am fully aware of that. BUT, i'm being specific to BD and to compliment the math, I'll post a few benchmarks just for the hell of it


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nullstring*
> 
> I don't understand the arguments.
> If you can find a CPU that will compete with this one in the $80 MSRP range, then perhaps you have a point.
> But don't try to tell me that I need a processor that costs over 50% more...
> 
> There is nothing that can touch this at the $80 range, and this is the MSRP price.. you can already get it for $70 at microcenter before it's even released.


$60 at Micro Center when I got mine on Saturday.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> i'd go Asrock Z97M OC Formula, Asus Gryphon Z97 or MSI Z97M Gaming.


What about those new Anniversary boards? The Z97M Anniversary looks nice, but are three phases enough to safely max out an overclock? Also what cooler would you recommend?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I'd take ASRock for the better bang to buck ratio. Heck, even their Z97m pro4 for $99 would do just fine with DC let alone this Pentium.


They're coming out with specific anniversary editions boards for it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Lol first gen bulldozers were a pile of crap, Piledrivers were quite a bit better, perhaps an actual sucessor to the Phenom IIs, but this socket hasn't got much to offer after the 8350, the 9000x are just ridiculous unless you're using it for other things than pure gaming, hopefully AMD will put something new out soon for people with AMD systems.
> I'm looking for something I could use for an i5 later as well as the Pentium initially, would like a motherboard that's capable of pushing 4.5GHz+ on an i5.
> 
> Currently looking at MATX boards, the MSI Gaming boards and the Asus Z97M-PLUS.
> 
> I feel like giving this Pentium a spin, and maybe posting benches on OCN if I get one.


Consider their Anniversary edition board from ASRock. I want it so it matches my processor. The OC formula looks nice though, 135.99 from Newegg in the mATX version.


----------



## PunkX 1

As promised, I did a couple of benches on my Phenom at 4.2Ghz and will be comparing against the FX 4170 from HwBot. Note that I will be taking the best entries for the 4170.

*1. Cinebench R11.5*

*Phenom II X4 B45 @ 4.2Ghz:*



*FX 4170 @ 4.95Ghz:*



HwBot Link for the 4170 (Cinebench R11.5) - http://hwbot.org/submission/2428639_mr.paco_cinebench_r11.5_fx_4170_4.07_points

*Result - Phenom (4.2Ghz) - 4.95 points. FX 4170 (4.95Ghz) - 4.07 points*

*2. Cinebench R15*

*Phenom II X4 B45 @ 4.2Ghz:*



*FX 4170 @ 4.7Ghz:*



HwBot link for FX 4170 (Cinebench R15) - http://hwbot.org/submission/2463149_mr.paco_cinebench_r15_fx_4170_357_cb

*Result - Phenom (4.2Ghz) - 425 points. FX 4170 (4.7Ghz) - 357 points.*

*3. Geekbench 3 (Multithread):*

*Phenom II X4 B45 @ 4.2Ghz:*



*FX 4170 @ 4.7Ghz:*



HwBot link for FX 4170 (Geekbench3) - http://hwbot.org/submission/2463158_mr.paco_geekbench3___multi_core_fx_4170_7083_points

*Result - Phenom (4.2Ghz) - 7575 points. FX 4170 (4.7Ghz) - 7083 points.*

*4. Wprime 32m:*

*Phenom II X4 B45 @ 4.2Ghz*:



*FX 4170 @ 6Ghz:*



HwBot FX 4170 link (Wprime 32m) - http://hwbot.org/submission/2536200_shrimpbrime_wprime___32m_fx_4170_10sec_329ms

*Result - Phenom (4.2Ghz) - 10.524 sec. FX 4170 (6Ghz) - 10.329 sec.*

I know theses are synthetic benchmarks, but they give a fair idea of what's what.


----------



## Novakanedj

I'm tempted to pick up a G3258 and a Z97 board and have a play







. According to PerformanceTest 8.0, it beats my i3 530 clocked to 4.2GHz by a long way when clocked to 4.8GHz, only losing on Integer Math. Single Threaded it blows my i3 out of the water by almost 2x the score. It should last me until I buy a Broadwell i7 some time next year.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Novakanedj*
> 
> I'm tempted to pick up a G3258 and a Z97 board and have a play
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . According to PerformanceTest 8.0, it beats my i3 530 clocked to 4.2GHz by a long way when clocked to 4.8GHz, only losing on Integer Math. Single Threaded it blows my i3 out of the water by almost 2x the score. It should last me until I buy a Broadwell i7 some time next year.


Dont change... you can get used i5 750 cheaper if your MB is good. If i were you i would wait to get more money for i5


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Dont change... you can get used i5 750 cheaper if your MB is good. If i were you i would wait to get more money for i5


That sounds like a good idea, if you're willing to hold onto Nehalem still.
When overclocked above 4GHz I've seen they are quite some performers.


----------



## Novakanedj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Dont change... you can get used i5 750 cheaper if your MB is good. If i were you i would wait to get more money for i5


I want to change up to SATA III, a board with RAID, USB3.0 etc. My P7H55M-Pro doesn't have a lot of these features unfortunately and it also only has 1 PCI-E x16 slot as I want SLI as an upgrade path.


----------



## [CyGnus]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Novakanedj*
> 
> I want to change up to SATA III, a board with RAID, USB3.0 etc. My P7H55M-Pro doesn't have a lot of these features unfortunately and it also only has 1 PCI-E x16 slot as I want SLI as an upgrade path.


I agree that the new boards have a lot of features compared to yours but if you go with a G3258 the path of SLI is kind a hard with only a dual core even if it is at 5GHz


----------



## Olivon

*Intel Core i5-4690K and Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition reviews - Sweclockers*

*Translated*
Quote:


> We took direct aim at 4.5 GHz, which would mean a clock speed increase of about 40 percent. Sorry, we ran quickly on patrol and no matter what voltage we fed processor, it was impossible to get it stable at this clock speed. The only option was ultimately turning back multiple family snap to finally nail the clock speed 4.3 GHz at 1.35 V.
> 
> It should not knit to deny that we were a little disappointed in the results we achieved, and honestly maybe our expectations were somewhat exaggerated. After hearing us, we seem to have had an exceptionally "bad" copy of the processor, where most other reaches 4.5-4.6 GHz at 1.35 V without any major problems.


Not so good sample for sweclockers.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Novakanedj*
> 
> I want to change up to SATA III, a board with RAID, USB3.0 etc. My P7H55M-Pro doesn't have a lot of these features unfortunately and it also only has 1 PCI-E x16 slot as I want SLI as an upgrade path.


I'd usually have said no, don't bother, just wait for Broadwell or Skylake, but since it's only $75 I guess you might as well give it a go...


----------



## dogroll

Guys... Anyone knowing what the new "ASRock Anniversary Z97" VRM and power delivery system is like? Good enough to not bottleneck overclocking on the G3258?

I still can't decide if I want this and a Z97, or i3-4160 and H81. Hell maybe I just wait for the i3-5130 (coming from the Phenom II X4)


----------



## Novakanedj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[CyGnus]*
> 
> I agree that the new boards have a lot of features compared to yours but if you go with a G3258 the path of SLI is kind a hard with only a dual core even if it is at 5GHz


I mentioned in a previous post about moving to a Broadwell i7 sometime next year







.

Likely upgrade path:

G3258+Z97+RAM > IPS calibrated monitor 1440p (or 4K if the price is right) > GTX 800 Series Card > Broadwell CPU > Second GTX 800 Card


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Depending on when broadwell is released and how impatient to get something new you are, you might as well wait for the new arch...


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> Guys... Anyone knowing what the new "ASRock Anniversary Z97" VRM and power delivery system is like? Good enough to not bottleneck overclocking on the G3258?


ASRock Z97 Anniversary has a 4 power phase design
http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z97%20Anniversary/?cat=Specifications


----------



## Novakanedj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Depending on when broadwell is released and how impatient to get something new you are, you might as well wait for the new arch...


Well I'm running 2010 tech throughout which is still pretty capable of handling modern games and programs. Jumping to Q4 2014/2015 tech should see me another 5 or so years of usefulness







. That is unless there's a massive leap in performance and the software leaves my PC behind but I can't see that happening. A calibrated monitor should probably be my 1st purchase tbh as I would like something more accurate to edit and retouch my photos on.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Novakanedj*
> 
> Well I'm running 2010 tech throughout which is still pretty capable of handling modern games and programs. Jumping to Q4 2014/2015 tech should see me another 5 or so years of usefulness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . That is unless there's a massive leap in performance and the software leaves my PC behind but I can't see that happening. A calibrated monitor should probably be my 1st purchase tbh as I would like something more accurate to edit and retouch my photos on.


Core i7 920 was released in November 2008. It is still a very capable CPU when overclocked


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> If you still have that 4170, I'd love to bench against it with my Phenom at 4.2Ghz.
> 
> With a Phenom II (X4) at anything over 4.0Ghz+, an FX 41xx is just garbage, no matter how high it overclocks. I could be wrong, which is why I'd love to do any benches of your choice.
> 
> I'll back it up with benchmarks of my Phenom in real-time against the 4170 from HWbot entries


Sadly I don't. And your Phenom II would win because that 4170 wasn't a great OCer and only really managed 4.5Ghz, iirc first gen FX was 15% slower in IPC on average compared to Phenom II which means that a FX would have to be at 4.8Ghz to be equal in IPC to your 4.2Ghz Phenom II...Only 100Mhz out of the average hwbot OC. A PD based FX with 2 modules would win against a Phenom II.

Unfortunately I don't have benchmarks of the FX saved, just some of a test I did with my Phenom II and OCing DDR2, the main CPU and the CPU/NB for the hell of it. (Funnily enough, according to my tests a 600Mhz CPU overclock is nearly equal to an 800Mhz CPU/NB overclock in WinRAR..)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> I know theses are synthetic benchmarks, but they give a fair idea of what's what.


Barely. Synthetic benchmarks have rarely completely lived up to realistic performance differences in my experience and instead generally make a mountain out of a molehill in terms of differences between parts, nonetheless thanks for the effort. +rep


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> What about those new Anniversary boards? The Z97M Anniversary looks nice, but are three phases enough to safely max out an overclock? Also what cooler would you recommend?


nope. wouldn't bother with that if you know you'll be upgrading to an i7 or something later on.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> *Intel Core i5-4690K and Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition reviews - Sweclockers*
> 
> *Translated*
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> We took direct aim at 4.5 GHz, which would mean a clock speed increase of about 40 percent. Sorry, we ran quickly on patrol and no matter what voltage we fed processor, it was impossible to get it stable at this clock speed. The only option was ultimately turning back multiple family snap to finally nail the clock speed 4.3 GHz at 1.35 V.
> 
> It should not knit to deny that we were a little disappointed in the results we achieved, and honestly maybe our expectations were somewhat exaggerated. After hearing us, we seem to have had an exceptionally "bad" copy of the processor, where most other reaches 4.5-4.6 GHz at 1.35 V without any major problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so good sample for sweclockers.
Click to expand...

that's haswell for you.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> *Intel Core i5-4690K and Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition reviews - Sweclockers*
> 
> *Translated*
> Not so good sample for sweclockers.


What kind of crappy samples are they sending them? We consistently see 4.6 being very easy sub-1.3v at the club. 4.7 is very common too but it may need up to 1.35v and above it is a rarity or a risky voltage.

Unless they don't know how to overclock.

Or their board's VRM is bad.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Wouldn't be surprised if they haven't tried properly...


----------



## fateswarm

On i5 it should be easier too. We just had someone easily going 4.7-4.8. It's probably similar on HT-off i7.


----------



## Novakanedj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Core i7 920 was released in November 2008. It is still a very capable CPU when overclocked


I was going more on Intel's website release date of the i3 530 chip and release date of the GTX 580







. Not the date of the first use of the architecture.


----------



## nullstring

Heads up: microcenter has pretty ridiculous deal going on:
http://slickdeals.net/f/7034832-microcenter-intel-pentium-g3258-20th-edition-overclocking-edition-msi-z97-pc-mate-motherboard-99-99-tax-bm?p=68961292&utm_source=dealalerts&utm_medium=em-i&utm_term=408522&utm_content=u241282&utm_campaign=tu-9999#post68961292

g2358 + MSI Z97 PC Mate for $100 + tax.


----------



## fateswarm

Cheap board, in price or quality. But it may be more than enough for this chip.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nullstring*
> 
> Heads up: microcenter has pretty ridiculous deal going on:
> http://slickdeals.net/f/7034832-microcenter-intel-pentium-g3258-20th-edition-overclocking-edition-msi-z97-pc-mate-motherboard-99-99-tax-bm?p=68961292&utm_source=dealalerts&utm_medium=em-i&utm_term=408522&utm_content=u241282&utm_campaign=tu-9999#post68961292
> 
> g2358 + MSI Z97 PC Mate for $100 + tax.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Cheap board, in price or quality. But it may be more than enough for this chip.


Sweet deal right there if you just plan on using this chip with it though.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Yeah but it kinda throws the primary attraction of one of these chips out... Which is the fact that you can get a quad core down the line without getting any other new components.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Yeah but it kinda throws the primary attraction of one of these chips out... Which is the fact that you can get a quad core down the line without getting any other new components.


That's true, but it could still be good for some people, could make a HTPC with it or even a NAS (although it'll be ATX, and likely not a smaller build)
An affordable Minecraft server too, or even other game servers, Minecraft servers mainly use one or two cores and OC'd it could be a pretty fast server I would think.
I think that motherboard would be capable of running an i5, maybe even i7, but overclocking but be out of the window at worst possibly.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Or their board's VRM is bad.


Z97-Deluxe got crappies VRM ?

Newz of the day ...


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Z97-Deluxe got crappies VRM ?
> 
> Newz of the day ...


Faulty mosfet? I doubt it, it would have been noticed very early on. I'm sticking with them not OCing it properly.


----------



## geogga

this looks pretty cool.


----------



## Boinz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nullstring*
> 
> Heads up: microcenter has pretty ridiculous deal going on:
> http://slickdeals.net/f/7034832-microcenter-intel-pentium-g3258-20th-edition-overclocking-edition-msi-z97-pc-mate-motherboard-99-99-tax-bm?p=68961292&utm_source=dealalerts&utm_medium=em-i&utm_term=408522&utm_content=u241282&utm_campaign=tu-9999#post68961292
> 
> g2358 + MSI Z97 PC Mate for $100 + tax.


What I would give to live near a microcenter.


----------



## iRUSH

I'm on my way to get this combo now.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boinz*
> 
> What I would give to live near a microcenter.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I'm on my way to get this combo now.










stop rubbing it in, I have to wait till the weekend till I can get my board or the Pentium.
I joke, are you going to be benching with this chip?


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> ASRock Z97 Anniversary has a 4 power phase design
> http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z97%20Anniversary/?cat=Specifications


The standard ATX has five phases, and the mATX has three.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> nope. wouldn't bother with that if you know you'll be upgrading to an i7 or something later on.
> that's haswell for you.


I won't be. This is just a fun, low power consumption Linux build. Given that, is the answer different? I just want the board for this processor.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stop rubbing it in, I have to wait till the weekend till I can get my board or the Pentium.
> I joke, are you going to be benching with this chip?


Of course. I just picked it up. I won't get to work on it till tonight if lucky. I'm going to see if my asrock h97 board will overclock this like some have said. I'll probably sell the board however. It's not bad but I don't need it. I just couldn't pass on that deal.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Of course. I just picked it up. I won't get to work on it till tonight if lucky. I'm going to see if my asrock h97 board will overclock this like some have said. I'll probably sell the board however. It's not bad but I don't need it. I just couldn't pass on that deal.


Haha I see, good luck and enjoy!

I can't wait to get my hands on one, the fun that's to be had...


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> I won't be. This is just a fun, low power consumption Linux build. Given that, is the answer different? I just want the board for this processor.


than it's fine.


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> than it's fine.


So you're saying that it will overclock safely and well on a board with only three phases? Just double checking before I fry something...


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> So you're saying that it will overclock safely and well on a board with only three phases? Just double checking before I fry something...


For dual core it's fine.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> So you're saying that it will overclock safely and well on a board with only three phases? Just double checking before I fry something...


If the board can handle a stock 47xx, it can handle any OC you can get out of an air cooled Pentium G.


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> If the board can handle a stock 47xx, it can handle any OC you can get out of an air cooled Pentium G.


But water cooled though?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Dont change... you can get used i5 750 cheaper if your MB is good. If i were you i would wait to get more money for i5


i5 750 would win on multi but get trashed on single. I'd rather have a dual core Haswell CPU @4.7ghz


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> i5 750 would win on multi but get trashed on single. I'd rather have a dual core Haswell CPU @4.7ghz


What you prefer.. if intel would made i5 750 for 1150LGA under 90$. No need to make pentiums... forget pentiums.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> What you prefer.. if intel would made i5 750 for 1150LGA under 90$. No need to make pentiums... forget pentiums.


Nah, if i wanted the IPC and lower clocks of an ancient processor i'd buy one of those dual module APU's (athlon something) from piledriver/steamroller with the iGPU disabled, or an fx-6300.

Having weak singlethreaded performance sucks for a ton of stuff. The whole point of this processor is to have decent singlethreaded performance without having to buy an i5 4690k, a z97 mobo and a good CPU cooler

I upgraded from an i7 950 @4ghz to a [email protected] I'd rather have the 4770k with two cores disabled most of the time than that thing - it runs several of my games as much as 1.5-2x as fast.

It's nice to have MT performance when you need it, but ST is crucially important to quite a lot of people as well. There's plenty of processors with good multi-threaded performance but the only one with outstandingly good singlethreaded performance below the i5 4690k is the Pentium.


----------



## Themisseble

See your wrong... while you run game son low power 16-8x core CPU like jaguar/baytrail which would take less heat, less noise... smoother gameplay. Do you know how much difference is between low power x4 jaguar and x6 jaguar cores at 2.0Ghz? x6 jaguar cores are about 60-75% faster than 4 cores.
WHY?
because when you will have 4 or 6 cores at 2.0Ghz and you will run optimized game like Crysis 3 or BF4 you will see that both CPUs will be at *100% usage.* So you *LOVE* your dual core AT 55W TDP while 8 core CPU 20W TDP. Please support them more.

Here you can 25W TDP APU (GPU most of the power) which is little more prowerfull than intel baytrail (10W TDP) running BF3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwvRQ2GGqO8

We are in 2014 and it is time to move on at least low power quad cores = no need to support dual cores... MMOs are coming on consoles (low power CPus)


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> See your wrong... while you run game son low power 16-8x core CPU like jaguar/baytrail which would take less heat, less noise... smoother gameplay. Do you know how much difference is between low power x4 jaguar and x6 jaguar cores at 2.0Ghz? x6 jaguar cores are about 60-75% faster than 4 cores.
> WHY?
> because when you will have 4 or 6 cores at 2.0Ghz and you will run optimized game like Crysis 3 or BF4 you will see that both CPUs will be at *100% usage.* So you *LOVE* your dual core AT 55W TDP while 8 core CPU 20W TDP. Please support them more.
> 
> Here you can 25W TDP APU (GPU most of the power) which is little more prowerfull than intel baytrail (10W TDP) running BF3
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwvRQ2GGqO8
> 
> We are in 2014 and it is time to move on at least low power quad cores = no need to support dual cores... MMOs are coming on consoles (low power CPus)


I agree it's time for games to heavily use 6-12+ threads if possible.

However that's not the case and most of my CPU bound games, not just some of them, run as fast or very nearly as fast on 2c2t as they do on 4c8t, yet far faster on [email protected] than my [email protected]

It's possible that console usage will result in better threaded games reaching us - but in the end, Consoles have their own API, one that makes it far easier split threads between CPU cores. Until Mantle is an open API and we have DX12, a lot of game devs, even those who dedicate a year of their time (planetside 2 guys) to improve threading, are falling FAR short of splitting load well onto many threads.

Right now a Dual core Haswell CPU at 4.7ghz is often a far better choice than an i5-760 at 4ghz for many games. I wish it wasn't the case, but it is - and if games easily utilize 6 cores in the future, then great, you can grab a mainstream 6 core in a few years and take a 3x performance upgrade for cheap. That'd be wonderful.


----------



## Themisseble

Yes in old games pentium is better but not in new games .. pentium fails in BF4 MP/Watchdogs/...


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I have a 3.2GHz IVB 4c/8t i7 and I really wish I had a 5GHz 2c/4t Haswell i3...


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes in old games pentium is better but not in new games .. pentium fails in BF4 MP/Watchdogs/...


It's outperformed by a ton of 4-thread CPU's in bf4 and some other games - but it also outperforms them in a ton more. Also older games? Most of my CPU bound stuff is less than 3 years old


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I have a 3.2GHz IVB 4c/8t i7 and I really wish I had a 5GHz 2c/4t Haswell i3...


Yes i3 K should be great


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> It's outperformed by a ton of 4-thread CPU's in bf4 and some other games - but it also outperforms them in a ton more. Also older games? Most of my CPU bound stuff is less than 3 years old


Yes but who is going to play old Games - old engines? Yes some of them are good but even E8500 manage it like a BOSS... Many people will play new games like watch dogs,BF4, BFH, Crysis 3, witcher 3 ...

All i want to say that pentium isnt not made for new games = all games while athlon x4 will handle new and old games just fine.

Bye


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes but who is going to play old Games - old engines? Yes some of them are good but even E8500 manage it like a BOSS... Many people will play new games like watch dogs,BF4, BFH, Crysis 3, witcher 3 ...
> 
> All i want to say that pentium isnt not made for new games = all games while athlon x4 will handle new and old games just fine.
> 
> Bye


You've finally given up after hundreds of posts of arguing about a £50 processor and comparing it to £100 ones?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes but who is going to play old Games - old engines? Yes some of them are good but even E8500 manage it like a BOSS... Many people will play new games like watch dogs,BF4, BFH, Crysis 3, witcher 3 ...
> 
> All i want to say that pentium isnt not made for new games = all games while athlon x4 will handle new and old games just fine.
> 
> Bye


I'm not sure why, but you seem to be calling things "new" or "old" games instead of "games that heavily utilize 4+ threads" which is what really matters, and includes a ton of new games


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> I'm not sure why, but you seem to be calling things "new" or "old" games instead of "games that heavily utilize 4+ threads" which is what really matters, and includes a ton of new games


Because it helps make the argument 'favour' him


----------



## iRUSH

I can confirm the the ASRock H97m Pro4 will NOT overclock the G3258. Just a heads up since rumor around here mentioned that it could. You can change the multiplier in the bios but CPU-Z and AIDA64 shows max at 3.2ghz.


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I can confirm the the ASRock H97m Pro4 will NOT overclock the G3258. Just a heads up since rumor around here mentioned that it could. You can change the multiplier in the bios but CPU-Z and AIDA64 shows max at 3.2ghz.


Really? Did you try a BIOS update? ASUS says their boards will work...


----------



## iRUSH

No bios beyond the original available


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> No bios beyond the original available


Bizarre. This is double and triple checked?


----------



## iRUSH

Oh yeah, I've spent the last hour attempting to resole the issue.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Oh yeah, I've spent the last hour attempting to resole the issue.


you cant expect this right now... i think that soon you will get new bios.


----------



## lolwatpear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I can confirm the the ASRock H97m Pro4 will NOT overclock the G3258. Just a heads up since rumor around here mentioned that it could. You can change the multiplier in the bios but CPU-Z and AIDA64 shows max at 3.2ghz.


Same here, but I'm thinking it's not reporting it accurately. I made sure to update it to the latest bios and thought that it would fix it, but it remains at 3.2 ghz. However, when I overclocked it to 4.7 ghz, windows will BSOD on me. At 4.6ghz at 1.37v I can.

edit: Oh and I'm actually on the z97m pro4.


----------



## TopicClocker

I would think boards which had their bios updated within June, which I think was sometime when this unlocked multipler/overclocking was claimed, could likely be boards which may have overclocking ability.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Olivon*
> 
> Z97-Deluxe got crappies


I didn't see what they had specifically. Only noticed a big list of various boards in their setups.

In general though the chip is VERY common to get 4.6. Very consistent in the club.

It's as if it's guaranteed. The exceptions are so few I'm not sure they are legit.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolwatpear*
> 
> Same here, but I'm thinking it's not reporting it accurately. I made sure to update it to the latest bios and thought that it would fix it, but it remains at 3.2 ghz. However, when I overclocked it to 4.7 ghz, windows will BSOD on me. At 4.6ghz at 1.37v I can.
> 
> edit: Oh and I'm actually on the z97m pro4.


I'll try so benching with different multipliers and see what happens. When stress testing I didn't see the temps raise when the multi was at 45


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

I'm going to get this Pentium as soon as it's in stock in my local store.

I really need a upgrade from this dual core lol


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## iRUSH

3d mark 11 Physics results didn't change when benching 3.2 vs 4.5ghz. Both at 3500.


----------



## MrLinky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I can confirm the the ASRock H97m Pro4 will NOT overclock the G3258. Just a heads up since rumor around here mentioned that it could. You can change the multiplier in the bios but CPU-Z and AIDA64 shows max at 3.2ghz.


Thanks for the feedback. I was on the fence about grabbing a cheap H or B series motherboard for overclocking but went with a Z87 board ($62 after MIR) for peace of mind.


----------



## KeyboardXpert

C'mon ASRock, release those Anniversary boards and take my moniesssss!


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> IMO the biggest problem of the 8 core FX CPUs is the difficulty and cost to implement them. To get the most out of the OC headroom on those chips you need quite a good motherboard and cooler. On top of that an extra 100 or so watts on your PSU.
> 
> With Haswell pushing a chip to its air cooled limits can be done with relative ease on the cheaper Z87/Z97 boards, the ones that fall under the $120 price bracket. And a Hyper 212 EVO is enough to cool them in most cases.


and the m5a99x evo is a what?

Cause i'm pretty sure that board got my fx8320 to 5.3ghz... you can buy it right now for $99. that board had my 8320 stable at 5.0ghz 24/7. so i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a $150 motherboard to hit 5ghz on an 8 core AMD. got my 8320 for 130 around xmas time... + 89 for the m5a99x evo, +50 for the h100 cpu cooler = $269 for mb/cpu/cooler.

granted that was great bargain hunting. but man... lets dial it back a bit.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> and the m5a99x evo is a what?
> 
> Cause i'm pretty sure that board got my fx8320 to 5.3ghz... you can buy it right now for $99. that board had my 8320 stable at 5.0ghz 24/7. so i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a $150 motherboard to hit 5ghz on an 8 core AMD. got my 8320 for 130 around xmas time... + 89 for the m5a99x evo, +50 for the h100 cpu cooler = $269 for mb/cpu/cooler.
> 
> granted that was great bargain hunting. but man... lets dial it back a bit.


Gotta agree. The Zalman CNPS10X Performa ($30) have no problem cooling my FX6100 at 1.7V 4.7Ghz with all cores on running IBT.

I did that on an ASRock 970A Extreme3 which is know to have very crappy VRM and it goes for $50 after rebates when on sale.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> and the m5a99x evo is a what?
> 
> Cause i'm pretty sure that board got my fx8320 to 5.3ghz... you can buy it right now for $99. that board had my 8320 stable at 5.0ghz 24/7. so i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a $150 motherboard to hit 5ghz on an 8 core AMD. got my 8320 for 130 around xmas time... + 89 for the m5a99x evo, +50 for the h100 cpu cooler = $269 for mb/cpu/cooler.
> 
> granted that was great bargain hunting. but man... lets dial it back a bit.


Not calling you a liar but doubt the board hit 5.0ghz stable unless you got a golden chip.. let alone 5.3ghz. If that's the case, why the sabertooth board in your sig now?









*Edit... well I guess it wasn't so stable after all from your own words considering it's dead...



Not trying to be a pain here, but I don't like setting people up for disappointment.*

I went from a 8350 and asrock 970 combo to this 9590 and chv-fz combo... overclocking stability is night and day.. The m5a99x evo is a decent board don't get me wrong, but it's not 5ghz 8 core overclocking board by any stretch


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Not calling you a liar but doubt the board hit 5.0ghz stable unless you got a golden chip.. let alone 5.3ghz. If that's the case, why the sabertooth board in your sig now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit... well I guess it wasn't so stable after all from your own words considering it's dead...
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to be a pain here, but I don't like setting people up for disappointment.*
> 
> I went from a *8350 and asrock 970 combo* to this 9590 and chv-fz combo... overclocking stability is night and day.. The m5a99x evo is a decent board don't get me wrong, but it's not 5ghz 8 core overclocking board by any stretch


See, that's where you got your facts messed up. I'm guessing the ASrock board that you were using with the 8350 was either a 970 Extreme 3 or an Extreme 4, both of which are 4+1 phase boards. VRMs tend to play a bigger role on AMD motherboards. While the quality of the 'fets are extremely good on those boards, you WILL face amperage limitations with the 8350. The M5A99X Evo, with its robust 6+2 phases _may_ be able to push an 8350 close to 5Ghz. While it may have been unfortunate that _his_ M5A99X may have bitten the dust (if at all), I'd call it an isolated incident.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> See, that's where you got your facts messed up. I'm guessing the ASrock board that you were using with the 8350 was either a 970 Extreme 3 or an Extreme 4, both of which are 4+1 phase boards. VRMs tend to play a bigger role on AMD motherboards. While the quality of the 'fets are extremely good on those boards, you WILL face amperage limitations with the 8350. The M5A99X Evo, with its robust 8+2 phases is plenty powerful to push an 8-core to 5Ghz. While it may have been unfortunate that _his_ M5A99X may have bitten the dust (if at all), I'd call it an isolated incident.


I'd believe it if it were true. I simply just don't see these 4.8ghz+ OC's on that board in any number let alone being long term stable, being how cheap it is you would think it would be the top board recommended, and yet it never seems to be the case. Also. it says "cuz I burnt out my 2nd motherboard"... isn't helping the cause here and the question does remain, why spend the money on the Sabertooth then if the M5A99X is such a stellar board?


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Except it's so fast that it means nothing in the end as you'll still likely be GPU bottlenecked in most games at realistic settings. It manages to get a CPU bottleneck in areas I'd have a GPU bottleneck on my i5 because Windows and other background programs still need some CPU time (My i5 can assign them to be mostly idle 3rd and 4th core if a game only uses 2 cores effectively, while the Pentium has to take time off the game to give those other programs some CPU time) but for the price it's a great chip. If I was buying new I'd get one of those now and upgrade to a Broadwell Xeon later on simply because it's going to be as fast or nearly as fast as my i5 (Or faster for some programs) and gives me a cheap upgrade path along with a better motherboard as decent Z77 is already becoming hard to find at a decent price because most people on Z77 don't want to upgrade yet.
> Even beyond recording video it becomes obvious. I'm a fan of having a video of some description on in my second screen while I game on my main, with the i5 there's only one game that causes noticeable lag in either the video or game when I'm watching a video but not when there's no video and that's Civ V at late game, this Pentium would get it worse. It's a great budget chip but if you're planning on staying on a CPU for more than 2 years I'd go for something with more threads.
> 
> With videos the lag isn't that much but you can certainly see it's dropped a few frames, or that Civs FPS has dropped below 30.
> It compares due to higher IPC, it just gets beaten iirc. Not by much...Which is more than could be said for a dual module piledriver in things that only use 1-2 cores. All in all the FX series is a non-starter these days and the APUs are (IMO) priced a little high to be useful.
> That's funny, because my FX-4170 competed with my Phenom II 965 when both were OCed...Must be a magic Athlon II x3 that beats a chip that is exactly the same except it has L3 cache and an additional core.
> 
> You're basing your entire argument on Cinebench for the most part...I base my argument on more than one benchmark, the FX ended up being quicker when I converted music, when I encoded videos and when I was compressing/extracting files, it was equal to the Phenom II in most games and elsewhere with a few benchmarks and programs showing a loss...This is confirmed for me from running that one FX and about 5 different Phenom IIs over the years (Two separate x3 720s, an x2 550 that I ran unlocked, and an x4 965) and it being pretty obvious that while it has a lower IPC (15% iirc) it also generally clocks a hell of a lot higher...Phenom II is only faster if you were one of the lucky bastards with a 4.4-4.6Ghz daily stable Phenom II because FX can't outclock it enough then. Don't get me wrong, the G3258 is a far better option than any FX simply because you can always go for an i5 or i7 later but people really underestimate BD/PD because of benchmarks not really showing how fast they actually are.
> 
> Wish I hadn't sold those chips now, I'd do a comparison because as someone who has had both tri and quad core Phenom IIs and 2 module FX's as main rig CPUs anyone who still thinks Phenom II is actually faster overall than even the first gen FX really hasn't looked far into it, they're relatively even which is why FX was a disappointment..Not because it was actually a bad chip, just because it was the lesser chip compared to what Intel had and AMD promised.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> For some things it would be, but certainly not anything that relied on the performance of one or two primary threads.
> People frequently overstate this difference.
> I never really doubted it would be, even if it used the same tiny piece of junk that comes with the locked Pentiums.
> 
> Even at ~4.5GHz, you do not need that much cooling to keep a 22nm Intel dual-core at safe temperatures.
> I certainly wouldn't be buying a third party cooler specifically for this part.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Except it's so fast that it means nothing in the end as you'll still likely be GPU bottlenecked in most games at realistic settings. It manages to get a CPU bottleneck in areas I'd have a GPU bottleneck on my i5 because Windows and other background programs still need some CPU time (My i5 can assign them to be mostly idle 3rd and 4th core if a game only uses 2 cores effectively, while the Pentium has to take time off the game to give those other programs some CPU time) but for the price it's a great chip. If I was buying new I'd get one of those now and upgrade to a Broadwell Xeon later on simply because it's going to be as fast or nearly as fast as my i5 (Or faster for some programs) and gives me a cheap upgrade path along with a better motherboard as decent Z77 is already becoming hard to find at a decent price because most people on Z77 don't want to upgrade yet.
> Even beyond recording video it becomes obvious. I'm a fan of having a video of some description on in my second screen while I game on my main, with the i5 there's only one game that causes noticeable lag in either the video or game when I'm watching a video but not when there's no video and that's Civ V at late game, this Pentium would get it worse. It's a great budget chip but if you're planning on staying on a CPU for more than 2 years I'd go for something with more threads.
> 
> With videos the lag isn't that much but you can certainly see it's dropped a few frames, or that Civs FPS has dropped below 30.
> It compares due to higher IPC, it just gets beaten iirc. Not by much...Which is more than could be said for a dual module piledriver in things that only use 1-2 cores. All in all the FX series is a non-starter these days and the APUs are (IMO) priced a little high to be useful.
> That's funny, because my FX-4170 competed with my Phenom II 965 when both were OCed...Must be a magic Athlon II x3 that beats a chip that is exactly the same except it has L3 cache and an additional core.
> 
> You're basing your entire argument on Cinebench for the most part...I base my argument on more than one benchmark, the FX ended up being quicker when I converted music, when I encoded videos and when I was compressing/extracting files, it was equal to the Phenom II in most games and elsewhere with a few benchmarks and programs showing a loss...This is confirmed for me from running that one FX and about 5 different Phenom IIs over the years (Two separate x3 720s, an x2 550 that I ran unlocked, and an x4 965) and it being pretty obvious that while it has a lower IPC (15% iirc) it also generally clocks a hell of a lot higher...Phenom II is only faster if you were one of the lucky bastards with a 4.4-4.6Ghz daily stable Phenom II because FX can't outclock it enough then. Don't get me wrong, the G3258 is a far better option than any FX simply because you can always go for an i5 or i7 later but people really underestimate BD/PD because of benchmarks not really showing how fast they actually are.
> 
> Wish I hadn't sold those chips now, I'd do a comparison because as someone who has had both tri and quad core Phenom IIs and 2 module FX's as main rig CPUs anyone who still thinks Phenom II is actually faster overall than even the first gen FX really hasn't looked far into it, they're relatively even which is why FX was a disappointment..Not because it was actually a bad chip, just because it was the lesser chip compared to what Intel had and AMD promised.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> For some things it would be, but certainly not anything that relied on the performance of one or two primary threads.
> People frequently overstate this difference.
> I never really doubted it would be, even if it used the same tiny piece of junk that comes with the locked Pentiums.
> 
> Even at ~4.5GHz, you do not need that much cooling to keep a 22nm Intel dual-core at safe temperatures.
> I certainly wouldn't be buying a third party cooler specifically for this part.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> I'll try to do some math for everyone wanting to know how people always get different numbers when comparing FX to Phenom II.
> 
> A first thing to note is that since the FX series shares part of the cores, they suffer from some performance loss when more than one core per module is being used. Each core drops to about 81% efficiency.So an octo core can use one core per module in a quad threaded task and not lose any performance per core. A quad core FX will lose a little single threaded performance in a quad threaded task, meaning it will need to clock higher to match it's octo core brother. The IPC is very similar between the Phenom II and the FX line, however, a 4GHz 8core PD will be a 4GH 4core PII is the same quad thread application.
> 
> The quad core FX will probably lose to a quad core PII in a quad threaded application due to this loss of performance at the same clock speed. With some fast math I would say for a quad core FX to match a quad core PII (@4GHz), it would need to be clocked at about 4.9GHz. I know that sounds pretty bad, but 4.9GHz minus the ~19% reduction when two corea per module are activated = 3.969GHz. That is some bad math, but this is only meant as an explanation of why these tests keep giving weird answers.
> 
> I see people comparing PII to an octo core and saying the other person is wrong. Tht other person is comparing to a quad core FX and saying the other person is wrong.
> 
> And to the person I'm quoting, I'm not trying to teach you anything. I'm pretty sure you understand how this works.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Except it's so fast that it means nothing in the end as you'll still likely be GPU bottlenecked in most games at realistic settings. It manages to get a CPU bottleneck in areas I'd have a GPU bottleneck on my i5 because Windows and other background programs still need some CPU time (My i5 can assign them to be mostly idle 3rd and 4th core if a game only uses 2 cores effectively, while the Pentium has to take time off the game to give those other programs some CPU time) but for the price it's a great chip. If I was buying new I'd get one of those now and upgrade to a Broadwell Xeon later on simply because it's going to be as fast or nearly as fast as my i5 (Or faster for some programs) and gives me a cheap upgrade path along with a better motherboard as decent Z77 is already becoming hard to find at a decent price because most people on Z77 don't want to upgrade yet.
> Even beyond recording video it becomes obvious. I'm a fan of having a video of some description on in my second screen while I game on my main, with the i5 there's only one game that causes noticeable lag in either the video or game when I'm watching a video but not when there's no video and that's Civ V at late game, this Pentium would get it worse. It's a great budget chip but if you're planning on staying on a CPU for more than 2 years I'd go for something with more threads.
> 
> With videos the lag isn't that much but you can certainly see it's dropped a few frames, or that Civs FPS has dropped below 30.
> It compares due to higher IPC, it just gets beaten iirc. Not by much...Which is more than could be said for a dual module piledriver in things that only use 1-2 cores. All in all the FX series is a non-starter these days and the APUs are (IMO) priced a little high to be useful.
> That's funny, because my FX-4170 competed with my Phenom II 965 when both were OCed...Must be a magic Athlon II x3 that beats a chip that is exactly the same except it has L3 cache and an additional core.
> 
> You're basing your entire argument on Cinebench for the most part...I base my argument on more than one benchmark, the FX ended up being quicker when I converted music, when I encoded videos and when I was compressing/extracting files, it was equal to the Phenom II in most games and elsewhere with a few benchmarks and programs showing a loss...This is confirmed for me from running that one FX and about 5 different Phenom IIs over the years (Two separate x3 720s, an x2 550 that I ran unlocked, and an x4 965) and it being pretty obvious that while it has a lower IPC (15% iirc) it also generally clocks a hell of a lot higher...Phenom II is only faster if you were one of the lucky bastards with a 4.4-4.6Ghz daily stable Phenom II because FX can't outclock it enough then. Don't get me wrong, the G3258 is a far better option than any FX simply because you can always go for an i5 or i7 later but people really underestimate BD/PD because of benchmarks not really showing how fast they actually are.
> 
> Wish I hadn't sold those chips now, I'd do a comparison because as someone who has had both tri and quad core Phenom IIs and 2 module FX's as main rig CPUs anyone who still thinks Phenom II is actually faster overall than even the first gen FX really hasn't looked far into it, they're relatively even which is why FX was a disappointment..Not because it was actually a bad chip, just because it was the lesser chip compared to what Intel had and AMD promised.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> For some things it would be, but certainly not anything that relied on the performance of one or two primary threads.
> People frequently overstate this difference.
> I never really doubted it would be, even if it used the same tiny piece of junk that comes with the locked Pentiums.
> 
> Even at ~4.5GHz, you do not need that much cooling to keep a 22nm Intel dual-core at safe temperatures.
> I certainly wouldn't be buying a third party cooler specifically for this part.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> I'll try to do some math for everyone wanting to know how people always get different numbers when comparing FX to Phenom II.
> 
> A first thing to note is that since the FX series shares part of the cores, they suffer from some performance loss when more than one core per module is being used. Each core drops to about 81% efficiency.So an octo core can use one core per module in a quad threaded task and not lose any performance per core. A quad core FX will lose a little single threaded performance in a quad threaded task, meaning it will need to clock higher to match it's octo core brother. The IPC is very similar between the Phenom II and the FX line, however, a 4GHz 8core PD will be a 4GH 4core PII is the same quad thread application.
> 
> The quad core FX will probably lose to a quad core PII in a quad threaded application due to this loss of performance at the same clock speed. With some fast math I would say for a quad core FX to match a quad core PII (@4GHz), it would need to be clocked at about 4.9GHz. I know that sounds pretty bad, but 4.9GHz minus the ~19% reduction when two corea per module are activated = 3.969GHz. That is some bad math, but this is only meant as an explanation of why these tests keep giving weird answers.
> 
> I see people comparing PII to an octo core and saying the other person is wrong. Tht other person is comparing to a quad core FX and saying the other person is wrong.
> 
> And to the person I'm quoting, I'm not trying to teach you anything. I'm pretty sure you understand how this works.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> As promised, I did a couple of benches on my Phenom at 4.2Ghz and will be comparing against the FX 4170 from HwBot. Note that I will be taking the best entries for the 4170.
> 
> *1. Cinebench R11.5*
> 
> *Phenom II X4 B45 @ 4.2Ghz:*
> 
> 
> 
> *FX 4170 @ 4.95Ghz:*
> 
> 
> 
> HwBot Link for the 4170 (Cinebench R11.5) - http://hwbot.org/submission/2428639_mr.paco_cinebench_r11.5_fx_4170_4.07_points
> 
> *Result - Phenom (4.2Ghz) - 4.95 points. FX 4170 (4.95Ghz) - 4.07 points*
> 
> *2. Cinebench R15*
> 
> *Phenom II X4 B45 @ 4.2Ghz:*
> 
> 
> 
> *FX 4170 @ 4.7Ghz:*
> 
> 
> 
> HwBot link for FX 4170 (Cinebench R15) - http://hwbot.org/submission/2463149_mr.paco_cinebench_r15_fx_4170_357_cb
> 
> *Result - Phenom (4.2Ghz) - 425 points. FX 4170 (4.7Ghz) - 357 points.*
> 
> *3. Geekbench 3 (Multithread):*
> 
> *Phenom II X4 B45 @ 4.2Ghz:*
> 
> 
> 
> *FX 4170 @ 4.7Ghz:*
> 
> 
> 
> HwBot link for FX 4170 (Geekbench3) - http://hwbot.org/submission/2463158_mr.paco_geekbench3___multi_core_fx_4170_7083_points
> 
> *Result - Phenom (4.2Ghz) - 7575 points. FX 4170 (4.7Ghz) - 7083 points.*
> 
> *4. Wprime 32m:*
> 
> *Phenom II X4 B45 @ 4.2Ghz*:
> 
> 
> 
> *FX 4170 @ 6Ghz:*
> 
> 
> 
> HwBot FX 4170 link (Wprime 32m) - http://hwbot.org/submission/2536200_shrimpbrime_wprime___32m_fx_4170_10sec_329ms
> 
> *Result - Phenom (4.2Ghz) - 10.524 sec. FX 4170 (6Ghz) - 10.329 sec.*
> 
> I know theses are synthetic benchmarks, but they give a fair idea of what's what.


There has been some debate over the issue of the Bulldozer lineup. The FX 4100 and 4170 couldn't compete with a Phenom II x4. Piledriver might compete with it. But even that falls short wen it comes to multi-threaded performance. However, was was interesting was that even though PD has a lower IPC and lower Single threaded performance than the Phenom II few benchmarks speak quite differently. Here's a Cinebench 11.5 run with 2 cores locked. While the mult threaded performance may not beat a Phenom Ii x4, I think the Single threaded performance may-


I couldn't go further cause of temps otherwise I'm sure benching at 5.3Ghz isn't something grand for PD chips.


----------



## 66racer

Guys lets stay on topic please....

On a side note went by my local microcenter and no stock yet (man the 3770k's are teasing me there but not for $269 when the 4790k is $299). My local frys doesnt have em yet either, closest is 20miles away....thinking I might just need to order with newegg but will wait till after the holiday just in case.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> I'd believe it if it were true. I simply just don't see these 4.8ghz+ OC's on that board in any number let alone being long term stable, being how cheap it is you would think it would be the top board recommended, and yet it never seems to be the case. Also. it says "cuz I burnt out my 2nd motherboard"... isn't helping the cause here and the question does remain, why spend the money on the Sabertooth then if the M5A99X is such a stellar board?


Honestly, buying the Sabertooth is his personal decision which we cannot question. To each his own.

And "cheap" does not always mean it's not capable. For example, the Biostar TA890FXE was one of the BEST overclocking motherboards ever made. Period. It only featured a 4+2 phase design. Oh, it was relatively affordable, as well.

Back on topic, it kinda sucks that the H-series motherboards are still iffy with overclocking the Pentium K


----------



## jason387

The G3258 isn't worth it unless a mobo worth 50$ can overclock it. Would fall back in multi-threaded games because of the lack of HT thus, making it not worth using at stock clocks. Would be the best budget chip if you can get it along with a mobo for 125$. Hell, I might even trade my setup for it.









What iRush is facing reminds me of the time where some AMD APU's were having the same trouble. The multi's were unlocked in the bios and the frequency was changing but scores weren't increasing. Don't think AMD ever fixed that.


----------



## solar0987

Well the g3220 i have is running all my games at max with great fps. So i dont doubt this g3258 would.


----------



## FallenFaux

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> The G3258 isn't worth it unless a mobo worth 50$ can overclock it. Would fall back in multi-threaded games because of the lack of HT thus, making it not worth using at stock clocks. Would be the best budget chip if you can get it along with a mobo for 125$. Hell, I might even trade my setup for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What iRush is facing reminds me of the time where some AMD APU's were having the same trouble. The multi's were unlocked in the bios and the frequency was changing but scores weren't increasing. Don't think AMD ever fixed that.


Microcenter pretty much made this the best bang for your buck chip of all time.



Not the best board but it should be sufficient to torture this chip.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *solar0987*
> 
> Well the g3220 i have is running all my games at max with great fps. So i dont doubt this g3258 would.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FallenFaux*
> 
> Microcenter pretty much made this the best bang for your buck chip of all time.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the best board but it should be sufficient to torture this chip.


Wow. That's what you call a deal. To hell with the H-Series mobo's here's a Z97 for 40$. People in the U.S are beyond lucky.


----------



## Olivon

*Pentium 20th Anniversary Series G3258 Processor Review - Guru3D*
Quote:


> That's all there is to it. Basically in the BIOS we flick the multiplier towards 48, activated the XMP memory profile (2133 MHz) and we were up and running, but not stable. We actually needed to pump 1.50 Volts into the CPU to get it stable enough at 4800 MHz. Whatever we tried, we have not been able to pass 4800 MHz as 4900 MHz even at 1.55 Volts crashes. Now the 4800 MHz is at this stage 100% stable with high but acceptable temperatures.


Quote:


> The overall temperatures when properly cooled are excellent, on our H110 cooler at default settings under load we're at 40 Degrees C. I think is respectable. Once you start to overclock (especially with added CPU voltage) things obviously will change fast. With 1.35~1.40 Volts you'll sit in the 70 Degrees C range, once you overclock and need 1.50 Volts, the processor depending on its clock frequency and stress level will reach roughly 80 Degrees C. But cooling is trivial here. Be VERY selective about that. We needed 1.4 volts for roughly 4500 MHz, our 4800 MHz tweak was 100% stable yet needed 1.50 Volts. We did try 4900 and 5000 MHz at 1.55 Volts, but the processor would not remain stable enough hence we settled at 4800 MHz. Hey that is 1600 MHz above stock clocks, pretty kicks ass we say!


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Not calling you a liar but doubt the board hit 5.0ghz stable unless you got a golden chip.. let alone 5.3ghz. If that's the case, why the sabertooth board in your sig now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit... well I guess it wasn't so stable after all from your own words considering it's dead...
> 
> 
> 
> Not trying to be a pain here, but I don't like setting people up for disappointment.*
> 
> I went from a 8350 and asrock 970 combo to this 9590 and chv-fz combo... overclocking stability is night and day.. The m5a99x evo is a decent board don't get me wrong, but it's not 5ghz 8 core overclocking board by any stretch


it died from a bios corruption... it's currently at asus for a refurbishment... or whatever. The board did not suffer from the overclock. i was simply playing around with Q&C and a few other things... i think i was basically trying to see how Q&C worked (or didn't) with a 5.0ghz overclock on the chip. I also was trying out setting up turbo mode to see if i could get it to turbo up higher then 5.0ghz... since i had a little thermal room to spare (and i knew the board couldn't take any more voltage) Basically it was good at 5.0ghz and i was playing around with the board to see what else i could do with it since obviously i wasn't gonna get much more out of it.

Don't know what exactly broke it... but it was definitely bios corruption... as even a clr_cmos couldn't get it going. furthermore i've killed motherboards with too much voltage before, this wasn't one of those times. there was no damage to the motherboard, no dead caps, and asus even agrees with my assessment the bios was borked somehow.

anywho, you can read about it. here.


----------



## tp4tissue

i think these ^^^ guru guys were just lazy.. everywhere else only needs 1.37 to get 4.8ghz

I'm completely stable 4.6ghz @ 1.30v on a really crummy bottom barrel msi z97 pc mate:thumb:


----------



## jason387

Could we have some benchmarks here for an overclocked G3258 ? If anyone wants I'll lock two cores and post results for an overclocked FX 4300. Both chips should be around the same price.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Could we have some benchmarks here for an overclocked G3258 ? If anyone wants I'll lock two cores and post results for an overclocked FX 4300. Both chips should be around the same price.


How will you do it ?

2 modules with 1 active core each

or

1 module with 2 active cores

For comparison with Pentium G3258, I think the first option would be better


----------



## jason387

I will be disabling the last two active cores, thus, using it as a FX 4300. Now all I need is someone with a G3258 overclocked. We can run a ton of benches.


----------



## bluedevil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> I will be disabling the last two active cores, thus, using it as a FX 4300. Now all I need is someone with a G3258 overclocked. We can run a ton of benches.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1497300/zipzilla-node-304-w-intel-g3258-new-build


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bluedevil*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1497300/zipzilla-node-304-w-intel-g3258-new-build


He hasn't been online for 3 days now. Would be wonderful if someone from this thread was willing to help.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> I will be disabling the last two active cores, thus, using it as a FX 4300. Now all I need is someone with a G3258 overclocked. We can run a ton of benches.


I would but I haven't got mine as of yet, I think there's atleast two people in the thread with one.
I'm going to be benching it against my Phenom II at 3.8/3.9Ghz, and seeing if I can get the Pentium to 4.2Ghz.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> He hasn't been online for 3 days now. Would be wonderful if someone from this thread was willing to help.


I'll see what I can do. I bought the combo G3258 with the MSI Z97 PC mate from Microcenter. If I have time tonight I may put it together just to see what this chip can do.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I would but I haven't got mine as of yet, I think there's atleast two people in the thread with one.
> I'm going to be benching it against my Phenom II at 3.8/3.9Ghz, and seeing if I can get the Pentium to 4.2Ghz.


I'll put up benches for an FX 4300 at 5.1-5.2Ghz.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I'll see what I can do. I bought the combo G3258 with the MSI Z97 PC mate from Microcenter. If I have time tonight I may put it together just to see what this chip can do.


That would be nice. Can't wait to see what the G3258 can do.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Spoiler: Regarding AMD mobo VRMs



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> I'd believe it if it were true. I simply just don't see these 4.8ghz+ OC's on that board in any number let alone being long term stable, being how cheap it is you would think it would be the top board recommended, and yet it never seems to be the case. Also. it says "cuz I burnt out my 2nd motherboard"... isn't helping the cause here and the question does remain, why spend the money on the Sabertooth then if the M5A99X is such a stellar board?


Well I have a ASRock 970 Extreme3 and it's decent. Voltage fluctuate a lot but I can run a FX610 at 4.7Ghz 1.7V on air 24/7. It's IBT stable. Keep in mind I spray painted the entire thing red









All you need is a high speed 80mm fan blowing right at the VRMs. It helps if you have a fan blowing at the back of the VRMs as well.

But hey, I thought this thread is about the new Pentium?


Anybody know a decent batch of those Pentiums?


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I would but I haven't got mine as of yet, I think there's atleast two people in the thread with one.
> I'm going to be benching it against my Phenom II at 3.8/3.9Ghz, and seeing if I can get the Pentium to 4.2Ghz.


I'll do the same









Probably will have my Phenom at 4.2Ghz for the session


----------



## jason387

Might as well get the benches up- All were done at 5.1Ghz with 4 cores active.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Might as well get the benches up- All were done at 5.1Ghz with 4 cores active.


Well dayum.
I think the Pentium will lose in multi-threaded applications against high clocked Phenom IIs and FX chips.
I'm going to do some Gaming Benchmarks during the week for the Phenom II and run them again on the Pentium.


----------



## No Hands 55

I was planning on getting this with the z97 impact to hold me over until broadwell. Is MC going to do the mobo discount bundle like they do with the K cpus?


----------



## Partol

The WinRAR built-in benchmark does not indicate actual performance in WinRAR.
The built-in benchmark uses all 4 cores of my cpu, yet when making rar files, I never see WinRAR use more than 3 cpu cores.

To test actual "real world" performance in Winrar, make some rar files and then un-rar those files.
Don't use the built-in benchmark.

If you want to benchmark G3258 vs other cpu's, I suggest you do that in the intel forum (amd guys might complain).
Please focus the discussion on the Pentium G3258 instead of other cpu's.


----------



## FallenFaux

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *No Hands 55*
> 
> I was planning on getting this with the z97 impact to hold me over until broadwell. Is MC going to do the mobo discount bundle like they do with the K cpus?


They're only bundling the MSI PC Mate Z97 for $40. The answer I got when I asked yesterday was that they don't usually offer motherboard bundles with Celeron/Pentium chips and that the PC Mate bundle was a limited time deal for the G3258.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FallenFaux*
> 
> They're only bundling the MSI PC Mate Z97 for $40. The answer I got when I asked yesterday was that they don't usually offer motherboard bundles with Celeron/Pentium chips and that the PC Mate bundle was a limited time deal for the G3258.


I too can confirm the information that I quoted it is true.


----------



## No Hands 55

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I too can confirm the information that I quoted it is true.


well thats lame... its basically a K cpu lol. I was really hoping they would do the bundle so i could go with a nice mitx but oh well. guess ill save up and try and find some deals


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Partol*
> 
> The WinRAR built-in benchmark does not indicate actual performance in WinRAR.
> The built-in benchmark uses all 4 cores of my cpu, yet when making rar files, I never see WinRAR use more than 3 cpu cores.
> 
> To test actual "real world" performance in Winrar, make some rar files and then un-rar those files.
> Don't use the built-in benchmark.
> 
> If you want to benchmark G3258 vs other cpu's, I suggest you do that in the intel forum (amd guys might complain).
> Please focus the discussion on the Pentium G3258 instead of other cpu's.


The discussion is on the G3258. People want to see it's performance in comparison to other CPU's at similar prices, as close as possible so why not show them that. It doesn't matter if the CPU is AMD or Intel. What matters is the performance you get from it. I have an AMD setup but I don't go saying AMD is the best when we all know how things truly are and most people here are mature enough to admit that. Let's have a healthy discussion and allow people to know what options they have. Irush and others, looking forward to your benchmarks. I just added another benchmark, Si Sandra Arithmetic Score


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Partol*
> 
> The WinRAR built-in benchmark does not indicate actual performance in WinRAR.
> The built-in benchmark uses all 4 cores of my cpu, yet when making rar files, I never see WinRAR use more than 3 cpu cores.
> 
> To test actual "real world" performance in Winrar, make some rar files and then un-rar those files.
> Don't use the built-in benchmark.
> 
> If you want to benchmark G3258 vs other cpu's, I suggest you do that in the intel forum (amd guys might complain).
> *Please focus the discussion on the Pentium G3258 instead of other cpu's.*


If that's the case, then I suppose (website) reviews on the G3258 that are being linked here should effectively _not_ include any other chips?









So I do not see the issue with posting real-time benchmarks with AMD chips in order to further assess the G3258's capabilities.


----------



## GiantToaster

Just pick one of these and a z97 Gigabyte MOBO to replace a Phenom II 1100T and Sabertooth 990FX. For my purposes (Emulators, MMO, and RPG/RTS games) the 1100T overclocked to 3.9 was bottle-necking my system and only allowing about 30% GPU usage in most games with an R9 280X. This is my first Intel CPU (AMD for 10+ years), and I'm currently pouring through Haswell Overclocking guides. Is there anything different or special that I need to look out for compared to its bigger i5/i7 brothers? I will be increasing the speed as far as possible while keeping Vcore under 1.325V. Thanks in advance for any advice!


----------



## Olivon

Read the excellent Sin's guide is a well good start

http://www.overclock.net/t/1490835/the-gigabyte-z97x-overclocking-guide/0_100


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GiantToaster*
> 
> Just pick one of these and a z97 Gigabyte MOBO to replace a Phenom II 1100T and Sabertooth 990FX. For my purposes (Emulators, MMO, and RPG/RTS games) the 1100T overclocked to 3.9 was bottle-necking my system and only allowing about 30% GPU usage in most games with an R9 280X. This is my first Intel CPU (AMD for 10+ years), and I'm currently pouring through Haswell Overclocking guides. Is there anything different or special that I need to look out for compared to its bigger i5/i7 brothers? I will be increasing the speed as far as possible while keeping Vcore under 1.325V. Thanks in advance for any advice!


I bet the 30% usage was MMOs, would love to hear some of your results, I'm going to be trying some MMOs and Emulators against my Phenom II.
Thanks Olivon for that guide, I'll take a look at it when I get a chip.


----------



## Partol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> If that's the case, then I suppose (website) reviews on the G3258 that are being linked here should effectively _not_ include any other chips?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I do not see the issue with posting real-time benchmarks with AMD chips in order to further assess the G3258's capabilities.


If you want to benchmark G3258 vs another cpu, then please do that. But you are posting benchmarks of other cpu's without any information about G3258.
If I want to see other cpu benchmarks (without G3258 benchmarks), I will go find those benchmarks myself. AMD cpu's are already benchmarked in other threads.
No reason to post every cpu benchmark here. This discussion is primarily for G3258.


----------



## Partol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> The discussion is on the G3258. People want to see it's performance in comparison to other CPU's at similar prices, as close as possible so why not show them that.


Yes, people want to see comparisons. Please show comparisons to g3258.
If g3258 benchmarks are not included, then it's not a comparison, it just another cpu benchmark.
There are thousands of cpu benchmarks on this site. We don't need them all posted here.
If I want to see FX-4300/6300 benchmarks (without g3258 benchmarks), I will use search.


----------



## GiantToaster

false
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I bet the 30% usage was MMOs, would love to hear some of your results, I'm going to be trying some MMOs and Emulators against my Phenom II.
> Thanks Olivon for that guide, I'll take a look at it when I get a chip.


That specific number was for World of Tanks. Although many games were similar. Going from stock clock 1100T and HD 6870 to 1100T @ 3.9 and R9 280X I went from 32(avg) to 42(avg) on almost identical graphics settings. I was disappointed to say the least. That's why I was very happy to learn about this chip, much better for what I need, inexpensive, and best of all I get to learn how to overclock Intel. Now i just need to find someone in the market for an almost new sabertooth MOBO.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GiantToaster*
> 
> false
> That specific number was for World of Tanks. Although many games were similar. Going from stock clock 1100T and HD 6870 to 1100T @ 3.9 and R9 280X I went from 32(avg) to 42(avg) on almost identical graphics settings. I was disappointed to say the least. That's why I was very happy to learn about this chip, much better for what I need, inexpensive, and best of all I get to learn how to overclock Intel. Now i just need to find someone in the market for an almost new sabertooth MOBO.


If you were in India I would have bought your mobo


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Partol*
> 
> If you want to benchmark G3258 vs another cpu, then please do that. But you are posting benchmarks of other cpu's without any information about G3258.
> If I want to see other cpu benchmarks (without G3258 benchmarks), I will go find those benchmarks myself. AMD cpu's are already benchmarked in other threads.
> No reason to post every cpu benchmark here. This discussion is primarily for G3258.


You obviously haven't read the last few pages. iRush has purchased the G3258 and is willing to put up benchmarks of his own on this thread, which is why AMD benchmarks are being thrown into the mix.

You should really learn to be more patient.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Partol*
> 
> Yes, people want to see comparisons. Please show comparisons to g3258.
> If g3258 benchmarks are not included, then it's not a comparison, it just another cpu benchmark.
> There are thousands of cpu benchmarks on this site. We don't need them all posted here.
> If I want to see FX-4300/6300 benchmarks (without g3258 benchmarks), I will use search.


Okay then you don't look at the FX 4300 benchmarks. Just cause you don't want them here doesn't mean others don't. That's the reason I asked for someone to post their benchmarks with the G3258.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Okay then you don't look at the FX 4300 benchmarks. Just cause you don't want them here doesn't mean others don't. That's the reason I asked for someone to post their benchmarks with the G3258.


I can post it but they wont believe it. mimic i7


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I can post it but they wont believe it. mimic i7


You mean your results with an overclocked G3258? Do post it. FX 4300 benchmarks updated with 3D Mark Vantage CPU Score.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

So do you think the Pentium K will clock better or worse than the i5 and i7s?

Are the Pentiums and i3s dual core dies or are they quad cores with half the cores off?


----------



## fateswarm

Without betting my life on it, the Haswell mainstream platform from the pentium to the i7 are similar dies. If some cores burn-off, they tweak them and rename them.

There are some nuances about the whole thing, also related to the "i5 with HT" thread here. It's not certain how they do the binning or tweaks.

But, they would have every right to just remove from the design of the whole wafer some parts at photolithography level, at least occasionally.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> You mean your results with an overclocked G3258? Do post it. FX 4300 benchmarks updated with 3D Mark Vantage CPU Score.


I think he means mimicking a G3258 with an i7, with 2 cores and HT disabled.
Possibly not the most accurate portray, but could be close to the performance of the real chip. (Cache etc unless Cache is disabled with he cores).


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

From what I know the dual cores are made off specific dual core dies.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> You mean your results with an overclocked G3258? Do post it. FX 4300 benchmarks updated with 3D Mark Vantage CPU Score.


Benchmark?
BF4 Mp Dx11-mantle
Watchdogs
One free MMO + LoL
...
But i wont do it because i am wasting my time.... they wont belive that Fx 4300 will crush pentium in many new games.


----------



## Olivon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Without betting my life on it, the Haswell mainstream platform from the pentium to the i7 are similar dies. If some cores burn-off, they tweak them and rename them.




http://www.anandtech.com/show/7744/intel-reveals-new-haswell-details-at-isscc-2014

Not at all. Pentium got specific die.


----------



## iSlayer

Do people have frame rate issues in LoL? I'm pretty sure people using way old Core 2 Duo GMAs can run LoL.

You've managed to provide one game which runs on toaster ovens, another that is fully playable on the Pentium and a third that stutters so much the results are meaningless. Kind of like comparing the 260x and 750 Ti at 4k max settings.

Do you have any games which don't run reasonably well on the Pentium? Do you have any games which suffer such a performance deficit because of the multiple threads that it can't viably be used in the future? Are they of such severity that people should withstand the performance penalties of single threaded games/emulators and spend significantly more?

Do you have other examples of games that (theoretically) favor the FX 4300 besides the 3 provided?

Everything we have seen so far indicates the Pentium is a great deal and slaps AMD's offerings silly for half the price. And thus, it doesn't matter what performance deficit the Pentium has, you can put the $50-100 saved towards a better GPU and more than make up the difference.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

All I know about frame rate issues in LoL is that they happen a lot on AMD CPUs... But that's just crappy optimization on their part.


----------



## murderbymodem

I am REALLY tempted to pick up one of these and a Z97 board. I'm just not sure if I'd feel gimped with it as a CPU in my main rig. We've been discussing how MMORPGs will benefit from improved single-threaded performance, and I play primarily FFXIV, but since I tend to do thinks like stream my MMORPG gameplay from time to time, I can't help but think I'd be gimping myself stepping "down" to a dual core with no hyperthreading, less cache, etc.. On the other hand.... 4.6GHz or more on air







, plus all of the single-threaded and clock-for-clock improvements this would give me over Lynnfield.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redmist*
> 
> I am REALLY tempted to pick up one of these and a Z97 board. I'm just not sure if I'd feel gimped with it as a CPU in my main rig. We've been discussing how MMORPGs will benefit from improved single-threaded performance, and I play primarily FFXIV, but since I tend to do thinks like stream my MMORPG gameplay from time to time, I can't help but think I'd be gimping myself stepping "down" to a dual core with no hyperthreading, less cache, etc.. On the other hand.... 4.6GHz or more on air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , plus all of the single-threaded and clock-for-clock improvements this would give me over Lynnfield.


Hmm if you're streaming it could be problematic, but what about Shadowplay? I'm not sure how the streaming is handled, if it's entirely on the GPU or it's between the GPU and the CPU, I know standard shadowplay recording is handled by the GPU's built in encoder.

It could be a downgrade in multi-threaded performance in some cases too, hasn't that Xeon also got Hyperthreading?


----------



## murderbymodem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Hmm if you're streaming it could be problematic, but what about Shadowplay? I'm not sure how the streaming is handled, if it's entirely on the GPU or it's between the GPU and the CPU, I know standard shadowplay recording is handled by the GPU's built in encoder.
> 
> It could be a downgrade in multi-threaded performance in some cases too, hasn't that Xeon also got Hyperthreading?


That's true, I haven't checked how CPU usage looks while streaming and playing versus only playing the game since I started using NVENC (the Nvidia encoder- I use Open Broadcaster, but it has the ability to use the Nvidia encoder just like Shadowplay).

Yeah, the Xeon has hyperthreading and is from the good old days where you could overclock them, which is the reason I haven't made the jump to a newer Xeon, and the i7s are are a bit more money than I like to spend. The reason I went with the Xeon X3440 back when I got it was because price wise it was right in between the i5-750 and the i7-860. It was only $30 or so more than the i5-750 for hyperthreading, and still overclockable.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redmist*
> 
> That's true, I haven't checked how CPU usage looks while streaming and playing versus only playing the game since I started using NVENC (the Nvidia encoder- I use Open Broadcaster, but it has the ability to use the Nvidia encoder just like Shadowplay).
> 
> Yeah, the Xeon has hyperthreading and is from the good old days where you could overclock them, which is the reason I haven't made the jump to a newer Xeon, and the i7s are are a bit more money than I like to spend. The reason I went with the Xeon X3440 back when I got it was because price wise it was right in between the i5-750 and the i7-860. It was only $30 or so more than the i5-750 for hyperthreading, and still overclockable.


Hell of a deal, wow and yes the good old days, now you have to pay a chunky premium for unlocked chips.
How well can you overclock your Xeon? I wouldn't think it's worth jumping to this platform unless you plan to get an i5, an i7 or Broadwell, or you're looking for other additional capabilties or features which this socket and the chipset Z97 provide, but then again I dont know how those Nehalem cores perform, IIRC they're still pretty good performers when bumped up to 3.5-4GHz and your CPU-Z Validation is showing 3.6GHz.

I'd think the single-threaded performance jump from Nehalem to Haswell would be pretty blatant and a massive increase, but it's if you're willing to potentially sacrifice multi-threading performance, however I'm not sure how your processor or comparable i5s or i7s of that time compare to this chip, hopefully they'll be a couple benchmarks in the next few days showing this.

Even I'm wondering If I'll lose some multi-threading performance in some titles, and I have a Phenom II at 3.9GHz, Far Cry 3 when benched by PCLab it looked to take a hit alongside the terribly performing Watch_Dogs.





From PCLab, these two are the only games they benched which perform worse than the 4300 at it's stock clocks IIRC.
http://pclab.pl/art57691.html
EDIT: On AMD's side with the 290X....










Takes the lead here, that is weird.

I'm really anticipating some nice single-threaded boosts from this processor overclocked, Guild Wars 2 is practically unplayable for me, and after seeing how my brother's i7 2600K performs, my god.

This chip is looking to be a fantastic stopgag until I can get an i5 or an i7, if the performance is good enough for me in the meantime I might upgrade other parts of my system and leave the processor to last.


----------



## iRUSH

Alright, this MSI Z97 PC Mate combo with this G3258 at Microcenter overclocks this like a champ. Let me get 4.5+ stable and then per requested benching, be the guinea pig.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Alright, this MSI Z97 PC Mate combo with this G3258 at Microcenter overclocks this like a champ. Let me get 4.5+ stable and then per requested benching, be the guinea pig.


Wow really? that's great, what voltages are you applying and cooler are you using if you dont mind me asking?


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Wow really? that's great, what voltages are you applying and cooler are you using if you dont mind me asking?


1.25 @ 4.5 stock cooler AIDA 64 max temp 81c. No other fans in the system but the stock cpu cooler and the GTX 750ti lol. I'm typing this as on this system as it's stressed.

I'm guessing on the voltage for now.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> 1.25 @ 4.5 stock cooler AIDA 64 max temp 81c. No other fans in the system but the stock cpu cooler and the GTX 750ti lol. I'm typing this as on this system as it's stressed.
> 
> I'm guessing on the voltage for now.


Wow that's crazy. 
If I get a good chip, hopefully I'll be able to touch your clocks at a couple celcius below, or 100 to 200mhz higher on my aftermarket cooler.


----------



## iRUSH

I haven't tried higher clocks or lower voltages yet. This is what I put into the bios and that it. This board has ZERO vdroop. It's hilarious how cheap this combo is ($100). Pretty exciting stuff if you consider it's using the stock cooler.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I haven't tried higher clocks or lower voltages yet. This is what I put into the bios and that it. This board has ZERO vdroop. It's hilarious how cheap this combo is ($100). Pretty exciting stuff if you consider it's using the stock cooler.


For real, heck of a deal from Microcenter.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Well 1.25V 4.5Ghz isn't that good. See if you can boot at 4.8Ghz using 1.25V


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Well 1.25V 4.5Ghz isn't that good. See if you can boot at 4.8Ghz using 1.25V


It won't even boot with 4.6 at that vcore.


----------



## 66racer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redmist*
> 
> I am REALLY tempted to pick up one of these and a Z97 board. I'm just not sure if I'd feel gimped with it as a CPU in my main rig. We've been discussing how MMORPGs will benefit from improved single-threaded performance, and I play primarily FFXIV, but since I tend to do thinks like stream my MMORPG gameplay from time to time, I can't help but think I'd be gimping myself stepping "down" to a dual core with no hyperthreading, less cache, etc.. On the other hand.... 4.6GHz or more on air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , plus all of the single-threaded and clock-for-clock improvements this would give me over Lynnfield.


Well the nice thing is later on you can purchase an i5 or i7 since its the same socket. Its mainly why I wanna play with one of these cpus


----------



## Internet Swag

If Intel just gave us an i3 with 3 cores, HT, 3.2GHz and an unlocked modifier, I would be so happy.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Internet Swag*
> 
> If Intel just gave us an i3 with 3 cores, HT, 3.2GHz and an unlocked modifier, I would be so happy.


Sold !

(If it costs around $120 or less)


----------



## murderbymodem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Hell of a deal, wow and yes the good old days, now you have to pay a chunky premium for unlocked chips.
> How well can you overclock your Xeon? I wouldn't think it's worth jumping to this platform unless you plan to get an i5, an i7 or Broadwell, or you're looking for other additional capabilties or features which this socket and the chipset Z97 provide, but then again I dont know how those Nehalem cores perform, IIRC they're still pretty good performers when bumped up to 3.5-4GHz and your CPU-Z Validation is showing 3.6GHz.
> 
> I'd think the single-threaded performance jump from Nehalem to Haswell would be pretty blatant and a massive increase, but it's if you're willing to potentially sacrifice multi-threading performance, however I'm not sure how your processor or comparable i5s or i7s of that time compare to this chip, hopefully they'll be a couple benchmarks in the next few days showing this.
> 
> Even I'm wondering If I'll lose some multi-threading performance in some titles, and I have a Phenom II at 3.9GHz, Far Cry 3 when benched by PCLab it looked to take a hit alongside the terribly performing Watch_Dogs.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2082032/width/200/height/400
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2082031/width/200/height/400
> 
> From PCLab, these two are the only games they benched which perform worse than the 4300 at it's stock clocks IIRC.
> http://pclab.pl/art57691.html
> EDIT: On AMD's side with the 290X....
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2082039/width/200/height/400
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Takes the lead here, that is weird.
> 
> I'm really anticipating some nice single-threaded boosts from this processor overclocked, Guild Wars 2 is practically unplayable for me, and after seeing how my brother's i7 2600K performs, my god.
> 
> This chip is looking to be a fantastic stopgag until I can get an i5 or an i7, if the performance is good enough for me in the meantime I might upgrade other parts of my system and leave the processor to last.


Yeah, my X3440 clocks pretty well. I've had it to 4GHz at 1.4v,, but currently I'm running it on stock voltage at 3GHz with all of the power saving features enabled (because this rig is pretty much running 24/7- I use it for gaming, media, work, music, and everything else you could think of). Also, because it's summer and like to keep the temperature of my room down as much as I can.

If you find yourself content with the G3258 as a stopgap, get an SSD. They make a HUGE difference.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *66racer*
> 
> Well the nice thing is later on you can purchase an i5 or i7 since its the same socket. Its mainly why I wanna play with one of these cpus


I think what I may end up doing is just building a cheap mini-ITX build around this chip. I've been considering making another LAN rig ever since I parted out my old LAN rig for not being portable enough (MicroATX really isn't that small...my Lian-Li PC-V354 was still a pain to haul around), and the single threaded performance would be great there since when my friends have LAN parties we only play older games (you know, because newer games usually don't even have LAN functionality...)


----------



## jason387

Waiting on the benchmarks iRush. Punkx waiting for your benches as well. Let the games begin


----------



## KeyboardXpert

I'm getting increasingly concerned about overclocking this thing on only three VRMs. You guys sure it will give the best overclock possible and still be safe?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> I'm getting increasingly concerned about overclocking this thing on only three VRMs. You guys sure it will give the best overclock possible and still be safe?


Geez stop worrying.

Stay under 1.5V and you'll be fine.

For MSI, only their AMD mobos blow up from time to time.

But seriously, you'll be fine.


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Geez stop worrying.
> 
> Stay under 1.5V and you'll be fine.
> 
> For MSI, only their AMD mobos blow up from time to time.
> 
> But seriously, you'll be fine.


It's an ASRock Z97M Anniversary board I'm planning on.


----------



## fateswarm

The current-capacity of those boards is fine on a Pentium. Even a 3-phase card would be enough with 25A mosfets. Don't try an i7 though, they may need easily more than 100A in total even on air.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Do people have frame rate issues in LoL? I'm pretty sure people using way old Core 2 Duo GMAs can run LoL.


With AMD CPU's and radeon drivers, yea. Even Intel/nvidia (which is way faster for low threaded game due to CPU and more efficient gpu driver) can dip to like 80fps in teamfights, cpu limit


----------



## micromage

What are the best cheaper matx/mitx motherboard to pair with the g3258? The z97 anniversary is just too big for me


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *micromage*
> 
> What are the best cheaper matx/mitx motherboard to pair with the g3258? The z97 anniversary is just too big for me


ASRock Z97m pro4 for $99 is your best bet.


----------



## fateswarm

With the current-output needs of a pentium, any will be of similar quality. You appear to get an enormous boost in quality with the asus Impact. But that's so capable, that I would mainly suggest it for i7 overclocking.


----------



## TopicClocker

Good god, I've recently come across this site called CCLOnline, and I've found that their components are a fair bit cheaper than other stores, the G3258 from here is £47.04, Overclockers are doing it for 52.99, I've also found their Saturday delivery service to be quite a bit more affordable than other stores, and they happen to have the motherboard and CPU I want, Aria, Dabs, Novatech and Overclockers haven't been able to provide me with the components I want for an attractive price with a premium delivery service, and this store does this pretty well.

Has anyone got any past experiences with them, I'm pretty tempted to give them a shot, I've given OCN a few searches for this store and it seems they have had attractive prices in the past and I haven't seen anything negative.


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> The current-capacity of those boards is fine on a Pentium. Even a 3-phase card would be enough with 25A mosfets. Don't try an i7 though, they may need easily more than 100A in total even on air.


Unfortunately it is a three phase board. I suppose if they're marketing it specifically for overclocking this proc it should be fine. Even so I'm getting a Hyper 212 Evo to go with it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *micromage*
> 
> What are the best cheaper matx/mitx motherboard to pair with the g3258? The z97 anniversary is just too big for me


There is an mATX version of the Anniversary if you're sold on the idea like I am.


----------



## micromage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> ASRock Z97m pro4 for $99 is your best bet.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> Unfortunately it is a three phase board. I suppose if they're marketing it specifically for overclocking this proc it should be fine. Even so I'm getting a Hyper 212 Evo to go with it.
> There is an mATX version of the Anniversary if you're sold on the idea like I am.


If i get the Z97m would it be unwise to upgrade to a k i5 in the future with this motherboard?


----------



## fateswarm

Don't get a board with flimsy mosfets on 4 total phases for an i7. That's for sure. e.g. from the latest Gigabytes only the SOC (*non*-Force) is capable of that with only 4 total phases, but only because the mosfets are exceptional.


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *micromage*
> 
> If i get the Z97m would it be unwise to upgrade to a k i5 in the future with this motherboard?


Depends on whether or not you'd want to overclock it. Stock i5 would be fine.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Don't get a board with flimsy mosfets on 4 total phases for an i7. That's for sure. e.g. from the latest Gigabytes only the SOC (*non*-Force) is capable of that with only 4 total phases, but only because the mosfets are exceptional.


First of all, he said i5, and even then an i7 would be okay stock, they say so themselves.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

i5 K so he wants to overclock.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KeyboardXpert*
> 
> i7 would be okay stock


We are in overclock.net, and he said i5 K. I talked about i7 because I wanted to.


----------



## Blameless

Need to start compiling a list of non-Z boards/BIOSes that are capable of OCing this part.

Plenty of manufacturers have committed to such things, but with the CPUs being so new, many of them don't seem to have firmware support yet.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Partol*
> 
> yet when making rar files, I never see WinRAR use more than 3 cpu cores.


This is odd. If the benchmark can do it, actual compression/decompression should as well. Are you certain you are using the correct settings?

Been a while since I've used WinRAR, as I generally prefer 7-zip.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> So do you think the Pentium K will clock better or worse than the i5 and i7s?
> 
> Are the Pentiums and i3s dual core dies or are they quad cores with half the cores off?


I think they will clock similarly.

Pentiums and i3s are native dual-core.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Internet Swag*
> 
> If Intel just gave us an i3 with 3 cores, HT, 3.2GHz and an unlocked modifier, I would be so happy.


Intel doesn't make triple core dies and doesn't likely have enough defective quad cores to make such a line viable. Also, it wouldn't be an i3; it'd be an i4 or something.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *micromage*
> 
> If i get the Z97m would it be unwise to upgrade to a k i5 in the future with this motherboard?


You won't be limited by the board. Just the chip and cooling solution. It's been this way since IVY. You don't need 6+ phase boards unless you're using liquid nitrogen with current Intel CPU's.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> You won't be limited by the board. Just the chip and cooling solution. It's been this way since IVY. You don't need 6+ phase boards unless you're using liquid nitrogen with current Intel CPU's.


Ignore that advice. Some boards are incapable of going near 100Amps output. I've seen it on an i7 on air being surpassed.

It probably explains why the Z97X-SLI failed to compete with some boards on a modest overclock.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

It's clear that a lot of the Z97 boards, especially gigabyte (surprising after their hugely overdone Z87 VRMs...) will have trouble running heavy overclocks on the quad cores. The Z97x-SLI is a perfect example.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Hell of a deal, wow and yes the good old days, now you have to pay a chunky premium for unlocked chips.
> How well can you overclock your Xeon? I wouldn't think it's worth jumping to this platform unless you plan to get an i5, an i7 or Broadwell, or you're looking for other additional capabilties or features which this socket and the chipset Z97 provide, but then again I dont know how those Nehalem cores perform, IIRC they're still pretty good performers when bumped up to 3.5-4GHz and your CPU-Z Validation is showing 3.6GHz.
> 
> I'd think the single-threaded performance jump from Nehalem to Haswell would be pretty blatant and a massive increase, but it's if you're willing to potentially sacrifice multi-threading performance, however I'm not sure how your processor or comparable i5s or i7s of that time compare to this chip, hopefully they'll be a couple benchmarks in the next few days showing this.
> 
> Even I'm wondering If I'll lose some multi-threading performance in some titles, and I have a Phenom II at 3.9GHz, Far Cry 3 when benched by PCLab it looked to take a hit alongside the terribly performing Watch_Dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From PCLab, these two are the only games they benched which perform worse than the 4300 at it's stock clocks IIRC.
> http://pclab.pl/art57691.html
> EDIT: On AMD's side with the 290X....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Takes the lead here, that is weird.
> 
> I'm really anticipating some nice single-threaded boosts from this processor overclocked, Guild Wars 2 is practically unplayable for me, and after seeing how my brother's i7 2600K performs, my god.
> 
> This chip is looking to be a fantastic stopgag until I can get an i5 or an i7, if the performance is good enough for me in the meantime I might upgrade other parts of my system and leave the processor to last.


very nice PC lab benchmarks... And still you can see difference between i3 and pentium OC
it just *doesnt* make sense. Far cry 3 is not very optimized game but still FX defeats pentium.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> very nice PC lab benchmarks... And still you can see difference between i3 and pentium OC
> it just *doesnt* make sense. Far cry 3 is not very optimized game but still FX defeats pentium.


*Stop it already.*


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

G3258 is in stock in NCIX.ca and DirectCanada









Just ordered one and I'll let you guys know how well it overclocks on a MSI G55 Z87 soon


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> *Stop it already.*


This... Especially the huge quotes.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> It's clear that a lot of the Z97 boards, especially gigabyte (surprising after their hugely overdone Z87 VRMs...) will have trouble running heavy overclocks on the quad cores. The Z97x-SLI is a perfect example.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Ignore that advice. Some boards are incapable of going near 100Amps output. I've seen it on an i7 on air being surpassed.
> 
> It probably explains why the Z97X-SLI failed to compete with some boards on a modest overclock.


The Z97X-SLI has one of the chintziest looking VRMs I've ever seen on a Z series board.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Look at the rest of the GB ones... They are crap.

I'd say asus has stayed the same since Z87, but some of the lower end Z87 ones they had were a bit iffy.


----------



## fateswarm

Various 8 phase gigabytes are exceptional. The power output they can do is roughly 400W and you may never need more than 200W. Some of them also have a digital controller on 8 true phases.

The reason you see those flimsy boards failing is they can only do up to half of that output and you may need roughly the max of their output (and being capable of only their max, is very unstable).

e.g. The GA-Z97X-gaming 5 is right now probably the best value for money on CPU VRM with 8 true digital phases. The 7 also adds better memory voltage regulation and various OC extras.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Various 8 phase gigabytes are exceptional. The power output they can do is roughly 400W and you may never need more than 200W. Some of them also have a digital controller on 8 true phases.
> 
> The reason you see those flimsy boards failing is they can only do up to half of that output and you may need roughly the max of their output (and being capable of only their max, is very unstable).
> 
> e.g. The GA-Z97X-gaming 5 is right now probably the best value for money on CPU VRM with 8 true digital phases. The 7 also adds better memory voltage regulation and various OC extras.


I saw that Gigabyte Z97MX Gaming 5 VS MSI Z97M Gaming thread, very nice information in there thanks, influenced me to get an MSI Z97M Gaming over the Z97MX Gaming 5, If only the MATX Gaming 5 had 8 digital phases too instead of 4.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Shame they moved away from the IR3553s... Great little chips those are... Now you have to get one of the SOC boards to get them :|


----------



## TopicClocker

Does anyone know any good CPU bound gaming benchmarks or CPU bound games to throw at the Pentium and the Phenom II?

FFXIV: ARR is on my list currently, alongside RIFT and Tera.
Perhaps Dolphin and PCSX2 also, got a couple PS2 games to throw at the chips, I'm thinking of Shadow of the Collosus, Tekken 3, Zone of the Enders... ah damnit I forgot to get GTA San Andreas from someone.









Saints Row 2, Planet Side 2, Grand Theft Auto IV, Assetto Corsa, Assasin's Creed IV Black Flag, Star Citizen....


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Shame they moved away from the IR3553s... Great little chips those are... Now you have to get one of the SOC boards to get them :|


They are a total overkill at least on air on water when they are more than 4. To be honest, I was afraid the 8 SiRA12DP of my board may heat up. But it turns out that they are perfectly fine (when they are 8 and not 4 mind you).


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Wonder what's cheaper. 4x IR3553 or 8x SIRA12?

Also, the pulse current (0.3ms) of the SiRA12DP is 80A while continuous rated is 25A, which is package limited... Wonder if you can get more than 30A out of one of them if you cool them properly.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Ignore that advice. Some boards are incapable of going near 100Amps output. I've seen it on an i7 on air being surpassed.
> 
> It probably explains why the Z97X-SLI failed to compete with some boards on a modest overclock.


I'm only speaking from personal experience. For every CPU listed in.my SIG, I've had an average of 3 motherboards that I've used. Only 1 time did having a high end motherboard make a difference and it was so small of a voltage drop to get stability it wasn't worth mentioning.

Unless you delid or run extravagant cooling, I stand by my post.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Does anyone know any good CPU bound gaming benchmarks or CPU bound games to throw at the Pentium and the Phenom II?
> 
> FFXIV: ARR is on my list currently, alongside RIFT and Tera.
> Perhaps Dolphin and PCSX2 also, got a couple PS2 games to throw at the chips, I'm thinking of Shadow of the Collosus, Tekken 3, Zone of the Enders... ah damnit I forgot to get GTA San Andreas from someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saints Row 2, Planet Side 2, Grand Theft Auto IV, Assetto Corsa, Assasin's Creed IV Black Flag, Star Citizen....


Watch_dogs, if you have it. Maybe some BF3/BF4 MP?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Watch_dogs, if you have it. Maybe some BF3/BF4 MP?


I have Watch_Dogs and Battlefield 3, I haven't got Battlefield 4 yet.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> i5 K so he wants to overclock.


Well, with Haswell, going from 4.0 @1.08 to [email protected] is like an ~80% increase in power used.

Pretty arbitrary numbers, but if we call 4.0 @1.08 to be 80 watts, then [email protected] would be ~144w.

Broadwell is supposed to be better by performance/watt massively, so i wouldn't be too worried for lowish volts on broadwell i5-k. Haswell is supposed to use ~44% more power!

(100*0.7 = 70

70*1.44 = 100 - Broadwell uses 30% less power, so Haswell uses 44% more)

Quote:


> Does anyone know any good CPU bound gaming benchmarks or CPU bound games to throw at the Pentium and the Phenom II?


Wildstar (you can even use render scale ultra low if you dont have a good GPU or the means to subject yourself to a cpu stressful situation), sc2, etc!


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Well, with Haswell, going from 4.0 @1.08 to [email protected] is like an ~80% increase in power used.
> 
> Pretty arbitrary numbers, but if we call 4.0 @1.08 to be 80 watts, then [email protected] would be ~144w.
> 
> Broadwell is supposed to be better by performance/watt massively, so i wouldn't be too worried for lowish volts on broadwell i5-k. Haswell is supposed to use ~44% more power!
> 
> (100*0.7 = 70
> 
> 70*1.44 = 100 - Broadwell uses 30% less power, so Haswell uses 44% more)
> Wildstar (you can even use render scale ultra low if you dont have a good GPU or the means to subject yourself to a cpu stressful situation), sc2, etc!


I haven't got Wildstar but I can give Guild Wars 2 a shot, that game is practically unplayable to me on this Phenom II @3.9GHz, I think my GPU is capable enough since it's onpar with a 670 and some cases a reference clocked 7970.

EDIT: I think I'll give Hitman Absolution a go, that had some pretty heavy CPU bottlenecking in the benchmark.


----------



## TopicClocker

I've given Hitman Absolution and FFXIV: ARR benchmarks a go, I hope my parts arrive on time for the day.
Still got a good amount of benchmarks to go alongside pulling GW2 from a recovery file.

Shall be a very fun weekend.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I haven't got Wildstar but I can give Guild Wars 2 a shot, that game is practically unplayable to me on this Phenom II @3.9GHz, I think my GPU is capable enough since it's onpar with a 670 and some cases a reference clocked 7970.
> 
> EDIT: I think I'll give Hitman Absolution a go, that had some pretty heavy CPU bottlenecking in the benchmark.


If you do PS2, please note it uses a maximum of 3 threads. The third doesn't get much usage. Usually only the first two will get used to 100%.


----------



## Boinz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Does anyone know any good CPU bound gaming benchmarks or CPU bound games to throw at the Pentium and the Phenom II?
> 
> FFXIV: ARR is on my list currently, alongside RIFT and Tera.
> Perhaps Dolphin and PCSX2 also, got a couple PS2 games to throw at the chips, I'm thinking of Shadow of the Collosus, Tekken 3, Zone of the Enders... ah damnit I forgot to get GTA San Andreas from someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saints Row 2, Planet Side 2, Grand Theft Auto IV, Assetto Corsa, Assasin's Creed IV Black Flag, Star Citizen....


Skyrim


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> If you do PS2, please note it uses a maximum of 3 threads. The third doesn't get much usage. Usually only the first two will get used to 100%.


Which PS2 do you mean, Planet Side 2 or PS2 games emulated with PCSX2?, I know PCSX2 only uses about two cores and light or little usage of the third thread with the enabling of MTVU, and Planet Side 2 was a bit sketchy with it's core usage but the optimization updates might have improved this a bit.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boinz*
> 
> Skyrim


Sure thing, I think I've got a vanilla state game of it on my HDD somewhere, I'll try that If I can, I have a modded game and it might not be too reliable to use but I dont know, I might give both a shot or one or the other If I only have one.


----------



## Gambit61

Can't wait to see your results! Been having some bad performance with my X4 955 BE in CPU heavy games lately like Saints Row 3. Any chance you can test that out as well?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gambit61*
> 
> Can't wait to see your results! Been having some bad performance with my X4 955 BE in CPU heavy games lately like Saints Row 3. Any chance you can test that out as well?


Yup, I've got that on my "To bench" list, alongside Saints Row 2, believe me Saints Row 2 is even worse, SR3 is alright currently for me, but Saints Row 2.








I remember checking up Afterburner and seeing 40% GPU utilization a couple of times.


----------



## TopicClocker

I'm going to be trying Assetto Corsa now, and stock GTA IV.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Which PS2 do you mean, Planet Side 2 or PS2 games emulated with PCSX2?, I know PCSX2 only uses about two cores and light or little usage of the third thread with the enabling of MTVU, and Planet Side 2 was a bit sketchy with it's core usage but the optimization updates might have improved this a bit.


Derp. Planet Side 2. I think PCSX2 can use a third core now if the right settings are enabled. Not sure how much it actually uses though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Sure thing, I think I've got a vanilla state game of it on my HDD somewhere, I'll try that If I can, I have a modded game and it might not be too reliable to use but I dont know, I might give both a shot or one or the other If I only have one.


I would recommend trying to use a massive war with the Warzones mod, but this would be too unreliable. It isn't like we can set up a script or mod in the game to give the same experience over and over again. (Or can we...?) I think the best case scenario would be to load up a new game with a load of AI scripting mods and play out the framerate in the opening cut scene. Not touching the controls at all, just running that opening loop.

TL;DR: I find that Skyrim wouldn't be the best idea, but it may work.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

So. My turn to ask the question. What board should I get for this? I am looking for a preferrably sub $130 board with good VRMs and overclocking capabilities. No fancy audio, wifi, or ethernet. Can be either Z87 or Z97 as I have a haswell chip to flash bios for haswell refresh. Although broadwell compatibility with Z97 would be nice, it is not a must have, and I would give up that for better/more relialble overclocking on DC quad cores.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Derp. Planet Side 2. I think PCSX2 can use a third core now if the right settings are enabled. Not sure how much it actually uses though.
> I would recommend trying to use a massive war with the Warzones mod, but this would be too unreliable. It isn't like we can set up a script or mod in the game to give the same experience over and over again. (Or can we...?) I think the best case scenario would be to load up a new game with a load of AI scripting mods and play out the framerate in the opening cut scene. Not touching the controls at all, just running that opening loop.
> 
> TL;DR: I find that Skyrim wouldn't be the best idea, but it may work.


Oh I tried the Warzones mod, loved it, not sure If i still have it installed.
I'm also unsure of what AI script mods I could try to do that in the opening scene.

PlanetSide 2 is also on my "To bench" list, I just tried Assetto Corsa and my poor Phenom II got obliterated with 17 other cars on the track, I set 17 cars because I knew it would eat alot of processing power, I wonder how the Pentium would perform at 4.2GHz and how well this game scales to 4 or more threads.


----------



## Scorpion49

I'm really giving this CPU some thought, I do internet browsing and play a lot of older games that never take advantage of more than one or two cores. I bet this thing would be awesome for those with a healthy overclock and at a fraction of the cost of an i5 k-part.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpion49*
> 
> I'm really giving this CPU some thought, I do internet browsing and play a lot of older games that never take advantage of more than one or two cores. I bet this thing would be awesome for those with a healthy overclock and at a fraction of the cost of an i5 k-part.


What kind of older games?, If I have one of them I might give them a try.


----------



## Pheesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Does anyone know any good CPU bound gaming benchmarks or CPU bound games to throw at the Pentium and the Phenom II?
> 
> FFXIV: ARR is on my list currently, alongside RIFT and Tera.
> Perhaps Dolphin and PCSX2 also, got a couple PS2 games to throw at the chips, I'm thinking of Shadow of the Collosus, Tekken 3, Zone of the Enders... ah damnit I forgot to get GTA San Andreas from someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saints Row 2, Planet Side 2, Grand Theft Auto IV, Assetto Corsa, Assasin's Creed IV Black Flag, Star Citizen....


Any source title is going to be quite CPU bound, so might be good to try.

Here's a good demo to use as a bench for Team Fortress 2 if you want it: (hopefully still works w/ latest patch).
http://teamfortress.tv/thread/7598/tf2-benchmarks

Bonus is TF2 is free to download/play so should be easy to get







. www.teamfortress.com if you've never played it

If you REALLY want to make it even more CPU bound you can run the game in dx8 w/ a max FPS config (search for chris max fps config). Probably overboard for what you're doing though


----------



## PureBlackFire

I don't know why but I'm curious how this thing performs in real use. I might go pick up the combo with the Z97 PC Mate in a few minutes. I have no need for it, I just wanna play with something new.


----------



## Scorpion49

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> What kind of older games?, If I have one of them I might give them a try.


Stuff like Dragon Age series (doesn't scale with threads), Fallout III, Mass Effect, Skyrim, etc. My main game is World of Tanks and it doesn't care about anything besides the fastest single core it can have, and if I want to play BF4 once in a while I do have Mantle support with my R9 290.


----------



## Jugurnot

Is this chip good to pair with a 660? I already have the 660, just need a new build to go with it. Was thinking the g3258 + ASRock z97m Anniversary


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Wonder what's cheaper. 4x IR3553 or 8x SIRA12?
> 
> Also, the pulse current (0.3ms) of the SiRA12DP is 80A while continuous rated is 25A, which is package limited... Wonder if you can get more than 30A out of one of them if you cool them properly.


I think there's a positive thing about the SiRA12DPs. While you see that "max 25Amps" on their general specs, they are also, as you said, package limited to that. That means they can do stuff like up to 20Amps each before heating up by much because 25Amps is not their "inherent" capacity, it's only the package's max (and even 20 is HUGE on 8x20 = 160, I doubt you'll ever need more than 140 on air or water).

I'm not sure if they can do say 30A, but they probably mean it it's 25A regardless of temps since the graphs of the datasheet include temps and it's still flat to 25A. Though that would mean 30x8 = 240A, which is insane even for the insanest LN2 OC.

As I wrote I was actually afraid I would see overheating easily, but most probably due to that "inherent" higher capacity, they seem ok.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I stand by my post.


I suggest you don't because theory alone proves some of the cheapest boards can't support as well the electrical-current needs of some i7 overclocks. This is also supported by Sin0822, a guru on the subject.

I've gone beyond theory too. I just tested a prime95 on only 1.24v core/4.6Ghz (air is enough for that) and I needed up to 98Amps. The flimsiest boards that can do up to ~100Amps would fail. At the very best they would soon overheat.

I had also seen 110Amps on air and I'm not even into suicide overclocks.


----------



## lolwatpear

Does anyone have information regarding ocing on h81 or b85 anywhere on the internet? The only thing I see are things like 'Asus enabled non-z ocing on their non-z boards.' How exactly does it work though? Are you able to add voltage? Can you change the multiplier to anything you want? I saw an image of non-z ocing on an asrock board, but it seemed they only allowed you to change the multiplier to a set speed of 200 mhz but with a max of 5 increments. Here's an image:


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> I think there's a positive thing about the SiRA12DPs. While you see that "max 25Amps" on their general specs, they are also, as you said, package limited to that. That means they can do stuff like up to 20Amps each before heating up by much because 25Amps is not their "inherent" capacity, it's only the package's max (and even 20 is HUGE on 8x20 = 160, I doubt you'll ever need more than 140 on air or water).
> 
> I'm not sure if they can do say 30A, but they probably mean it it's 25A regardless of temps since the graphs of the datasheet include temps and it's still flat to 25A. Though that would mean 30x8 = 240A, which is insane even for the insanest LN2 OC.
> 
> As I wrote I was actually afraid I would see overheating easily, but most probably due to that "inherent" higher capacity, they seem ok.
> I suggest you don't because theory alone proves some of the cheapest boards can't support as well the electrical-current needs of some i7 overclocks. This is also supported by Sin0822, a guru on the subject.
> 
> I've gone beyond theory too. I just tested a prime95 on only 1.24v core/4.6Ghz (air is enough for that) and I needed up to 98Amps. The flimsiest boards that can do up to ~100Amps would fail. At the very best they would soon overheat.
> 
> I had also seen 110Amps on air and I'm not even into suicide overclocks.


I couldn't care less about this crap. I recommended the ASRock Z97 Pro4. Not some chintzy flimsy piece of garbage.


----------



## Themisseble

here are some benchmarks pentium G3258 vs FX 4300 Mantle/DX11

http://udteam.tistory.com/639

even Oc-ed pentium cant compare against Fx 4300 in mantle.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I couldn't care less about this crap. I recommended the ASRock Z97 Pro4. Not some chintzy flimsy piece of garbage.


I remember Sin0822 saying anything over 6 phase is overkill for air and water (Haswell), so you're dead on









For reference, a 970A Extreme3 I had can handle a 4.8Ghz 1.64V FX6100 no problem. That mobo only has a cheap 4 phase power delivery and a tiny heatsink, yet my FX is 24/7 IBT and prime stable at 4.8Ghz 1.64V (which sucks up a ton of power).

The 4.9Ghz at 1.78V was on a Gigabyte 970A UD3.


----------



## Themisseble

1.78V? Are you crazy?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> 1.78V? Are you crazy?


Yep, I was. That's on water. I did 1.64V on air.

It was a terrible chip btw.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Yep, I was. That's on water. I did 1.64V on air.
> 
> It was a terrible chip btw.


with that board? dont lie please... it was unstable because of that board


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Yep, I was. That's on water. I did 1.64V on air.
> 
> It was a terrible chip btw.


that crazy. I'm doubting 5ghz will be reached on anything under 1.5v


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> here are some benchmarks pentium G3258 vs FX 4300 Mantle/DX11
> 
> http://udteam.tistory.com/639


Are you seriously insinuating the G3258 (Which can be clocked upwards of 4.2GHz) is the G3220 which has a clock of 3.0GHz and a locked multiplier?
You are not that delusional, stop your trolling.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Yep, I was. That's on water. I did 1.64V on air.
> 
> It was a terrible chip btw.


Did it ignite? I presume you must of ran it for benches at that voltage, no way I can see that chip surviving 1.64v or even 1.78v 24/7, unless I'm underestimating the amount of volts you can push through them?


----------



## Themisseble

Thats not true.. i can get 4.7Ghz under *1.5V* and i have bad chip. Also if i undervolt it at stock 3.5Ghz... i get under 105W (stock v 142W) system usage under pirme 95 which is very impressive.

His board made his CPu unstable.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Are you seriously insinuating the G3258 is the G3220 which has a clock of 3.0GHz and a locked multiplier?
> You are not that delusional, stop your trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did it ignite? I presume you must of ran it for benches at that voltage, no way I can see that chip surviving 1.64v or even 1.78v 24/7, unless I'm underestimating the amount of volts you can push through them?


whos trolling here?
1.Why would you buy opentium if you can get FX 4300 for the same price or get i3 which is better

2.No it can survive much more than you think. i ran 1.67V for 5.4Ghz (unstable- but enough for benchmark) on air


----------



## jmcosta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> whos trolling here?
> 1.Why would you buy opentium if you can get FX 4300 for the same price or get i3 which is better


pentium 3220 its a "useless" locked cpu costs less than 50€ not bad compare to fx4300 80€ , still does a good job with low mid end gpus


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Thats not true.. i can get 4.7Ghz under 5.0Ghz and i have bad chip. Also if i undervolt it at stock 3.5Ghz... i get under 105W (stock v 142W) system usage under pirme 95 which is very impressive.
> 
> His board made his CPu unstable.


No my CPU overclocked the same on a 8 phase Gigabyte UD3.

I was expecting a major improvement with a much better board and custom loop, but I was wrong.

And I did overclock it to 4.8Ghz at 1.64V with all 6 cores active. I had to use a 2000 rpm 80mm fan to blow directly at the VRM heatsink or else it will overheat like crazy lol.

And slight correction: The 4.9Ghz 1.78V was on the Gigabyte.


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> whos trolling here?
> 1.Why would you buy opentium if you can get FX 4300 for the same price or get i3 which is better
> 
> 2.No it can survive much more than you think. i ran 1.67V for 5.4Ghz (unstable- but enough for benchmark) on air


Anything locked in the pentium line is bad for gaming.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> whos trolling here?
> *1.Why would you buy opentium if you can get FX 4300 for the same price or get i3 which is better*
> 
> 2.No it can survive much more than you think. i ran 1.67V for 5.4Ghz (unstable- but enough for benchmark) on air


Is that what I asked? I said.
Quote:


> Are you seriously insinuating the G3258 is the G3220 which has a clock of 3.0GHz and a locked multiplier?
> You are not that delusional, stop your trolling.


You said.
Quote:


> here are some benchmarks pentium G3258 vs FX 4300 Mantle/DX11
> 
> http://udteam.tistory.com/639
> 
> even Oc-ed pentium cant compare against Fx 4300 in mantle.




What does that look like to you? do you see "G3258" do you see an evidence of a bump in clockspeed?
No. That Pentium has a locked multiplier, and it is not a G3258, so how can you make such claims of it being a G3258 and then saying.
Quote:


> even Oc-ed pentium cant compare against Fx 4300 in mantle.


Also, I do not wish to buy a CPU on a seemingly dead-end platform, there's the 4300, and then what? the 6300 and 8300? I can get an i5 4690K which will beat them in gaming scenarios of today, just like they did with Sandy and Ivy against AMD's offerings.

Seriously, what are you trying to pull? Oh and who's trolling here? clearly you, you have something against either Intel or this processor, and if you dont want this processor, dont buy it, what malicious harm is it's existence causing you? That you have to claim the G3258 IS G3220 which has a clockspeed of 3.0GHz, compared to StayPuft's G3258 he had clocked to 4.6GHz.

We've already established they perform drastically different, and you know that yourself, so why must another person yet again explain this to you? perhaps a 100+ posts after it's previous establishment.


----------



## Themisseble

I thought that pentium G3258 is budget CPU... i see i was wrong. S i am going to buy new CPu so can upgrade it next year? .... specially if i have R7 260X or GTx 750TI?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I thought that pentium G3258 is budget CPU... i see i was wrong. S i am going to buy new CPu so can upgrade it next year? .... specially if i have R7 260X or GTx 750TI?


Wow, that flew right over your head, so you attempt to avoid the question by bringing something else up which has nothing to do with the prior question I presented to you?
Again, please may you explain to me how the G3258 is the G3220? because clearly that's what you must believe.

£50 processor, a budget CPU, overclock it to 4.0GHz+
Is that so hard to comprehend?
I brought the i5 into the discussion to further prove my point of the platform which beholds the 4300 as a dead end platform, and even then you can upgrade to the 6300 or 8320, but period, AMD has nothing to offer which can provide comparable single-threaded performance of their Haswell cores, or the gaming performance of an i5 4690K in a multitude of titles, unless heavily overclocked, sure they'll be a couple which are well mulit-threaded to use their 6+ core CPUs better, but Intel's offerings dominate mostly in the performance of games of today.
If I want to upgrade to an i5 next year or whenever I want, I can, that's not your problem.

Again, if you have a problem with this processor don't buy it.
Also, nowhere did I mention GPUs.

For the past 200+ pages all you've done is bash this £50 processor and compare it to £80-100 ones, if you have something against this processor or dont want it, to the extent you have to bash it every page, you simply do not have to post, just go about your business and leave the ones who are interested in it to it, no need to get yourself involved in something you dislike so much.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> You dont see a point... no you DONT want to see it. I want to tell you dual core cant match quad cores in 2014/2015... Because game engine is made for quad/eight cores... *Still how much difference you will see once you pentium will be OC-ed to 4.8GHz? lets say 70%? Can it keep up? ... no ti cant.*


Proof?
Dont post another G3220 vs 4300 again and claim it's a G3258, it's getting old and it's plain stupid.

And sorry, you still haven't answered my question.
Please tell me how the G3258 is the G3220?

I dont want to see it?, I'm not some sleep walker like a ton of the inhabitants of this planet who turns a blind eye to the state of the world and the ongoings, I see what's going on, I know what's going on.

We're just starting to see the increment in the utilization in cores, and hardly any games take advantage of the 8 threads they have available to them, you are missing the major attraction of this processor, single-threaded performance. I'd like to know what AMD processor can compare to the single-threaded performance of this processor out of the box, especially when overclocked above 4GHz for this price.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> The appeal of the pentium-k is that you have single-threaded performance than embarrasses AMD's fx9590 at such a low cost, and it runs amazingly for a ton of games which don't heavily utilize 3+ threads. For the ones that do, there's probably a better choice - but the Pentium still has insane price/performance. Is anyone REALLY going to complain that their £50 CPU "only" gets them 66fps average on Metro? What about that bf4 performance video?
> 
> -snip-
> 
> For three and a half years, if you wanted a CPU with singlethreaded performance anywhere near this level, you had no choice but to buy the 2500k-4670k or a more expensive option. Intel chose not to offer it, while AMD was incapable.
> That's no longer the case, and you can do some amazing things with a £50 pentium, £50 motherboard and £80 to spare for a gtx750 or Radeon r7 265.
> 
> The i5 CPU alone can barely be afforded for that price.
> 
> Everyone buying this chip knows it's a dual core. They don't care - they have Haswell @4.5ghz for £100 between the CPU and mobo. A 4690k or FX-8 setup would cost like £280 after you account for mobo and cooling price. A ton of stuff is dependent on singlethreaded performance, now it runs great without having to buy an i5, and buy a gtx760 so that you don't have to look like an idiot running a [email protected] for the singlethreaded performance while using no SSD, a cheap case and a gtx 650ti, cannibalizing rest of system budget so that you're not stuck @3.4ghz.


This says it all to be honest.

It's a £50 processor which provides unrivaled single-threaded performance and with a great upgrade path.
What is the problem?

There's a market for this chip, spanning from MMOs, Emulators, games which demand high single-threaded performance, to game servers such as Minecraft and Natural Selection 2.
Just like how processors such as the 6300 and 8300 have a market for home servers, VMs, rendering due to multi-threading performance etc.

A quad/hexa core cant match dual cores in single-threaded performance in 2014/2015 because of Piledriver's significantly slower IPC, if I wanted to I could combat you with similar statements.


----------



## PureBlackFire

Haswell i3 beats FX quads in virtually everything including 2014/2015 games. That's dual core.


----------



## revanchrist

For anyone interested, i've noticed that for mini-ITX form factor, only the following four non-Z87/97 mobo can overclock G3258 as of now:
Asus H81I-PLUS
Asus H87I-PLUS
Asus H97I-PLUS
Gigabyte GA-H97N-WIFI

All these boards can overclock G3258 through latest BIOS update. Check their respective BIOS download page and you can see the notes written there. No luck for other mini-itx from Asrock and MSI (yet). For the note, i didn't check for lesser brand such as Biostar, ECS, EVGA etc.

And i leave out micro-ATX and full ATX because there are already some very affordable Z87/Z97 ATX or m-ATX mobo out there so it's pretty pointless to look for non-Z mobo just to overclock G3258.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> You dont see a point... no you DONT want to see it. I want to tell you dual core cant match quad cores in 2014/2015... Because game engine is made for quad/eight cores... Still how much difference you will see once you pentium will be OC-ed to 4.8GHz? lets say 70%? Can it keep up? ... no ti cant.


Are you just dense? If you want people to take you seriously, use the product in question (Pentium G3258 NOT G3220, which is LOCKED).


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> Haswell i3 beats FX quads in virtually everything including 2014/2015 games. That's dual core.


It's all relative. The i3 may be a dual core, but HT emulates additional cores by offering two more threads (as you are well aware).

Anyways, not sure why Themisseble is so insistent on battling his own demons here and has some vendetta against intel, let alone this particular cpu....it's really starting to embarrass the AMD crowd here.

The cpu is excellent in what it was designed to do, and quite frankly this has been one of the more exciting cpu releases in the past few years in my honest opinion,


----------



## PureBlackFire

agreed.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> It's all relative. The i3 may be a dual core, but HT emulates additional cores by offering two more threads (as you are well aware).
> 
> Anyways, not sure why Themisseble is so insistent on battling his own demons here and has some vendetta against intel, let alone this particular cpu....it's really starting to embarrass the AMD crowd here.
> 
> The cpu is excellent in what it was designed to do, and quite frankly this has been one of the more exciting cpu releases in the past few years in my honest opinion,


Vendetta? Lol no.

He's just plain delusional. I've always been an AMD guy, but facts are facts. Period.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I remember Sin0822 saying anything over 6 phase is overkill for air and water (Haswell), so you're dead on


Dead on? It was garbage. He first claimed that all boards generally are adequate and when it didn't suit him he talked only about his own little precious board.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> I think there's a positive thing about the SiRA12DPs. While you see that "max 25Amps" on their general specs, they are also, as you said, package limited to that. That means they can do stuff like up to 20Amps each before heating up by much because 25Amps is not their "inherent" capacity, it's only the package's max (and even 20 is HUGE on 8x20 = 160, I doubt you'll ever need more than 140 on air or water).
> 
> I'm not sure if they can do say 30A, but they probably mean it it's 25A regardless of temps since the graphs of the datasheet include temps and it's still flat to 25A. Though that would mean 30x8 = 240A, which is insane even for the insanest LN2 OC.


The 4 phase boards with 25A mosfets will be iffy when you push past 1.3v OCs I guarantee it. There is no way around the fact that 100A is simply not enough to push a Haswell chip. The 8 phase ones will be fine I'd guess.

I don't really like the idea of going away from the IR power stages... It gives them a lot of flexibility as far as how they can set up the VRMs. They have the choice between 40 50 and 60A mosfets on each board, on top of that I think they perform great on 4 phase boards, especially looking at how aggressively they could price the Z87 boards.

I guess I'm just a bit salty about them moving away from what is the premier mosfet platform :|

Still I think it would be more expensive for them to go with a 4 phase doubled VRM with the 25A mosfets over a straight 4 phase one with IR3553s or IR3551s...


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThriftyPo*











Becareful with that gif though, it might get pulled.


----------



## PunkX 1

I'd remove that. Goes against the ToS and you may get infracted.

I share the same sentiment, though


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> So. My turn to ask the question. What board should I get for this? I am looking for a preferrably sub $130 board with good VRMs and overclocking capabilities. No fancy audio, wifi, or ethernet. Can be either Z87 or Z97 as I have a haswell chip to flash bios for haswell refresh. Although broadwell compatibility with Z97 would be nice, it is not a must have, and I would give up that for better/more relialble overclocking on DC quad cores.


If you want a mobo to run any OC, Gigabyte's z87x-d3h and z97x-gaming 5 are competitively priced 8 phase boards. Not sure if they're over $130 or not, but they're "cheap" here. You can probably get something cheaper to just run like 1.325v on a Haswell i5 with no issues though, especially broadwell OC which will put way less demand on VRM's


----------



## solar0987

Themissable here is a g3220 and a 270x










And stock 270x only loses like 13fps
Oh ya on bf3 everything maxxed out it runs 64fps constant multiplayer even will run 64 player maps fine. So imagine if i could oc this chip. There you have the g3258.

And here is your amd counterpart


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I guess it's between those two.

@fateswarm How far have you pushed your board? Any odd quirks?

I think in the end it will come down to which is the most easy to pay and ship because I have to have a friend bring it down here and MIRs are out of the question.

And it looks like the Gaming 5. Newegg combo is pretty nice.

Oh yeah, and Tom's 20 minute kids review is up


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Oh I tried the Warzones mod, loved it, not sure If i still have it installed.
> I'm also unsure of what AI script mods I could try to do that in the opening scene.


It was just a suggestion. The point of having AI scripts is so that we don't hit a GPU wall, and it adds overhead to the game. Only in a few parts will Skyrim drop and _stay_ below 60FPS. One of the worst ares is standing at Dragonsreach, looking at the town.

You could make a save game there after activating the command "set timescale to 360". Load the same save game on the different test machines and log the frame rate over the next 5 minutes.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

My G3258 is going to be delivered today (hopefully)









I have a 8 phase mobo and a pair of GTX 670s, any benchmarks you guys want in particular?

I'm planning on overclocking to 5Ghz at all costs then do Cinebench and possibly BF4.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> My G3258 is going to be delivered today (hopefully)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a 8 phase mobo and a pair of GTX 670s, any benchmarks you guys want in particular?
> 
> I'm planning on overclocking to 5Ghz at all costs then do Cinebench and possibly BF4.


Nice!








Passmark performance test?

http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm

Mine should hopefully come to tomorrow where I'll be benching it against my 3.9GHz Phenom II, and trying to get it to 4.5GHz.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Nice!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Passmark performance test?
> 
> http://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm
> 
> Mine should hopefully come to tomorrow where I'll be benching it against my 3.9GHz Phenom II, and trying to get it to 4.5GHz.


Using the test 8 eh?

Downloaded









Let the overclocking commence









i wish I haven't sold my LN2 pot and WC gear


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Using the test 8 eh?
> 
> Downloaded
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the overclocking commence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i wish I haven't sold my LN2 pot and WC gear


I'll throw my own CPU benches into the mix from it.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Scores for a Pentium G3220

Cinebench R11.5: 2.59 at 3.03Ghz

Passmark: at 3.0Ghz
Total: 3362
Int: 3881
FP: 3090
Prime: 14.1
Single Thread: 1665

But take Passmark with a grain of salt because according to them, Intel HD4000 is on par with GTX680 in 2D graphics.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *solar0987*
> 
> Themissable here is a g3220 and a 270x
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And stock 270x only loses like 13fps
> Oh ya on bf3 everything maxxed out it runs 64fps constant multiplayer even will run 64 player maps fine. So imagine if i could oc this chip. There you have the g3258.
> 
> And here is your amd counterpart


No need to do benchmark... just record BF4 MP or something CPU intensive. Also give GPU/CPU usage


----------



## fateswarm

@GorbazTheDragon don't guess, the 4 total-phases gigabytes (SOC non-Force excluded) *WILL* be incapable to do even my current overclock on 1.24v since they are package limited to 4x25Amps and I've seen ~100Amps. I've even seen 110Amps in a stable manner on air and I'm sure it can be more on stress tests.

The 8-phase ones are a completely different matter, especially with a digital controller. They can do 200Amps but they don't overheat right before they reach them like other boards (since they are package limited, not transistor limited).

The GA-Z97X-gigabyte 5 is the best VRM at the moment for the price range. Give slightly more for the 7 and you get better memory VRD, and other overclocking features.

PS. Hm.. When they say the pentiums are 1333 memory, do they mean the IMC is more flimsy than the i7's?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Apparently my G3220 is faster than i3 550 in CB11.5 but slower in CB15


----------



## fateswarm

Convince me not to get this for a coworker needing a new office machine for office things. You can't.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> My G3258 is going to be delivered today (hopefully)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a 8 phase mobo and a pair of GTX 670s, any benchmarks you guys want in particular?
> 
> I'm planning on overclocking to 5Ghz at all costs then do Cinebench and possibly BF4.


Could you also run Geekbench 3?

Battlefield 3/4, maybe?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

I can run BF4 but what setting and map? I haven't played much.

For 3.0Ghz Pentium here's geekbench 3 result 32 bit: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/647104


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *solar0987*
> 
> Themissable here is a g3220 and a 270x
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And stock 270x only loses like 13fps
> Oh ya on bf3 everything maxxed out it runs 64fps constant multiplayer even will run 64 player maps fine. So imagine if i could oc this chip. There you have the g3258.
> 
> And here is your amd counterpart


Never buy that CPU if you don't intend on overclocking it


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Could you also run Geekbench 3?
> 
> Battlefield 3/4, maybe?


What's Geekbench 3?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Never buy that CPU if you don't intend on overclocking it


Here's more CPUs to compare with







All my results.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> What's Geekbench 3?


It's a CPU bench that supports various platforms. Looks like an FX CPU needs 5.1Ghz to match the Single threaded performance of a 3Ghz Pentium G3220.

G3220-
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/647104

FX 6300(2 cores locked at 5.1Ghz)-
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/643814


----------



## PunkX 1

Damn those Pentiums pull a real doozy on single-threaded performance









Here's mine at 4.22Ghz:


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Damn those Pentiums pull a real doozy on single-threaded performance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's mine at 4.22Ghz:


So even the Phenom IIX4 will require at least 4.6Ghz to match the Pentium at 3Ghz.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> So even the Phenom IIX4 will require at least 4.6Ghz to match the Pentium at 3Ghz.


fx6300 is good w/ OC, but overall, those chips at pushed oc's struggling to match pentium @3ghz when it can do 4.5 on stock cooler and a cheap mobo says it all if you're concerned for singlethreaded perf

for a lot of games there is simply no choice other than landslide victories from pentium until i5 4690k, but i would consider an fx6300 for multi-threaded use (as always, if they're selling significantly under half the price of unlocked i5..)

prices in UK atm:

pentium: £50

fx6300: £74

fx8320: actually woah, rly?

fx8320 under £100.. http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=CP-337-AM - that's new, AMD's best silicon for that price. Ridiculous, i'd consider this too now for MT work. Did they price drop with Devil's Canyon?

i5 4690k: £168


----------



## gaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Damn those Pentiums pull a real doozy on single-threaded performance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's mine at 4.22Ghz:


You got that right. Check out these professional benchmarks: https://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art57691.html

An overclocked Pentium beat all AMD FX cpus at some professional CAD benchmarks, and that even included an FX-6300 at 4.7 Ghz.
A lot of CAD software performs as if it were single threaded because of how it works.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> fx6300 is good w/ OC, but overall, those chips at pushed oc's struggling to match pentium @3ghz when it can do 4.5 on stock cooler and a cheap mobo says it all if you're concerned for singlethreaded perf
> 
> for a lot of games there is simply no choice other than landslide victories from pentium until i5 4690k, but i would consider an fx6300 for multi-threaded use (as always, if they're selling significantly under half the price of unlocked i5..)


True and I'm doing it with this mobo-http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128565
A fan over the vrm's and you're good to go!


----------



## parityboy

*@thread*

From my own perspective, this chip looks like it would make a nice virtualised pfSense or Vyatta router/firewall, or perhaps OpenVPN server.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> True and I'm doing it with this mobo-http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128565
> A fan over the vrm's and you're good to go!


That's pretty awesome, can you 24/7 5g at a normal 5g voltage with all cores, or is that too much for it? what kinda cooling does that need? PM me if you don't wanna derail thread a bit


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> That's pretty awesome, can you 24/7 5g at a normal 5g voltage with all cores, or is that too much for it? what kinda cooling does that need? PM me if you don't wanna derail thread a bit


Actually cooling is what holds me back otherwise I'm sure 5Ghz won't be much of a trouble. If people actually worry about power consumption and want to undervolt at stock clocks this is what this baby can do. It's 1.104v at load-


----------



## TopicClocker

@iRUSH
What was your chip clocked at again? someone along the lines of a 4.5GHz at 1.28v?


----------



## iRUSH

4.5 @ 1.25 bios, 1.252 cpuz/hardware monitor.


----------



## bhav

This is mighty powerful for a cheapo dual core.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> 4.5 @ 1.25 bios, 1.252 cpuz/hardware monitor.


Nice, what cooler were you running and what temps?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> 4.5 @ 1.25 bios, 1.252 cpuz/hardware monitor.


AFAIK, Haswell parts will NEVER display 1.252vcore. That could only come up if you're using a bad sensor or VID sensor. CPU-z has been broken with many boards for like a year now, Hwinfo ( www.hwinfo.com ) usually displays the right one if you scroll down past VID to Vcore, but you need different software depending on the mobo you are using


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Nice, what cooler were you running and what temps?


Stock cooler and 80-81c aida64 stress test 1 hour in.

Sorry I haven't been much help on this. I hope to have a fresh format and some benches after the holiday.

To those interested, even at 4.5, I can't recommend this for multiplayer BFBC2, BF3/4, COD Blacks 1+2 or Crysis 3. (I think most of us knew that). Source engine games online so far it's been as expected, amazing.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Right now with G3220 3.0Ghz Metro Last Light has terrible FPS. Gettng 14 FPS on average at near 100% CPU usage, around 30% usage on my GTX670 at 800 core.

Setting is very high at 1680*1050


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Stock cooler and 80-81c aida64 stress test 1 hour in.
> 
> Sorry I haven't been much help on this. I hope to have a fresh format and some benches after the holiday.
> 
> To those interested, even at 4.5, I can't recommend this for multiplayer BFBC2, BF3/4, COD Blacks 1+2 or Crysis 3. (I think most of us knew that). Source engine games online so far it's been as expected, amazing.


What GPU have you got paired with it?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Right now with G3220 3.0Ghz Metro Last Light has terrible FPS. Gettng 14 FPS on average at near 100% CPU usage, around 30% usage on my GTX670 at 800 core.
> 
> Setting is very high at 1680*1050


That's weird, most benches I've seen run it 40fps avg at the least even on stock, what map are you playing on and have you run the benchmark?

I've given Resident Evil 6, Hitman Absolution, FFXIV ARR Benchmark and Just Cause 2 MP a bench, I think I'm going to bench Watch Dogs, ACIV and Vanilla GTA IV next, alongside Sleeping Dogs which I'll be doing now.


----------



## iRUSH

750 ti is what it's paired with.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> 750 ti is what it's paired with.


What's your GPU utilization with MSI Afterburner/Rivatuner if you have them?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> That's weird, most benches I've seen run it 40fps avg at the least even on stock, what map are you playing on and have you run the benchmark?


Playing the very beginning of the game where you get to walk around and go do a mission. I didn't get to the mission.

Anyways I'm running on the G3258 right now. I set core to 4.2Ghz, Vcore to 1.3V, ring to 1.1V 3.2Ghz, VCCIn to 1.9V and it booted. I have a Zalman CNPS10X Performa and aiming for 5Ghz now.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Playing the very beginning of the game where you get to walk around and go do a mission. I didn't get to the mission.
> 
> Anyways I'm running on the G3258 right now. I set core to 4.2Ghz, Vcore to 1.3V, ring to 1.1V 3.2Ghz, VCCIn to 1.9V and it booted. I have a Zalman CNPS10X Performa and aiming for 5Ghz now.


Nice, I've gotta run with the stock cooler for awhile, what happens when you forget to get TIM for the existing.









What temperature is this CPU safe upto?


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> What's your GPU utilization with MSI Afterburner/Rivatuner if you have them?


On games such as Battlefield multiplayer it'll stay at 99% then dip to 40% when things get slightly hectic. Bad Company 2 was the worst. GPU usage only hit above 90% if I starred at the sky. It'll average 60fps but it isn't smooth at all. Source engine games with this setup I can peg the FPS limiter without any problem signs of a CPU bottleneck. All of the single player games I have play fine, even at stock 3.2.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> On games such as Battlefield multiplayer it'll stay at 99% then dip to 40% when things get slightly hectic. Bad Company 2 was the worst. GPU usage only hit above 90% if I starred at the sky. It'll average 60fps but it isn't smooth at all. Source engine games with this setup I can peg the FPS limiter without any problem signs of a CPU bottleneck. All of the single player games I have play fine, even at stock 3.2.


Interesting, thanks.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Yep, exactly as I thought, HT would turn this into an absolute killer.

inb4 broadwell i3k


----------



## $ilent

Quick boot on my new G3258:



Its a costa rica chip, 2014, 18th week. Stock VID is 1.012v which seems crazy low.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Yep, exactly as I thought, HT would turn this into an absolute killer.
> 
> inb4 broadwell i3k


I will crap purple twinkies if they make an i3k within the next two years.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

That's some nice volts.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I will crap purple twinkies if they make an i3k within the next two years.


Shall I hold you to that?


----------



## $ilent

Ops, sorry power saving stuff was on.

G3258 Screenie:


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

3.89 points in CB R11.5 at 4.7Ghz 1.4Vcore 2.0Vccin

Not scaling that well atm. Calculator says I should get 4.0 at 4.7Ghz.

I think my chip is pretty bad. It crashes if I try 1.36V at 4.7Ghz.

I might need to do more tweaking though. I haven't overclocked any Haswell before and all I did was applying some random voltages









Edit: Slient what VCCin are you using? Is everything else on auto?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *$ilent*
> 
> Quick boot on my new G3258:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a costa rica chip, 2014, 18th week. Stock VID is 1.012v which seems crazy low.


Nice, what clock have you managed, and how comes it's showing as G3420? older CPU-z?
And what voltages if you dont mind me asking.

Is i worth benching Sleeping Dogs? It seems it has a 60fps cap, there's probably a config file somewhere but Idk


----------



## $ilent

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> 3.89 points in CB R11.5 at 4.7Ghz 1.4Vcore 2.0Vccin
> 
> Not scaling that well atm. Calculator says I should get 4.0 at 4.7Ghz.
> 
> I think my chip is pretty bad. It crashes if I try 1.36V at 4.7Ghz.
> 
> I might need to do more tweaking though. I haven't overclocked any Haswell before and all I did was applying some random voltages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Slient what VCCin are you using? Is everything else on auto?


Everything on auto part from power saving stuff off and vcore set to 1.35.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *$ilent*
> 
> Everything on auto part from power saving stuff off and vcore set to 1.35.


With your Gigabyte board I presume?
What kind of chips are circling around in the DC thread, any good clocking chips or a possible average of a clock?


----------



## $ilent

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> With your Gigabyte board I presume?
> What kind of chips are circling around in the DC thread, any good clocking chips or a possible average of a clock?


With the gb board yeh.

Have a look in the DC thread, I made a spreadsheet on the gift post with results per overclocks and it shows batch numbers.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

My batch is 3419B298

At 4.7Ghz I get to 86C on air.

Delidding now.


----------



## solar0987

The point i was trying to make was the g3258 will game fine if the g3220 will game at a playable frame rate. Especially when you overclock them. And the fact that in 2014 a dual core will get someone not looking to spend 300$ on a cpu able to game at a playable and modest setting in just about ANY game. I also only have one stick of 2gb ram that's clocked at 1600 9-9-9-24-1t


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> My batch is 3419B298
> 
> At 4.7Ghz I get to 86C on air.
> 
> Delidding now.


What cooler have you got?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I really hope intel doesn't go back to soldering the IHS on. From what I can tell the thermal performance of the delidded chips is better than soldered ones.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I really hope intel doesn't go back to soldering the IHS on. From what I can tell the thermal performance of the delidded chips is better than soldered ones.


It's somewhere around the same. Their NGPTIM is like halfway between delid and "ivy bridge/haswell crap", and it's worse than solder. The pentium doesn't have NGPTIM afaik so it's like 20c worse off than delid/solder out of the box - 80c instead of 60c


----------



## $ilent

Yeh I was gonna say, the soldered IHS is almost the same as delidded CPU. Why would you prefer to have to void your warranty everytime you buy a cpu?

Also did a quick Cinebench run at 4.8Ghz on the 3258:


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *$ilent*
> 
> Yeh I was gonna say, the soldered IHS is almost the same as delidded CPU. Why would you prefer to have to void your warranty everytime you buy a cpu?
> 
> Also did a quick Cinebench run at 4.8Ghz on the 3258:


Why do people still use 11.5 after the r15 release?


----------



## $ilent

Nobody knows.

edit: R15 benchmark


----------



## TopicClocker

Cinebench 11.5 Phenom II X4 B55 3.9GHz


Cinebench R15 Phenom II X4 B55 3.9GHz


What was that thing about comparing Cinebench scores across architectures? Wasn't it supposed to be a not so great representation of performance, and it's best to compare to that architecture? I'm not sure.

$ilent, can you give single core a shot please?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

I'm using a Zalman CNPS10X Performa.

15C temp drop (IBT) after delidding it using an American Express gift card.

I'll see if I get a volt drop or not


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *$ilent*
> 
> Nobody knows.
> 
> edit: R15 benchmark


I can get that score @ about 4.5g with 2c2t on my 4770k - but cinebench scales somewhat with memory


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Cinebench 11.5 Phenom II X4 B55 3.9GHz
> 
> 
> Cinebench R15 Phenom II X4 B55 3.9GHz
> 
> 
> What was that thing about comparing Cinebench scores across architectures? Wasn't it supposed to be a not so great representation of performance, and it's best to compare to that architecture? I'm not sure.
> 
> $ilent, can you give single core a shot please?


Cinebench uses AVX instructions on Intel, but uses something else on AMD. I think SSE2 IIRC, which means AMD gets a massive performance hit. AMD vs AMD works, and Intel vs Intel works, but not AMD vs Intel.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Cinebench uses AVX instructions on Intel, but uses something else on AMD. I think SSE2 IIRC, which means AMD gets a massive performance hit. AMD vs AMD works, and Intel vs Intel works, but not AMD vs Intel.


Ah thanks, that's it.

Oh and $ilent have you ran Performance Test 8 from Pass Mark?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I'm using a Zalman CNPS10X Performa.
> 
> 15C temp drop (IBT) *after delidding it using an American Express gift card.*
> 
> I'll see if I get a volt drop or not


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

AFAIK you can still RMA CPUs that have been delidded. As long as you don't sand off the markings on the IHS you are covered.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> AFAIK you can still RMA CPUs that have been delidded. As long as you don't sand off the markings on the IHS you are covered.


I dont think I have the courage to delid any of my CPUs. 
Probably could manage it though.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I dont think I have the courage to delid any of my CPUs.
> Probably could manage it though.


I've heard all you need to do is hold your nerve and not hesitate. Someone brought up trying it with a string of some sort so there is no potential damage to the die. I don't know if anyone thought of anything yet.


----------



## fateswarm

If you want a good delid method, try what I did yesterday, I think it's the most optimal, but, I would never say it's automatically safe:

Vice-only + hairdryer. Search for the vice-only method, or better yet, watch this video.






However, I believe that video is a demonstration of an already delided chip, or, it uses a heatgun which is considered questionable in safety. That means, it might need more force than it seems on the vice grip. Also pay super attention for good positioning for that method when you research it (IHS gripped on one side, PCB on the other).

In my case I had to heat it up for 10-20 seconds on a high setting on a strong hairdryer from about 5-10cm distance and then it popped.

After some extra vice force.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> I've heard all you need to do is hold your nerve and not hesitate. Someone brought up trying it with a string of some sort so there is no potential damage to the die. I don't know if anyone thought of anything yet.


Dont need a string. Just use a razor to cut open one edge. The cut eeds to be big enough so the opening is almost the width of a credit card. Wiggle your razor if you have to, but never point the blade towards the CPU. Always point blade towards the heat spreader.

After you get the opening big enough stick your least favorite credit card in there and push it around the edges of the cpu.

Anyways I'm at 4.8Ghz probably stable. It passed 3 rounds of standard IBT. Right now I'm at 1.46Vcore, 3Ghz 1.1V Ring, 2.05Vccin. Temp at 4.8Ghz is 7C cooler than the temps at 4.7Ghz before the delid.

I need my daily dose of bad video games so I'll leave the tweaking for the weekend.

Let me know if you want me to run Cinebench, Geekbench, or Passmark.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

IMO the Vice and Hammer method is the best. On my E7200 I used a similar method where I rested the IHS against a thin block of metal and then knocked the PCB off with a block of pine.


----------



## fateswarm

The reason I believe in the vice-only + hairdryer method above is that it avoids the instability of having to use a block of wood, which even if it is good quality, it depends on human positioning each time it is hit. The vice+block method does have slightly better grip on the vice but I believe that fear is alleviated if you hold the chip down with tape.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Solved if you use the method I was using









By placing the chip on a flat surface, the IHS resting on the surface up against a thin sheet of metal and the block of pine also resting on the surface. As long as you are a decent shot with a hammer you will get a very consistent direction of the force. At least in the vertical plane, which I'd think is the most critical one.


----------



## fateswarm

I overcame a few issues with the vice-only + hairdryer method. One, I didn't have to use a very good vice because the ones you get on the cheap do not have a very wide nice area to rest blocks. Also I avoided having to use a (good) block at all! (Plus, I didn't have to worry about my "Thor" hammer skillz on precision).

I was worried a lot at first that the grip might not be perfect, and it's slightly worse because there is an inclination since one side is on the PCB, the other on the IHS.

However, I alleviated that fear with bracing it with an electrical tape in the middle. I used some paper on the grid to not mess it up with glue.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Hmmm, guess my carpentry skills came in handy xD

I don't have a hairdryer that is powerful enough to do it quickly with that method, so I'll just stick to what I've used in the past when I get my hands on one of these.

Any idea how hard the glue on these is? The stuff on my E7200 was pretty adhesive, but it was soft and rubbery, still the same goop on the new CPUs?


----------



## fateswarm

Dunno. I did a 4790K only.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Cinebench uses AVX instructions on Intel, but uses something else on AMD. I think SSE2 IIRC, which means AMD gets a massive performance hit. AMD vs AMD works, and Intel vs Intel works, but not AMD vs Intel.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Ah thanks, that's it.
> 
> Oh and $ilent have you ran Performance Test 8 from Pass Mark?


Doesn't have that problem with the newest version of Cinebench, R15.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Doesn't have that problem with the newest version of Cinebench, R15.


Really?
Gonna have to look into it, so it's "viable" to compare Intel vs AMD now within Cinebench R15?

That Pentium looks to be doing decent in multi-thread in Cinebench, I'm sure If I locked off two of my cores I'd be around 200 score.
Going to run Performance Test and maybe Geekbench now.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Really?
> Gonna have to look into it, so it's _*"viable"*_ to compare Intel vs AMD now within Cinebench R15?
> 
> That Pentium looks to be doing decent in multi-thread in Cinebench, I'm sure If I locked off two of my cores I'd be around 200 score.
> Going to run Performance Test and maybe Geekbench now.


Well.... it's more fair. I think it still uses AVX for Intel, but it still uses something else for AMD IIRC. I think something like SSE4.1 or something like that.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Well.... it's more fair. I think it still uses AVX for Intel, but it still uses something else for AMD IIRC. I think something like SSE4.1 or something like that.


I don't think Pentium has AVX instructions. Unless I misunderstood the post.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I don't think Pentium has AVX instructions.


Ah. I thought it lacked AVX2. Then again, I mainly skim over the info about these chips. Been following this thread as since it is so cheap, it would be a perfect chip for my friends who want to enter PC gaming. They would be happy with 1600x900 at medium resolution for <$400.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Ah. I thought it lacked AVX2. Then again, I mainly skim over the info about these chips. Been following this thread as since it is so cheap, it would be a perfect chip for my friends who want to enter PC gaming. They would be happy with 1600x900 at medium resolution for <$400.


Yeah the Pentium is a great starter's chip. Once OCed it matches the performance of an i3 for almost half the price


----------



## allan871

Combo deal[Expired]

Newegg
MSI Z97 U3 Plus LGA 1150 USB 3.0 ATX Motherboard + Intel Pentium G3258 Dual-Core CPU $100 + Free Shipping

http://slickdeals.net/f/7043296-msi-z97-u3-plus-lga-1150-usb-3-0-atx-motherboard-intel-pentium-g3258-dual-core-cpu-100-free-shipping


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *allan871*
> 
> Combo deal
> 
> Newegg
> MSI Z97 U3 Plus LGA 1150 USB 3.0 ATX Motherboard + Intel Pentium G3258 Dual-Core CPU $100 + Free Shipping
> 
> http://slickdeals.net/f/7043296-msi-z97-u3-plus-lga-1150-usb-3-0-atx-motherboard-intel-pentium-g3258-dual-core-cpu-100-free-shipping


nice. that motherboard is better than the PC mate.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> nice. that motherboard is better than the PC mate.


Apparently it's saying it's expired, must of been pretty recently or a one day only maybe.


----------



## Themisseble

Heh i really cant believe.. yes pentium G3258 is great chip but it cant match FX 4300 in MT - clock per clock! Just cant - when you use APi like mantle FX 4300 = i3 4130...


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Heh i really cant believe.. yes pentium G3258 is great chip but it cant match FX 4300 in MT - clock per clock! Just cant - when you use APi like mantle FX 4300 = i3 4130...


You're still here huh?


----------



## Roaches

Lol he brings entertainment at the very least


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

I gave up on my Pentium already. It sucks.

Wake me up when the i3 K comes out.

Meanwhile, I'll be rocking locked down i5s.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I gave up on my Pentium already. It sucks.
> 
> Wake me up when the i3 K comes out.
> 
> Meanwhile, I'll be rocking locked down i5s.


What didn't you like about it? I'm not particularly fond of it myself.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> What didn't you like about it? I'm not particularly fond of it myself.


After you overclock it to the max, 60% faster than a really slow chip is still really slow.

Even though a lot of the games I play are single threaded, I'd rather have a 3Ghz quad core than a 4.7Ghz dual core. I still play Metro and DayZ every once a while after all.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Yeah the Pentium is a great starter's chip. Once OCed it matches the performance of an i3 for almost half the price


If that's the case it should be a decent placebo for my i5, got my board to see me through to broadwell and past that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I gave up on my Pentium already. It sucks.
> 
> Wake me up when the i3 K comes out.
> 
> Meanwhile, I'll be rocking locked down i5s.


An i3 K would be beast!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> After you overclock it to the max, 60% faster than a really slow chip is still really slow.
> 
> Even though a lot of the games I play are single threaded, I'd rather have a 3Ghz quad core than a 4.7Ghz dual core. I still play Metro and DayZ every once a while after all.


I suppose it depends on what you want to do with the chip, and what you're coming from and expecting.
Will be a beast in single-thread performance but fall short in multi-threaded, I cant wait to see how Guild Wars 2, MMOs and emulators perform.
A shame the Dolphin bench wont work for me.

Coming from a Phenom II chip which was released 4-5 years ago I'd expect a decent performance bump in a couple of games, especially single-thread dependent.
If anything It could provide superior performance in some areas (MMOs, EMUs, Single-thread dependent games like GW2, Rift, Tera, GTA4, SR2), and fall short in heavily multi-threaded games.

Worse comes to worse, I still have a brand new board for the next 3+ generations and retire the G3258 to a HTPC, it's about time I got a new board!









Presuming I get my parts tomorrow I will be including my Phenom II @3.9GHz vs Pentium G3258 @4.2GHz or higher (If possible), benches tomorrow.


----------



## CTM Audi

Picked up the G3258 with MSI PC Mate Z97 for $90 at Microcenter. Bad voltage scaling chip I guess. Stock volts 1.1V, 4Ghz is stable at stock. 4.3 with 1.3V (didn't try less), but 4.5 fails with 1.32V. Trying 4.4 at 1.32V now. Probably need 1.35V for 4.5, which is the most voltage I wanted to use. Hitting 75C so far on an H75 in a Node 605 case.

HTPC duty and light gaming for the gf (GW2, Rust, TF2).


----------



## nullstring

Picked up the combo from newegg for $100.
MSI Z97 U3 Plus LGA 1150 USB 3.0 ATX Motherboard + Intel Pentium G3258 Dual-Core CPU $100

Likely the first of many great deals with this processor. I'd keep a watch out.

Now I have to go get the rest of the machine... Hmmm..


----------



## dogroll

still debating whether or not to get this to replace my phenom II 965... i already have a cool master 212 evo and an antec hcg520 PSU (seasonic built) so i'm good in terms of that... but z97 motherboards are real expensive here in aus, no crazy $100 combo deals here. i hope the asrock anniversary board comes out and is cheap and has good VRM for overclocking this chip i may still get it but we'll see... at least i know for sure i need to upgrade this cpu probably before the witcher 3 comes out. it will bottleneck my radeon 7870


----------



## jason387

The Phenom IIx4 will still be better in terms of raw power. However, recently I have observed a trend in games whereby the Phenom's under-perform owing to the lack of newer sets of instructions. The FX 4300 will be better than the Phenom IIx4 in games but a more worthy upgrade would be the FX 6300.The price jump from 4 to 6 cores isn't much and more budget friendly than the jump from 6 to 8 cores.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> still debating whether or not to get this to replace my phenom II 965... i already have a cool master 212 evo and an antec hcg520 PSU (seasonic built) so i'm good in terms of that... but z97 motherboards are real expensive here in aus, no crazy $100 combo deals here. i hope the asrock anniversary board comes out and is cheap and has good VRM for overclocking this chip i may still get it but we'll see... at least i know for sure i need to upgrade this cpu probably before the witcher 3 comes out. it will bottleneck my radeon 7870


Don't bother yet, while this Pentium is likely about as fast overall I'd just save up and wait for Broadwell. In my experience even a Core 2 Duo E6700 is usable to game on (Even BF3) and your Phenom II is a lot faster than that.


----------



## dogroll

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Don't bother yet, while this Pentium is likely about as fast overall I'd just save up and wait for Broadwell. In my experience even a Core 2 Duo E6700 is usable to game on (Even BF3) and your Phenom II is a lot faster than that.


You're right... What is the current expected release for Broadwell? Q2 2015? I know it's not set in stone... But I want a new CPU before Witcher 3, I know the Phenom will bottleneck my 7870 on that game. The G3258 seems like an interesting chip... but not a good upgrade really.

Might just grab an i5 4460 + H81 when I've got the bux. I know that will do fine and I don't think Broadwell will be out in time for TW3!


----------



## nullstring

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> You're right... What is the current expected release for Broadwell? Q2 2015? I know it's not set in stone... But I want a new CPU before Witcher 3, I know the Phenom will bottleneck my 7870 on that game. The G3258 seems like an interesting chip... but not a good upgrade really.
> 
> Might just grab an i5 4460 + H81 when I've got the bux. I know that will do fine and I don't think Broadwell will be out in time for TW3!


.. However, how much does it really cost you to get a G3258? They are only $75 max. When broadwell comes out, it will be on the 1150 socket, so you'll be able to simply switch out the G3258 for a new processor.

Frankly, it's a no brainer in my opinion if you're looking to upgrade to broadwell, but you need a stopgap before then.

EDIT: maybe wait to see how witcher 3 does with only two cores if that games your primary concern


----------



## dogroll

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nullstring*
> 
> .. However, how much does it really cost you to get a G3258? They are only $75 max. When broadwell comes out, it will be on the 1150 socket, so you'll be able to simply switch out the G3258 for a new processor.
> 
> Frankly, it's a no brainer in my opinion if you're looking to upgrade to broadwell, but you need a stopgap before then.


$79 for the CPU and $129 for the cheapest Z97 board I can get in aus, plus $30 shipping

But like the other guy said, it's about as powerful as my phenom anyway. Sure, I can upgrade to a broadwell later but that just makes the g3258 irrelevant. I'll just see if I can get an i3-5130 or maybe broadwell i5 in time (if they're not stupid expensive) otherwise might just grab an i5 4460 and h81 right before witcher 3


----------



## curly haired boy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> $79 for the CPU and $129 for the cheapest Z97 board I can get in aus, plus $30 shipping
> 
> But like the other guy said, it's about as powerful as my phenom anyway. Sure, I can upgrade to a broadwell later but that just makes the g3258 irrelevant. I'll just see if I can get an i3-5130 or maybe broadwell i5 in time (if they're not stupid expensive) otherwise might just grab an i5 4460 and h81 right before witcher 3


if witcher 2 is any indication, it's gonna like 4 cores a lot more than 2. i had a 660 playing at 900p and was limited by my old e8400. once i switched to my 4770k, smooth as butta.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Yeah I agree, I don't see much of an upgrade by taking one of these over your phenom. You might as well stick around until Broadwell arrives, then you will also get more choice as far as Z97 boards go. And maybe that i3k I was talking about if you can't afford an i5,


----------



## bhav

If you already have a capable setup, wait for 14 nm Haswell. Quad cores would still be better for the games that do use more than 2 cores, this Pentium chip is more of an epic super budget CPU. It would be perfect for a mini itx build with a GTX 750 ti for example.


----------



## dogroll

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> If you already have a capable setup, wait for 14 nm Haswell. Quad cores would still be better for the games that do use more than 2 cores, this Pentium chip is more of an epic super budget CPU. It would be perfect for a mini itx build with a GTX 750 ti for example.


14nm haswell what do you mean? They are making haswell again with 14nm silicon? I suppose it makes sense... According to http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-processors-delayed-arriving-july-2015/ broadwell isn't coming until Q3 15. Well I need a new cpu before feb 24th... So the i5 4460 or maybe 4590 looks like a good choice


----------



## bhav

I might be wrong, but the roadmap I checked said 22-14 nm Haswell, or maybe the 14 nm one is called broadwell, but its coming out this year it said.

Or I might have looked at an old roadmap that's no longer valid. But this year or next, Id wait for 14 nm if you can.


----------



## bhav

I might be wrong, but the roadmap I checked said 22-14 nm Haswell, or maybe the 14 nm one is called broadwell, but its coming out this year it said.


----------



## bhav

I might be wrong, but the roadmap I checked said 22-14 nm Haswell, or maybe the 14 nm one is called broadwell, but its coming out this year it said.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> still debating whether or not to get this to replace my phenom II 965... i already have a cool master 212 evo and an antec hcg520 PSU (seasonic built) so i'm good in terms of that... but z97 motherboards are real expensive here in aus, no crazy $100 combo deals here. i hope the asrock anniversary board comes out and is cheap and has good VRM for overclocking this chip i may still get it but we'll see... at least i know for sure i need to upgrade this cpu probably before the witcher 3 comes out. it will bottleneck my radeon 7870


I'll be testing this for you, I'm hopeful I get my stuff for today.








The Phenom II is still a heck of a chip, especially once overclocked!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nullstring*
> 
> .. However, how much does it really cost you to get a G3258? They are only $75 max. When broadwell comes out, it will be on the 1150 socket, so you'll be able to simply switch out the G3258 for a new processor.
> 
> Frankly, it's a no brainer in my opinion if you're looking to upgrade to broadwell, but you need a stopgap before then.
> 
> EDIT: maybe wait to see how witcher 3 does with only two cores if that games your primary concern


Indeed it would be a nice stopgag, the question is, how well does it compare against an OC'd Phenom II?
I'm going to compare a Pentium at 4.2GHz or higher and compare it against my Phenom II at 3.9GHz., I've got most of my Phenom II bench marks prepared, just finishing up really.

I bought this chip to experiment with it and hopefully have some decent gains in games where the Phenom II hasn't got enough single-threaded grunt to push through it, MMOs, Emulators and so on.


----------



## dogroll

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I'll be testing this for you, I'm hopeful I get my stuff for today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Phenom II is still a heck of a chip, especially once overclocked!
> Indeed it would be a nice stopgag, the question is, how well does it compare against an OC'd Phenom II?
> I'm going to compare a Pentium at 4.2GHz or higher and compare it against my Phenom II at 3.9GHz., I've got most of my Phenom II bench marks prepared, just finishing up really.
> 
> I bought this chip to experiment with it and hopefully have some decent gains in games where the Phenom II hasn't got enough single-threaded grunt to push through it, MMOs, Emulators and so on.


That'll be interesting to see... Too bad I can't overclock mine. MB is an asrock 970de3. Crap quality vrms with no heatsink and I'm running at 1.45v (3.4ghz)! Haha this thing is gonna blow up any day now ;_;


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I'll be testing this for you, I'm hopeful I get my stuff for today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Phenom II is still a heck of a chip, especially once overclocked!
> Indeed it would be a nice stopgag, the question is, how well does it compare against an OC'd Phenom II?
> I'm going to compare a Pentium at 4.2GHz or higher and compare it against my Phenom II at 3.9GHz., I've got most of my Phenom II bench marks prepared, just finishing up really.
> 
> I bought this chip to experiment with it and hopefully have some decent gains in games where the Phenom II hasn't got enough single-threaded grunt to push through it, MMOs, Emulators and so on.


can you do http://www.overclock.net/t/1351472/beta-testing-thread-black-hole-benchmark benchmark?


----------



## revanchrist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> 14nm haswell what do you mean? They are making haswell again with 14nm silicon? I suppose it makes sense... According to http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-processors-delayed-arriving-july-2015/ broadwell isn't coming until Q3 15. Well I need a new cpu before feb 24th... So the i5 4460 or maybe 4590 looks like a good choice


If i'm not mistaken, the leaked Intel roadmap from TechPowerUp and VR-Zone last month stated that locked Broadwell will be released in Q1 2015 while unlocked Broadwell and locked Skylake will be released in Q3 2015.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> That'll be interesting to see... Too bad I can't overclock mine. MB is an asrock 970de3. Crap quality vrms with no heatsink and I'm running at 1.45v (3.4ghz)! Haha this thing is gonna blow up any day now ;_;


This board?
http://www.asrock.com/mb/AMD/970DE3U3S3/

If so looks decent to me, weird that you have to apply so much volts to hit 3.4Ghz.
I have this.
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/M4N68TM_V2/

3.6GHz at stock volts, 3.8GHz with 1.475, 3.9GHz with 1.475-1.512v (LLC pushes it to 1.512v) and 4GHz at 1.537-1.55, I dont run this as it gets to hot(the voltage digits might be a bit off but they are in the ranges of 1.53 to get around 4GHz), I think I can do 4.1GHz around the same volts too, however I'm not sure if it's entirely stable as I begin to benchmark with an inferno so I run it at 3.8GHz-3.9GHz.
(I will be double checking volts after running Black Hole)

AMD Phenom II X2 555 unlocked to a AMD Phenom II X4 B55.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> can you do http://www.overclock.net/t/1351472/beta-testing-thread-black-hole-benchmark benchmark?


Sure thing.


----------



## Themisseble

this is FX 6300
http://www.guru3d.com/files_details/black_hole_benchmark_download.html


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> 
> 
> this is FX 6300
> http://www.guru3d.com/files_details/black_hole_benchmark_download.html




2nd run of the Black Hole Bench on the Phenom II, I've got all of my benches in a spreadsheet, so far 9 or 10 performed with games and synthetics.
I was expecting the Singlethreaded performance of a FX @5.1GHz to be higher, however this still looks to be promising.


----------



## Themisseble

Your version is wrong... it is beta. this link- download
http://www.guru3d.com/files_details/black_hole_benchmark_download.html

I dont think that i5 2500K/3570K can be faster than FX 6300(black hole benchmark).. but not sure know about i5 4670K


----------



## dogroll

Well that seals the deal. Definitely won't be "upgrading" to an fx6300. Barely any faster than 4 deneb cores at 4 ghz while its at 5ghz! How pathetic. Besides, I wouldn't even be able to get the thing to 5ghz anyway, I can't even do 3.4ghz kn my phenom at 1.45v!!

I'll definitely w8 and see what Intel offering are available in january


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> Well that seals the deal. Definitely won't be "upgrading" to an fx6300. Barely any faster than 4 deneb cores at 4 ghz while its at 5ghz! How pathetic. Besides, I wouldn't even be able to get the thing to 5ghz anyway, I can't even do 3.4ghz kn my phenom at 1.45v!!
> 
> I'll definitely w8 and see what Intel offering are available in january


WHAT?
he ran wrong version... check multicore performance.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Heh i really cant believe.. yes pentium G3258 is great chip but it cant match FX 4300 in MT - clock per clock! Just cant - when you use APi like mantle FX 4300 = i3 4130...


When you're using Mantle as your graphics API, both CPU's perform a lot better, not just FX.


----------



## dogroll

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> WHAT?
> he ran wrong version... check multicore performance.


Hmm sorry you're right... Maybe it is a lot better. But it's still running at 5.1ghz. I don't feel like buting fx6300 and only being able to run it at stock clock 3.5ghz and having a chip barely any faster than phenom


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> Hmm sorry you're right... Maybe it is a lot better. But it's still running at 5.1ghz. I don't feel like buting fx6300 and only being able to run it at stock clock 3.5ghz and having a chip barely any faster than phenom


depends on what are you playing... Did you hear that FX undervolt A LOT? ... if your playing new title maybe you should change you CPU with "used" Fx 6300 which is very cheap or even Fx 8320.


----------



## dogroll

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> depends on what are you playing... Did you hear that FX undervolt A LOT? ... if your playing new title maybe you should change you CPU with "used" Fx 6300 which is very cheap or even Fx 8320.


I'll look around for some used fx6300's on ebay. My motherboard doesn't support fx8320/8350


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> When you're using Mantle as your graphics API, both CPU's perform a lot better, not just FX.


Mantle vs DX11?
Dx11 is good for dual cores... you will see that there isnt big difference between. While quad cores get good boost - so that why i recommend i3 instead of penitum K. Okay i3 is not really quad core but it has much more stability and that is important.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> Well that seals the deal. Definitely won't be "upgrading" to an fx6300. Barely any faster than 4 deneb cores at 4 ghz while its at 5ghz! How pathetic. Besides, I wouldn't even be able to get the thing to 5ghz anyway, I can't even do 3.4ghz kn my phenom at 1.45v!!
> 
> I'll definitely w8 and see what Intel offering are available in january


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> WHAT?
> he ran wrong version... check multicore performance.



I'm sure I can break 2900 at 4.1GHz, will do an additional bench after the next run at 4.1GHz.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> depends on what are you playing... Did you hear that FX undervolt A LOT? ... if your playing new title maybe you should change you CPU with "used" Fx 6300 which is very cheap or even Fx 8320.


Everything undervolts a lot

you can calculate voltage and frequency for my CPU.. if i can do [email protected] (maybe that's a tiny bit low) then [email protected] would use ~3.16x as much power

or i could just use 4.0 @1.08 instead of [email protected]

Same math on 4.0ghz - going from 4.0 to 4.6 requires about a ~72% increase in power/heat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Mantle vs DX11?
> Dx11 is good for dual cores... you will see that there isnt big difference between. While quad cores get good boost - so that why i recommend i3 instead of penitum K. Okay i3 is not really quad core but it has much more stability and that is important.


Dual core @4.6ghz is my choice over dual core @3.4 with HT



















^
i3 = 121 min, 148 average with DX
i3 = 191 min, 200 average with mantle (fps cap)

fx4300 = 89 min, 99 average with DX
fx4300 = 153 min, 171 average with mantle

Since i3 is smashing through FPS cap, we can only see that i3 gets ~36% higher min with Radeon DX, as well as 25% higher min with Mantle.

If we take a look over at Nvidia's Directx:










i3 gets 164 min, 191 average
fx4300 gets 133 min, 166 average

Quote:


> when you use APi like mantle FX 4300 = i3 4130


This is not the case and never will be. Due to the fact that these games don't see 100% performance gain with a doubling of cores, it wouldn't surprise me if 4.6ghz dual core outperformed 3.4ghz dual core + HT in the slightest


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> I'll look around for some used fx6300's on ebay. My motherboard doesn't support fx8320/8350


FX 6300
stock V for 3.5Ghz is 1.325V then for 3.8/4.1 Ghz is 1.425V... actually i need for 3.5Ghz 1.188V and for4.4Ghz i need less than 1.4V.
While stock power usage with turbo in prime 95 (whole system) was 145W... then i disabled turbo and 1.188V - i dont remember but or it was 100W or 110W in prime 95 Whole system. Stock cooler was very quiet.

interesting results is when you go under 3.3Ghz.... as i remember i went under 80-85W in prime95 (whole system) suddenly you use almost 2x less power than at stock.

Cyro - i dont believe these benchmarks. There is like no difference between Fx 4300 and Fx 6300 but in reality it is huge

if you compare Fx 6100 vs FX 6300
FX 6100 gets around x1.6
FX 6300 gets around x1.4
----
while quad cores
FX 4100 x1.75
FX 4300 x1.77


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> FX 6300
> stock V for 3.5Ghz is 1.325V then for 3.8/4.1 Ghz is 1.425V... actually i need for 3.5Ghz 1.188V and for4.4Ghz i need less than 1.4V.
> While stock power usage with turbo in prime 95 (whole system) was 145W... then i disabled turbo and 1.188V - i dont remember but or it was 100W or 110W in prime 95 Whole system. Stock cooler was very quiet.
> 
> interesting results is when you go under 3.3Ghz.... as i remember i went under 80-85W in prime95 (whole system) suddenly you use almost 2x less power than at stock.
> 
> Cyro - i dont believe these benchmarks. There is like no difference between Fx 4300 and Fx 6300 but in reality it is huge


I'm not asking if you believe them or not. I'm quoting them as factual evidence. Belief is optional, but you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. There's lots of discussion about them over in the thread, because a lot of people care about Mantle, DX and CPU's over here on OCN, and a lot less actually care about how plants vs zombies runs when it performs good on any decent hardware anyway - they're just talking about the engine.

Also, i don't know what numbers you're looking at if you see no difference between fx4300 and fx6300.

On Nvidia DX i see:

fx6300 @3.5ghz, 178 min, 191 average.
fx4300 @3.8ghz, 133 min, 166 average.

On Radeon DX:

fx6300 @3.5ghz, 114 min, 136 average.
fx4300 @3.8ghz, 89 min, 99 average.

On Radeon Mantle:

fx6300 @3.5ghz, 174 min, 191 average.
fx4300 @3.8ghz, 153 min, 174 average.

I see a SUBSTANTIAL performance difference on every benchmark, even though the 4-threaded CPU is clocked 300mhz higher than the 6-threaded one. Performance improvement, even clocked the same, would not be +50% because of the cruel nature of Amdahl's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law


----------



## TopicClocker

Going to be trying 4.1GHz now.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> I'm not asking if you believe them or not. I'm quoting them as factual evidence. Belief is optional, but you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. There's lots of discussion about them over in the thread, because a lot of people care about Mantle, DX and CPU's over here on OCN, and a lot less actually care about how plants vs zombies runs when it performs good on any decent hardware anyway - they're just talking about the engine.


This.

Btw, what clock does a FX4300 require to match a Phenom II @3.8GHz? Stock, 4GHz or something else?


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> I'm not asking if you believe them or not. I'm quoting them as factual evidence. Belief is optional, but you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. There's lots of discussion about them over in the thread, because a lot of people care about Mantle, DX and CPU's over here on OCN, and a lot less actually care about how plants vs zombies runs when it performs good on any decent hardware anyway - they're just talking about the engine.


http://udteam.tistory.com/639
This is why i dont believe them...

so many different benchmarks.

Okay- when you have game engine designed for 8 core CPU.. it is better to have 8 cores at 1.0Ghz than 1 core at 8.0Ghz. I know that law.. but you have to understand that this is not cinebench or blackhole benchmark.

This is the problem of single core CPU. Not its power.. do it yourself run 1 core at 4.0Ghz then run 4 cores at 1.0Ghz first run CB then run BF4. Cb will show you how it should be but BF4 will show you different results
Thats what i am trying to tell you - yes pentium at 4.5Ghz is really strong but game engine wont use that power - or may i say it will bottleneck dual cores.

You can see difference between old CPUs


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> http://udteam.tistory.com/639
> This is why i dont believe them...
> 
> so many different benchmarks.


That site has so many GPU bound benchmarks that it's painful to look at. They even show 4770k giving less FPS than i3 - quote something credible when you're talking about CPU bound performance


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

OK? I'd still get an i3 over a similarly priced FX-43xx... But, at the price of the Pentium there is no competition outside very specific applications.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> OK? I'd still get an i3 over a similarly priced FX-43xx... But, at the price of the Pentium there is no competition outside very specific applications.


Pentium was £50 yesterday.. 3.4ghz i3 is ~£83 on OCUK, i don't think i've seen it below £80 ever. With pentium matching or beating it in a ton of loads (depends how threaded, if they benefit from AVX etc) it's hardly an amazing "upgrade"

Why would anybody but an i3 for £83?

Pentium, [email protected] for £50
FX6300 @ £75
i3, [email protected] with HT for £83
FX8320 @£100

Why would anybody choose the i3 out of this list?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Price difference is smaller in the US. I've seen the i3s at $100 but AFAIK the pentium has stuck to $70.


----------



## Scorpion49

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> http://udteam.tistory.com/639
> This is why i dont believe them...
> 
> so many different benchmarks.


That site is one of the worst I have ever seen for using as a source, so I suppose its only natural that you would want to use it. They don't state what clock speed they test at besides some crappy chart showing the stock frequency ranges, hell they don't even state which 4300/6300/8300 series chip they're using in the tests nor the game settings. And DDR3-1333? That is gimping the FX chips you seek to validate more than it is the intel ones.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> OK? I'd still get an i3 over a similarly priced FX-43xx... But, at the price of the Pentium there is no competition outside very specific applications.


i agree.. i3 is better deal than FX 4300 (even if OCed FX is faster)... i for little more money you get FX 6300


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> i agree.. i3 is better deal than FX 4300 (even if OCed FX is faster)... i for little more money you get FX 6300


Quote:


> Pentium, [email protected] for £50
> FX6300 @ £75
> i3, [email protected] with HT for £83
> FX8320 @£100
> 
> Why would anybody choose the i3 out of this list?


I'm waiting for your answer as to why they'd look over the pentium and the fx6300 to take the more expensive i3









If you value singlethreaded performance, IMO, you'd take the Pentium. If you value multi, you'd take the 6300 or 8320.

If you wanted both, you're paying like £170 for unlocked i5. I just don't see the niche for i3 at these kinds of prices unless you're not an overclocker.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> I'm waiting for your answer as to why they'd look over the pentium and the fx6300 to take the more expensive i3


again depends.. if your playing MMO the pentium is great. If you will play BF4 MP or watchdogs or new games then get FX 6300 because it is much better CPu.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> still debating whether or not to get this to replace my phenom II 965... i already have a cool master 212 evo and an antec hcg520 PSU (seasonic built) so i'm good in terms of that... but z97 motherboards are real expensive here in aus, no crazy $100 combo deals here. i hope the asrock anniversary board comes out and is cheap and has good VRM for overclocking this chip i may still get it but we'll see... at least i know for sure i need to upgrade this cpu probably before the witcher 3 comes out. it will bottleneck my radeon 7870


Here is the Anniversary ATX board on newegg. Too expensive IMO.....http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157528


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> again depends.. if your playing MMO the pentium is great. If you will play BF4 MP or watchdogs or new games then get FX 6300 because it is much better CPu.


Ya, i am in agreement. If you're not worried about performance in MMO, RTS or a few other games like Planetside 2, fx6300 paired with mantle games or an nvidia GPU is a great option

I just don't think there's a point of getting i3 if you're an overclocker, here.
Quote:


> Pentium, [email protected] for £50
> FX6300 @ £75
> i3, [email protected] with HT for £83
> FX8320 @£100


It's the only locked chip


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Ya, i am in agreement. If you're not worried about performance in MMO, RTS or a few other games like Planetside 2, fx6300 paired with mantle games or an nvidia GPU is a great option
> 
> I just don't think there's a point of getting i3 if you're an overclocker, here.
> It's the only locked chip, it performs worse than Pentium in singlethreaded while costing >1.6x as much and way worse than fx6300 in multi


Meh INTEl did wrong decision... they shoud offer i3 K


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Going to be trying 4.1GHz now.
> This.
> 
> Btw, what clock does a FX4300 require to match a Phenom II @3.8GHz? Stock, 4GHz or something else?


Clock for clock there is a 800-900Mhz difference between the Phenom II and an FX CPU.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Meh INTEl did wrong decision... they shoud offer i3 K


I think everyone is in agreement


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> Well that seals the deal. Definitely won't be "upgrading" to an fx6300. Barely any faster than 4 deneb cores at 4 ghz while its at 5ghz! How pathetic. Besides, I wouldn't even be able to get the thing to 5ghz anyway, I can't even do 3.4ghz kn my phenom at 1.45v!!
> 
> I'll definitely w8 and see what Intel offering are available in january


No offense and I would never recommend a CPU just cause I have it but the gains of an overclocked FX 6300 over a Phenom IIx4 is significant. I agree that the Phenom IIx4 is an amazing chip and I do wish that I had used it sometime down the line. I would like to know how you draw your conclusions. Here's what 4 Piledriver cores can achieve in the Black Hole Benchmark since everyone is posting it here.
FX 6300(4cores active)


Here's a Phenom IIx6 at 3.9Ghz. Couldn't find one at 4 or 4.1Ghz for this bench- http://img.hwbot.org/u7157/image_id_1037077.png

Here's the same bench with the FX 6300-


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Meh INTEl did wrong decision... they shoud offer i3 K


Alot of people want an unlocked i3, the thing is I dont think Intel would be that generous, and no it's not the wrong decision, the selling points of the G3258 is clearly flying over your head, if there was an unlocked i3 it would cannabilise FX and i5 sales. (Which would be great for the consumer, but not really for Intel)


The fact that they are offering such single-thread performance at this price as Cyro said in previous posts, you had to get a K Edition i5.
This processor isn't expected to topple £100 processors like the FX6320 and FX8320, BUT, it happens to do it in single-threaded operations/workloads, which is what all the hype is about really, and in this day and age where games of the past and current favor high single-threaded performance this processor can do well against AMD offerings because their cores are under utilize and their IPC is alot slower than Haswell.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Clock for clock there is a 800-900Mhz difference between the Phenom II and an FX CPU.


Hmm interesting.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> No offense and I would never recommend a CPU just cause I have it but the gains of an overclocked FX 6300 over a Phenom IIx4 is significant. I agree that the Phenom IIx4 is an amazing chip and I do wish that I had used it sometime down the line. I would like to know how you draw your conclusions. Here's what 4 Piledriver cores can achieve in the Black Hole Benchmark since everyone is posting it here.
> FX 6300(4cores active)


Holy crap, I'm pretty close if this is anything to go by, well at-least in Black Hole, that chip might be faster in different stuff compared to my Phenom II.


4.2GHz, drawing close, I dont think I can do this anymore with stability and with temps, perhaps if I had a H60 or H80i I could possibly pull 4.3GHz at a higher voltage and cooler, might be bad for the chip though because of the volts.

The FX chips are capable, but AMD's problem is single-threaded performance, if their IPC was at-least onpar with Sandy in 6-8 processor variants they'd be pretty powerful.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Alot of people want an unlocked i3, the thing is I dont think Intel would be that generous, and no it's not the wrong decision, the selling points of the G3258 is clearly flying over your head, if there was an unlocked i3 it would cannabilise FX and i5 sales. (Which would be great for the consumer, but not really for Intel)
> 
> 
> The fact that they are offering such single-thread performance at this price as Cyro said in previous posts, you had to get a K Edition i5.
> This processor isn't expected to topple £100 processors like the FX6320 and FX8320, BUT, it happens to do it in single-threaded operations/workloads, which is what all the hype is about really, and in this day and age where games of the past and current favor high single-threaded performance this processor can do well against AMD offerings because their cores are under utilize and their IPC is alot slower than Haswell.
> Hmm interesting.
> 
> 4.2GHz, drawing close, I dont think I can do this anymore with stability and with temps.
> The FX chips are capable, but AMD's problem is single-threaded performance, if their IPC was at-least onpar with Sandy in 6-8 processor variants they'd be pretty powerful.


If you try running the Phenom at 4.3Ghz I think you would equal the FX 4300 at 5.1Ghz in this bench. Posted my screenshots above.


----------



## Themisseble

But this is impossible to do with CMT design... AMD is not bad at designing CPUs
- they did good move with jaguar
- puma+ (quad) 4.5W TDP core faster clock per clock even and 3x times smaller. And if they are right about TDP this is the best low power CPU. faster than intel bay trail 10 W TDP CPU


----------



## jason387

Would you likr me to post all my scores with the fx 6300 2 cores locked at 5.1Ghz?? You could run your phenom and check.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Would you likr me to post all my scores with the fx 6300 2 cores locked at 5.1Ghz?? You could run your phenom and check.


Run my Phenom II at what?
And I just tried 4.3GHz, she wasn't having it even at 1.57v, could be the motherboard incapable of hitting such high clocks or that's how far the chip wants to go.

Also Costa Rica G3258 chips good? I know LAWNOOB had trouble with his and claimed his was bad.


----------



## jason387

Run your phenom at 4.2Ghz


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Run your phenom at 4.2Ghz


4.2GHz quad or dual?


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> 4.2GHz quad or dual?


quad core. Could also run the Pentium in the same benches if you like.
All were done at 5.1Ghz with 4 cores active.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> quad core. Could also run the Pentium in the same benches if you like.
> All were done at 5.1Ghz with 4 cores active.


Lol do you have every benchmark on the planet?
Kidding, I'll run it at 4.2GHz quad core, i might be able to bring the speed up by boosting my NB clock, I'll dedicate another hour to benching on 4.2GHz with Black Hole, 3DMark Vantage, 11, Performance Test, Geek Bench 3, WinRar and Cinebench.
I'll start them in 30 minutes time, I just wanted to finish up my Phenom II @3.9GHz benchmarks in Skyrim and PlanetSide 2, and Star Citizen and call it a day, then give the Pentium a try, I hope I can get 4.2-4.5GHz.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> But this is impossible to do with CMT design... AMD is not bad at designing CPUs
> - they did good move with jaguar
> - puma+ (quad) 4.5W TDP core faster clock per clock even and 3x times smaller. And if they are right about TDP this is the best low power CPU. faster than intel bay trail 10 W TDP CPU


You don't need to bring up Jaguar in pentium thread to defend AMD, nobody particularly cares and there is nothing to defend


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> 
> I'm sure I can break 2900 at 4.1GHz, will do an additional bench after the next run at 4.1GHz.


Allow me


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Allow me


Awesome score PunkX. Just a few points away from the FX score; )


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Awesome score PunkX. Just a few points away from the FX score; )


Thanks









I still beat you slightly at multi-threaded


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still beat you slightly at multi-threaded


True.The main difference seems to be in 4threaded.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Allow me


Good god!
Do you mind taking over the 4.2GHz clocks for me as jason387 wanted?
I dont think I can handle the temps and I might start prepping the Pentium, hopefully it performs well.

4.1GHz seems pretty stable for me.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/648454

What on earth is with your Multithreaded score? 


What's your ram clocked at? I'm running 1333mhz ram, I plan on replacing them with Samsung Greens (I heard there might be a new model releasing) or Avexir Cores at 1600 or higher.


----------



## jason387

Tropic clocker since you can't monitor core temps and are left to cpu temps. How high do they get??


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Tropic clocker since you can't monitor core temps and are left to cpu temps. How high do they get??


I've seen it reach 67c max at high voltages(1.512-1.55v), I need a more sufficient cooler for this processor at the volts I'm trying to push with it.
Black Hole didn't raise it much surprisingly, it hit 64c max and my CPU fan wasn't running at it's fastest, I think prolonged load usage will bring it higher and past stable temps, which is why it hits 65+ on heavy load, I think it would be best to have temps below 60c for the most stability.

Geek Bench 3 score: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/648454


----------



## jason387

You're good up to 70c according to the new thermal margin added into amd overdrive. What cpu cooler are you using???
Tropic clocker raise your cpu nb frequency and make sure your ht link isnt more than 2000 Mhz.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> You're good to up to 70c according to the new thermal margin added into amd overdrive. What cpu cooler are you using???


An Arctic Freezer 7, I was going to get a new cooler last month like the Hyper 212 EVO, but I decided to hold out for a liquid AIO.
70c for Phenom II? I heard it was best to keep it below 65c and 60c optimally (I think, It was along time a go)

When mine breaches 65C for prolonged periods it has the tendency to throttle, I suspect it's because it's breaching past stable and safe temps, but It could also be my motherboard doing this, possibly VRMs or Mobo temps being a tad too high.

My CPU NB is at 2800mhz, my HT refuses to go higher than 1000mhz, thanks to the motherboard. (Pre AM3+ mobo which I dont think was intended to be a great clocking board, but it somehow pulled through)


----------



## jason387

Put a fan over the vrms. That will work wonders.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Put a fan over the vrms. That will work wonders.


Hmm that could possibly help but my CPU cooler wont do over 1.5 too well.
Going to finish up my last 3.9GHz benches now.


----------



## jason387

Cool. Putting a fan over the vrms may also reduce socket temps, CPU temps.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

If you can, open the back of your case and point a fan at the back of the CPU socket (most cases have a hole cut out around that area).

You might see a 5 to 10C decrease in CPU package temp and 2-4C decrease in core temp.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> True.The main difference seems to be in 4threaded.


Which is odd, this benchmark seems to be all over the place for my 9590... I'm pulling multithreading shy of 8k single just shy of 3k but by four threaded was like 2900? Weird... at stock 4.7ghz.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> If you can, open the back of your case and point a fan at the back of the CPU socket (most cases have a hole cut out around that area).
> 
> You might see a 5 to 10C decrease in CPU package temp and 2-4C decrease in core temp.


Ah I'll give that a try next time, thanks for the tip.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Good god!
> Do you mind taking over the 4.2GHz clocks for me as jason387 wanted?
> I dont think I can handle the temps and I might start prepping the Pentium, hopefully it performs well.
> 
> 4.1GHz seems pretty stable for me.
> http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/648454
> 
> What on earth is with your Multithreaded score?
> 
> 
> What's your ram clocked at? I'm running 1333mhz ram, I plan on replacing them with Samsung Greens (I heard there might be a new model releasing) or Avexir Cores at 1600 or higher.


I'm at 1400Mhz on the RAM and 2600Mhz on the NB









Unfortunately, I can't get past 4.2Ghz on my chip, no matter how much voltage I feed it. I don't know if that's my chip's wall or my motherboard can't feed anymore power to it. I should mention that when my chip is locked into an Athlon X3, it does 4.5Ghz easily and could possibly go higher but mu motherboard's FSB craps out at 292 on the highest multi (since my chip's a non-BE).


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> I'm at 1400Mhz on the RAM and 2600Mhz on the NB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't get past 4.2Ghz on my chip, no matter how much voltage I feed it. I don't know if that's my chip's wall or my motherboard can't feed anymore power to it. I should mention that when my chip is locked into an Athlon X3, it does 4.5Ghz easily and could possibly go higher but mu motherboard's FSB craps out at 292 on the highest multi (since my chip's a non-BE).


Pssh wow.
Loved those unlockable chips from the Phenom II era, and the unlocked Core 2 Duos and Quads.


----------



## jason387

Judging from tropic clockers experience with an unlocked chip sadly it appears to be the chips limit.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Hmmm, I feel like pulling out my old E7200 again...

Only thing is my board is absolute junk, 3.2 or somthing is the fastest I got it... its in my sig.

BUT HEY ONLY 50C STOCK COOLER!

brb making some tea and breakfast before I set things up.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Hmmm, I feel like pulling out my old E7200 again...
> 
> Only thing is my board is absolute junk, 3.2 or somthing is the fastest I got it... its in my sig.
> 
> BUT HEY ONLY 50C STOCK COOLER!


when i was doing some benchmarks with FX 6300 .. i had 3.0Ghz with 1.054V (very stable) it never went higher than 26C - i know that amd have only 1 sensor


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Hmmm, I feel like pulling out my old E7200 again...
> 
> Only thing is my board is absolute junk, 3.2 or somthing is the fastest I got it... its in my sig.
> 
> BUT HEY ONLY 50C STOCK COOLER!
> 
> brb making some tea and breakfast before I set things up.


Lol when I had my old E4500, the retention clips on the stock HSF were damaged. I just nudged it back on and would fall off if there was even the slightest disturbance to the case. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH ME?!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> when i was doing some benchmarks with FX 6300 .. i had 3.0Ghz with 1.054V (very stable) it never went higher than 26C - i know that amd have only 1 sensor


Hurray.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> when i was doing some benchmarks with FX 6300 .. i had 3.0Ghz with 1.054V (very stable) it never went higher than 26C - i know that amd have only 1 sensor


The sensor is not accurate at low temperatures, it's designed to be the most accurate at tjmax


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> The sensor is not accurate at low temperatures, it's designed to be the most accurate at tjmax


yeah but still impressive while you get at stock for 3.8Ghz 1.425V







...


----------



## jason387

Most FX cpus can be undervolted well. I can run my 6300 at stock with 1.104v stable.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> yeah but still impressive while you get at stock for 3.8Ghz 1.425V
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stock voltage is pretty arbitrary, and many chips use way too high volts at auto settings


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> yeah but still impressive while you get at stock for 3.8Ghz 1.425V
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can get 3.8Ghz stable at stock volts which is 1.21v


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Stock voltage is pretty arbitrary, and many chips *use way too high volts at auto settings*


Yep. My chip is at 1.28v on auto. I can go all the way down to 1.16.v

If I remember correctly, Jason387 had an Athlon II X2 which was at 1.38 on auto and he brought it down significantly.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Judging from tropic clockers experience with an unlocked chip sadly it appears to be the chips limit.


You've lost me there, you're talking about my Phenom II right? I haven't tried the Pentium G3258 yet.

I'm gonna do one last bench and call it quits for the benches on my Phenom II @3.9GHz, Star Citizen is up next, I gave BF3 a spin, and some PCSX2/PS2 Games.
EDIT: Alright, GTA IV EFLC after that using the built-in benchmark, the last one... I swear! (I need to stop benching so much)


----------



## iRUSH

This thread is moving quickly. But it's mostly AMD discussions now lol.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> This thread is moving quickly. But it's mostly AMD discussions now lol.


TheMisseble would be proud


----------



## Wirerat

As usual its hard to find multiplayer benchmarks of BF4.

Would someone mind posting links to mp bf4 benches with this gem?

I apologize if one is in the op. The ones I went through are sp.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

A couple hundred posts back there's a few videos with FPS counter, but I'm too tired to dig them up at the moment.


----------



## Wirerat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> A couple hundred posts back there's a few videos with FPS counter, but I'm too tired to dig them up at the moment.


thanks. Was it playable?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

From what the guy said yes. I'd say you'd be fine in most games with a 660.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wirerat*
> 
> thanks. Was it playable?


Yep. Not too shabby, but not exceptional, either.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wirerat*
> 
> thanks. Was it playable?


Looks to be pretty good.



I only have Battlefield 3 but I can record and upload footage of that when I get it running.

I have a Costa Rica batch chip and I've heard things about them, are they a decent batch?


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> This thread is moving quickly. But it's mostly AMD discussions now lol.
> 
> 
> 
> TheMisseble would be proud
Click to expand...

when AMD cpu topics get full of intel cpu comparisons we get buckets full of tears and thread locked. I wouldn't bother with this for a gaming cpu. it's all around performance isn't there. if you run a specific set of games or apps this is viable in that's another story.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> when AMD cpu topics get full of intel cpu comparisons we get buckets full of tears and thread locked. I wouldn't bother with this for a gaming cpu. it's all around performance isn't there. if you run a specific set of games or apps this is viable in that's another story.


you mean the G3258?


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> when AMD cpu topics get full of intel cpu comparisons we get buckets full of tears and thread locked. I wouldn't bother with this for a gaming cpu. it's all around performance isn't there. if you run a specific set of games or apps this is viable in that's another story.


Not at all. A healthy dicussion for 12 pages and it's still open- http://www.overclock.net/t/1421579/fx-6300-vs-core-i5-benches/110


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> when AMD cpu topics get full of intel cpu comparisons we get buckets full of tears and thread locked. I wouldn't bother with this for a gaming cpu. it's all around performance isn't there. if you run a specific set of games or apps this is viable in that's another story.


I'm all for performance comparisons. Talking about what voltages people run with their AMD CPU or deliding, unjustified in this thread.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Yep. My chip is at 1.28v on auto. I can go all the way down to 1.16.v
> 
> If I remember correctly, Jason387 had an Athlon II X2 which was at 1.38 on auto and he brought it down significantly.











http://www.overclock.net/t/1275627/undervolt-am-i-dreaming


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

IMO a thread goes where it wants, you can't do more than try to move it in the direction you want to... whether it goes or not is out of your control.

10/10 on topic...

Anyway back to my E7200, I think the FSB speed is maxing out, it runs fine at 343MHz with multi at 6 or 9.5, but it refuses to POST at 344MHz. Maybe time for some pencil modding? Actually could be my memory. I think its running at 850ish MHz, which might be too much, I already dropped the memory divider to the lowest setting (2.5x FSB). I'll take a look and see if I can get the memory to run faster with other divider settings to determine if the FSB is the limiting factor ATM.


----------



## MeanBruce

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> *IMO a thread goes where it wants, you can't do more than try to move it in the direction you want to... whether it goes or not is out of your control.*
> 
> 10/10 on topic...
> 
> Anyway back to my E7200, I think the FSB speed is maxing out, it runs fine at 343MHz with multi at 6 or 9.5, but it refuses to POST at 344MHz. Maybe time for some pencil modding? Actually could be my memory. I think its running at 850ish MHz, which might be too much, I already dropped the memory divider to the lowest setting (2.5x FSB). I'll take a look and see if I can get the memory to run faster with other divider settings to determine if the FSB is the limiting factor ATM.


Agree 100% +rep subtopics are extremely helpful to other members when presented for brief periods within any thread, questions and comparisons arise out of nowhere that need to be answered.









.


----------



## fateswarm

I thought it's annoying too. But a comparison with competitor processors is on-topic. Unless you want to forget there might be alternatives.


----------



## jason387

I think the reason why many AMD users are here is cause this could likely be an upgrade for quite a few users. This is the first bang for buck Intel chip which is unlocked and one which everyone can afford. Yes, we should stay on track. Sometimes the overclocking feel just takes over and we can't stop ourselves


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> I think the reason why many AMD users are here is cause this could likely be an upgrade for quite a few users. This is the first bang for buck Intel chip which is unlocked and one which everyone can afford. Yes, we should stay on track. Sometimes the overclocking feel just takes over and we can't stop ourselves


Indeed ha, damn some impressive benches I saw though, I wonder how my Pentium will cope and how high I can OC, I have my fingers cross for 4.2GHz min, and 4.5GHz is what I'm aiming for.

Does anyone know what the max temp for those chips or Haswell chips are?


----------



## jason387

Keep it under 90c


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Keep it under 90c


Well if that's the case I've got quite some headroom, I think I'll stick to 60C max first and see what I can do with that and bring it up another 10c.
In the Devils Canyon thread I've seen a few i5s and i7s at 70C+

On my final bench now, PlanetSide 2, I might bench Watch Dogs for a quick 2 minutes after that.
PlanetSide 2 runs pretty well on my GPU, I can hold 60fps in most places on average with the occasional GPU dip to 40-50fps, the CPU will bring it crashing down to 30fps if it's hit hard enough though, I think I'll drop my settings to high from ultra in order to attempt to push past 60fps in gpu bound scenarios.

I've also ran Shadow of the Colossus on DX11 hardware and software in a video I recorded, hopefully the Pentium will really pull through there.
If anyone wants to throw any PS2 or Wii game suggestions at me before I'm finished go ahead.

I have: Tekken 3, FFX, MGS2, Destroy All Humans 2 (I love this game), Zone of the Enders, and Super Mario Galaxy 2.

I can't wait to see how Guild Wars 2 and GTA 4 run on this at 4GHz+.









EDIT: And... PlanetSide 2 isn't working.








Validating files now, I guess Watch Dogs is next.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> PlanetSide 2 runs pretty well on my GPU, I can hold 60fps in most places on average with the occasional GPU dip to 40-50fps, the *CPU will bring it crashing down to 30fps if it's hit hard enough though*, I think I'll drop my settings to high from ultra in order to attempt to push past 60fps in gpu bound scenarios.


Make sure you don't have that many sound channels allocated. I noticed a reduction in frame drop after dropping it by ~25%


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Looks to be pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> I only have Battlefield 3 but I can record and upload footage of that when I get it running.
> 
> I have a Costa Rica batch chip and I've heard things about them, are they a decent batch?


AGain this is not ultra ...
if you want to see how smooth = perfoverlay.drawframegraph 1


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> AGain this is not ultra ...


How is this not Ultra?

Heck, you know what, you're right, maybe it's running on Ultra low, DICE just forgot to write low next to "ULTRA"


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Make sure you don't have that many sound channels allocated. I noticed a reduction in frame drop after dropping it by ~25%


Hmm really? I might fiddle with it and put it back and run the same settings with the Pentium.


----------



## Themisseble

i have BF4 and as you can see there are some details which are missing like "more smoke"... You can use BF4 editor to change many settings. Also sound "OFF" give you much more performance..


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> i have BF4 and as you can see there are some details which are missing like "more smoke"... You can use BF4 editor to change many settings.


Yes. I'll have my blind monkey get to work on it immediately!


----------



## Scorpion49

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> i have BF4 and as you can see there are some details which are missing like "more smoke"... You can use BF4 editor to change many settings. Also sound "OFF" give you much more performance..


Here is is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwVFHf1HbdY


----------



## TopicClocker

I've finally clawed my way out of benchmarking, time to test the G3258, GTA 4, Guild Wars 2 and Planet Side 2 are on the top of my "Bench first" list.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I've finally clawed my way out of benchmarking, time to test the G3258, GTA 4, Guild Wars 2 and Planet Side 2 are on the top of my "Bench first" list.


What clock speed do you have the pentium at again?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Well looks like I'm not getting the pentium, I found a Maximus Formula 2 and I'm not really in the mood to spend more money on the Z97 stuff. I'd like to see how the old wolfdale duos fare up against the newer stuff.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dogroll*
> 
> still debating whether or not to get this to replace my phenom II 965... i already have a cool master 212 evo and an antec hcg520 PSU (seasonic built) so i'm good in terms of that... but z97 motherboards are real expensive here in aus, no crazy $100 combo deals here. i hope the asrock anniversary board comes out and is cheap and has good VRM for overclocking this chip i may still get it but we'll see... at least i know for sure i need to upgrade this cpu probably before the witcher 3 comes out. it will bottleneck my radeon 7870


don't.

you'd be better off keeping your am3+ motherboard and getting a 6 core or 8 core fx.

I went from a phII x4 965be to a fx8320, loving the change over.

The problem with the g3258 is it's a dual core. and no amount of overclocking will cover that up. Going from a solid quad core to a dynamite dual core will be a step back not a step forward.


----------



## iSlayer

Themisseble is right, the FX 6300 is better than the Pentium. I just benched minesweeper on my Pentium 3 600 and the FX 6300 just smoked it. The multithreaded performance is just too much for it. Newer games like Solitaire and Minesweeper *all* use multithreading so in the interest of future proofing buy the FX 6300. Game devs are moving like lightning to make use of as many threads as possible, just look at the 8350's performance in watchdogs!


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> Themisseble is right, the FX 6300 is better than the Pentium. I just benched minesweeper on my Pentium 3 600 and the FX 6300 just smoked it. The multithreaded performance is just too much for it. Newer games like Solitaire and Minesweeper *all* use multithreading so in the interest of future proofing buy the FX 6300. Game devs are moving like lightning to make use of as many threads as possible, just look at the 8350's performance in watchdogs!


I hate that thread... The claim that it maxes the chip without getting 60FPS is wrong. The game only uses 4 threads, so of course you see 50% usage. And then those *who should know better* say "look at the CPU graph! It says each thread is being used in task manager/per-core resource monitors!"

Those always lie... End rant, and sorry that I'm being







I just really hate that damn thread....


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> I hate that thread... The claim that it maxes the chip without getting 60FPS is wrong. The game only uses 4 threads, so of course you see 50% usage. And then those *who should know better* say "look at the CPU graph! It says each thread is being used in task manager/per-core resource monitors!"
> 
> Those always lie... End rant, and sorry that I'm being
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just really hate that damn thread....


Yes.. but how much would be FX 6300 behind FX 8350? ... i dont think that any dual core can get that fps even with 6Ghz. While i5 is on its limit = 80-100% usage.. FX 8320 OC-ed sits at 50% usage...


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes.. but how much would be FX 6300 behind FX 8350? ... i dont think that any dual core can get that fps even with 6Ghz. While i5 is on its limit = 80-100% usage.. FX 8320 OC-ed sits at 50% usage...


50% usage since it can only use 4 threads. 4/8 = 50%. Anyway, I don't think a dual core will be able to do what the quads and up can do on Watch Dogs for a while. That being said, how many games out there are properly quad threaded like that? Watch Dogs _appears_ to properly distribute a load evenly to each thread. This makes it to where there isn't one or two main threads, and up to two more threads that are doing small tasks. Those games barely get any performance from having >2 threads.


----------



## iRUSH

Exactly. 99% of games this will be an amazing option. Battlefield and Crysis are not why I game on PC. To each their own for sure. I'm just saying.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Exactly. 99% of games this will be an amazing option. Battlefield and Crysis are not why I game on PC. To each their own for sure. I'm just saying.


Watchdogs, Evolve, Witcher 3, Plants vs zombies, BF hardline, Star citizen , Wolfenstein: New Order, Star War: Battlefront, *The Division*,Dragon Age: Inquisition, Far Cry 4 and so on....


----------



## iRUSH

Compared to 99% of Steams library


----------



## iRUSH

I can't recall many in this thread saying this would be a better CPU for the money in the heavily threaded games mentioned. I think most of us know that. It's a good thing it's mentioned as I guarantee someone will Google search for info on the G3258 and knowing that it will perform poorly on those games is important information.

So if there's 20, or heck 50 games that this CPU couldn't be recommended for, that leaves how many games it'll slaughter?

If someone building/upgrading a PC today to play AAA titles built from 2011-ish and newer, this will unlikely be the recommended CPU.

But it sure is nice we have this chip. It fills a much needed void. Unrivalled single threaded performance for $75 or less. Even if some of us think it's silly.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Can you guys please run Cinebench R15 on your Phenoms and FX?

I found a chart on bittech but they only had intel CPUs. Is Cine R15 equally optimized for AMD and intel?


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I've finally clawed my way out of benchmarking, time to test the G3258, GTA 4, Guild Wars 2 and Planet Side 2 are on the top of my "Bench first" list.


Metro: Last Light (built-in benchmark)
Lost Planet 2 (built-in benchmark, Test B)
Hitman: Absolution (built-in benchmark)
Tomb Raider 2013 (benchmark the Mountain Village part, it's CPU dependent)


----------



## MeanBruce

Tom Logan's video review of the amazing G3258.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUe0QvWl0Ss&list=UU_SN80_V2GymyCWM2oTYTeg

The embed wont post


----------



## fleetfeather

in light of this chip, someone needs to start investigating power delivery componentry on B85 and H97 mobos. I'm so down for overclocking one of these chips on a B85/H97 mitx board, but I'm not down for causing a house fire attempting it...


----------



## TPCbench

To those who already have a Pentium G3258

What Z97 board did you use ? Was the CPU supported or did the system boot without having to update the BIOS ?

I'm currently on an AMD system and I don't have a Haswell CPU to use for updating the BIOS of the board

Here are my options for a Z97 board. What can you recommend ?

Gigabyte Z97MX Gaming 5

Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 3

Asrock Fatal1ty Z97 Killer

Asrock Z97 Pro 4

I know the boards are relatively expensive but I will upgrade to Broadwell

What do you guys think ?

Thanks


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

I did a Metro LL bench with the default (low) setting on the options panel.

I'm running G3258 @4.2Ghz, GTX670 slightly OCed, 8GB DDR3 1600Mhz. GTX 670 is uses a 680 ref PCB, made by Galaxy. On After burner core is +50, power 120%, auto fan.

CPU usage is maxed out in resource monitor at all times during the 3 loops. GPU usage is 50% on average and core is at 800Mhz more than half of the time.

Here's a frame rate, frame time, GPU usage, GPU clock, etc pic.

Right click on pic and open in new window for a better look.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> While i5 is on its limit = 80-100% usage.. FX 8320 OC-ed sits at 50% usage...


Ya, and since FX at 100% load performs similarly to i5 at 100% load, when FX can only be half used, performance is god awful.

There's a reason 8320 is under £100 now and i5 is £170.

It's not like you can match performance with half of the CPU idle. Sure, i5 is at 80% load and FX is at 50% load, but behind the scenes you see 50+% performance leads for i5 in every game that doesn't scale well onto 5-8 threads, but is highly CPU bound. That's no secret - your CPU being below half load is a massive architectural weakness, not an amazing strength.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> To those who already have a Pentium G3258
> 
> What Z97 board did you use ? Was the CPU supported or did the system boot without having to update the BIOS ?
> 
> I'm currently on an AMD system and I don't have a Haswell CPU to use for updating the BIOS of the board
> 
> Here are my options for a Z97 board. What can you recommend ?
> 
> Gigabyte Z97MX Gaming 5
> 
> Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 3
> 
> Asrock Fatal1ty Z97 Killer
> 
> Asrock Z97 Pro 4
> 
> I know the boards are relatively expensive but I will upgrade to Broadwell
> 
> What do you guys think ?
> 
> Thanks


Get z97x-gaming 5 (you didn't list it, so it's probably more expensive) and be confident knowing that you have a digital 8 phase board, or cheap out and get something low price and be confident that you have good price/performance


----------



## TopicClocker

Sigh, trying to fix my board, hopefully will be done by today.


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MeanBruce*
> 
> Tom Logan's video review of the amazing G3258.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUe0QvWl0Ss&list=UU_SN80_V2GymyCWM2oTYTeg
> 
> The embed wont post


have to take issue here. he chose (maybe knowingly or not) the single worst game to benchmark what a cpu can do. this game is virtually 100% gpu bound. I've tested myself an FX 8120, 7850k, 4770k and a $69 llano. they all score within 3 fps of each other with a gtx780. the 4770k pulled ahead of the pack when overclocked, but in Crysis 3, BF4 and especially Guild Wars 2, there were some monster gaps between average and minimum fps with those setups.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Can you guys please run Cinebench R15 on your Phenoms and FX?
> 
> I found a chart on bittech but they only had intel CPUs. Is Cine R15 equally optimized for AMD and intel?


Want me to run it with 2 cores locked?


----------



## Scorpion49

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> have to take issue here. he chose (maybe knowingly or not) the single worst game to benchmark what a cpu can do. this game is virtually 100% gpu bound. I've tested myself an FX 8120, 7850k, 4770k and a $69 llano. they all score within 3 fps of each other with a gtx780. the 4770k pulled ahead of the pack when overclocked, but in Crysis 3, BF4 and especially Guild Wars 2, there were some monster gaps between average and minimum fps with those setups.


That isn't the full review, you have to go to the website to see other games. I think he just highlighted that one in the video because it is a quick easy bench to run that people can see in the video itself.


----------



## jmcosta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> have to take issue here. he chose (maybe knowingly or not) the single worst game to benchmark what a cpu can do. this game is virtually 100% gpu bound. I've tested myself an FX 8120, 7850k, 4770k and a $69 llano. they all score within 3 fps of each other with a gtx780. the 4770k pulled ahead of the pack when overclocked, but in Crysis 3, BF4 and especially Guild Wars 2, there were some monster gaps between average and minimum fps with those setups.



not bad for low end cpu,

and i run metro with 2500k and pentium ocd
only less 7fps avg in veryhigh


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!








there'sbig difference if i change to low settings like TheLAWNOOB did


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpion49*
> 
> That isn't the full review, you have to go to the website to see other games. I think he just highlighted that one in the video because it is a quick easy bench to run that people can see in the video itself.




just these three. either way, it's a good budget cpu. better than AMD's offerings below $90 for sure.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Can you guys please run Cinebench R15 on your Phenoms and FX?
> 
> I found a chart on bittech but they only had intel CPUs. Is Cine R15 equally optimized for AMD and intel?


Here's my Phenom at 4.2Ghz:


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I did a Metro LL bench with the default (low) setting on the options panel.
> 
> I'm running G3258 @4.2Ghz, GTX670 slightly OCed, 8GB DDR3 1600Mhz. GTX 670 is uses a 680 ref PCB, made by Galaxy. On After burner core is +50, power 120%, auto fan.
> 
> CPU usage is maxed out in resource monitor at all times during the 3 loops. GPU usage is 50% on average and core is at 800Mhz more than half of the time.
> 
> Here's a frame rate, frame time, GPU usage, GPU clock, etc pic.
> 
> Right click on pic and open in new window for a better look.


Why not run it at 1920 x 1080 resolution with Very High preset ?


----------



## jason387

Here's C15 with my FX 6300(2 Cores locked at 5Ghz)- Multi-threaded


Single-threaded performance-


Can someone with a Phenom IIx4 run C15 for single threaded performance?
Would like to see the Pentium as well


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> 
> 
> just these three. either way, it's a good budget cpu. better than AMD's offerings below $90 for sure.


Tomb Raider 2013 has a CPU-dependent area

















http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-16.html


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Why not run it at 1920 x 1080 resolution with Very High preset ?


You're right on point here.

If the CPU can handle say for example 80fps, but the GPU can handle 240fps at such a low resolution and low settings, then the GPU would only be at 1/3'rd load. If you run at actual expected settings, targetting say 72fps average, you'll get a much better picture of how balanced GPU load is, or if limited CPU power will realistically significantly lower performance on X game with Y setup.

Low resolution, settings etc to make GPU a nonfactor is great for comparing CPU's! But don't complain about low GPU usage when that happens, that's exactly what you're trying to achieve, to make the CPU the only factor in performance (and to expose the maximum CPU performance in that game/engine) by running lower settings


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> snip


yo, did you see if wildstar took any performance hits running on 2C2T vs 4C8T? Results for PvP, PvE, open world?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> yo, did you see if wildstar took any performance hits running on 2C2T vs 4C8T? Results for PvP, PvE, open world?


I saw massive performance gains from using two cores instead of one, minor gains (around 10%) for using a third core, no change from using a fourth. I had Hyperthreading disabled for that testing. I didn't test with a ton of units, but i don't think that CPU usage patterns significantly change, if it's like some other games then you could even expect the main thread to get heavier as unit counts etc rise, and benefit -less- from more cores. I don't think it would magically start to scale to 4+ cores, though the third core could potentially matter more.

Haswell obviously dominates FX with low thread counts, and it seems like nvidia driver efficiency has a massive impact on performance in Wildstar with DX11 vs bad radeon drivers, but i don't have a ton of scientific testing (aside from a few mins running on 540p, pointing mine and a friends camera at exact same places with the same settings and cpu and going welp, i have 88fps on a 770 and you have 60 on a 290, both obviously cpu limited)

I would feel great with a Pentium g3258 and a gtx750 for this game, even though they're "low end". If you brought out an fx8320 and an r9 290 though i would probably be ripping my hair out with half as much performance, due to lack of singlethreaded performance and the radeon drivers giving much less FPS on the same CPU in a CPU limited situation. That's been the cause of a lot of frustration for a lot of people, with what could be called mid to high end systems having performance issues


----------



## lolwatpear

Has anyone been able to determine if the stock cooler is adequate for good overclocks like 4.6ghz+?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lolwatpear*
> 
> Has anyone been able to determine if the stock cooler is adequate for good overclocks like 4.6ghz+?


It seems adequate for like 1.2-1.35vcore, depends on your tolerances for temperatures, your uses of the CPU and your room conditions etc. Frequency achieved isn't something that you can plan for, you plan for voltages used and then the frequency that you get with it is a nice lottery


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Get z97x-gaming 5 (you didn't list it, so it's probably more expensive) and be confident knowing that you have a digital 8 phase board


Listen to that advice. The gb 5 has the best voltage regulator quality for the price. The 7 adds to it but for cpu supply alone they are identical.

Well, for this chip though I wouldn't rush to those i7-perfect boards, if I would never upgrade.

Though that board isn't that much about capacity but about power output quality.


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> I saw massive performance gains from using two cores instead of one, minor gains (around 10%) for using a third core, no change from using a fourth. I had Hyperthreading disabled for that testing. I didn't test with a ton of units, but i don't think that CPU usage patterns significantly change, if it's like some other games then you could even expect the main thread to get heavier as unit counts etc rise, and benefit -less- from more cores. I don't think it would magically start to scale to 4+ cores, though the third core could potentially matter more.
> 
> Haswell obviously dominates FX with low thread counts, and it seems like nvidia driver efficiency has a massive impact on performance in Wildstar with DX11 vs bad radeon drivers, but i don't have a ton of scientific testing (aside from a few mins running on 540p, pointing mine and a friends camera at exact same places with the same settings and cpu and going welp, i have 88fps on a 770 and you have 60 on a 290, both obviously cpu limited)
> 
> I would feel great with a Pentium g3258 and a gtx750 for this game, even though they're "low end". If you brought out an fx8320 and an r9 290 though i would probably be ripping my hair out with half as much performance, due to lack of singlethreaded performance and the radeon drivers giving much less FPS on the same CPU in a CPU limited situation. That's been the cause of a lot of frustration for a lot of people, with what could be called mid to high end systems having performance issues


Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. If you aren't capping 100% on the first core in Thayd/Illium, then realistically you're good to go with just the Pentium.

Yeah it's gotta be frustrating for some people. I have a mate with a 6C12T 3930k @ 4.4 + Crossfire 7970's pulling 40fps in a battleground. Given his PC investment, you'd hope to see some better results in a MMO environment.

I've sold my sig rig to do just that; g3285 + 750 Ti. I'm not interested in PC-thrashing games and I feel my money can be better used elsewhere.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Get z97x-gaming 5 (you didn't list it, so it's probably more expensive) and be confident knowing that you have a digital 8 phase board, or cheap out and get something low price and be confident that you have good price/performance


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Listen to that advice. The gb 5 has the best voltage regulator quality for the price. The 7 adds to it but for cpu supply alone they are identical.
> 
> Well, for this chip though I wouldn't rush to those i7-perfect boards, if I would never upgrade.
> 
> Though that board isn't that much about capacity but about power output quality.


Thanks for the advice

Is the mATX version of Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 5 of the same quality ? Gigabyte does not specify in their website the CPU power phase design

I like a mATX board


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Thanks for the advice
> 
> Is the mATX version of Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 5 of the same quality ? Gigabyte does not specify in their website the CPU power phase design
> 
> I like a mATX board


the matx version has 4 phase digital power delivery rather than 8 phase. that's pretty normal for matx mobos. the mATX version is still a very good board for OC'ing purposes

http://www.sinhardware.com/images/vrmlist.png

edit: actually the capacitors are a bit rough, but meh, should still be more than fine for what you want out of it.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Is the mATX version of Gigabyte Z97X Gaming 5 of the same quality ? Gigabyte does not specify in their website the CPU power phase design
> 
> I like a mATX board


The small one is very inadequate for i7 overclocking but it should be plenty for the Pentium (because its current output capability is at or below 100Amps only). It also has 4 less true phases, but that is not something that breaks it, only it makes a little less in voltage output quality.


----------



## TPCbench

Is there a Z97 mATX board with 8 power phases for the CPU and costs around $150 only ?

Thanks


----------



## TPCbench

Ok. Thanks
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> The small one is very inadequate for i7 overclocking but it should be plenty for the Pentium (because its current output capability is at or below 100Amps only). It also has 4 less true phases, but that is not something that breaks it, only it makes a little less in voltage output quality.


How about for overclocking Core i5 Broadwell ? Not LN2 overclocking but for moderate OC only (around 30 to 40% OC) for 24/7 use

Thanks


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Is there a Z97 mATX board with 8 power phases for the CPU and costs around $150 only ?
> 
> Thanks


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Ok. Thanks
> How about for overclocking Core i5 Broadwell ? Not LN2 overclocking but for moderate OC only (around 30 to 40% OC) for 24/7 use
> 
> Thanks


Well, the very beefy small boards are a bit pricey. e.g. the Impact of asus is an overkill in some respects even for i7 overclocking since it can do something like 700W, what a SOC Force does, a board tailored for Liquid Nitrogen overclocking.

A more sane solution might be a less quality/overkill board but with enough current output ability. I don't follow the small boards very closely though.

But due to the similaries most have on mosfets try for at least 6 total phases (count the chokes around the cpu socket, the cubic things).


----------



## fleetfeather

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Is there a Z97 mATX board with 8 power phases for the CPU and costs around $150 only ?
> 
> Thanks


For $150? Nope.

There are 2 matx mobo's which feature more than 4 phases (as was the case with the z87 offerings)

AsRock z97M OC Formula - 6 Phases - ~$135 USD
Asus Maximus VII Gene - 8 Phases - ~$210 USD


----------



## fateswarm

Note to self. I should add a note next to boards voltage regulator data on size of board. It's being asked a lot.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fleetfeather*
> 
> Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. If you aren't capping 100% on the first core in Thayd/Illium, then realistically you're good to go with just the Pentium.
> 
> Yeah it's gotta be frustrating for some people. I have a mate with a 6C12T 3930k @ 4.4 + Crossfire 7970's pulling 40fps in a battleground. Given his PC investment, you'd hope to see some better results in a MMO environment.
> 
> I've sold my sig rig to do just that; g3285 + 750 Ti. I'm not interested in PC-thrashing games and I feel my money can be better used elsewhere.


Well, it's not particularly graphically demanding, my 770 was riding 180fps cap on near max settings on some areas of Farside. Usually with low FPS you're CPU limited - i don't recall being GPU limited below ~80fps or so ever. With Nvidia drivers getting much better results than Radeon, it's not entirely unsurprising.

A [email protected] would perform like 20% stronger too - people who buy into the 6c/12t CPU's instead of the more overclockable and advanced architecture quad cores know what they're buying into, and it's not always the best performance in lower threaded tasks

You don't need amazing hardware for Wildstar or some other games, but you need the right hardware.

Sandy bridge to Haswell is obviously on the right track, SB @4.4 just isn't as good as Haswell @4.6. Having one teams drivers give 60-75% of the FPS from the other team whenever you're CPU limited puts them squarely in the "wrong hardware" territory, and it sucks for your friend and probably a million other people. I expect AMD to vastly improve things soon if they know what's good for them, because it's very widespread.

To quote Alatar from the plants vs zombies thread:
Quote:


> Using AMD DX11 as a 100% baseline:
> 
> FX8350 AMD DX11: 100%
> FX8350 AMD Mantle: 141%
> FX8350 NV DX11: 142% (fps cap)
> 
> FX6300 AMD DX11: 100%
> FX6300 AMD Mantle: 140%
> FX6300 NV DX11: 140%
> 
> FX8150 AMD DX11: 100%
> FX8150 AMD Mantle: 163%
> FX8150 NV DX11: 159%
> 
> FX4100 AMD DX11: 100%
> FX4100 AMD Mantle: 175%
> FX4100 NV DX11: 169%


Terrible state for radeon owners and i am very dissapointed in driver team and the higher ups for not reacting faster to nvidia's lead and massive performance leaps after they started to work on Mantle - though Mantle is great, it's only in a few games and they can't ignore the 99.9% of games that don't use it.


----------



## fateswarm

I've looked into the sizes of a few boards I'm following. The Gryphon Z97 is matx with the output capability to do i7 later on, otherwise the Gene, a lot more pricey choice though. The msi z97m Gaming too is capable though it's likely of slightly lower quality than the asus since the asus possibly has a digital controller (can't be sure since they hide the OEM).

PS. lol outcome of that research: The Xpower is *XL*ATX







Not only it's the most overkill on power output, but also on size.


----------



## micromage

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Well looks like I'm not getting the pentium, I found a Maximus Formula 2 and I'm not really in the mood to spend more money on the Z97 stuff. I'd like to see how the old wolfdale duos fare up against the newer stuff.


i have an e5400 but sadly my motherboard has no voltage adjustment and the current bios has no overclocking settings. From a pentium 4 to this it was amazing but compared to an i5 3570 my brother has ,it does feel a lot slower even though i added an ssd.

Its a shame as the e5400 is supposed to be a great budget overclocker back in the day


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> I hate that thread... The claim that it maxes the chip without getting 60FPS is wrong. The game only uses 4 threads, so of course you see 50% usage. And then those *who should know better* say "look at the CPU graph! It says each thread is being used in task manager/per-core resource monitors!"
> 
> Those always lie... End rant, and sorry that I'm being
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just really hate that damn thread....


I couldn't think of anything better off the top of my head and wanted to make the point that "multithreaded" games aren't really all that multithreaded / not crippling dual cores.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Well looks like I'm not getting the pentium, I found a Maximus Formula 2 and I'm not really in the mood to spend more money on the Z97 stuff. I'd like to see how the old wolfdale duos fare up against the newer stuff.



























http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487.html


----------



## TopicClocker

Ok, I'm back after what seems an eternity, should be up and running by 1, and benching and overclocking by 1 or 2.


----------



## TPCbench

@ TopicClocker

What board are you using for your G3258 ? Did you have any problem with BIOS that came with it ?

Thanks


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> SIRA12


I've done a bit of number crunching on those and it turns out, in terms of heating up, they are the equivalent of a 30A mosfet. While they are limited in output capacity to 25, they are better than that in terms of heat loss if one does not reach the limit (and they most probably won't).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> [..]
> 
> So, assuming no package limit, the current it would be able to carry at 6.5W loss would be.. *30.28A*
> 
> 
> 
> So, there you have it, in terms of heating up the SiRA12DPs are the equivalent of a 30A mosfet (per 6.5W loss) instead of the 25A for their current limit.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> @ TopicClocker
> 
> What board are you using for your G3258 ? Did you have any problem with BIOS that came with it ?
> 
> Thanks


Asus Maximus Gene VII, got it for futureproofing it for when I get an i5 and plan to have it for 3 or more generations, I was going to get MSI's Gaming Z97M but this board really cought my attention, ever since the previous gen board.

I didn't have problems with the bios, just my standoffs were improperly placed which prevented it from posting.


----------



## TPCbench

^ You bought that board for G3258 ? What is the out-of-the-box BIOS version ?

Thanks


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> ^ You bought that board for G3258 ?


No, for an i5 K I plan on getting soon and overclocking past 4.5GHz, going to have the board for a good couple of gens/years and I like what it has to offer, I'm sure the MSI Z97M would of been more than enough.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> ^ You bought that board for G3258 ? What is the out-of-the-box BIOS version ?
> 
> Thanks


BIOS INFORMATION 0506 x64
BIOS VERSION 05/16/2014

What my board is saying, might be different for others out of the box, idk.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Thanks for the CB R15 scores.

I got 308 point with 4.2Ghz G3258, 226 points with 3Ghz G3220, 236 points with 3.2Ghz i3-550

@TPCBench I didn't run it at 1080p very high because I only have a 1680*1050 monitor, and last time I ran it at very high 1050p I get 10 fps on average.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> BIOS INFORMATION 0506 x64
> BIOS VERSION 05/16/2014
> 
> What my board is saying, might be different for others out of the box, idk.


How far have you pushed the Pentium so far? Have you tried any games? How does it feel compared to your Phenom?


----------



## Internet Swag

Is there going to be a Broadwell 'G4258'?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> How far have you pushed the Pentium so far? Have you tried any games? How does it feel compared to your Phenom?


4GHz at the moment, things are moving slowly because I'm learning how to OC Haswell, I'm sure I'll be able to hit close to 4.5GHz.

I'm going to find a stable clock and run benches at that clockspeed, whether its 4.2 or 4.5GHz etc.


----------



## PunkX 1

Awesome. Does it feel any smoother?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Awesome. Does it feel any smoother?


It feels pretty much like my old Phenom II in Windows, going to try some benches when I get 4.2GHz+, being at 4GHz isn't much currently and that's because I'm learning how this BIOS works, this board has a pretty comprehensive BIOS.


----------



## PunkX 1

Standing by


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Standing by


Wow Saints Row 3 runs quite well, at least as good, if not better in some aspects than my Phenom II, and at 4GHz!
Oh man, I can't wait to finish updating GW2.


----------



## TopicClocker

In Tomb Raider it's holding it's performing quite well too.


----------



## TopicClocker

My god, it beat the crap out of my Phenom II in the FFXIV ARR Benchmark.

AMD Phenom II @3.9GHz;
FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
Tested on:03/07/2014 19:40:34
Score:6490
Average Framerate:56.788
Performance:Very High
-Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Maximum

Intel Pentium G3258 @4GHz
FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
Tested on:06/07/2014 18:58:15
Score:7767
Average Framerate:68.180
Performance:Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Maximum

And this is a benchmark I've run time and time again trying to get my Phenom II to perform better at it's peak stable clock (3.9GHz, any higher throttling will commence, 4.2GHz is the last clock it will boot at on 1.55v, 4.3GHz is a no go), but the Pentium just came in and blasted it, I'm sure I can squeeze 200-500mhz more too!


----------



## PunkX 1




----------



## azanimefan

not that surprising. that is pretty much a single core game... though your phII must really have been dialed in to even be that close in single core performance.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> not that surprising. that is pretty much a single core game... though your phII must really have been dialed in to even be that close in single core performance.


What do you mean dialed it?

Ah I wish i took the min, avg and max for this game on the Phenom II, would of shown how it held it's frames up where the Phenom II could not, there's this scene in a cave where the characters are all together fighting and the Phenom II would drop pretty hard to at-least 30 or below, the Pentium held up past 40fps IIRC, I'll have to run it again and pay real good attention to detail or even record it and upload the results by using Shadow Play.

There's another scene where they are outside on Chocobos riding past what looks to be a celebration, the Phenom II would fall to around 35 and below FPS, the Pentium @4GHz was 45+

I'm going to run GW2 now, and run FFXIV again to be more clear on the frame rate increment and where the Phenom II would drop.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> What do you mean dialed it?
> 
> Ah I wish i took the min, avg and max for this game on the Phenom II, would of shown how it held it's frames up where the Phenom II could not, there's this scene in a cave where the characters are all together fighting and the Phenom II would drop pretty hard to at-least 30 or below, the Pentium held up past 40fps IIRC, I'll have to run it again and pay real good attention to detail or even record it and upload the results by using Shadow Play.
> 
> There's another scene where they are outside on Chocobos riding past what looks to be a celebration, the Phenom II would fall to around 35 and below FPS, the Pentium @4GHz was 45+
> 
> I'm going to run GW2 now, and run FFXIV again to be more clear on the frame rate increment and where the Phenom II would drop.


Do you have MSI Afterburner? If so use their built in frame rate and frame time graphs.


Spoiler: Show look something like this


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Do you have MSI Afterburner? If so use their built in frame rate and frame time graphs.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Show look something like this


Yeah I have it, how do you want me to use their built in frame rate and frame time graphs?
On FFXIV? The only problem is that I haven't got the Phenom II results.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Yeah I have it, how do you want me to use their built in frame rate and frame time graphs?
> On FFXIV? The only problem is that I haven't got the Phenom II results.


Just take a screenshot of the graph after running the bench. Change graph update time to 1000ms.

It'd be a nice comparison


----------



## TopicClocker

Beat my Phenom II again in the Resident Evil 6 benchmark, only by a tiny a bit.

Phenom II B55 at 3.9GHz.


Pentium G3258 @4GHz


From what I've seen and played is wherever the Phenom II comes up short, the Pentium will try to surpass it (and likely succeeded), in games anyway, but this is only at 4GHz, this chip should hopefully do 200mhz more minimum, and perhaps 500mhz more at the most hopefully.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Just take a screenshot of the graph after running the bench. Change graph update time to 1000ms.
> 
> It'd be a nice comparison


Sure, will do.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> My god, it beat the crap out of my Phenom II in the FFXIV ARR Benchmark.
> 
> AMD Phenom II @3.9GHz;
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
> Tested on:03/07/2014 19:40:34
> Score:6490
> Average Framerate:56.788
> Performance:Very High
> -Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Maximum
> 
> Intel Pentium G3258 @4GHz
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
> Tested on:06/07/2014 18:58:15
> Score:7767
> Average Framerate:68.180
> Performance:Extremely High
> -Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Maximum
> 
> And this is a benchmark I've run time and time again trying to get my Phenom II to perform better at it's peak stable clock (3.9GHz, any higher throttling will commence, 4.2GHz is the last clock it will boot at on 1.55v, 4.3GHz is a no go), but the Pentium just came in and blasted it, I'm sure I can squeeze 200-500mhz more too!


And you say that Phenom x4 is good or better than FX 4300... this is benchmark that use 2-3 cores. Will you please do Black Hole benchmark with pentium? and Bf3 MP? which use like 3-4cores?


----------



## TopicClocker

Oh man, this chip means business.

Pentium G3258 @4.3GHz
FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
Tested on:06/07/2014 21:08:03
Score:8171
Average Framerate:71.496
Performance:Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Maximum

AMD Phenom II @3.9GHz;
FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
Tested on:03/07/2014 19:40:34
Score:6490
Average Framerate:56.788
Performance:Very High
-Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Maximum

Really nice speed improvement there, gosh.
I hope other games are the same.


----------



## Themisseble

TopicClocker
- this comparison is not good.

Can you tell me how much CPu usage is on phenom and how much is on pentium?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> TopicClocker
> - this comparison is not good.
> 
> Can you tell me how much CPu usage is on phenom and how much is on pentium?


Why is it not good?
I cant tell you about the Phenom II, but I can tell you about the Pentium's usage.


----------



## burticus

TLDR, sorry.

Hmmm. What video card are you running? Because my Phenom II 955 "Old Bitsy" @ 4.2 just crushed both of your runs.

FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
Tested on:7/6/2014 4:25:27 PM
Score:11564
Average Framerate:106.297
Performance:Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Maximum

System:
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.140303-2144)
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor
8191.180MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770(VRAM 4038 MB) 9.18.0013.4043

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Oh man, this chip means business.
> 
> Pentium G3258 @4.3GHz
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
> Tested on:06/07/2014 21:08:03
> Score:8171
> Average Framerate:71.496
> Performance:Extremely High
> -Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Maximum
> 
> AMD Phenom II @3.9GHz;
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
> Tested on:03/07/2014 19:40:34
> Score:6490
> Average Framerate:56.788
> Performance:Very High
> -Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Maximum
> 
> Really nice speed improvement there, gosh.
> I hope other games are the same.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Oh man, this chip means business.
> 
> Pentium G3258 @4.3GHz
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
> Tested on:06/07/2014 21:08:03
> Score:8171
> Average Framerate:71.496
> Performance:Extremely High
> -Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Maximum
> 
> AMD Phenom II @3.9GHz;
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
> Tested on:03/07/2014 19:40:34
> Score:6490
> Average Framerate:56.788
> Performance:Very High
> -Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Maximum
> 
> Really nice speed improvement there, gosh.
> I hope other games are the same.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *burticus*
> 
> TLDR, sorry.
> 
> Hmmm. What video card are you running? Because my Phenom II 955 "Old Bitsy" @ 4.2 just crushed both of your runs.
> 
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
> Tested on:7/6/2014 4:25:27 PM
> Score:11564
> Average Framerate:106.297
> Performance:Extremely High
> -Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Maximum
> 
> System:
> Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.140303-2144)
> AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor
> 8191.180MB
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770(VRAM 4038 MB) 9.18.0013.4043


Interesting. It's obvious that your GPU is stronger, right? I wonder what the minimum FPS difference is...


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *burticus*
> 
> TLDR, sorry.
> 
> Hmmm. What video card are you running? Because my Phenom II 955 "Old Bitsy" @ 4.2 just crushed both of your runs.
> 
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
> Tested on:7/6/2014 4:25:27 PM
> Score:11564
> Average Framerate:106.297
> Performance:Extremely High
> -Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Maximum
> 
> System:
> Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.140303-2144)
> AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor
> 8191.180MB
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770(VRAM 4038 MB) 9.18.0013.4043


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Interesting. It's obvious that your GPU is stronger, right? I wonder what the minimum FPS difference is...


What bench is Character Creation? Yours is showing that while mine says Exploration
His GPU is stronger, but I don't think it's 48% stronger unless it's OC'd to infinity, 10-20% would sound more like it. (Stock 680/770)


----------



## burticus

Ok I can see from his RE6 benchmarks he's running a GTX 760, so yeah there is a little graphics performance disparity there.

I got 11276 on the RE6 bench using the default settings for 1920x1080. It went below 60 a few times during some of the busier scenes but stayed above 60 for the most part. Never bogged down too much to where you could really notice it but you could see it on the graph.

Once again looks like I'll be limping the 955 for a while longer. I have had a big time upgrade itch the last year but just haven't justified it yet (and AMD's FX lineup hasn't helped matters, but my motherboard won't accept them anyway).

Microcenter near me had a weekend deal for the Pentium and some random MSI motherboard for $99, looks like a killer cheap gaming rig but not so much for me. I was seriously jazzed about the potential overclocks on the thing but 4.5 seems to be the ceiling from what I've read so far. And I do not see the point of slapping a $100+ water cooler on a $60 cpu.


----------



## burticus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> What bench is Character Creation?
> His GPU is stronger, but I don't think it's 48% stronger unless it's OC'd to infinity.


Oh so it's a slightly different benchmark than what you ran, interesting. I just googled Final Fantasy XIV benchmark and that is what it came back with.

I'm not overclocking the GPU manually other than what it ships with. I think EVGA factory clock is a little higher than stock though.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *burticus*
> 
> Ok I can see from his RE6 benchmarks he's running a GTX 760, so yeah there is a little graphics performance disparity there.
> 
> I got 11276 on the RE6 bench using the default settings for 1920x1080. It went below 60 a few times during some of the busier scenes but stayed above 60 for the most part. Never bogged down too much to where you could really notice it but you could see it on the graph.
> 
> Once again looks like I'll be limping the 955 for a while longer. I have had a big time upgrade itch the last year but just haven't justified it yet (and AMD's FX lineup hasn't helped matters, but my motherboard won't accept them anyway).
> 
> Microcenter near me had a weekend deal for the Pentium and some random MSI motherboard for $99, looks like a killer cheap gaming rig but not so much for me. I was seriously jazzed about the potential overclocks on the thing but 4.5 seems to be the ceiling from what I've read so far. And I do not see the point of slapping a $100+ water cooler on a $60 cpu.


Want to drop the FFXIV and Res 6 to medium or their lowest to force a CPU bound situation in both of our systems?
EDIT: Good lord, 4.2GHz Phenom II you have there.








It's going to kick ass in multi-thread and be pretty tough in single-thread.

I think the bench I ran is around 500MB, the Character Creation one seems to be 2.5GB, i'll have to try that one too.


4.3GHz.


----------



## burticus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Want to drop the FFXIV and Res 6 to medium or their lowest to force a CPU bound situation in both of our systems?


Sure. Using Standard (Desktop) 1920x1080 for FF bench.

FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
Tested on:7/6/2014 5:02:36 PM
Score:17223
Average Framerate:166.077
Performance:Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Standard (Desktop)

System:
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.140303-2144)
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor
8191.180MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770(VRAM 4038 MB) 9.18.0013.4043

On the RE6 bench I set it to 1920x1080, fullscreen, vsync off, AA = NO, Blur = off, Shadow/Texture/Screen quality all on LOW. Got 12688.

The Pentium still looks like a great chip for the low price. You could build a nice gaming rig for well under $500 methinks.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *burticus*
> 
> Sure. Using Standard (Desktop) 1920x1080 for FF bench.
> 
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
> Tested on:7/6/2014 5:02:36 PM
> Score:17223
> Average Framerate:166.077
> Performance:Extremely High
> -Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Standard (Desktop)
> 
> System:
> Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.140303-2144)
> AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor
> 8191.180MB
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770(VRAM 4038 MB) 9.18.0013.4043
> 
> On the RE6 bench I set it to 1920x1080, fullscreen, vsync off, AA = NO, Blur = off, Shadow/Texture/Screen quality all on LOW. Got 12688.
> 
> The Pentium still looks like a great chip for the low price. You could build a nice gaming rig for well under $500 methinks.


For real, I'm gonna give the Res 6 one a try now, the FFXIV Character Bench is downloading at the moment.
For the Pentum G3258, you pretty much want to clock it to 4GHz+ for it to perform well, against my 3.9GHz Phenom II it seems to be pretty capable, surpassing it where mine fell short or onpar at the worst at 4.3GHz.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *burticus*
> 
> On the RE6 bench I set it to 1920x1080, fullscreen, vsync off, AA = NO, Blur = off, Shadow/Texture/Screen quality all on LOW. Got 12688.
> 
> The Pentium still looks like a great chip for the low price. You could build a nice gaming rig for well under $500 methinks.


Same settings.


Pretty hard to compare with the slight difference in GPU power, It would probably be best to try the most CPU bound bench, but what is it?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Same settings.
> 
> Pretty hard to compare with the slight difference in GPU power, It would probably be best to try the most CPU bound bench, but what is it?


GTA 4


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> GTA 4


I tried it, oddly it doesn't run that great either, perhaps about the same as my Phenom II @3.9GHz, but I've also maxed out the settings the highest they can go.
I'll try and see if I can do some benches with EFLC and screenshot them.

The weird thing is, the Pentium at its current clock (4.3GHz), from what I've ran it doesn't run worse than my Phenom II in the worst cases, from the benches with the Phenom II at 3.9GHz and the Pentium at 4.3GHz they seem pretty close with the Pentium taking the lead where the Phenom II falls short.
There's still a ton of things for me to run but that's what I'm seeing at the moment, I haven't tried to push it above 4.3GHz at it's current voltage of 1.22v, I might be able to squeeze a bit more out at the same volts If I'm lucky, I'm pretty close to 4.4GHz and my goal of 4.5GHz.

Going to be benching FFXIV Character Bench now.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *burticus*
> 
> Sure. Using Standard (Desktop) 1920x1080 for FF bench.
> 
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
> Tested on:7/6/2014 5:02:36 PM
> Score:17223
> Average Framerate:166.077
> Performance:Extremely High
> -Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Standard (Desktop)
> 
> System:
> Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.140303-2144)
> AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor
> 8191.180MB
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770(VRAM 4038 MB) 9.18.0013.4043
> 
> On the RE6 bench I set it to 1920x1080, fullscreen, vsync off, AA = NO, Blur = off, Shadow/Texture/Screen quality all on LOW. Got 12688.
> 
> The Pentium still looks like a great chip for the low price. You could build a nice gaming rig for well under $500 methinks.


Wow, your 770 and Phenom II mean business.

FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
Tested on:07/07/2014 00:09:56
Score:16647
Average Framerate:161.637
Performance:Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Standard (Desktop)

System:
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1
Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU G3258 @ 3.20GHz
6085.801MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760(VRAM 4038 MB) 9.18.0013.3788

Not too far off, definitely a capable chip to be up there with yours, but your 770 is likely what's pushing your frames and score just a tad higher than my 760 can do.
I've also found out how close my 760 Hawk is at 1280mhz to a 770 at reference clocks in a couple of benches.


----------



## burticus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Wow, your 770 means business.
> 
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
> Tested on:07/07/2014 00:09:56
> Score:16647


LOL that's like a 4% difference for $100 more. The GTX760 is a great card, probably the best you can do under $300. But the 770 was a major step up from my GTX 460 and the 760 wasn't out yet (I bought it right after launch like an idiot).

I don't have GTA 4 to bench, sorry. Plus there are so many graphics mods and upgrades for GTA it would be kind of moot... I doubt anyone plays the vanilla stock version.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *burticus*
> 
> LOL that's like a 4% difference for $100 more. The GTX760 is a great card, probably the best you can do under $300. But the 770 was a major step up from my GTX 460 and the 760 wasn't out yet (I bought it right after launch like an idiot).
> 
> I don't have GTA 4 to bench, sorry. Plus there are so many graphics mods and upgrades for GTA it would be kind of moot... I doubt anyone plays the vanilla stock version.


LOL I hadn't known the difference was so small, it could be my CPU pulling through in a couple of parts too, bringing my score up, as the speed bump from my Phenom II to the G3258 is quite noticeable in Res 6 and FFXIV so this could likely be the case.

But once OC'd those 770s can be quite some performers, the 760 is indeed a great card.

I'm going to try FFXIV on maximum again and see how my system compares to yours.

No worries about GTA 4, there's definitely tougher games out there.

I'm going to give some PS2 Games a shot, I recorded a video with my Phenom II and how it performed using shadowplay to minimize performance loss, I'll try and see if I can get them running in a side by side comparison.


----------



## SoloCamo

Just to give you guys some reference here, the FF bench isn't so great for comparing cpu's in my opinion...for reference my stock clocked 9590 + stock clocked 290x.. .. Game only used two threads and I know the pentium is faster in that scenario and the phenom isn't far behind if at all

_FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
Tested on:7/6/2014 8:33:33 PM
Score:19536
Average Framerate:186.888
Performance:Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Standard (Desktop)

System:
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.140303-2144)
AMD FX(tm)-9590 Eight-Core Processor
16282.992MB
AMD Radeon R9 200 Series(VRAM 4095 MB) 8.17.0010.1280_


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Just to give you guys some reference here, the FF bench isn't so great for comparing cpu's in my opinion...for reference my stock clocked 9590 + stock clocked 290x.. .. Game only used two threads and I know the pentium is faster in that scenario and the phenom isn't far behind if at all
> 
> _FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
> Tested on:7/6/2014 8:33:33 PM
> Score:19536
> Average Framerate:186.888
> Performance:Extremely High
> -Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Standard (Desktop)
> 
> System:
> Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.140303-2144)
> AMD FX(tm)-9590 Eight-Core Processor
> 16282.992MB
> AMD Radeon R9 200 Series(VRAM 4095 MB) 8.17.0010.1280_


It being faster in two threads is the reason I got a performance bump in this game, cross system benches wont work too well if the GPU power is varying, I think that's where the performance difference is mainly coming from, from my analysis where ever my Phenom II came up short, the Pentium would pull through.in Res 6 and the FFXIV ARR bench, after I swapped out my mobo and CPU for the G3258 and the Vii Gene the Pentium has been squeezing a couple hundred or thousand points, I think the best way to test it would be if someone had the Phenom II and swapped it out like I did, as varying GPU power can affect the results where the game is GPU bound.

But you are right, this may not be the best game to bench, I suppose the CPU bound situations are not consistent enough.
I guess we need to find a bench that's really CPU dependent, so much that GPU power doesn't matter if that's possible.

Does anyone have any suggestions?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *burticus*
> 
> TLDR, sorry.
> 
> Hmmm. What video card are you running? Because my Phenom II 955 "Old Bitsy" @ 4.2 just crushed both of your runs.
> 
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
> Tested on:7/6/2014 4:25:27 PM
> Score:11564
> Average Framerate:106.297
> Performance:Extremely High
> -Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Maximum
> 
> System:
> Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.140303-2144)
> AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor
> 8191.180MB
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770(VRAM 4038 MB) 9.18.0013.4043


FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
Tested on:07/07/2014 01:37:06
Score:11081
Average Framerate:101.672
Performance:Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Maximum

G3258 at 4.4GHz.
I think your single threaded performance is coming up short.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

I did another bench on Metro LL with G3258 @4.2Ghz, GTX 670 @1200mhz.

First run I have everything maxed out. My system died half way through, getting 5fps lol.

Second run I turned down the settings a little but kept the resolution and details. It runs alright, but no where near perfect.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Just a reference,

_FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
Tested on:7/6/2014 9:11:18 PM
Score:24618
Average Framerate:245.073
Performance:Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Standard (Desktop)

System:
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.140303-2144)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4930K CPU @ 3.40GHz
32707.293MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN(VRAM 4095 MB) 9.18.0013.3788
_

Single GTX Titan @ stock and 4930K @ 4.5GHz


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I did another bench on Metro LL with G3258 @4.2Ghz, GTX 670 @1200mhz.
> 
> First run I have everything maxed out. My system died half way through, getting 5fps lol.
> 
> Second run I turned down the settings a little but kept the resolution and details. It runs alright, but no where near perfect.


What's your average fps in Metro Last Light?
I would of tried it if I had it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Just a reference,
> 
> _FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Character Creation)
> Tested on:7/6/2014 9:11:18 PM
> Score:24618
> Average Framerate:245.073
> Performance:Extremely High
> -Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Standard (Desktop)
> 
> System:
> Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.140303-2144)
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4930K CPU @ 3.40GHz
> 32707.293MB
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN(VRAM 4095 MB) 9.18.0013.3788
> _
> 
> Single GTX Titan @ stock and 4930K @ 4.5GHz


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> What's your average fps in Metro Last Light?
> I would of tried it if I had it.


It doesn't say, sorry









Here's G3258 at 3Ghz vs G3258 at 4.7Ghz. Notice the GPU usage.


Spoiler: 3000









Spoiler: 4700







I will post i5 2300 results tomorrow if Canadapost don't fail. Meanwhile I'll be installing Tomb Raider.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Updated graph. I drew a yellow line at 60fps so it's easier to compare framerates.

It looks like at 4.7Ghz the average frame rate is about 20 fps higher.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



3000


4700


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> It doesn't say, sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's G3258 at 3Ghz vs G3258 at 4.7Ghz. Notice the GPU usage.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 3000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: 4700
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will post i5 2300 results tomorrow if Canadapost don't fail. Meanwhile I'll be installing Tomb Raider.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Updated graph. I drew a yellow line at 60fps so it's easier to compare framerates.
> 
> It looks like at 4.7Ghz the average frame rate is about 20 fps higher.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 3000
> 
> 
> 4700


Psssh 4.7GHz, damn I just about hit 4.5GHz at 1.276v and I'm not even sure If I'm stable lol.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> LOL that's like a 4% difference for $100 more. The GTX760 is a great card, probably the best you can do under $300. But the 770 was a major step up from my GTX 460 and the 760 wasn't out yet (I bought it right after launch like an idiot).


Quote:


> LOL I hadn't known the difference was so small
> 
> But once OC'd those 770s can be quite some performers, the 760 is indeed a great card.


The 770 and 760 are both GK104. They both clock about the same, almost exactly.

760 has 6 SMX (clusters of cuda cores, tmu's etc) and 770 has 8 enabled. Since they're quite heavily limited by core counts, that makes a significant difference, but 770 also has the VRAM which clocks ~10% higher. Final performance gain is way more than 4%.

From benching in Unigine Heaven 4.0 i've got 53.3fps on 770 @1293/7600 and i've never seen a 760 at the same voltage (the ~1.2 or 1.212v that gk104 cards can rarely seem to go over) pass ~42fps or so, for an example. The 760 is usually a little bit stronger in price/performance but not as much as i think it should be

Also, for buying before - 760 wasn't out, you could have just grabbed a 660ti. They're somewhat equivalent - they're the same chip, but they both have resources enabled that the other one does not, so they win/lose in different loads. 660ti should be slightly weaker at stock, but if you ran them at the same voltages they were about the same

Quote:


> Psssh 4.7GHz, damn I just about hit 4.5GHz at 1.276v and I'm not even sure If I'm stable lol.


Just set input voltage 0.6 over vcore with a high level of LLC on it, set uncore/cache to 33x with 1.15x and leave it there while you're overclocking anything else on the chip, then adjust core multiplier and vcore. You might have to increase input voltage a little more when you're around 1.4vcore (so like 1.4vcore, 2.05 input) but in general that's about all you need to clock up properly. I'd recommend x264 for basic stability testing for encoding/gaming, but you can use a few fft lengths on prime 27.9 (i don't use small fft's ever) to push vcore a little harder if you want a test that's harder but not insane, i used custom w/ 1344-1344 some.

https://mega.co.nz/#!3tAGnAqZ!QbCz2r1fG0WjM8DgGYeExngGypaHftAzPUgTSn2kAdk - 4 threads on pentium. (2c2t) - 8 threads on i5, 16 on quad core i7


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> The 770 and 760 are both GK104. They both clock about the same, almost exactly.
> 
> 760 has 6 SMX (clusters of cuda cores, tmu's etc) and 770 has 8 enabled. Since they're quite heavily limited by core counts, that makes a significant difference, but 770 also has the VRAM which clocks ~10% higher. Final performance gain is way more than 4%.
> 
> From benching in Unigine Heaven 4.0 i've got 53.3fps on 770 @1293/7600 and i've never seen a 760 at the same voltage (the ~1.2 or 1.212v that gk104 cards can rarely seem to go over) pass ~42fps or so, for an example. The 760 is usually a little bit stronger in price/performance but not as much as i think it should be
> 
> Also, for buying before - 760 wasn't out, you could have just grabbed a 660ti. They're somewhat equivalent - they're the same chip, but they both have resources enabled that the other one does not, so they win/lose in different loads. 660ti should be slightly weaker at stock, but if you ran them at the same voltages they were about the same
> Just set input voltage 0.6 over vcore with a high level of LLC on it, set uncore/cache to 33x with 1.15x and leave it there while you're overclocking anything else on the chip, then adjust core multiplier and vcore. You might have to increase input voltage a little more when you're around 1.4vcore (so like 1.4vcore, 2.05 input) but in general that's about all you need to clock up properly. I'd recommend x264 for basic stability testing for encoding/gaming, but you can use a few fft lengths on prime 27.9 (i don't use small fft's ever) to push vcore a little harder if you want a test that's harder but not insane, i used custom w/ 1344-1344 some.
> 
> https://mega.co.nz/#!3tAGnAqZ!QbCz2r1fG0WjM8DgGYeExngGypaHftAzPUgTSn2kAdk - 4 threads on pentium. (2c2t) - 8 threads on i5, 16 on quad core i7


Thanks, I'll try and give this a spin later.
How does the cache ratio/clock change things performance-wise?


----------



## TopicClocker

I think I'll start a Phenom II X4 @3.9GHz vs Pentium G3258 @4.4GHz or higher thread and include the benches and a couple of videos at a later date, I'll be still putting my benches in here though.

To bench list:
PCSX2
3DMark (Vantage, 11 and 13)
PlanetSide 2
StarCitizen.

I'll likely bench a couple more but this is all I can think of at the moment.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> The 770 and 760 are both GK104. They both clock about the same, almost exactly.
> 
> 760 has 6 SMX (clusters of cuda cores, tmu's etc) and 770 has 8 enabled. Since they're quite heavily limited by core counts, that makes a significant difference, but 770 also has the VRAM which clocks ~10% higher. Final performance gain is way more than 4%.
> 
> From benching in Unigine Heaven 4.0 i've got 53.3fps on 770 @1293/7600 and i've never seen a 760 at the same voltage (the ~1.2 or 1.212v that gk104 cards can rarely seem to go over) pass ~42fps or so, for an example. The 760 is usually a little bit stronger in price/performance but not as much as i think it should be
> 
> Also, for buying before - 760 wasn't out, you could have just grabbed a 660ti. They're somewhat equivalent - they're the same chip, but they both have resources enabled that the other one does not, so they win/lose in different loads. 660ti should be slightly weaker at stock, but if you ran them at the same voltages they were about the same


Oh yes I know, the 760 Hawk at stock clocks is perhaps 6-7% slower than a 680, and around 10-11% slower than a 770 in games, and if yours is factory OC'd a little more it'll likely be a little larger, my Hawk has been OC'd to 1280mhz core and 6808mhz memory which is just a tad slower than a 1150mhz 7950, I think the gap would been alleviated a bit to bring it a bit more closer to reference 680 performance, but not enough for reference 770, also those things can clock higher too.
I think my score being so close is where his GPU power pushes his frames and score up in GPU-bound situations, and my CPU pushing the score up in CPU-bound situations.

What does your 770 get at stock in Valley?


----------



## sepiashimmer

@TheLAWNOOB

In your opinion is this good for gaming at a resolution which is less than 1080p?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Thanks, I'll try and give this a spin later.
> How does the cache ratio/clock change things performance-wise?


Most stuff is hardly affected if at all, but usually people put them back up to ~40x once they've tested CPU core and determined it to be stable. That way you can re-up the cache/uncore and if you crash, blame that instead of the CPU cores.


----------



## TopicClocker

Wow, The Witcher 2 runs pretty great on Ultra, I remember my frames dropping every now and again due to my GPU utilization falling, I think the G3258 is brute forcing the Witcher 2 wherever it was CPU bound.


----------



## PunkX 1

Topic, would you like me to run a few benches, as well? At 4.1Ghz?


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Topic, would you like me to run a few benches, as well? At 4.1Ghz?


I'm still waiting for the Cinebench 11.5 and 15 benches for Single Threaded performance


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Topic, would you like me to run a few benches, as well? At 4.1Ghz?


Sure, in what?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> I'm still waiting for the Cinebench 11.5 and 15 benches for Single Threaded performance


Sure, I've ran them but I'm not sure where I put the screens, after I install Orign and Uplay I'll give them a run again.
I'm going to give Battlefield 3 MP a run now, I think I still have my Phenom II benches around, I hope my Uplay actually loads my previously installed games so I can try ACIV without redownloading 20+ GB.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Sure, in what?
> Sure, I've ran them but I'm not sure where I put the screens, after I install Orign and Uplay I'll give them a run again.
> I'm going to give Battlefield 3 MP a run now, I think I still have my Phenom II benches around, I hope my Uplay actually loads my previously installed games so I can try ACIV without redownloading 20+ GB.


I'll give ACIV a run, BF3 MP, Crysis 3 and a few more I can't remember









I haven't accessed my games library in a while


----------



## TPCbench

I recommend you benchmark "Welcome to the Jungle" in Crysis 3. That part is CPU heavy. With my A10-5800K (4 Piledriver CPU cores), CPU usage is 90 to 100% and the GPU usage plummets to ~60%


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> I recommend you benchmark "Welcome to the Jungle" in Crysis 3. That part is CPU heavy. With my A10-5800K (4 Piledriver CPU cores), CPU usage is 90 to 100% and the GPU usage plummets to ~60%


Lol. With my FX 6300 I get the same usage. Some CPU Benches for Welcome to the Jungle.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> I'll give ACIV a run, BF3 MP, Crysis 3 and a few more I can't remember
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't accessed my games library in a while


Won't the results be different owing to different GPU's?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> I'll give ACIV a run, BF3 MP, Crysis 3 and a few more I can't remember
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't accessed my games library in a while




OH MY GOD!
ACIV! I CANT BELIEVE THE NUMBERS I AM SEEING!!!

I need to grab an excel file explorer, haven't reinstalled my Excel yet.

Good lord, everyone needs to see this.


----------



## Wirerat

Whats is cheapest overclocking motherboard solution available for this pentium?


----------



## fateswarm

Non-Z97/Z87 boards than can Overclock the Pentium-K (G3258)


----------



## TopicClocker

Alright going to try Battlefield 3 MP now.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Alright going to try Battlefield 3 MP now.


Quote:


> OH MY GOD!
> ACIV! I CANT BELIEVE THE NUMBERS I AM SEEING!!!
> 
> I need to grab an excel file explorer, haven't reinstalled my Excel yet.
> 
> Good lord, everyone needs to see this.


hey, i'm waiting


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Sure, in what?
> Sure, I've ran them but I'm not sure where I put the screens, after I install Orign and Uplay I'll give them a run again.
> I'm going to give Battlefield 3 MP a run now, I think I still have my Phenom II benches around, I hope my Uplay actually loads my previously installed games so I can try ACIV without redownloading 20+ GB.


For Bf3 MP use 3 cores... you wont see big difference between 3 core or 4 core CPU. So in BF3 Mp pentium 4.3Ghz should be faster than phenom x4 3.9Ghz


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> hey, i'm waiting


Ah man I'd love to post the ACIV results but it's a bit iffy if I compare it to my Phenom II @3.9GHz, because the Phenom II run had TXAA X2, and the Pentium run had SMAA making it more GPU bound to some degree, but I can try and say where the Phenom II falls short.
At sea the fps would be between 30-40fps due to it being CPU bound, I'm certain of this as my GPU usage whenever I ran the game at sea was nowhere near 90% utilization, hopefully someone with a Phenom II X4 @3.9Ghz will be able to conduct this test.
And in Nassau the frames wouldn't climb higher than 45fps and hold it.

On SMAA I can basically say the game ran 48-50fps avg, and 50+ at sea.
In Nassau.

Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
8284 157421 40 64 52.623



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



FPS
49
50
50
47
57
62
50
47
51
55
52
51
54
49
53
54
54
54
55
53
51
53
55
55
58
58
57
58
57
55
54
53
56
54
51
53
53
55
53
50
53
51
50
49
52
51
51
50
48
49
49
44
44
49
50
48
46
42
40
43
45
44
46
48
49
50
50
45
45
43
42
40
42
41
42
41
44
55
46
43
44
42
41
44
46
49
46
50
55
51
53
51
52
50
49
52
47
49
49
49
50
50
47
50
51
52
56
55
55
53
54
55
51
55
53
54
55
58
55
56
55
56
61
61
62
62
63
62
63
62
63
62
62
62
63
62
63
62
63
62
63
62
62
62
63
63
62
63
60
53
50
52
51
48
60
62
62


I can run this again in Nassau and at Sea if anybody wants, perhaps for longer, and record it too.

Well, this thing went and did 60fps Battlefield 3 (avg), it dipped occasionally but here is the min, max avg and the fps.
Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
31340 484212 30 118 64.724


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



FPS
78
72
57
51
79
80
74
76
86
79
82
81
86
83
77
92
92
83
86
88
81
83
77
79
84
81
73
70
74
71
76
76
76
72
70
73
77
72
67
60
50
51
49
51
50
49
47
51
54
57
55
62
60
60
60
80
68
58
51
54
54
52
48
55
68
67
66
64
68
67
64
67
71
72
70
77
73
64
58
60
61
44
54
56
61
60
56
57
49
47
46
47
81
68
45
43
55
53
47
51
53
56
69
68
63
69
80
78
66
76
74
73
72
61
66
52
62
48
52
55
65
69
54
56
57
67
71
71
53
46
48
51
52
52
50
54
41
58
73
74
78
82
81
71
56
54
55
51
31
49
72
59
70
74
60
60
68
66
66
68
70
73
71
76
77
70
77
76
79
81
77
85
83
88
89
83
84
90
88
90
82
79
72
56
50
61
61
68
64
63
68
73
75
75
75
64
76
77
75
77
77
74
66
58
52
49
48
50
41
45
47
47
48
49
49
47
55
56
53
62
70
64
57
55
47
48
50
57
60
73
70
50
56
48
48
51
60
49
45
43
45
45
46
46
45
45
43
42
45
44
47
43
47
48
48
51
59
59
58
58
66
63
68
65
69
77
74
74
72
72
70
67
65
63
55
54
56
55
61
58
74
71
79
77
77
69
59
49
55
55
58
72
69
67
64
59
63
62
57
72
73
74
76
74
69
57
75
74
73
75
72
71
60
75
80
79
73
81
74
74
82
72
71
61
62
63
70
67
72
69
76
83
70
71
71
70
72
75
72
70
69
72
63
75
72
75
72
67
68
71
64
69
72
74
74
64
64
54
69
75
66
46
47
58
55
47
73
68
66
71
70
79
70
57
62
60
68
67
71
73
65
58
61
52
46
41
71
60
68
105
105
115
116
109
115
105
50
55
52
48
50
56
56
49
48
58
51
50
60
60
48
62
58
62
92
65
78
59
56
58
60
54
47
55
54
45
47
56
62
65
80
69
64
63
69
70
72
61
56
56
72
60
56
50
67
100
70
59
89
99



When I ran the game my Phenom II could not touch this, 3 days ago I ran Battlefield 3 and recorded in on my Phenom II (Thankfully), I'll get around to uploading the footage, hopefully today.

EDIT: Sorry if you had to scroll endlessly, the spoilers were done wrong.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> For Bf3 MP use 3 cores... you wont see big difference between 3 core or 4 core CPU. So in BF3 Mp pentium 4.3Ghz should be faster than phenom x4 3.9Ghz


I've tested the game myself, I'm pretty sure 99% that the game scales between 3 and 4 cores, I was playing the game in MP and locked off one of my cores using affinity, that dropped my frames considerably.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> @TheLAWNOOB
> 
> In your opinion is this good for gaming at a resolution which is less than 1080p?


It's great for some of the newer games such as BF4, and it will definitely run most games that are made before 2014 no problems. I'm not sure how it would do in Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3 at high res though.

At higher resolutions it's usually GPU limited anyways. If a game only uses 3 threads or less the G3258 should be good once OC'ed.

If it uses more than 3 threads then get unlocked i5. If it can use 8 threads then get a FX8 core. Or i7 if you are rich.

@TopicClocker
You missed a ] in your spoilers. Thank god I have a G9X with a click less scroll wheel.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> It's great for some of the newer games such as BF4, and it will definitely run most games that are made before 2014 no problems. I'm not sure how it would do in Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3 at high res though.
> 
> At higher resolutions it's usually GPU limited anyways. If a game only uses 3 threads or less the G3258 should be good once OC'ed.
> 
> If it uses more than 3 threads then get unlocked i5. If it can use 8 threads then get a FX8 core. Or i7 if you are rich.
> 
> @TopicClocker
> You missed a ] in your spoilers. Thank god I have a G9X with a click less scroll wheel.


Ah man sorry lol, I hope tablets/smartphone users didn't happen to see that at the time I posted, otherwise they'd be done scrolling next year.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> @TopicClocker
> You missed a ] in your spoilers. Thank god I have a G9X with a click less scroll wheel.


Dat logigimmick. The rest of the world can still push their scroll wheel in and move their mouse one inch down to complete the same task.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> For Bf3 MP use 3 cores... you wont see big difference between 3 core or 4 core CPU. So in BF3 Mp pentium 4.3Ghz should be faster than phenom x4 3.9Ghz


Uh...no?

My frames drop CONSIDERABLY when going from a quad core to a tri core.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Uh...no?
> 
> My frames drop CONSIDERABLY when going from a quad core to a tri core.


That's what I was thinking, I dont know where he got that from.

Well, from Battlefield 3 the Pentium @4.4GHz thrashed my 3.9GHz Phenom II X4 B55, I'm pretty shocked to be honest, that bench and the Phenom II bench were both done in 64 Player servers, Operation Firestorm.

This is a hell of a chip once you clock it up, running ACIV on it blew my mind, I couldn't believe it.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I've tested the game myself, I'm pretty sure 99% that the game scales between 3 and 4 cores, I was playing the game in MP and locked off one of my cores using affinity, that dropped my frames considerably.


You have to set it in bios..


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> That's what I was thinking, I dont know where he got that from.
> 
> Well, from Battlefield 3 the Pentium @4.4GHz thrashed my 3.9GHz Phenom II X4 B55, I'm pretty shocked to be honest, that bench and the Phenom II bench were both done in 64 Player servers, Operation Firestorm.
> 
> This is a hell of a chip once you clock it up, running ACIV on it blew my mind, I couldn't believe it.


One thing that a lot of people don't understand - and well, it's not really taught at schools etc or immediately obvious - Amdahl's law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

It makes a more noticeable effect if you have more CPU cores.

If you have a CPU workload and 10% of it can't be ran in parallel, then at the very most, by going to like 50 million CPU cores, you can only run it ~10x faster.

If you have 8 cores, you would only expect it to run ~4.75x faster, not 8x. If you make it so only 5% of the program can't be ran in parallel (95% can!), that 4.75 on an 8-core turns to 6x.

The problem is, if you have one quad core CPU that runs at 1.6x as fast as the 8-core, then because you can run the un-parallel parts faster even in a well multi-threaded program, that 8 would be reduced to 6 for the 8-core processor, while the quad core would get say ~3.8 - but if you multiply that by the 1.6x faster CPU, it's 6.08 vs 6.

^That's one of the main problems that AMD's FX line has. Some programs can be ran almost without a "main thread" with higher load, like rendering an image or video, where they can just run 8 equal workloads. But a game, a TON of programs, even if they can run onto 8-16+ threads, they can't be run ENTIRELY in parallel and fall victim to Amdahl's law.

The same thing contributes heavily to advantages from faster, lower core count processors. The other advantage that they have, is when you run a 4 threaded program on a 4 core CPU anyway, the 8-core wouldn't benefit at all, so the quad core of the same speed in a perfectly multithreaded program, would run that 4-threaded program with twice the speed.

Just in general.. if we could scale things, if we could have one ultra super fast CPU core.. we'd probably do that. For scaling reasons, we use more (look at gpu's, we're up to thousands by now) but in general, fewer, stronger cores are better.

More cores is good if we compare a 4770k to a 5960x, for example. The 5960x might be clocked 5% lower for singlethreaded, but it is of just as strong architecture and it has twice as many cores. It'll be a better processor all around. It's often not worth making big losses for the meat of what a processor is, just to have more cores though - even if you can largely utilize them, it can be deceiving.


----------



## Boomstick727

These lil chips look great for the money. Almost tempted to grab one just to have a play with


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> That's what I was thinking, I dont know where he got that from.
> 
> Well, from Battlefield 3 the Pentium @4.4GHz thrashed my 3.9GHz Phenom II X4 B55, I'm pretty shocked to be honest, that bench and the Phenom II bench were both done in 64 Player servers, Operation Firestorm.
> 
> This is a hell of a chip once you clock it up, running ACIV on it blew my mind, I couldn't believe it.


It is quite dissapointing..


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> It is quite dissapointing..


What is disappointing?


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> What is disappointing?


You have about 15% higher clocked pentium... So BF3 is made for 3 core CPU. So if haswell have about 70% higher ipc than phenom then it should have more lead. It is disappointing that it cant keep up with minimum fps.

Look AMD CPu are really bad in BF3 MP .. i run so many benchmarks.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> One thing that a lot of people don't understand - and well, it's not really taught at schools etc or immediately obvious - Amdahl's law.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
> 
> It makes a more noticeable effect if you have more CPU cores.
> 
> If you have a CPU workload and 10% of it can't be ran in parallel, then at the very most, by going to like 50 million CPU cores, you can only run it ~10x faster.
> 
> If you have 8 cores, you would only expect it to run ~4.75x faster, not 8x. If you make it so only 5% of the program can't be ran in parallel (95% can!), that 4.75 on an 8-core turns to 6x.
> 
> The problem is, if you have one quad core CPU that runs at 1.6x as fast as the 8-core, then because you can run the un-parallel parts faster even in a well multi-threaded program, that 8 would be reduced to 6 for the 8-core processor, while the quad core would get say ~3.8 - but if you multiply that by the 1.6x faster CPU, it's 6.08 vs 6.
> 
> ^That's one of the main problems that AMD's FX line has. Some programs can be ran almost without a "main thread" with higher load, like rendering an image or video, where they can just run 8 equal workloads. But a game, a TON of programs, even if they can run onto 8-16+ threads, they can't be run ENTIRELY in parallel and fall victim to Amdahl's law.
> 
> The same thing contributes heavily to advantages from faster, lower core count processors. The other advantage that they have, is when you run a 4 threaded program on a 4 core CPU anyway, the 8-core wouldn't benefit at all, so the quad core of the same speed in a perfectly multithreaded program, would run that 4-threaded program with twice the speed.
> 
> Just in general.. if we could scale things, if we could have one ultra super fast CPU core.. we'd probably do that. For scaling reasons, we use more (look at gpu's, we're up to thousands by now) but in general, fewer, stronger cores are better.
> 
> More cores is good if we compare a 4770k to a 5960x, for example. The 5960x might be clocked 5% lower for singlethreaded, but it is of just as strong architecture and it has twice as many cores. It'll be a better processor all around. It's often not worth making big losses for the meat of what a processor is, just to have more cores though - even if you can largely utilize them, it can be deceiving.


Great information, yes this is the case.


----------



## Themisseble

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1654043

can you do black hole benchmark with pentium?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> You have about 15% higher clocked pentium... So BF3 is made for 3 core CPU. So if haswell have about 70% higher ipc than phenom then it should have more lead. It is disappointing that it cant keep up with minimum fps.
> 
> Look AMD CPu are really bad in BF3 MP .. i run so many benchmarks.


Smh, clearly you did not look at the frames I posted, it dropped for less than 5 seconds, if that and shot back up.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Great information, yes this is the case.


Thanks for 250 rep ;3

To put this into perspective, if 10% of a program/game cannot be ran in parallel, then to compare:

Single core = takes 10 hours
Dual core = takes 4.5*2 + 1 hour (5.5 hours)
Quad core = takes 2.25*4 + 1 hour (3.25 hours)

that means the quad core is only ~69.2% faster than the dual core. If the dual core was of a faster architecture and clocked higher, if it was 70% faster than the quad core, core for core, then it would WIN.

If 20% of a program/game cannot be ran in parallel, then:

Single core = takes 10 hours
Dual core = takes 4*2 + 2 hours (6 hours)
Quad core = takes 2*4 + 2 hours (4 hours)

the dual core would only have to be 50% faster, core for core, to match the quad core

^These examples are in cases where 4 cores can be utilized, but not utilized perfectly. That makes up a majority of programs - but if you compare a dual core to a quad core in a 2-threaded focused program, or a quad core to an 8 core in a 4-thread focused program, the lower core count processor that's faster core for core would get landslide victories


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Smh, clearly you did not look at the frames I posted, it dropped for less than 5 seconds, if that and shot back up.


This is BF3 MP... if you would try BF4 MP you would see difference. It is really hard to compare MP ... so i usually compare minimum fps.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Uh...no?
> 
> My frames drop CONSIDERABLY when going from a quad core to a tri core.


I agree with PunkX. What's that guy smoking? Here's a screenshot in BF3 multiplayer 64 Player Map with my CPU overclocked to 4.4Ghz. What I did was through task manager set the affinity to 4 cores took a screenshot and then set it back to 6 cores and took another screenshot in the same position. FPS is shown on the extreme left top hand corner of the screen. Open the image in a new tab to zoom in and see it.
4Cores- 72.6fps-


6Cores- 90.6fps


There's a 18fps difference. Thus, showing that in BF3 64 Player Maps CPU power matters and it can effectively use up to 8 cores.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> I agree with PunkX. What's that guy smoking? Here's a screenshot in BF3 multiplayer 64 Player Map with my CPU overclocked to 4.4Ghz. What I did was through task manager set the affinity to 4 cores took a screenshot and then set it back to 6 cores and took another screenshot in the same position. FPS is shown on the extreme left top hand corner of the screen. Open the image in a new tab to zoom in and see it.
> 4Cores- 72.6fps-
> 
> 
> 6Cores- 90.6fps
> 
> 
> There's a 18fps difference. Thus, showing that in BF3 64 Player Maps CPU power matters and it can effectively use upto 8 cores.


It will scale (nice to see evidence of 4 to 6+) but that doesn't mean it'd run anywhere near twice as fast on 8 cores as it would on four, even if it runs 8 threads well~

so it depends a lot on how parallel the game is, just as much as how many threads it will use


----------



## Themisseble

This depends on situation... every situation is different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwvRQ2GGqO8

I did a lot of benchmark believe me you wont see difference between minimum fps in Bf3 between Fx 6300 and FX 4300... yes little higher avg. about 15% nothing else.

Most of the difference is because you have 3 modules.. so 3 cores will be about 10-15% faster.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-3-PC-221396/Specials/Battlefield-3-Multiplayer-Tipps-CPU-Benchmark-1039293/

Once you see use 3C/3M against 6C/3M you will see there isnt huge differnece. AMD 3C/3M do very well in BF3 MP.
While Bf4 Mp is totally different .. 3C/3M dont stand a chance against 2C/4M!

So let me put it this way.. We wont see huge differnce between 4-6-8 cores all at 5.0Ghz with Dx11 and AMD GPU. Maybe 10% avg and 1-2Fps min.

Yesthere is huge difference when you use mantle... and when you go to low power CPU.

I have tested BF4 MP mantle with FX 4300 vs FX 6300 both at 2.0Ghz. The difference was bigger than you think .. about 71% on minimum FPS and about 50-60 % on avg.


----------



## fateswarm

Aren't you also using better PCI-E in those tests?


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> You have about 15% higher clocked pentium... So BF3 is made for 3 core CPU. So if haswell have about 70% higher ipc than phenom then it should have more lead. It is disappointing that it cant keep up with minimum fps.
> 
> Look AMD CPu are really bad in BF3 MP .. i run so many benchmarks.


Why do I get the feeling that you probably have a Bulldozer chip and keep trying to make yourself feel better because of it


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> I agree with PunkX. What's that guy smoking? Here's a screenshot in BF3 multiplayer 64 Player Map with my CPU overclocked to 4.4Ghz. What I did was through task manager set the affinity to 4 cores took a screenshot and then set it back to 6 cores and took another screenshot in the same position. FPS is shown on the extreme left top hand corner of the screen. Open the image in a new tab to zoom in and see it.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Pictures
> 
> 
> 
> 4Cores- 72.6fps-
> 
> 
> 6Cores- 90.6fps
> 
> 
> There's a 18fps difference. Thus, showing that in BF3 64 Player Maps CPU power matters and it can effectively use up to 8 cores.


I would have love to see total CPU usage while you did that.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Why do I get the feeling that you probably have a Bulldozer chip and keep trying to make yourself feel better because of it


Id guess he has the fx-6300. He always brings that chip up.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> It will scale (nice to see evidence of 4 to 6+) but that doesn't mean it'd run anywhere near twice as fast on 8 cores as it would on four, even if it runs 8 threads well~
> 
> so it depends a lot on how parallel the game is, just as much as how many threads it will use


I put this up cause of that guy who keeps claiming that in bf3 you won't notice the difference between 3 and 4 cores. By using 8 cores I never meant it would get double the performance of an 8 core ;p 8 cores may give another 12-16 fps over the 6 core.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Why do I get the feeling that you probably have a Bulldozer chip and keep trying to make yourself feel better because of it


Yeah. What's in the box Themisseble? Show us the processor.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> I would have love to see total CPU usage while you did that.


Would you like me to do a re run with all the statistics on screen







??? From what I know is that in BF3 the cpu usage is in the mid 90's with an overclocked x4, I think PunkX can confirm that.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Aren't you also using better PCI-E in those tests?


Hmm, yes I am, I guess that should be taken into consideration too.
PCI-E 1.1 x16 performs about the same as PCI-E 2.0 x8 from my research, but I'm running PCI-E 3.0 x8.
Would it still matter if I was mostly CPU-bound like with the Phenom II? It might not of been able to saturate the 16x with heavy bottlenecking, and I doubt my card can saturate PCI-E 2.0 16x.

EDIT: I take that back, I did think of this before however forgot to bring it up.








However I'm not sure if I could saturate it while being heavily CPU bottle-necked like I was, the benchmarks I saw were pushing pretty high frames and I don't think they were CPU bound, that 680 is also a slightly more powerful card.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Why do I get the feeling that you probably have a Bulldozer chip and keep trying to make yourself feel better because of it


If i would be buying CPU only for gaming i would go with i5 3350P and ITX MB... but i need something little strong in MT , because i do need MT if i wan to play game while i work.. SO Usually i have my CPu at 100% usage.

How do i know that you have pentium G3258 show me the box?.. okay i will


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Would you like me to do a re run with all the statistics on screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ??? From what I know is that in BF3 the cpu usage is in the mid 90's with an overclocked x4, I think PunkX can confirm that


Yeah. My Phenom at 4Ghz is usually at 94-95% CPU usage when on a 64 player map (especially ones such as Caspian Border). As a 3 core, It's at a linear 100%, with my GPU bottlenecked to 60%.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Hmm, yes I am, I guess that should be taken into consideration too.
> PCI-E 1.1 x16 performs about the same as PCI-E 2.0 x8 from my research, but I'm running PCI-E 3.0 x8.
> Would it still matter if I was mostly CPU-bound like with the Phenom II? It might not of been able to saturate the 16x with heavy bottlenecking, and I doubt my card can saturate PCI-E 2.0 16x.
> 
> EDIT: I take that back, I did think of this before however forgot to bring it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if I could saturate it while being heavily CPU bottle-necked like I was.


3.0 x8 is faster than 2.0 x16. You don't have a pci-e bandwidth issue.

Quote:


> If i would be buying CPU only for gaming i would go with i5 3350P


Why? It costs like 2-3x as much, and Pentium @4.6ghz would be 1.5x faster with 2 cores in use, at least as fast with 3 cores, and it would tie neck and neck if 20% of the CPU load from the game was stuck on a primary thread that could not be run in parallel

if you want multithreaded performance in other cases badly enough to do that, i'd just get the cheaper fx-8320 or fx-6300 and OC them


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> 3.0 x8 is faster than 2.0 x16. You don't have a pci-e bandwidth issue.


I know, I'm referring to PCI-E 1.1 x16 vs 3.0 x8, I meant that I don't think my card could saturate 2.0 16x so the gains from 3.0 x8 wouldn't be much if at all possibly.

I think fateswarm was wondering if I previously had a PCI-E bandwith issue or if this newer version of PCI-E could be boosting performance alongside the CPU, but I dont think I could saturate the bandwidth, not unless i'm maxing the GPU 99% in utilization which was almost never the case, especially in Battlefield 3.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I know, I'm referring to PCI-E 1.1 x16 vs 3.0 x8, I meant that I don't think my card could saturate 2.0 16x so the gains from 3.0 x8 wouldn't be much if at all possibly.
> 
> I think fateswarm was wondering if I previously had a PCI-E bandwith issue or if this newer version of PCI-E could be boosting performance alongside the CPU.


Oh, that makes sense, thanks~


----------



## Themisseble

http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Impact-of-PCI-E-Speed-on-Gaming-Performance-518/

did you see difference between Phenom x4 9950 vs E8500 in Bf3 mp?


----------



## jason387

I re did the bench with 4 cores and 6 cores. The funny part was that with 6 cores the CPU usage was higher. 1st row=CPU Usage, 2nd row=FPS
4 Cores- 58.7fps- 54.5% CPU usage


6 Cores- 72.2fps- 75.3% CPU usage


Difference=13.5fps

4 Cores- 56.2fps -60.6% CPU usage


6 Cores- 71.9fps - 75.1% CPU usage


Difference=15.7fps

What was interesting was that the CPU usage was higher with 6 Cores.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> I re did the bench with 4 cores and 6 cores. The funny part was that with 6 cores the CPU usage was higher. 1st row=CPU Usage, 2nd row=FPS
> 4 Cores- 58.7fps- 54.5% CPU usage
> 
> 
> 6 Cores- 72.2fps- 75.3% CPU usage
> 
> 
> Difference=13.5fps
> 
> 4 Cores- 56.2fps -60.6% CPU usage
> 
> 
> 6 Cores- 71.9fps - 75.1% CPU usage
> 
> 
> Difference=15.7fps


Hmm, wouldn't it be higher because the other cores are getting usage, or at-least more?


----------



## fateswarm

By the way, PCI-E "saturation" is never an issue. The real advantage of a better PCI-E is not capacity at all, it's latency. This is because even if you only have to transfer 100Kilobytes, it would *still* be done faster, quicker, snappier.

That being said, due to other limitations, the advantage becomes very small after a point. But in fact, even 999x lanes may help slightly, unless you hit a quantum mechanical limit.

GPU APIs are always operating in that manner. The only time they do bulk transfers (in most games) is when you are in the loading screen. During rendering it's microtransfers.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> By the way, PCI-E "saturation" is never an issue. The real advantage of a better PCI-E is not capacity at all, it's latency. This is because even if you only have to transfer 100Kilobytes, it would *still* be done faster, quicker, snappier.
> 
> That being said, due to other limitations, the advantage becomes very small after a point. But in fact, even 999x lanes may help slightly, unless you hit a quantum mechanical limit.
> 
> GPU APIs are always operating in that manner. The only time they do bulk transfers (in most games) is when you are in the loading screen. During rendering it's microtransfers.


Interesting.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Hmm, wouldn't it be higher because the other cores are getting usage, or at-least more?


Din't quite get you.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> I re did the bench with 4 cores and 6 cores. The funny part was that with 6 cores the CPU usage was higher. 1st row=CPU Usage, 2nd row=FPS
> 4 Cores- 58.7fps- 54.5% CPU usage
> 
> 
> 6 Cores- 72.2fps- 75.3% CPU usage
> 
> 
> Difference=13.5fps
> 
> 4 Cores- 56.2fps -60.6% CPU usage
> 
> 
> 6 Cores- 71.9fps - 75.1% CPU usage
> 
> 
> Difference=15.7fps
> 
> What was interesting was that the CPU usage was higher with 6 Cores.


Why do you use affinity? go in bios and disable last module.. you will see usage about 85%+


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> I re did the bench with 4 cores and 6 cores. *The funny part was that with 6 cores the CPU usage was higher.*
> -snip-
> *What was interesting was that the CPU usage was higher with 6 Cores.*


Wouldn't the overall CPU usage, be lower if you disable 2 cores and leave 4 cores enabled, so there are 6 available, and when you enable the the rest of the cores, wouldn't it be likely that the CPU usage will rise too if the cores are being utilized? (Presuming you did this using affinity and not the bios)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> There's no real difference between using affinity and disabling the cores, as long as your operating system and background tasks are not significantly loading your gaming cores, something that i'd hope is true


This.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Why do you use affinity? go in bios and disable last module.. you will see usage about 85%+


There's no real difference between using affinity and disabling the cores, as long as your operating system and background tasks are not significantly loading your gaming cores, something that i'd hope is true

Also note that core usage that reads as 60% on 4 out of 6 cores being used, would read as 90% if you disabled the last 2 cores and folded it downwards. It doesn't really matter what it reads as, for example the same load on an i5 and i7 can read as 50% load on the i7, even though performance is the same


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Themisseble, don't worry I would feel bad too if my AMD FX CPU is getting trashed by a $60 Pentium.


----------



## jason387

Theres no difference between affinity and locking cores. Infact if I go into the bios and lock cores that would take time and then how would I be able to do a side by side comparison for the exact same scene? Also by the time I go back and lock cores more people may join or leave thus, not keeping the bench constant.


----------



## fateswarm

Isn't there a variation on how cache is handled? But that may depend on the CPU architecture though if it ever happens..


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Themisseble, don't worry I would feel bad too if my AMD FX CPU is getting trashed by a $60 Pentium.











Hey, wanna hear a joke?
Stock cooler.

Under 80c as well.

I couldn't use my Arctic Freezer 7 from Destiny's Shard because I forgot to buy thermal paste.

Planet Side 2 looks to be promising, feeling a lot smoother than the Phenom II X4 @3.9GHz.


----------



## KeyboardXpert

Yays! They have the ATX Z97 Anniversary at Newegg and both of them are backordered at NCIX!

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157528&Tpk=anniversary&ignorebbr=1

http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=98416&vpn=MBA%2DZ97%2DMANNIVER&manufacture=ASRock

http://www.ncixus.com/products/?sku=98417&vpn=MBA%2DZ97%2DANNIVERS&manufacture=ASRock


----------



## TopicClocker

Wow, it really held it's own in Planet Side 2.
While I get a video sorted for uploading in one of the most stressful moments I'll be moving onto getting my MotionInjoy drivers functioning with my bluetooth to try some PS2 games.


----------



## TopicClocker

Pentium G3258, Black Hole 4.3GHz (CPU-Z is showing idle clock)


Pentium G3258, Cinebench R15 4.4GHz (CPU-Z is showing idle clock)


AMD Phenom II, Cinebench 3.9Ghz R11.5


AMD Phenom II, Cinebench 3.9Ghz R15


Will add Pentium at 4.4GHz soon, I think I had the Black Hole for the Phenom II at 3.9GHz and I posted it in this thread, but I have no idea where It is.

I'm going to run Passmark Performance Test 8, anyone with a 3.9GHz or higher Phenom II?


----------



## Cyro999

298 at 4.4ghz? That's very low.






I get over 350 on 2c2t at 4.6ghz, but i run with cache at 4ghz and i have some fast memory (samsung greens @2200c9) - memory speed affects cinebench a lot. 4770k with extra l3 cache etc might outperform Pentium because of that when in 2-core mode, as well.

Also, stuff like if you run with a clean OS affects it a lot. If you don't boot into safe mode to run it, you should probably run it in high or even realtime priority (realtime freezes screen output for a minute while it runs)


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> 298 at 4.4ghz? That's very low.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get over 350 on 2c2t at 4.6ghz, but i run with cache at 4ghz and i have some fast memory (samsung greens @2200c9) - memory speed affects cinebench a lot. 4770k with extra l3 cache etc might outperform Pentium because of that when in 2-core mode, as well.
> 
> Also, stuff like if you run with a clean OS affects it a lot. If you don't boot into safe mode to run it, you should probably run it in high or even realtime priority (realtime freezes screen output for a minute while it runs)


My cache is like 3.2GHz, should I raise it? and if so what's a good voltage for 4GHz cache?
Others have said it doesn't improve performance much so I didn't bother with it.
This OS is new, I installed it yesterday, I also have 1333mhz ram, I might try and raise it to 1450mhz.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

I ran mine on a clogged up laptop drive and I still get 308 at 4.2Ghz and 341 at 4.7Ghz.

I'm using 1600mhz RAM and 3Ghz uncore.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> I ran mine on a clogged up laptop drive and I still get 308 at 4.2Ghz and 341 at 4.7Ghz.
> 
> I'm using 1600mhz RAM and 3Ghz uncore.


Okay, ram needs to rise lol.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> My cache is like 3.2GHz, should I raise it? and if so what's a good voltage for 4GHz cache?
> Others have said it doesn't improve performance much so I didn't bother with it.
> This OS is new, I installed it yesterday, I also have 1333mhz ram, I might try and raise it to 1450mhz.


Memory speed affects CB quite a bit. Try raising it to 1600MHz+ if your memory & memory controller can take it.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Overclocking my RAM to 2Ghz only gave me 3 extra points in CB R15 at 3Ghz. Now my Adblocker crashed and everything is unstable.

Reverting changes...


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> My cache is like 3.2GHz, should I raise it? and if so what's a good voltage for 4GHz cache?
> Others have said it doesn't improve performance much so I didn't bother with it.
> This OS is new, I installed it yesterday, I also have 1333mhz ram, I might try and raise it to 1450mhz.


You should put uncore/cache to like 4ghz after you can't get any more mhz out of the core. About 1.1-1.25v should be enough, try 1.15 first.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Overclocking my RAM to 2Ghz only gave me 3 extra points in CB R15 at 3Ghz. Now my Adblocker crashed and everything is unstable.
> 
> Reverting changes...


Well, obviously you're not OC-ing properly (which isn't something to be ashamed of, RAM OC is more complicated than CPU OC!)

I think i got like 30 points going from 1600c11 to 2200c9, but then again, my RAM as a whole got like 60% higher benchmarks.

You usually can't significantly change the performance of your RAM. You can often go from say 1.5 or 1.65v to 1.7v for example, and poke around there, push yourself up on the frequency/timings vs voltage curve, but most RAM doesn't have "free" OC headroom in it, at least not a lot.

When you're clocking up RAM, a lot of things will automatically happen, like motherboard raising some of your many RAM timings, which means that you can EASILY clock the RAM higher, but lose performance. To verify you're not screwing yourself, you need to use a RAM benchmark like maxxmem or the one in adia64 to compare before/after all of the changes you make (and write results down) and you also need to run something like prime95, i prefer a few minutes per fft size with all of the memory i can spare (7000MB on 8GB) for verifying memory stability. You can do that with the CPU at stock, you shouldn't do it with CPU OC'd as well. If you can pass this at FULL STOCK but you can't pass it at your improved performance memory OC.. your OC isn't stable.

Don't waste your time trying to vastly change performance of some 1333c9 sticks, my lesson would just be in the future, if you're buying a Haswell system with unlocked memory multi's, there's probably a nice ~2133+ kit with complimentingly tight timings that costs only like $5-10 more than 1600c9, and it's very often worth a buy.

Unlike other cpu's (last gen intel, anything amd), Haswell's (at least the quad cores) memory controller is pretty exceptional, and gets pretty insane performance numbers compared to other stuff, while also clocking up pretty easily. If any architecture can scale with memory speed, it's this one


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Pentium G3258, Black Hole 4.3GHz (CPU-Z is showing idle clock)
> 
> 
> I'm going to run Passmark Performance Test 8, anyone with a 3.9GHz or higher Phenom II?


I locked my chip back into an Athlon, locked it to 2 cores and overclocked to 4.38Ghz









My Blackhole score:


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> I locked my chip back into an Athlon, locked it to 2 cores and overclocked to 4.38Ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Blackhole score:


Go away with your crazy ass chip.








That thing would probably slaughter my old Phenom II, damn.

Want to run Performance Test on it at that clock?

I gotta admit, those chips hold up pretty well, got a couple of builds I've messed with from people I know, 955 and 965 chips, yours was originally an Athlon right?
Hell of a bargain right there.

I think people should dismiss my Cinebench scores for the G3258 as it seems my ram is holding it back, hopefully Performance Test and others aren't so ram sensitive.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Go away with your crazy ass chip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That thing would probably slaughter my old Phenom II, damn.
> 
> Want to run Performance Test on it at that clock?
> 
> I gotta admit, those chips hold up pretty well, got a couple of builds I've messed with from people I know, 955 and 965 chips, yours was originally an Athlon right?
> Hell of a bargain right there.
> 
> I think people should dismiss my Cinebench scores for the G3258 as it seems my ram is holding it back, hopefully Performance Test and others aren't so ram sensitive.


Cool, I'll run Passmark as a dual-core at 4.38Ghz









Yeah, I just paid $60 for my Athlon II X3 445 at the time and got a fully functional Phenom underneath


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> You should put uncore/cache to like 4ghz after you can't get any more mhz out of the core. About 1.1-1.25v should be enough, try 1.15 first.


Ok, I'll give it a shot, thanks, got my score to 308cb In R15 by raising it to 1432, I don't think these sticks want to do much more or it might take awhile to reach something like 1470-1500mhz and might not pay off much, I'm looking into 1600mhz+ sticks and a 2113mhz 8GB kit I saw a couple days ago.

I'll see what I can do with uncore/cache.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Cool, I'll run Passmark as a dual-core at 4.38Ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I just paid $60 for my Athlon II X3 445 at the time and got a fully functional Phenom underneath


That's... PHENOMenal ;p


----------



## PunkX 1

Ok, I got a total (CPU) score of 2684 with 2 cores @ 4.38Ghz


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Ok, I'll give it a shot, thanks, got my score to 308cb In R15 by raising it to 1432, I don't think these sticks want to do much more or it might take awhile to reach something like 1470-1500mhz and might not pay off much, I'm looking into 1600mhz+ sticks and a 2113mhz 8GB kit I saw a couple days ago.
> 
> I'll see what I can do with uncore/cache.


Are you running these on a clean system (fresh reboot etc) with realtime priority? My system is approaching 6 days of uptime with a few random background stuff running (nothing really using CPU) and i still got a performance gain of over 4% just from flicking to realtime prio.

Back when i had a cleaner system and i did fresh reboots quite often, that gap was often 1%, but i've lost the other 3% from random apps using little bits of CPU time while cinebench is running right now.

Do you guys want me to run anything? Got 4770k w/ those sammy greens, my highest tested clocks are up to 46/44 with HT or 47/44 without HT. Can run any core config, etc


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Ok, I got a total (CPU) score of 2684 with 2 cores @ 4.38Ghz


I'll give it a run!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Are you running these on a clean system (fresh reboot etc) with realtime priority? My system is approaching 6 days of uptime with a few random background stuff running (nothing really using CPU) and i still got a performance gain of over 4% just from flicking to realtime prio.
> 
> Back when i had a cleaner system and i did fresh reboots quite often, that gap was often 1%, but i've lost the other 3% from random apps using little bits of CPU time while cinebench is running right now.
> 
> Do you guys want me to run anything? Got 4770k w/ those sammy greens, my highest tested clocks are up to 46/44 with HT or 47/44 without HT. Can run any core config, etc


I was going to do the real-time priority but i happened to had forgotten by the time I got inside of the bios.








I'll give it a run now with it, I got my score up to 316cb now, hopefully the priority will give me a slight boost.

This is a fresh windows install, I built this machine yesterday and installed windows the same day. (Should of finished the day before but POST problems etc)
What do you mean by core config? and sure go ahead.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I'll give it a run!
> I was going to do the real-time priority but i happened to had forgotten by the time I got inside of the bios.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give it a run now with it, I got my score up to 316cb now, hopefully the priority will give me a slight boost.
> 
> This is a fresh windows install, I built this machine yesterday and installed windows the same day. (Should of finished the day before but POST problems etc)
> What do you mean by core config? and sure go ahead.


I mean i could run with 1, 2, 3 or 4 cores, with or without HT etc. Gimme some stuff to run


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> I mean i could run with 1, 2, 3 or 4 cores, with or without HT etc. Gimme some stuff to run


Okay, 2 cores, Passmark, Cinebench R11.5, Cinebench R15, with and without HT.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Ok, I got a total (CPU) score of 2684 with 2 cores @ 4.38Ghz


Ok here's my results.









Bring on the cores.
I bet you'll get 4500-5000.
 (Singlethread)

My results I grabbed from my Watch Dogs thread.
Quote:


> CPU: AMD Phenom II X4 B55 @4GHz
> Cores:4
> CPU Mark - 5198
> CPU - SingleThreaded 1378


I think you'll get around 5300-5500.

Man, forget the i3 K edition, if Intel made tri-cores...


----------



## PunkX 1

Wow! Extremely impressive









Here's my Cinebench 11.5 score with 2 cores


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Wow! Extremely impressive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my Cinebench 11.5 score with 2 cores



I'm impressed myself, you probably only need a 3rd core at that clock to be pretty tough in multi-threading.
Bare in mind my ram is likely holding me back.


----------



## jason387

Well here's how an FX can perform. Performance Test 8.0 with 2 Cores at 5.1Ghz-


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Well here's how an FX can perform. Performance Test 8.0 with 2 Cores at 5.1Ghz-


Nice!
What's your single-threaded at?


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Themisseble, don't worry I would feel bad too if my AMD FX CPU is getting trashed by a $60 Pentium.


your wrong about that ... FX 4300 destroys pentium in Bf3...


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Nice!
> What's your single-threaded at?


Never checked. I'll re run it.
Here's Cinebech 11.5-
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Nice!
> What's your single-threaded at?


Single threaded-


Here's Cinebench 11.5-


Can you run 3D Mark 11 Physics ?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Never checked. I'll re run it.
> Here's Cinebech 11.5-
> Single threaded-
> 
> 
> Here's Cinebench 11.5-
> 
> 
> Can you run 3D Mark 11 Physics ?


Nice, and I'll download 3D Mark 11 and give it a go.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Wow! Extremely impressive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my Cinebench 11.5 score with 2 cores


can you try BF3 MP?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> can you try BF3 MP?


I've had my video of the Phenom II X4 B55 @3.9GHz up for awhile, I just need to chop up the Pentium G3258 @4.4GHz footage.


----------



## Themisseble

With only 2 cores


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> With only 2 cores


Nah, with all


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Nah, with all


... what are talking about? I asked for phenom x4 (2 cores disable) bf3 benchmark at 4.3Ghz. In BF4 dual cores cant compare to quad core at max settings.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> ... what are talking about? I ask for phenom x4 (2 cores disable) bf4 benchmark at 4.3Ghz


I think TopicClocker's is @3.9 with no cores disabled~


----------



## Jugurnot

Hey guys off topic, but...

I want to buy an mATX Z97 board, probably the msi z97m gaming and eventually buy a broadwell processor. In the mean time, im thinking I want tgis g3258.

My question is, is this a good upgrade plan from my current z77 gd65 + 3570k?


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> I think TopicClocker's is @3.9 with no cores disabled~


i know that
Also i would like to see settings
- everything to ultra, except shadows (medium) and mesh Q to LOW ... if pentium OC-ed drops under 60 fps? in 64 Maps?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jugurnot*
> 
> Hey guys off topic, but...
> 
> I want to buy an mATX Z97 board, probably the msi z97m gaming and eventually buy a broadwell processor. In the mean time, im thinking I want tgis g3258.
> 
> My question is, is this a good upgrade plan from my current z77 gd65 + 3570k?


Broadwell comes after a year. Are you going to wait a year and use a dual core for all that time?

Besides Broadwell is only a die shrink, probably no IPC increase.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> i know that


just confusion with where your posts landed


----------



## Clairvoyant129

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849-5.html



Pentium is slightly faster than Athlon X4 750K for BF4.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849-5.html
> 
> 
> 
> Pentium is slightly faster than Athlon X4 750K for BF4.


Those numbers should probably be thrown out, obvious GPU bottleneck


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849-5.html
> 
> 
> 
> Pentium is slightly faster than Athlon X4 750K for BF4.


That's single player which is hardly CPU intensive.


----------



## Themisseble

still pentium K does really bad in that black hole benchmark


----------



## No Hands 55

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jugurnot*
> 
> Hey guys off topic, but...
> 
> I want to buy an mATX Z97 board, probably the msi z97m gaming and eventually buy a broadwell processor. In the mean time, im thinking I want tgis g3258.
> 
> My question is, is this a good upgrade plan from my current z77 gd65 + 3570k?


That is pretty much what im doing. I want to convert to 1150 mitx and hopefully sell my 1155 stuff while it has value. I cant go all out and get an i7 at the moment so after looking at many reviews the pentium heavily overclocked will do everything I need fairly well, i figured I could put up with some of my graphic work exporting and rendering a bit slower for a year. The only other thing im thinking about is trying to find a cheap 4670k or 4770k to use with the z97 impact until broadwell, then sell the old cpu. still deciding but im going a route this way.

If all the reviews and test show that the pentium can handle what you want and its temporary until broadwell and you think you can handle it chugging along once in a while, go for it. its only $60 anways


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> still pentium K does really bad in that black hole benchmark


You keep going back to Black Hole like it means anything in Gaming Performance, Black Hole does multi-thread benches.
You saw how well it did against other processors dual and quad in other benches so why do you feel the need to bring up "Black Hole" again and again? I'm not going after you or anything but the constant "AMD this" "AMD that" is really showing fanboyism.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849-5.html
> 
> 
> 
> Pentium is slightly faster than Athlon X4 750K for BF4.


MP is where it's at, I think that's single player.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> You keep going back to Black Hole like it means anything in Gaming Performance, Black Hole does multi-thread benches.
> You saw how well it did against other processors dual and quad in other benches so why do you feel the need to bring up "Black Hole" again and again? I'm not going after you or anything but the constant "AMD this" "AMD that" is really showing fanboyism.
> MP is where it's at, I think that's single player.


It's single player.. with a GPU only capable of ~75fps lol


----------



## No Hands 55

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> MP is where it's at, I think that's single player.


true but i think its still a viable bench to see for people like me who really like single player gaming. I think its a good base to go from for other single player games too.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> still pentium K does really bad in that black hole benchmark


You keep going back to Black Hole like it means anything in Gaming Performance, Black Hole does multi-thread benches.
You saw how well it did against other processors dual and quad in other benches, including mine!
So why do you feel the need to bring up "Black Hole" again and again? just because it doesn't do as well as other processors in ONE benchmark, I'm not going after you or anything but the constant "AMD this" "AMD that" fanboyism is really showing, all you've done is this thread is hate, hate, hate this chip.










Spoiler: Cyro999's Amdahl Lawd Explaination



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> One thing that a lot of people don't understand - and well, it's not really taught at schools etc or immediately obvious - Amdahl's law.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law
> 
> It makes a more noticeable effect if you have more CPU cores.
> 
> If you have a CPU workload and 10% of it can't be ran in parallel, then at the very most, by going to like 50 million CPU cores, you can only run it ~10x faster.
> 
> If you have 8 cores, you would only expect it to run ~4.75x faster, not 8x. If you make it so only 5% of the program can't be ran in parallel (95% can!), that 4.75 on an 8-core turns to 6x.
> 
> The problem is, if you have one quad core CPU that runs at 1.6x as fast as the 8-core, then because you can run the un-parallel parts faster even in a well multi-threaded program, that 8 would be reduced to 6 for the 8-core processor, while the quad core would get say ~3.8 - but if you multiply that by the 1.6x faster CPU, it's 6.08 vs 6.
> 
> ^That's one of the main problems that AMD's FX line has. Some programs can be ran almost without a "main thread" with higher load, like rendering an image or video, where they can just run 8 equal workloads. But a game, a TON of programs, even if they can run onto 8-16+ threads, they can't be run ENTIRELY in parallel and fall victim to Amdahl's law.
> 
> The same thing contributes heavily to advantages from faster, lower core count processors. The other advantage that they have, is when you run a 4 threaded program on a 4 core CPU anyway, the 8-core wouldn't benefit at all, so the quad core of the same speed in a perfectly multithreaded program, would run that 4-threaded program with twice the speed.
> 
> Just in general.. if we could scale things, if we could have one ultra super fast CPU core.. we'd probably do that. For scaling reasons, we use more (look at gpu's, we're up to thousands by now) but in general, fewer, stronger cores are better.
> 
> More cores is good if we compare a 4770k to a 5960x, for example. The 5960x might be clocked 5% lower for singlethreaded, but it is of just as strong architecture and it has twice as many cores. It'll be a better processor all around. It's often not worth making big losses for the meat of what a processor is, just to have more cores though - even if you can largely utilize them, it can be deceiving.






D-D-Double Post, edit.
Ah damnit.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> You keep going back to Black Hole like it means anything in Gaming Performance, Black Hole does multi-thread benches.
> You saw how well it did against other processors dual and quad in other benches so why do you feel the need to bring up "Black Hole" again and again? I'm not going after you or anything but the constant "AMD this" "AMD that" is really showing fanboyism.


I don't blame the guy, probably feels bad your Pentium has superior gaming performance.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *No Hands 55*
> 
> true but i think its still a viable bench to see for people like me who really like single player gaming. I think its a good base to go from for other single player games too.


It tells you that all of those CPU's were gpu limited in that game, level etc with that GPU and those settings - not rly much else


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> I don't blame the guy, probably feels bad your Pentium has superior gaming performance.


All this chip has done is shocked me, from when I played ACIV at 50fps I knew it was something.
It was a mind blowing moment for me, from a flipping £50 processor.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> All this chip has done is shocked me, from when I played ACIV at 50fps I knew it was something.
> It was a mind blowing moment for me, from a flipping £50 processor.


The 2500k was the last CPU to "wow" me until this little g3258 gem. If it were $120, forget it, but I have to hand it to Intel for its pricing and existence.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> The 2500k was the last CPU to "wow" me until this little g3258 gem. If it were $120, forget it, but I have to hand it to Intel for its pricing and existence.




Mother.
Of
God.

IT JUST CHEWED THROUGH SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS LIKE IT WAS NOTHING!!!
AT FULLSPEED!!!









When I get an i5, this processor is getting framed.
I can't believe this.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> 
> 
> Mother.
> Of
> God.
> 
> IT JUST CHEWED THROUGH SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS LIKE IT WAS NOTHING!!!
> AT FULLSPEED!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I get an i5, this processor is getting framed.
> I can't believe this.


check this...
2014-07-07 21:51:53 - bf3
Frames: 7531 - Time: 171938ms - Avg: 43.801 - Min: 26 - Max: 71 firestorm at 64 players

What CPu is this? 2C/1M Piledriver at 4.8Ghz - all utra - mSAA off


----------



## No Hands 55

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> 
> 
> Mother.
> Of
> God.
> 
> IT JUST CHEWED THROUGH SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS LIKE IT WAS NOTHING!!!
> AT FULLSPEED!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I get an i5, this processor is getting framed.
> I can't believe this.


so what you are telling me is this is the ultimate htpc/steam machine cpu? and it would be perfectly paired with a low profile gpu? lol


----------



## remixedMind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> I agree with PunkX. What's that guy smoking? Here's a screenshot in BF3 multiplayer 64 Player Map with my CPU overclocked to 4.4Ghz. What I did was through task manager set the affinity to 4 cores took a screenshot and then set it back to 6 cores and took another screenshot in the same position. FPS is shown on the extreme left top hand corner of the screen. Open the image in a new tab to zoom in and see it.
> 4Cores- 72.6fps-
> 
> 
> 6Cores- 90.6fps
> 
> 
> There's a 18fps difference. Thus, showing that in BF3 64 Player Maps CPU power matters and it can effectively use up to 8 cores.


i did the same test last night and by setting the cores to 2 from task manager the game was lagging bad i then set them in the bios and at 3ghz to mimic the Pentium at stock and i had a little micro stutter, then i set the clock to 3.6ghz 2 cores again and it was fine i didn`t notice any difference in fps thats on the i5 4570
only did the test cos i wanna get the pentium to play whit







and maybe sell my i5


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *No Hands 55*
> 
> so what you are telling me is this is the ultimate htpc/steam machine cpu? and it would be perfectly paired with a low profile gpu? lol


YES.

I will be uploading some short clips, my upload speed is pretty poor so that's what I have to resort to.


----------



## Themisseble

So about pentium K is about 50% faster on AVG. than A4 5400K at 4.8Ghz .. while minimum is only about 20%? not that good.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> So about pentium K is about 50% faster on AVG. than A4 5400K at 4.8Ghz .. while minimum is only about 20%? not that good.


I already told you about the minimum and why it dropped to that.
I could probably run it again and it wont dip to 30, it literally dipped to 30 for 2 seconds if that, I could run tests over and over and probably rid it of that anomaly.

When the video gets uploaded you will see.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I already told you about the minimum and why it dropped to that.
> I could probably run it again and it wont dip to 30, it literally dipped to 30 for 2 seconds if that, I could run tests over and over and probably rid it of that anomaly.
> 
> When the video gets uploaded you will see.


same here ... it dropped because of a dual core. I told yopu that BF3 dont have good scaling because of DX11. So let me put it this was - BF3 pentium at 4.5Ghz would beat i5 at 3.0Ghz in avg. i5 is much more stable.
I tested it with AMD GPu while you did it with NVIDIA GPU - we all know difference between DX11 - so what i should gain 10-20-30---50% performance?
AGAIN I CAN TELL YOU THERE IS NO "big" DIFFERENCE IF YOU USE Mantle OR DX11 on DUAL CORE CPU!! But no you wont believe IT!
I can show you that 2 core pilledriver can handle BF3 MP just fine.

BF4 is different -- i prefer quad core at 2.5Ghz than dual core at 5.0Ghz- but again you will say that i dont know what i am talking about.


----------



## fateswarm

I bet the brain power some use on defending their position would generate enough capital to buy a 5960X somehow.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> same here ... it dropped because of a dual core. I told yopu that BF3 dont have good scaling because of DX11. So let me put it this was - BF3 pentium at 4.5Ghz would beat i5 at 3.0Ghz in avg. i5 is much more stable.
> I tested it with AMD GPu while you did it with NVIDIA GPU - we all know difference between DX11 - so what i should gain 10-20-30---50% performance?
> AGAIN I CAN TELL YOU THERE IS NO "big" DIFFERENCE IF YOU USE Mantle OR DX11 on DUAL CORE CPU!! But no you wont believe IT!
> I can show you that 2 core pilledriver can handle BF3 MP just fine.
> 
> BF4 is different -- i prefer quad core at 2.5Ghz than dual core at 5.0Ghz- but again you will say that i dont know what i am talking about.


Are you for real?









Who hell mentioned anything about Mantle?
I don't even know what to say to you, your response is always going to be the same.

No matter what people say or people do you're not going to listen, you're just going to bash this chip some more, so why should we even bother?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> I bet the brain power some use on defending their position would generate enough capital to buy a 5960X somehow.


Indeed, Smh gunning a £50 chip throughout the entire thread no matter if it wins or loses a benchmark, I dont understand why.


----------



## Themisseble

How about you??
We were talking aboput performance of that CHIP and when you saw that BF4 MP... i showed you same with radeon only 100% less FPS everyone was talking about OC and NVIDIA DX11.

and this is BF4 32 Paracel storm 32/players - ultra - dx11
2014-07-07 22:45:16 - bf4
Frames: 8060 - Time: 299500ms - Avg: 26.912 - Min: 12 - Max: 41

As you can see BF4 kills dual cores.


----------



## Jugurnot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Broadwell comes after a year. Are you going to wait a year and use a dual core for all that time?


Im not going to be getting rid of my 1155 board, I will use it while im saving for a new processor. The g3258 will fill in as my gf's rig.

If I dont grab broadwell it will be a 4790k


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> How about you??
> We were talking aboput performance of that CHIP and when you saw that BF4 MP... i showed you same with radeon only 100% less FPS everyone was talking about OC and NVIDIA DX11.


You mean this?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> check this...
> 2014-07-07 21:51:53 - bf3
> Frames: 7531 - Time: 171938ms - Avg: 43.801 - Min: 26 - Max: 71 firestorm at 64 players
> 
> What CPu is this? 2C/1M Piledriver at 4.8Ghz - all utra - mSAA off


Mine:
Quote:


> Well, this thing went and did 60fps Battlefield 3 (avg), it dipped occasionally but here is the min, max avg and the fps.
> Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg
> 31340 484212 30 118 64.724
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> FPS
> 78
> 72
> 57
> 51
> 79
> 80
> 74
> 76
> 86
> 79
> 82
> 81
> 86
> 83
> 77
> 92
> 92
> 83
> 86
> 88
> 81
> 83
> 77
> 79
> 84
> 81
> 73
> 70
> 74
> 71
> 76
> 76
> 76
> 72
> 70
> 73
> 77
> 72
> 67
> 60
> 50
> 51
> 49
> 51
> 50
> 49
> 47
> 51
> 54
> 57
> 55
> 62
> 60
> 60
> 60
> 80
> 68
> 58
> 51
> 54
> 54
> 52
> 48
> 55
> 68
> 67
> 66
> 64
> 68
> 67
> 64
> 67
> 71
> 72
> 70
> 77
> 73
> 64
> 58
> 60
> 61
> 44
> 54
> 56
> 61
> 60
> 56
> 57
> 49
> 47
> 46
> 47
> 81
> 68
> 45
> 43
> 55
> 53
> 47
> 51
> 53
> 56
> 69
> 68
> 63
> 69
> 80
> 78
> 66
> 76
> 74
> 73
> 72
> 61
> 66
> 52
> 62
> 48
> 52
> 55
> 65
> 69
> 54
> 56
> 57
> 67
> 71
> 71
> 53
> 46
> 48
> 51
> 52
> 52
> 50
> 54
> 41
> 58
> 73
> 74
> 78
> 82
> 81
> 71
> 56
> 54
> 55
> 51
> 31
> 49
> 72
> 59
> 70
> 74
> 60
> 60
> 68
> 66
> 66
> 68
> 70
> 73
> 71
> 76
> 77
> 70
> 77
> 76
> 79
> 81
> 77
> 85
> 83
> 88
> 89
> 83
> 84
> 90
> 88
> 90
> 82
> 79
> 72
> 56
> 50
> 61
> 61
> 68
> 64
> 63
> 68
> 73
> 75
> 75
> 75
> 64
> 76
> 77
> 75
> 77
> 77
> 74
> 66
> 58
> 52
> 49
> 48
> 50
> 41
> 45
> 47
> 47
> 48
> 49
> 49
> 47
> 55
> 56
> 53
> 62
> 70
> 64
> 57
> 55
> 47
> 48
> 50
> 57
> 60
> 73
> 70
> 50
> 56
> 48
> 48
> 51
> 60
> 49
> 45
> 43
> 45
> 45
> 46
> 46
> 45
> 45
> 43
> 42
> 45
> 44
> 47
> 43
> 47
> 48
> 48
> 51
> 59
> 59
> 58
> 58
> 66
> 63
> 68
> 65
> 69
> 77
> 74
> 74
> 72
> 72
> 70
> 67
> 65
> 63
> 55
> 54
> 56
> 55
> 61
> 58
> 74
> 71
> 79
> 77
> 77
> 69
> 59
> 49
> 55
> 55
> 58
> 72
> 69
> 67
> 64
> 59
> 63
> 62
> 57
> 72
> 73
> 74
> 76
> 74
> 69
> 57
> 75
> 74
> 73
> 75
> 72
> 71
> 60
> 75
> 80
> 79
> 73
> 81
> 74
> 74
> 82
> 72
> 71
> 61
> 62
> 63
> 70
> 67
> 72
> 69
> 76
> 83
> 70
> 71
> 71
> 70
> 72
> 75
> 72
> 70
> 69
> 72
> 63
> 75
> 72
> 75
> 72
> 67
> 68
> 71
> 64
> 69
> 72
> 74
> 74
> 64
> 64
> 54
> 69
> 75
> 66
> 46
> 47
> 58
> 55
> 47
> 73
> 68
> 66
> 71
> 70
> 79
> 70
> 57
> 62
> 60
> 68
> 67
> 71
> 73
> 65
> 58
> 61
> 52
> 46
> 41
> 71
> 60
> 68
> 105
> 105
> 115
> 116
> 109
> 115
> 105
> 50
> 55
> 52
> 48
> 50
> 56
> 56
> 49
> 48
> 58
> 51
> 50
> 60
> 60
> 48
> 62
> 58
> 62
> 92
> 65
> 78
> 59
> 56
> 58
> 60
> 54
> 47
> 55
> 54
> 45
> 47
> 56
> 62
> 65
> 80
> 69
> 64
> 63
> 69
> 70
> 72
> 61
> 56
> 56
> 72
> 60
> 56
> 50
> 67
> 100
> 70
> 59
> 89
> 99


Did you even look at this?
Ontop of that the variance in GPU power could be drastically different.


----------



## allan871

Please, for the sake of this thread, more benchmarks, less arguments. It starts to get painful to read through the posts here as someone has really been playing rock simulator in his mind.

Can you believe that about 26 pages (260 posts) of this thread are wasted just to prove this chip is a capable chip to one guy? Holy cow!

By the way, where are the StarCraft II and Skyrim benches? This chip should really shine on these 2 games and I am contemplating build an inexpensive but capable *ESport* machine with this chip


----------



## Themisseble

Yes i mean this. I tested with r9 270X without MSAA there is no GPu bottleneck - at least it would not made huge impact on AVG. fps

So it is about 50% faster at 4.4Ghz..


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *allan871*
> 
> Please, for the sake of this thread, more benchmarks, less arguments. It starts to get painful to read through the posts here as someone has really been playing rock simulator in his mind.
> 
> Can you believe that about 26 pages (260 posts) of this thread are wasted just to prove this chip is a capable chip to one guy? Holy cow!
> 
> By the way, where are the StarCraft II and Skyrim benches? This chip should really shine on these 2 games and I am contemplating build an inexpensive but capable *ESport* machine with this chip


Someone should make a comprehensive thread with a collection of benchmarks posted in here. Someone from the guys that already post them is probably ideal. In the CPU forum, and linked here occasionally to redirect.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Someone should make a comprehensive thread with a collection of benchmarks posted in here. Someone from the guys that already post them is probably ideal. In the CPU forum, and linked here occasionally to redirect.


I've got some of my draft written up of a couple of my benches, I'll likely go into full force tomorrow for the thread and hopefully have it posted by then.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *allan871*
> 
> Please, for the sake of this thread, more benchmarks, less arguments. It starts to get painful to read through the posts here as someone has really been playing rock simulator in his mind.
> 
> Can you believe that about 26 pages (260 posts) of this thread are wasted just to prove this chip is a capable chip to one guy? Holy cow!
> 
> By the way, where are the StarCraft II and Skyrim benches? This chip should really shine on these 2 games and I am contemplating build an inexpensive but capable *ESport* machine with this chip


I can do Skyrim if you want?


----------



## Clairvoyant129

This chip paired with a mid-range GPU will be perfect for games like Diablo, Starcraft and games like Skyrim.


----------



## allan871

Just think about those cyber coffee shops around the world, this chip has huge potential. It's cheap and performs extremely well when moderately overclocked and most
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I've got some of my draft written up of a couple of my benches, I'll likely go into full force tomorrow for the thread and hopefully have it posted by then.
> I can do Skyrim if you want?


This is much appreciated. If you have time, yes please do a Skyrim benchmark.


----------



## No Hands 55

skyrim (heavily modded), diablo and league are my most played games. Would love to see this thing destroy them! would convince me then since it seems like it can handle the adobe suite really well too.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *allan871*
> 
> Just think about those cyber coffee shops around the world, this chip has huge potential. It's cheap and performs extremely well when moderately overclocked and most
> This is much appreciated. If you have time, yes please do a Skyrim benchmark.


I've got a boatload of benchmarks in a spreadsheet, no problem.
It's going to take me ages to do all of them, so I'll likely post 5 benches at first and keep updating the thread.

I've got Res 6 done, FFXIV Exploration and Character Creation, Saints Row 2, PlanetSide 2, GTA EFLC, working on the PCSX2 stuff and more.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *No Hands 55*
> 
> skyrim (heavily modded), diablo and league are my most played games. Would love to see this thing destroy them! would convince me then since it seems like it can handle the adobe suite really well too.


for skyrim yes...
diablo, league - wont see huge difference between amd dual core.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *No Hands 55*
> 
> skyrim (heavily modded), diablo and league are my most played games. Would love to see this thing destroy them! would convince me then since it seems like it can handle the adobe suite really well too.


If I had Diablo I would give it a go, I can download and try league though.
I'm currently doing Geek Bench 3, I have to redo most of them since i'm now at 4.4GHz.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> If I had Diablo I would give it a go, I can download and try league though.
> I'm currently doing Geek Bench 3.


I would like to see watchdogs...


----------



## No Hands 55

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> for skyrim yes...
> diablo, league - wont see huge difference between amd dual core.


i am not considering an amd dual core... nor did i ever mention it...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> If I had Diablo I would give it a go, I can download and try league though.
> I'm currently doing Geek Bench 3, I have to redo most of them since i'm not at 4.4GHz.


no worries man im sure it can handle league and diablo great. my modded skyrim games are what was worrying me lol. they choked my 6950 bad.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *No Hands 55*
> 
> i am not considering an amd dual core... nor did i ever mention it...
> no worries man im sure it can handle league and diablo great. my modded skyrim games are what was worrying me lol. they choked my 6950 bad.


Ah I see, well I'll redo some benches and post 5 of them in the thread, and continue doing the others.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

More results









i5 2400 with Turbo on Cinebench R15 (3.2Ghz is all core turbo)


Metro LL with 4.7Ghz Pentium as reference


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






Metro LL with i5 2400 Turbo on


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







As you can see, the overclock on the Pentium almost makes up for the lack of cores.

Although the i5 still manages to achieve more GPU utilization even though it's only running at 3.2 Ghz.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> More results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i5 2400 with Turbo on Cinebench R15 (3.2Ghz is all core turbo)
> 
> 
> Metro LL with 4.7Ghz Pentium as reference
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Metro LL with i5 2400 Turbo on
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the overclock on the Pentium almost makes up for the lack of cores.
> 
> Although the i5 still manages to achieve more GPU utilization even though it's only running at 3.2 Ghz.


Great job!


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *No Hands 55*
> 
> i am not considering an amd dual core... nor did i ever mention it...
> no worries man im sure it can handle league and diablo great. my modded skyrim games are what was worrying me lol. they choked my 6950 bad.


Good choice. AMD dual cores are terrible, the only saving grace would be its price.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Good choice. AMD dual cores are terrible, the only saving grace would be its price.


Yes of course... i just did benchmark in Bf3 and 1 module at 4.8Ghz can very well... but i still prefer quad core.
Anyway why do intel CPu have really bad score in black whole?
http://blackholetec.com/main/article/amd-a10-7850k-kaveri-review-page-3
kinda weird... why amd doesnt make quad core steamroller Athlon?...

TopicClocker
can you run Bf3 again? TDM with 24 also 64 players in it? at ultra and 1 once more with shadows and mesh quality on low?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Good choice. AMD dual cores are terrible, the only saving grace would be its price.


Look what you've done, you've started him off again.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes of course... i just did benchmark in Bf3 and 1 module at 4.8Ghz can very well... but i still prefer quad core.
> Anyway why do intel CPu have really bad score in black whole?
> http://blackholetec.com/main/article/amd-a10-7850k-kaveri-review-page-3
> kinda weird... why amd doesnt make quad core steamroller Athlon?...
> 
> TopicClocker
> can you run Bf3 again? TDM with 24 also 64 players in it? at ultra and 1 once more with shadows and mesh quality on low?


What map?


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes of course... i just did benchmark in Bf3 and 1 module at 4.8Ghz can very well... but i still prefer quad core.
> Anyway why do intel CPu have really bad score in black whole?
> http://blackholetec.com/main/article/amd-a10-7850k-kaveri-review-page-3
> kinda weird... why amd doesnt make quad core steamroller Athlon?...
> 
> TopicClocker
> can you run Bf3 again? TDM with 24 also 64 players in it? at ultra and 1 once more with shadows and mesh quality on low?


You must be kidding. The A10 in that review was clocked to 4.8GHz. At stock it was outperformed by the Intel quads. An i3 dual core CPU @ 3.1GHz was pretty close to the quad core A10 @ 3.7GHz.

Please try showing a valid comparison.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Look what you've done, you've started him off again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What map?


Noshahr Canals


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> You must be kidding. The A10 in that review was clocked to 4.8GHz. At stock it was outperformed by the Intel quads. An i3 dual core CPU was pretty close to the quad core A10.


look at single thread performance.. A10 7850K 4.7Ghz destroyed i5 with turbo 3.8Ghz. You know what is most interesting that AMD - if you look at single core and then at multicore perfomance - is steamroller really that efficient?


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> look at single thread performance.. *A10 7850K 4.7Ghz destroyed i5 with turbo 3.8Ghz*. You know what is most interesting that AMD - if you look at single core and then at multicore perfomance - is steamroller really that efficient?


What are you talking about?



Unless I'm blind the i5 is the clear winner.

Quote:


> We were able to get the *APU to 4.8GHz benching the Black Hole Benchmark at a voltage of 1.53*1.


First of all, it was 4.8GHz. The only thing this tells me is that it takes Kaveri a 1GHz+ clock speed advantage to match Ivy Bridge for lightly threaded workloads, which is pathetic since Intel CPUs can *also overclock*.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> What are you talking about?
> 
> 
> First of all, it was 4.8GHz. The only thing this tells me is that it takes Kaveri a 1GHz+ clock speed advantage to match Ivy Bridge for lightly threaded workloads.


Yes and OC-ed and still worse in ST but how is it faster in MT?


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes and OC-ed and still worse in ST but how is it faster in MT?


You';re a funny guy, I was responding to your statement that an A10 Kaveri @ 4.8GHz destroyed the i5 3570K @ stock in lightly threaded Black Hole benchmark, which was in fact false. Now you're talking about multi-threaded? Of course a 4.8GHz A10 will outperform a 3.4GHz i5 in heavily threaded workloads.

Can you stick to the topic please?









I hope AMD is paying you well to look like a fool.


----------



## Scorpion49

I'm trying to download the BH 4.2 just to compare but its take like 10 minutes for the first 1MB... wat


----------



## Exilon

Wait wait wait.

How is a 4C/4T i5 winning in single threaded and losing in multithreaded against a 2C/4M 7850K?

That doesn't make any sense unless the benchmark is using some GPU accelerated gimmick.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> You';re a funny guy, I was responding to your statement that an A10 Kaveri @ 4.8GHz destroyed the i5 3570K @ stock in lightly threaded Black Hole benchmark, which was in fact false. Now you're talking about multi-threaded? Of course a 4.8GHz A10 will outperform a 3.4GHz i5 in heavily threaded workloads.


Wait a minute what are you talking about?

Since when does an A10 beat i5 in multi core if the same A10 loses in single core?

A10s still have 4 cores right?

Just for reference, a 5Ghz FX4300 can't keep up with my locked down 3.2Ghz i5 2400 in Cinebench R15


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Exilon*
> 
> Wait wait wait.
> 
> How is a 4C/4T i5 winning in single threaded and losing in multithreaded against a 2C/4M 7850K?
> 
> That doesn't make any sense unless the benchmark is using some GPU accelerated gimmick.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Wait a minute what are you talking about?
> 
> Since when does an A10 beat i5 in multi core if the same A10 loses in single core?
> 
> A10s still have 4 cores right?
> 
> Just for reference, a 5Ghz FX4300 can't keep up with my locked down 3.2Ghz i5 2400 in Cinebench R15


Because for single thread, i5 3570K turbos to 3.8GHz.

Just a reference,

4.5GHz


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Because for single thread, i5 3570K turbos to 3.8GHz.


And AMD's cores don't scale 100%.

Eg: Multi thread performance of my FX6100 in Cinebench R11.5 is only 5 times the single thread performance.

Besides, even my locked down Sandy bridge low frequency i5 have no problem beating a 5Ghz AMD FX quad


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> And AMD's cores don't scale 100%.
> 
> Eg: Multi thread performance of my FX6100 in Cinebench R11.5 is only 5 times the single thread performance.
> 
> Besides, even my locked down Sandy bridge low frequency i5 have no problem beating a 5Ghz AMD FX quad


Can't compare different benchmarks to gauge core scaling.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Can't compare different benchmarks to gauge core scaling.


But we all know the FX series have bad scaling.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> But we all know the FX series have bad scaling.


They actually don't. Cinebench R11.5 is a terrible gauge. Try using R15.


----------



## Exilon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Because for single thread, i5 3570K turbos to 3.8GHz.


For 4 cores loaded, i5 3570K still turbos to 3.6 GHz, also that 1 core turbo is almost never hit because the OS tries to spread the load, so realistically it's 3.7 GHz vs 3.6 GHz. Turbo can't explain the huge difference.

What is this BH benchmark anyways? I'm assuming that it's running different workloads for MT/ST benches, because that's the only thing that makes sense.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> They actually don't. Cinebench R11.5 is a terrible gauge. Try using R15.


In CB R15, FX6 core still gets 5X speed up in multi. Scaling is still not good.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=25504738&postcount=297


----------



## TopicClocker

I've got some of my thread up, I've still got to include more benchmarks.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1500524/pentium-g3258-performance-thread#post_22531826

Currently uploading videos.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> In CB R15, FX6 core still gets 5X speed up in multi. Scaling is still not good.
> 
> http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=25504738&postcount=297


I have the FX 6300. Here's my score for C 11.5-


----------



## No Hands 55

Also I was thinking, how much would this bottleneck a good gpu like a 770 or 780? Would it be that much even if it was at 4.5 or higher?

Sent from my Nexus 5


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> And AMD's cores don't scale 100%.
> 
> Eg: Multi thread performance of my FX6100 in Cinebench R11.5 is only 5 times the single thread performance.
> 
> Besides, even my locked down Sandy bridge low frequency i5 have no problem beating a 5Ghz AMD FX quad


I was asking myself same question.... it is very interesting that steamroller is really good in 2 benchmarks black whole and pov ray 3.7 - at 4.7Ghz is as fast as i5 3570K at stock.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *No Hands 55*
> 
> Also I was thinking, how much would this bottleneck a good gpu like a 770 or 780? Would it be that much even if it was at 4.5 or higher?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5


You mean g3258? I dont recommend you it for new games. Get FX 6300/8320 for GTX 770 if your on budget.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *No Hands 55*
> 
> Also I was thinking, how much would this bottleneck a good gpu like a 770 or 780? Would it be that much even if it was at 4.5 or higher?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5


What exactly is your budget? Honestly, while the G3258 may "lack" in certain areas, I would recommend it over the FX 4300, Hands down. The FX 63xx/83xx? It would still put up a fight, except in HEAVILY threaded games.


----------



## IMKR

As long as you can oc the g3258 to ~~4.5 ghz, I dont think itll bottleneck a 780.
According to benches, it seems an oced pentium at 4.5 (I think it was on stock cooler as well?) It can kee up with a stock 4670. (Of course I stopped following thread since it has like 1 million posts)


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IMKR*
> 
> As long as you can oc the g3258 to ~~4.5 ghz, I dont think itll bottleneck a 780.
> According to benches, it seems an oced pentium at 4.5 (I think it was on stock cooler as well?) It can kee up with a stock 4670. (Of course I stopped following thread since it has like 1 million posts)


For new games... nope... it cant keep up.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IMKR*
> 
> As long as you can oc the g3258 to ~~4.5 ghz, I dont think itll bottleneck a 780.


Tom's Hardware overclocked Pentium G3258 to 4.5 GHz and used a GTX Titan (GeForce 337.88 driver)
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849.html


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I would like to see watchdogs...


Watch Dogs CPU scaling when using a Radeon R9 290X
http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page5.html

Pentium G3258 @ ~4.5 GHz = Core i3 4000 series based from various review sites

The performance comparison of A8-7600 and Pentium G3220 is also interesting. 4 Steamroller CPU cores = 2 Haswell CPU cores


----------



## jason387

Here's a theory- I haven't seen benches here of the G3258 with an AMD GPU. Thing is Nvidia's new drivers have allowed better utilization and a work around CPU's with not enough processing power. There is quite a difference in games when a low end CPU is used with an Nvidia GPU and with an AMD GPU. Take the FX 4300 or Phenom IIx 4, now lets take a DX 11 game which requires more CPU power. Throw in an AMD GPU without Mantle and note the FPS. Now put in an Nvidia GPU, an equivalent of the AMD GPU and check the FPS. The FPS with the Nvidia GPU is likely to be quite a bit higher since the drivers have been developed to reduce CPU overloads.
NOTE- In almost all GAMING BENCHMARKS, the CPU used is an i7 which is overclocked. With such a CPU the difference between an AMD GPU and and Nvidia GPU is likely to be close to nothing given the amount of processing power the an overclocked or even stock i7 has. That's why if you see in most benchmarks online there isn't much of a difference between AMD and Nvidia GPU's. But the difference arises when you swap out the i7 for a lower end CPU.

So I would like to see the g3258 tested with an AMD GPU. My theory is that while in games with an Nvidia GPU it is faster than an AMD quad core, the reverse is likely to happen when you drop in an AMD GPU.


----------



## Themisseble

I dont believe this benchmark i would like to see it from user and actual user experience. Even i can made benchmark that will favor intel or AMD.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I dont believe this benchmark i would like to see it from user and actual user experience. Even i can made benchmark that will favor intel or AMD.


I think this is what you are trying to say:

_"I dont believe this benchmark i would like to see a benchmark with AMD quad-core CPU winning against Pentium G3258 @ ~4.5 GHz"_

Anyway, here is another Watch Dogs benchmark. Feel free to bash it in case *you don't like* the result you are seeing
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/watch-dogs-pc-performance,3833.html










Seriously, bro, if you don't like the Pentium G3258, no one is forcing you to be in this thread


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I dont believe this benchmark i would like to see it from user and actual user experience. Even i can made benchmark that will favor intel or AMD.


Isn't it a little too early to start drinking?









When real-time benches are put up where the G3258 does really well, you don't buy it. When Review-based benchmarks are put up, you still don't buy it.

I understand you felt buying that (utter piece of poop) FX 4100 was a colossal waste of money, but embrace the truth and rejoice


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> for skyrim yes...
> diablo, league - wont see huge difference between amd dual core.


League is DX, CPU bound and runs way way faster on Haswell over Piledriver (runs on a few threads, common sense) as well as way faster on nvidia then amd when CPU bound (basically always, it's not graphically demanding lol)

I have [email protected] and Nvidia, but somebody with stock fx and radeon could plausibly have under half of my FPS, which would mean a lot of time spent below 100fps.

I checked a few streams 1-2 days ago, the top stream on solomid as well as trick2g and they both had like 70fps walking around without a teamfight happening, so i can believe that too
Quote:


> You mean g3258? I dont recommend you it for new games. Get FX 6300/8320


6300/8320 have a big list of games that they run terribly.

pentium for singlethreaded performance
6300/8320 for multi
i5 for both

pretty clear choices


----------



## fateswarm

AMD users claiming benchmarking bias.. They are the kings of that kind of conspiracy theory (e.g. "Intel compiler is biased" and then ignoring all the tons of gcc binaries still winning). Intel is beter, get over it.

But don't feel bad, most of us Intel users also hate Intel's monopoly.

That doesn't mean AMD is a saint though in their x86 duopoly.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> League is DX, CPU bound and runs way way faster on Haswell over Piledriver (runs on a few threads, common sense) as well as way faster on nvidia then amd when CPU bound (basically always, it's not graphically demanding lol)
> 
> I have [email protected] and Nvidia, but somebody with stock fx and radeon could plausibly have under half of my FPS, which would mean a lot of time spent below 100fps.
> 
> I checked a few streams 1-2 days ago, the top stream on solomid as well as trick2g and they both had like 70fps walking around without a teamfight happening, so i can believe that too
> 6300/8320 have a big list of games that they run terribly.
> 
> pentium for singlethreaded performance
> 6300/8320 for multi
> i5 for both
> 
> pretty clear choices


league wont make a difference if you use FX or i7 ... okay intel is "little faster" at some point but you will rarely see FX under 100 FPS


----------



## sepiashimmer

Has anyone posted G3258's 'Welcome to the Jungle' benchmarks?


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> AMD users claiming benchmarking bias.. They are the kings of that kind of conspiracy theory (e.g. "Intel compiler is biased" and then ignoring all the tons of gcc binaries still winning). Intel is beter, get over it.
> 
> But don't feel bad, most of us Intel users also hate Intel's monopoly.
> 
> That doesn't mean AMD is a saint though in their x86 duopoly.


Cinebench having been caught out intentionally crippling AMD's hardware is a conspiracy? Cinebench 15 may not be as bad but 11 was definitely everything but balanced and fair.

It's a know fact that Intel CPU's have higher IPC, only a fanatic or someone paid would deny that, but it's not as bad as it's made out. Even a four year old CPU is fine for general computing and even gaming. Of course it's not going to be as good as an Intel solution or an AMD FX but it does work.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> league wont make a difference if you use FX or i7 ... okay intel is "little faster" at some point but you will rarely see FX under 100 FPS


You will very regularly see stock FX with AMD DX below 100fps while a pentium g3258 and nvidia is at 200fps

don't act like you can easily maintain 80fps in teamfights









I don't think it really matters for league, because as long as you dont have a trainwreck-level problem with performance, it won't really affect your play very much - but there's no way i'd run over a 60hz screen with amd/radeon on that game if i really cared, considering OC intel/nvidia is way faster for it and still dips below 100fps in a worst worst case scenario


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> You will very regularly see stock FX with AMD DX below 100fps while a pentium g3258 and nvidia is at 150-200fps


we are talking about DX9 = LoL? right?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> we are talking about DX9 = LoL? right?


Yea


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Yea


I can show you benchmark where i7 3.9Ghz will be as fast as FX 6300 4.6Ghz. Nvidia drivers are for DX11 not for DX9...


----------



## BinaryDemon

While this chip is doing some impressive stuff, I still cringe at the idea of building a gaming rig around it. Even if two very fast cores isnt proving to be that much of a bottleneck right now, I think we are right on the cusp of that changing.

Sure if it's literally all you can afford go for it, the recent Newegg motherboard bundles made it cheaper than any of AMD's FM2/+ or AM3/+ quad cores, but if your serious about gaming you need to keep saving.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> only a fanatic


I talked about those ignoring the benchmarks that do not have a bias. So spare me the epithets. I'm sure there are crappy benchmarks, the world is a bad place.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> While this chip is doing some impressive stuff, I still cringe at the idea of building a gaming rig around it. Even if two very fast cores isnt proving to be that much of a bottleneck right now, I think we are right on the cusp of that changing.
> 
> Sure if it's literally all you can afford go for it, the recent Newegg motherboard bundles made it cheaper than any of AMD's FM2/+ or AM3/+ quad cores, but if your serious about gaming you need to keep saving.


Absolutely. It should be strictly for those 1) can't afford it higher 2) have tailor made it to their needs for specific games etc. Otherwise, save it for an Office workstation or something of that sort.


----------



## Wirerat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> While this chip is doing some impressive stuff, I still cringe at the idea of building a gaming rig around it. Even if two very fast cores isnt proving to be that much of a bottleneck right now, I think we are right on the cusp of that changing.
> 
> Sure if it's literally all you can afford go for it, the recent Newegg motherboard bundles made it cheaper than any of AMD's FM2/+ or AM3/+ quad cores, but if your serious about gaming you need to keep saving.


If you are on a strict budget trying to balance how much you can spend on gpu/cpu. You can go all heavy on the gpu and use this cpu until you save up for i5/i7.

This cpu provides a very playable experience for cheap with an excellent upgrade path. Reselling is not going to loose much ether.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> While this chip is doing some impressive stuff, I still cringe at the idea of building a gaming rig around it. Even if two very fast cores isnt proving to be that much of a bottleneck right now, I think we are right on the cusp of that changing.
> 
> Sure if it's literally all you can afford go for it, the recent Newegg motherboard bundles made it cheaper than any of AMD's FM2/+ or AM3/+ quad cores, but if your serious about gaming you need to keep saving.


I agree









For the price, it's doing extremely well, though. Especially at higher resolutions and better than anything AMD is offering at the same price level, tbh.

As an entry-level gaming + office build, it's a pretty good deal.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> I can show you benchmark where i7 3.9Ghz will be as fast as FX 6300 4.6Ghz. Nvidia drivers are for DX11 not for DX9...


They don't only benefit dx11 games, dunno why you'd think that. Half of the gains listed in the release thread were for non-dx11


----------



## Boinz

Yeah if you guys could stop quoting and talking to Themisseble after I put him on ignore that would be great.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BinaryDemon*
> 
> While this chip is doing some impressive stuff, I still cringe at the idea of building a gaming rig around it. Even if two very fast cores isnt proving to be that much of a bottleneck right now, I think we are right on the cusp of that changing.
> 
> Sure if it's literally all you can afford go for it, the recent Newegg motherboard bundles made it cheaper than any of AMD's FM2/+ or AM3/+ quad cores, but if your serious about gaming you need to keep saving.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wirerat*
> 
> If you are on a strict budget trying to balance how much you can spend on gpu/cpu. You can go all heavy on the gpu and use this cpu until you save up for i5/i7.
> 
> This cpu provides a very playable experience for cheap with an excellent upgrade path. Reselling is not going to loose much ether.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> I agree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the price, it's doing extremely well, though. Especially at higher resolutions and better than anything AMD is offering at the same price level, tbh.
> 
> As an entry-level gaming + office build, it's a pretty good deal.


I'm pretty much just experimenting with the chip and didn't envision me having it as a primary gaming rig, I have plans to get an i5-K and thought I might as well get this to see how it performs.

From my benchmarks it's outperforming my Phenom II X4 B55 @3.9GHz in practically every game I've tried, its impressed me and the emulator performance is absolutely phenomenal!
Give this thread a look if you're interested: http://www.overclock.net/t/1500524/pentium-g3258-performance-thread

I'm not saying this is the CPU to get for the future and future-proof your machine, but it does a damn fine job once overclocked, I'd like to see how FX chips perform in games too with similar GPU power to me or in CPU-bound scenarios, It's IPC and single-threaded performance is the key to it's success, and wherever my Phenom II fell short CPU-wise by being CPU-bound, this processor has pretty much stepped up and almost always outperformed it in these circumstances.

It ran Battlefield 3 better than my Phenom II in the runs I did with it.


----------



## No Hands 55

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wirerat*
> 
> If you are on a strict budget trying to balance how much you can spend on gpu/cpu. You can go all heavy on the gpu and use this cpu until you save up for i5/i7.
> 
> This cpu provides a very playable experience for cheap with an excellent upgrade path. Reselling is not going to loose much ether.


this is exactly it, so all the amd fanboys can stop. i stated i want to switch to 1150 mitx so im going to get this to hold me over until broadwell K, then resell it or just use it for htpc. Thanks everyone who helped, instead of ignoring my post about what my goal is and saying no man you need to get an FX this pentium sucks, but im going to keep following this intel thread and complaining the whole time. /rant

but yeah this thing looks badass for the price, and for mainly skyrim and league and some other fairly normal games I think this will be perfect based on what I have seen. going to be funny having this little pentium on a z97 impact for a year lol


----------



## Scorpion49

I might pick up this CPU today or tomorrow, I have both a GTX 660 and an R9 290 to test with. I can get the $99 micro center bundle when it comes back in stock locally.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *No Hands 55*
> 
> this is exactly it, so all the amd fanboys can stop. i stated i want to switch to 1150 mitx so im going to get this to hold me over until broadwell K, then resell it or just use it for htpc. Thanks everyone who helped, instead of ignoring my post about what my goal is and saying no man you need to get an FX this pentium sucks, but im going to keep following this intel thread and complaining the whole time. /rant
> 
> but yeah this thing looks badass for the price, and for mainly skyrim and league and some other fairly normal games I think this will be perfect based on what I have seen. going to be funny having this little pentium on a z97 impact for a year lol


Who said that it sucks... it sucks at MT even if it is cheap. But if you will play only Skyrim and diablo, league... then get it. But personally i would never do that (it is you money, i know that).... if you want to upgrade to i5 then buy i5 right now .. you wont regret it. If you want pentium K then buy it - it wont disappoint you at sykrim,LoL,...

I hate people when they say: i will buy this CPU so i can upgrade in future... They are just waisting their money. The best thing that you can do is buy used i5 - like 2500K or i5 3570 or just i5 3350P ... you can get them cheap. You have to undestrand that OC pentium is faster than 8 core jaguar at 1.6Ghz in consoles.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Who said that it sucks... it sucks at MT even if it is cheap. But if you will play only Skyrim and diablo, league... then get it. But personally i would never do that (it is you money, i know that).... if you want to upgrade to i5 then buy i5 right now .. you wont regret it. If you want pentium K then buy it - it wont disappoint you at sykrim,LoL,...
> 
> I hate poeple when they i will buy this CPU so i can upgrade in future... They are just waisting their money. The best thing that you can do is buy used i5 - like 2500K or i5 3570 or just i5 3350P ... you can get them cheap. You have to undestrand that OC pentium is faster than 8 core jaguar at 1.6Ghz in consoles.


Skyrim, LoL, Diablo, Bf3, assassins creed, WoW, wildstar, ns2, planetside 2, ya it won't disappoint you in quite a lot of games

it's actually quite hard for it to dissapoint, because it's either top of the line in low threaded games, or it's not top.. but it costs under 1/3'rd of what i5 does


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Who said that it sucks... it sucks at MT even if it is cheap. But if you will play only Skyrim and diablo, league... then get it. But personally i would never do that (it is you money, i know that).... if you want to upgrade to i5 then buy i5 right now .. you wont regret it. If you want pentium K then buy it - it wont disappoint you at sykrim,LoL,...
> 
> I hate people when they say: i will buy this CPU so i can upgrade in future... They are just waisting their money. The best thing that you can do is buy used i5 - like 2500K or i5 3570 or just i5 3350P ... you can get them cheap. You have to undestrand that OC pentium is faster than 8 core jaguar at 1.6Ghz in consoles.


Lol those 8 Jaguar cores are pretty weak. The cat cores are nothing more than AMD's K8 architecture (which the original Phenoms' were based on as well) with a newer set of instructions. Even though Haswell goes back to the Pentuim M's architecture, Intel's done a damn fine job in evolving it, even though Netburst was total fail









And honestly, as far as people "wasting" money is concerned, you should tell that to the crowd who invested in Bulldozer, which was garbage. Period. Piledriver is what BD should have been to begin with.

The Pentium K is _the_ most exciting chip that Inte's released since the 2500K, imho. I quite don't understand the justification you're desperately trying to get across?


----------



## Themisseble

Pe
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Lol those 8 Jaguar cores are pretty weak. The cat cores are nothing more than AMD's K8 architecture (which the original Phenoms' were based on as well) with a newer set of instructions. Even though Haswell goes back to the Pentuim M's architecture, Intel's done a damn fine job in evolving it, even though Netburst was total fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And honestly, as far as people "wasting" money is concerned, you should tell that to the crowd who invested in Bulldozer, which was garbage. Period. Piledriver is what BD should have been to begin with.
> 
> The Pentium K is _the_ most exciting chip that Inte's released since the 2500K, imho. I quite don't understand the justification you're desperately trying to get across?


pentium K is the most exciting chip for you. It is easy to OC, ... while i have i7 , i bought FX 6300 for fun.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Pe
> pentium K is the most exciting chip for you. It is easy to OC, ... while i have i7 , i bought FX 6300 for fun.


I have a FX-9590 and FX 8350 for fun. /sarcasm-

So how much is AMD paying you again to look like a fool?

Also you keep saying Intel is horrible in BH benchmark but



I'm getting almost 2x the score of FX-9590.


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Pe
> pentium K is the most exciting chip for you. It is easy to OC, ... while i have i7 , i bought FX 6300 for fun.


Must be a big down grade huh?

I've played with a 5.1Ghz i7 3770K before, and after that my expectations are so high that even 8 core Xeons don't interest me anymore.

I sold my i7 3770K and ended up buying an i7 3820 which is a pain to overclock. Then I sold that for an i7 920 which is even worse. That downgrades though....


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Pe
> *pentium K is the most exciting chip for you.* It is easy to OC, ... while i have i7 , i bought FX 6300 for fun.


You don't get the Notalgia factor, do you? I'm guessing not.

That was in reference to pre-Conroe, when the Pentiums were Intel's flagship chips.


----------



## Themisseble

It is just funny how people talks about performance of BD .. but they never had one. You are the one who is talking about how BF and FX is bad buy - but you never bought it. Funny right? No need to arguing about CPU... i am recommending this CPu for my friend who also play just LoL and Skyrim.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> It is just funny how people talks about performance of BD .. but they never had one.


The reason they never had one because it was garbage









Funnily enough, you seem to talk a lot about the G3258 when you've never had one


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> It is just funny how people talks about performance of BD .. but they never had one. You are the one who is talking about how BF and FX is bad buy - but you never bought it. Funny right? No need to arguing about CPU... i am recommending this CPu for my friend who also play just LoL and Skyrim.


I know what the performance of FX CPUs are because in your favorite benchmark (Black Hole), an 8 core FX CPU @ 4.7GHz gets,



4930K @ 4.5GHz gets 2x the multi-threaded score and 1.5x the final score. On the other hand, 4790K and 4770K gets 1.1-1.2x the final score and slightly higher multi-threaded score.


----------



## Scorpion49

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> It is just funny how people talks about performance of BD .. but they never had one. You are the one who is talking about how BF and FX is bad buy - but you never bought it. Funny right? No need to arguing about CPU... i am recommending this CPu for my friend who also play just LoL and Skyrim.


I've had several PD chips, and they are good for certain things to be sure. A while back I built an FX 8350 rig with crossfire 290's for BF4, unfortunately mantle and the early 290 drivers had a lot of problems and I ended up not wanting to play BF4 any more after so much hassle, but I'm sure it would have done well. The problem is other games, take for example World of Tanks that I play 99% of the time now. It scales almost exclusively with single core performance and uses only one thread (+1 for audio in recent patches). I tried both an FX 9590 and an overclock 7850k APU and both were 50% slower than a 4670k, which makes sense given the massive IPC lead of the Haswell architecture.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpion49*
> 
> I've had several PD chips, and they are good for certain things to be sure. A while back I built an FX 8350 rig with crossfire 290's for BF4, unfortunately mantle and the early 290 drivers had a lot of problems and I ended up not wanting to play BF4 any more after so much hassle, but I'm sure it would have done well. The problem is other games, take for example World of Tanks that I play 99% of the time now. It scales almost exclusively with single core performance and uses only one thread (+1 for audio in recent patches). I tried both an FX 9590 and an overclock 7850k APU and both were 50% slower than a 4670k, which makes sense given the massive IPC lead of the Haswell architecture.


this is kinda disaster for i5 4670K ... as i can see it in this forum is that intel has 2x IPC faster of AMD. - yes i am joking

Clairvoyant129 you serious? at 4.7Ghz score should be around 8.5-9.0K


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Clairvoyant129 you serious? *at 4.7Ghz score should be around 8.5-9.0K*


No. The only way for an 8 core FX CPU to get 8.5K multi-threaded score is when its overclocked to 5.3GHz.

This is another FX-8350 (with 2400MHz memory) score from our own benchmark thread. Please stop pulling numbers out of thin air.


----------



## Themisseble

Do you still have R9 290X2?

PS. i am sorry looked at wrong benchmarks...


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> this is kinda disaster for i5 4670K ... as i can see it in this forum is that intel has 2x IPC faster of AMD. - yes i am joking
> 
> Clairvoyant129 you serious? at 4.7Ghz score should be around 8.5-9.0K


If you have such a serious problem with this processor, leave the thread, simple.
Nobody is forcing you to stay here and blab on and on.

All you've done is hate, derail and spread FUD and BS.
It was only a couple of pages ago where you pulled up G3220 benches and said "this is how the G3258 performs", blatantly lying, and calling benchmarks false, even when they are performed by OCN members.


----------



## jason387

I know the FX 4100 was the worst excuse for a quad core by AMD. I was just looking through all the gaming benchmarks on techspot and was quite surprised by what I saw. I still can't believe it actually considering the FX 4100 wasn't that powerful.
In these benchmarks the Phenom use was the Phenom IIx 4 980(3.7Ghz)- close to the limit of the max. Maybe 400Mhz of an overhead left.
FX 4100 (3.6Ghz)
Arma3- Phenom-45fps FX-43fps
http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html

Splinter Cell Blacklist- Phenom-49fps FX-60fps
http://www.techspot.com/review/706-splinter-cell-blacklist-benchmarks/page5.html

Company of Heroes 2- Phenom-38fps FX-45fps
http://www.techspot.com/review/689-company-of-heroes-2-performance/page4.html

Metro Last Light- Phenom-58fps FX-47fps
http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-performance/page6.html

Bioshock Infinite- Phenom-63fps FX-58fps
http://www.techspot.com/review/655-bioshock-infinite-performance/page5.html

Sim City- Phenom-27fps FX-26fps
http://www.techspot.com/review/648-simcity-performance/page4.html

Tomb Raider- Phenom- 78fps FX 4170-79fps
http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page5.html

Crysis 3- Phenom-54fps FX4170-56fps
http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html

Thief- Phenom-35fps FX-34fps
http://www.techspot.com/review/787-thief-benchmarks/page4.html

Batman Arkham Origins- Phenom-98fps FX-104fps
http://www.techspot.com/review/733-batman-arkham-origins-benchmarks/page5.html

For Tomb Raider and Crysis 3 the FX 4100 wasn't mentioned in the bench but the FX 4170 was so I posted it's result and mentioned it as well.


----------



## jmcosta

i think this is a thread about the 70€ chip not 300€+

this cpu overclocked performs nicely in most games with a mid-high end gpu
it falls back in bf4 obviously due to multi thread requirements but for example in metro LL (which still requires a high end cpu) it only lost by15% compare to an 2500k ocd like i post early.


----------



## Alatar

FX chips just aren't good gaming chips. Due to the low single core performance they don't perform consistently enough to offer a good gaming value unless you're playing very specific games that you know will not suffer from low single thread performance.

And "inconsistent" is how I'd describe the FX chips in general. They're good at some things, but poor in others. If you view things objectively this means that their value for a user depends entirely on what that user is doing. And this in turn somewhat makes them into niche CPUs.

If you know exactly what you're going to be doing and you know that an FX will do well there then the chips can be a great deal. But for gamers for example they're very hit and miss, which significantly lowers the value you get out of them unless you only focus on the best case scenario benchmarks.

I'd take this pentium over a 760K any day of the week for gaming. And I actually own a 760K...


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> I know the FX 4100 was the worst excuse for a quad core by AMD. I was just looking through all the gaming benchmarks on techspot and was quite surprised by what I saw. I still can't believe it actually considering the FX 4100 wasn't that powerful.
> In these benchmarks the Phenom use was the Phenom IIx 4 980(3.7Ghz)- close to the limit of the max. Maybe 400Mhz of an overhead left.
> FX 4100 (3.6Ghz)
> Arma3- Phenom-45fps FX-43fps
> http://www.techspot.com/review/712-arma-3-benchmarks/page5.html
> 
> Splinter Cell Blacklist- Phenom-49fps FX-60fps
> http://www.techspot.com/review/706-splinter-cell-blacklist-benchmarks/page5.html
> 
> Company of Heroes 2- Phenom-38fps FX-45fps
> http://www.techspot.com/review/689-company-of-heroes-2-performance/page4.html
> 
> Metro Last Light- Phenom-58fps FX-47fps
> http://www.techspot.com/review/670-metro-last-light-performance/page6.html
> 
> Bioshock Infinite- Phenom-63fps FX-58fps
> http://www.techspot.com/review/655-bioshock-infinite-performance/page5.html
> 
> Sim City- Phenom-27fps FX-26fps
> http://www.techspot.com/review/648-simcity-performance/page4.html
> 
> Tomb Raider- Phenom- 78fps FX 4170-79fps
> http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page5.html
> 
> Crysis 3- Phenom-54fps FX4170-56fps
> http://www.techspot.com/review/642-crysis-3-performance/page6.html
> 
> Thief- Phenom-35fps FX-34fps
> http://www.techspot.com/review/787-thief-benchmarks/page4.html
> 
> Batman Arkham Origins- Phenom-98fps FX-104fps
> http://www.techspot.com/review/733-batman-arkham-origins-benchmarks/page5.html
> 
> For Tomb Raider and Crysis 3 the FX 4100 wasn't mentioned in the bench but the FX 4170 was so I posted it's result and mentioned it as well.


It's a well known fact that Bulldozers and Piledrivers have lower IPCs compared to Denebs and Thubans at the same clock speeds.


----------



## TopicClocker

I'm doing my Battlefield 3 and Planet Side 2 benchmarks today, hopefully I'll have them done in a few hours alongside videos!
http://www.overclock.net/t/1500524/pentium-g3258-performance-thread


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> It's a well known fact that Bulldozers and Piledrivers have lower IPCs compared to Denebs and Thubans at the same clock speeds.


That's exactly my point. I really thought that the FX 4100 would be much more far behind in terms of fps in games considering that in 8 of these benches the FX 4100 was at stock which is at 3.6Ghz whether the Phenom was at 3.7Ghz.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> If you have such a serious problem with this processor, leave the thread, simple.
> Nobody is forcing you to stay here and blab on and on.
> 
> All you've done is hate, derail and spread FUD and BS.
> It was only a couple of pages ago where you pulled up G3220 benches and said "this is how the G3258 performs", blatantly lying, and calling benchmarks false, even when they are performed by OCN members.


like i said i was looking at wrong version... YOu really thing that i will compare FX 8350 and i7 4930K?? you must be kidding me.
I was talking about pentium K in black hole benchmark... it just cant compare to FX 4300 or Fx 6300


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> like i said i was looking at wrong version... YOu really thing that i will compare FX 8350 and i7 4930K?? you must be kidding me


Don't mind but with the various other silly claims you have made we always think you are kidding. Don't cry wolf and we will actually believe you!


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> like i said i was looking at wrong version... YOu really thing that i will compare FX 8350 and i7 4930K?? you must be kidding me.
> I was talking about pentium K in black hole benchmark... it just cant compare to FX 4300 or Fx 6300


I'm sorry, but the 4300 would be a hard sell compared to the Pentium K. I would personally take 2 extremely strong cores over 4 weak ones. However, the 6300 would make more sense, especially where extreme multi-threaded grunt is needed.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> I'm sorry, but the 4300 would be a hard sell compared to the Pentium K. I would personally take 2 extremely strong cores over 4 weak ones. However, the 6300 would make more sense, especially where extreme multi-threaded grunt is needed.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> It is just funny how people talks about performance of BD .. but they never had one. You are the one who is talking about *how BF and FX is bad buy - but you never bought it.* Funny right? No need to arguing about CPU... i am recommending this CPu for my friend who also play just LoL and Skyrim.


For $200, my 8350 is an amazing buy for MT applications. That being said, I got tired of frame drops with modded MineCraft and Skyrim (pretty much all I play) and a little Planet Side 2, so when I found that i7 960, I swapped.

960 > 8350.

Although, turning off two module of that 8350 and able to put it at 4.8GHz at 1.425v and it stays under 55°C now is pretty cool. (I don't have any good fans for the rad)


----------



## Wirerat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*


if only amd had a better upgrade path. I absolutely loved my fx6300.
Going sli with it just was not ideal though.


----------



## dlee7283

overclocked my G3258 on the Microcenter MSI PC Mate board.

In Passmark I get a 4631 score when I overclocked to 4.3 which is at almost the same score as a stock AMD FX 4150 at 4.1

I know Passmark isn't the end all be all of any means but basically this processor is on par with the FX 41xx series when it comes down to it once overclocked.

Basically I wouldn't recommend getting this unless you get it and a Z97 mobo for $100/120. However It appears to be a decent stopgap until i5/i7 Broadwell and the single threaded performance is pretty amazing.

In the end I think you could get a locked Haswell i3 and lower end board and not tell a difference in gaming.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dlee7283*
> 
> overclocked my G3258 on the Microcenter MSI PC Mate board.
> 
> In Passmark I get a 4631 score when I overclocked to 4.3 which is at almost the same score as a stock AMD FX 4150 at 4.1
> 
> I know Passmark isn't the end all be all of any means but basically this processor is on par with the FX 41xx series when it comes down to it once overclocked.
> 
> Basically I wouldn't recommend getting this unless you get it and a Z97 mobo for $100/120. However It appears to be a decent stopgap until i5/i7 Broadwell and the single threaded performance is pretty amazing.
> 
> In the end I think you could get a locked Haswell i3 and lower end board and not tell a difference in gaming.


This chip would be ideal as a stopgag for an i5 or i7 I believe, but honestly the synthetic benchmarks do it no justice.

Here's my benchmarks in performance test 8, the FFXIV ARR benchmark and the Resident Evil 6 benchmark.
Quote:


> Pentium G3258 @4.4GHz
> CPU Mark:4717
> Single thread:2609
> 
> AMD Phenom II X4 B55 @3.9GHz
> Lowest CPU Mark: 4899
> Lowest Single thread:1330
> 
> AMD Phenom II X4 B55 @3.9GHz
> Highest CPU Mark: 5070
> Highest Single thread:1346


Quote:


> FFXIV ARR Bench (Exploration)
> AMD Phenom II @3.9GHz
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
> Tested on:03/07/2014 19:40:34
> Score:6490
> Average Framerate:56.788
> Performance:Very High
> -Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Maximum
> 
> Intel Pentium G3258 @4.4GHz
> FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
> Tested on:07/07/2014 22:43:48
> Score:7780
> Average Framerate:67.720
> Performance:Extremely High
> -Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
> 
> Screen Size: 1920x1080
> Screen Mode: Full Screen
> Graphics Presets: Maximum


If you haven't seen it already, check this thread: http://www.overclock.net/t/1500524/pentium-g3258-performance-thread

Still more benchmarks to come, but here's Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag.



Coming from a Phenom II X4 B55 @3.9GHz, the way how this game ran absolutely blew my mind!

In really well multi-threaded games and applications I think the 6300 and 8350 will take the lead, but in games which fail to use all of their threads and cores this CPU can put up a damn good fight and is basically beating my Phenom II which I had at it's peak in a ton of games.

It might not be the best CPU for future-proofing as we are likely on the verge of better multi-threaded games where the 6300 and 8350 will show their true form and performance hopefully but this platform and processor currently has the best upgrade paths for gaming, period.


----------



## Roaches

Hey, TopicClocker. Any Emulation benches yet? EPSXE, Dolphin, PCSX2 preferably.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Roaches*
> 
> Hey, TopicClocker. Any Emulation benches yet? EPSXE, Dolphin, PCSX2 preferably.


Yup, check that thread, I've got Shadow of the Colossus and Zone of the Enders the 2nd runner videos up, Zone of the Enders would slow down when I got up-close to a boss for some reason, I think with a little tweaking I might be able to get it to run smoother.

I'm going to be playing Shadow of the Colossus and have a video of the intro, and the gameplay up to the first colossi.
I'm going to try Super Mario Galaxy 2 as well and perhaps a couple other Wii and GameCube games.


----------



## dlee7283

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Coming from a Phenom II X4 B55 @3.9GHz, the way how this game ran absolutely blew my mind!
> 
> In really well multi-threaded games and applications I think the 6300 and 8350 will take the lead, but in games which fail to use all of their threads and cores this CPU can put up a damn good fight and is basically beating my Phenom II which I had at it's peak in a ton of games.
> 
> It might not be the best CPU for future-proofing as we are likely on the verge of better multi-threaded games where the 6300 and 8350 will show their true form and performance hopefully but this platform and processor currently has the best upgrade paths for gaming, period.


Sorry if I had a somewhat elitist tone in my post. I was just trying to show the people that who are bummed out about not getting a Pentium K Z97 combo that and i3 Haswell and H81 would make a good consolidation prize if you need to build a machine this month on a budget. I think this processor makes even more sense to people wanting to try out newer tech coming from an aging one.

I however agree that upgrading from a Phenom II X4, one should absolutely upgrade from that processor line to this one, especially one that u had to unlock and overclock since this processor makes alot of sense going into the future if your a mid level budget guy like myself who might get into a i5/i7 Broadwell down the line. You lose those actual cores but get peace of mind.

I quit overclocking all together because of bad experiences from K10 and trying to squeeze value out of it with boards that just didn't have the Phases or Mosfet cooling to get it to the clock speeds I wanted. Endless BSODs, SATA ports becoming corrupted from voltage spikes,etc. It ruined all the fun and I just intentionally went with a lock processor on a superior arch hence the i5 2500.

These Pentium K's are truly a breeze to overclock and will be a breath of fresh air to get running stable compared to what u had to do in the Phenom II line. (Still love AMD but know its true when u overclock with them)


----------



## Roaches

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Yup, check that thread, I've got Shadow of the Colossus and Zone of the Enders the 2nd runner videos up, Zone of the Enders would slow down when I got up-close to a boss for some reason, I think with a little tweaking I might be able to get it to run smoother.
> 
> I'm going to be playing Shadow of the Colossus and have a video of the intro, and the gameplay up to the first colossi.
> I'm going to try Super Mario Galaxy 2 as well and perhaps a couple other Wii and GameCube games.


Awesome and thanks, I'll check out your YouTube vids when I get home. Work forbids me from viewing them


----------



## Bowzer

Hi. Do you guys think the G3258 would be a decent upgrade from my e8400 @ 3.6 GHZ? I would be using a GTX 670 with it.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dlee7283*
> 
> Sorry if I had a somewhat elitist tone in my post. I was just trying to show the people that who are bummed out about not getting a Pentium K Z97 combo that and i3 Haswell and H81 would make a good consolidation prize if you need to build a machine this month on a budget. I think this processor makes even more sense to people wanting to try out newer tech coming from an aging one.
> 
> I however agree that upgrading from a Phenom II X4, one should absolutely upgrade from that processor line to this one, especially one that u had to unlock and overclock since this processor makes alot of sense going into the future if your a mid level budget guy like myself who might get into a i5/i7 Broadwell down the line. You lose those actual cores but get peace of mind.
> 
> I quit overclocking all together because of bad experiences from K10 and trying to squeeze value out of it with boards that just didn't have the Phases or Mosfet cooling to get it to the clock speeds I wanted. Endless BSODs, SATA ports becoming corrupted from voltage spikes,etc. It ruined all the fun and I just intentionally went with a lock processor on a superior arch hence the i5 2500.
> 
> These Pentium K's are truly a breeze to overclock and will be a breath of fresh air to get running stable compared to what u had to do in the Phenom II line. (Still love AMD but know its true when u overclock with them)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dlee7283*
> 
> Sorry if I had a somewhat elitist tone in my post. I was just trying to show the people that who are bummed out about not getting a Pentium K Z97 combo that and i3 Haswell and H81 would make a good consolidation prize if you need to build a machine this month on a budget. I think this processor makes even more sense to people wanting to try out newer tech coming from an aging one.
> 
> I however agree that upgrading from a Phenom II X4, one should absolutely upgrade from that processor line to this one, especially one that u had to unlock and overclock since this processor makes alot of sense going into the future if your a mid level budget guy like myself who might get into a i5/i7 Broadwell down the line. You lose those actual cores but get peace of mind.
> 
> I quit overclocking all together because of bad experiences from K10 and trying to squeeze value out of it with boards that just didn't have the Phases or Mosfet cooling to get it to the clock speeds I wanted. Endless BSODs, SATA ports becoming corrupted from voltage spikes,etc. It ruined all the fun and I just intentionally went with a lock processor on a superior arch hence the i5 2500.
> 
> These Pentium K's are truly a breeze to overclock and will be a breath of fresh air to get running stable compared to what u had to do in the Phenom II line. (Still love AMD but know its true when u overclock with them)


I didn't have too much trouble with my chip, I managed to unlock it after I got an aftermarket cooler and ran it at 3.6GHz on stock clocks, I then started to OC and overvolt it as time went by and pushed it to the limits that I could with thermal constraints, i did get BSOD every once and awhile for unstable overclocks but nothing too serious.
Sorry to hear you had problems trying to OC, what chip did you try it with, what clocks and what board if you dont mind me asking?
I didn't have too much of a great board but I still managed to push it to 3.9GHz, 2800mhz NB on a 630a chipset AM3 board, this board here.
Asus M4N68t-MV2, it was even PCI-E 1.1x16, although shouldn't be much slower than 2.0 @8x if at all.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Roaches*
> 
> Awesome and thanks, I'll check out your YouTube vids when I get home. Work forbids me from viewing them


No problem, I hope you enjoy them.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bowzer*
> 
> Hi. Do you guys think the G3258 would be a decent upgrade from my e8400 @ 3.6 GHZ? I would be using a GTX 670 with it.


A GTX670 at stock clocks?
My performance could likely be a good reference since my 760 Hawk is about onpar with a reference 670 and I've also overclock it a bit, it's more or less in between that and a 7970 at reference clocks.
Take a look at this thread: http://www.overclock.net/t/1500524/pentium-g3258-performance-thread

And would it be a decent upgrade from your e8400 @3.6GHz?
Hell yes!, but you'll likely want to OC it to 4GHz+, that's when it truly performs, it not much at stock clocks, and this processor is basically made to overclock.

It's providing me better performance than my Phenom II X4 B55 @3.9Ghz in almost every game shockingly, I believe wherever my CPU fell short CPU-wise due to being CPU-bound this processor is stepping up and outperforming it in those areas.

I still need to try Star Citizen and some other games like Far Cry 3, and if you're into emulators, the PCSX2 performance is truly phenomenal! I've still got to try Dolphin though.


----------



## Themisseble

ACIV is poorly optimized game
Can you do watchdogs,wolfenstein, crysis3 jungle?


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> ACIV is poorly optimized game
> Can you do *watchdogs*,wolfenstein, crysis3 jungle?


Yes. Watch_Mutts is extremely optimized


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bowzer*
> 
> Hi. Do you guys think the G3258 would be a decent upgrade from my e8400 @ 3.6 GHZ? I would be using a GTX 670 with it.


here you can compare difference between E8500 and pentium G3258
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R6bdrX-P5U
E8500 - you can all ready see G3258

You can also see that ACIV doesnt use 2 cores 100% ... so yes fast dual core is best choice


----------



## Clairvoyant129

If you need strong mulit-thread performance, G3258 is not for you. Themisseble's criticism is that a $60 processor with two crippled Haswell cores gets outperformed by $100+ CPU with double or triple the amount of cores in highly threaded workloads. I think he and others are forgetting the fact that this little gem can be overclocked to 4.5GHz on stock cooling and even higher on after market coolers and it will outperform any AMD alternatives at similar price points in games and general productivity work. Most games and general productivity work are not highly threaded.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> If you need strong mulit-thread performance, G3258 is not for you. Themisseble's criticism is that a $60 processor with two crippled Haswell cores gets outperformed by $100+ CPU with double or triple the amount of cores in highly threaded workloads. I think he and others are forgetting the fact that this little gem can be overclocked to 4.5GHz on stock cooling and even higher on after market coolers and it will outperform any AMD alternatives at similar price points in games and general productivity work. Most games and general productivity work are not highly threaded.


even if haswell has 2x higher IPC this is now very impressive for dual core.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtIHp6aOOno


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> here you can compare difference between E8500 and pentium G3258
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R6bdrX-P5U
> E8500 - you can all ready see G3258
> 
> You can also see that ACIV doesnt use 2 cores 100% ... so yes fast dual core is best choice


It's against OCN's ToS to post while intoxicated.

Are you seriously saying that you "see" the G3258 in the E8400 and that they're similar?

The E8400 was launched in 2008! Just because the G3258 is a dual-core, it's magically the same as all dual-cores, past or present? Oh wait, you're probably saddened by the fact that even the E8400 performs better than Bulldozer


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bowzer*
> 
> Hi. Do you guys think the G3258 would be a decent upgrade from my e8400 @ 3.6 GHZ? I would be using a GTX 670 with it.


If you've been doing ok with a e8400 paired with a 670 the pentium would be quite a large upgrade despite still 'only' being a dual core. What games do you play?


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> It's against OCN's ToS to post while intoxicated.
> 
> Are you seriously saying that you "see" the G3258 in the E8400 and that they're similar?
> 
> The E8400 was launched in 2008! Just because the G3258 is a dual-core, it's magically the same as all dual-cores, past or present? Oh wait, you're probably saddened by the fact that even the E8400 performs better than Bulldozer


Yea after that post, I won't be responding to him anymore. I mean, who compares Conroe dual cores against Haswells? He must be sad Conroe has better IPC than his Bulldozer FX CPU.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> It's against OCN's ToS to post while intoxicated.
> 
> Are you seriously saying that you "see" the G3258 in the E8400 and that they're similar?
> 
> The E8400 was launched in 2008! Just because the G3258 is a dual-core, it's magically the same as all dual-cores, past or present? Oh wait, you're probably saddened by the fact that even the E8400 performs better than Bulldozer


i only wanted the man who asked. I never asked you for your opinion. No i am not saying that E8500 is similar as pentium G3258 .-.. maybe it is when E8500 is clocked higher than 4.6Ghz and G3258 is clocked lower than 3.0Ghz.

As you can see his E8500 is clocked at 3.6Ghz maybe if he can get little more out of it he can wait and get i5 instead.

E8500
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-18.html


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> i only wanted the man who asked. I never asked you for your opinion. No i am not saying that E8500 is similar as pentium G3258 .-.. maybe it is when E8500 is clocked higher than 4.6Ghz and G3258 is clocked lower than 3.0Ghz.
> 
> As you can see his E8500 is clocked at 3.6Ghz maybe if he can get little more out of it he can wait and get i5 instead.


Haswell OC's like 400mhz(?) higher than those CPU's though


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Haswell OC's like 400mhz(?) higher than those CPU's though


What?
Here you can see difference between dual core at 3.0Ghz and at 4.5Ghz


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> If you need strong mulit-thread performance, G3258 is not for you. Themisseble's criticism is that a $60 processor with two crippled Haswell cores gets outperformed by $100+ CPU with double or triple the amount of cores in highly threaded workloads. I think he and others are forgetting the fact that this little gem can be overclocked to 4.5GHz on stock cooling and even higher on after market coolers and it will outperform any AMD alternatives at similar price points in games and general productivity work. Most games and general productivity work are not highly threaded.


Yes this too, I forgot to add that to my post!
It all depends on what you're doing with it and what games you are playing, if you're going for strong multi-thread performance then the G3258 is not for you, something like a 6320 or 8320 would be better for things which utilize the multi-thread performs and cores, the only reasons why this processor can perform as well as it does is that the IPC is a ton stronger than AMD's offerings, especially once overclocked, and not all games are using 6-8 threads which are AMD's best performing processors.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> i only wanted the man who asked. I never asked you for your opinion. No i am not saying that E8500 is similar as pentium G3258 .-.. maybe it is when E8500 is clocked higher than 4.6Ghz and G3258 is clocked lower than 3.0Ghz.


You do know the reason for buying a G3258 IS to overclock?


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> i only wanted the man who asked. I never asked you for your opinion. No i am not saying that E8500 is similar as pentium G3258 .-.. maybe it is when E8500 is clocked higher than 4.6Ghz and G3258 is clocked lower than 3.0Ghz.
> 
> As you can see his E8500 is clocked at 3.6Ghz maybe if he can get little more out of it he can wait and get i5 instead.
> 
> E8500
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-18.html


If you're going to give biased advice, I obviously WILL voice my opinion, the same was as any rational member would.

An E8XX chip has to be at 6Ghz+ to match the Pentium K (at 4.5Ghz+) in most Synthetic benchmarks. Don't believe me? Check out Hwbot.

As far as games are concerned, a high frequency is never the be-all and the end-all. Simply put, Wolfdale lacks the necessary tweaks/instruction set.


----------



## Scorpion49

He is saying if that guy can OC his 775 chip a little more, he might be able to hold out and get an i5 along with doing a platform upgrade. Don't forget, he will need a motherboard and DDR3 as well. I agree with this sentiment, the G3258 is a cool chip but not something you would want to hold on to for 4-5 years.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpion49*
> 
> He is saying if that guy can OC his 775 chip a little more, he might be able to hold out and get an i5 along with doing a platform upgrade. Don't forget, he will need a motherboard and DDR3 as well. I agree with this sentiment, the G3258 is a cool chip but not something you would want to hold on to for 4-5 years.


Yes that makes sense, but I think most people should look at this chip as a stopgag for an i5 or i7, or for a specific build, like emulation, older games, or games which love high single-threaded performance, just look at how ACIV ran for me.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Yes. Watch_Mutts is extremely optimized


Stutter_Dogs runs like crap for most PC gamers, and even worse on ALL dual cores (Maybe with the exception of HT) because of how the game is designed.


----------



## jason387

Guys here should really give this a look- http://www.overclock.net/t/1493307/relative-access-to-execution-throughput-comparison-chart


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> Guys here should really give this a look- http://www.overclock.net/t/1493307/relative-access-to-execution-throughput-comparison-chart


Nice one, I'll have to read through this today.








Love me some detailed techy information like this.


----------



## fateswarm

Nostalgia is a suboptimal feeling to be honest.


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> Lol those 8 Jaguar cores are pretty weak. The cat cores are nothing more than AMD's K8 architecture (which the original Phenoms' were based on as well) with a newer set of instructions. Even though Haswell goes back to the Pentuim M's architecture, Intel's done a damn fine job in evolving it, even though Netburst was total fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And honestly, as far as people "wasting" money is concerned, you should tell that to the crowd who invested in Bulldozer, which was garbage. Period. Piledriver is what BD should have been to begin with.
> 
> The Pentium K is _the_ most exciting chip that Inte's released since the 2500K, imho. I quite don't understand the justification you're desperately trying to get across?


Second that, 2500k is pretty damned spectacular, isn't what the 920 was to me but a mid tier CPU boasting a fast Quad that OCs amazingly and still has the brawn to keep up with Ivy and Haswell? Consider me impressed. It didn't sacrifice value for performance or performance for value, a beautiful, guilt-free sweet spot.

AMD is still struggling to compete with its own generations old processors that were offered in the same price brackets (in some ways). I'm not even sure if PD being BD they'd have two feet to stand on.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> You don't get the Notalgia factor, do you? I'm guessing not.
> 
> That was in reference to pre-Conroe, when the Pentiums were Intel's flagship chips.


For some of us taking a low end chip and clocking it to the sky to make it handle what its more expensive brother's and sister's do is a lot of fun. This CPU is a fun little reminder of the Pentium legacy and a great way to celebrate it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> It is just funny how people talks about performance of BD .. but they never had one. You are the one who is talking about how BF and FX is bad buy - but you never bought it. Funny right? No need to arguing about CPU... i am recommending this CPu for my friend who also play just LoL and Skyrim.


BD's performance was embarrassed by its predecessors and Thuban was cheaper and generally its equal. The BD FX was also priced to a category it could NEVER compete with.

We didn't own it because for all the hype it stumbled and fell.

For the record, I rode the Bulldozer hypewagon all the way to Oregon and I'm still waiting for AMD to pull an ace from their sleeve and fulfill the hype that Bulldozer couldn't.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> It's a well known fact that Bulldozers and Piledrivers have lower IPCs compared to Denebs and Thubans at the same clock speeds.


Hay Seuss. I know BD and PD are really weak as far as IPC is compared but wow.


----------



## micromage

Anyone tried Guildwars2 yet with this chip?
Should be really good for it i thinks


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *micromage*
> 
> Anyone tried Guildwars2 yet with this chip?
> Should be really good for it i thinks


I did at 4GHz, it wasn't anything special from the run I did but I'm now 400MHz higher, I'll get back to you soon, I might give it a try now that you've mentioned it.
(I was in World vs World so that may explain why I felt it wasn't anything special, I've tried a 2600K system and that got hammered too)


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *micromage*
> 
> Anyone tried Guildwars2 yet with this chip?
> Should be really good for it i thinks


This game is pretty weird, whilst under half of my GPU is being utilized (40-50%, 35-50fps), dropping a few graphical settings here and there are giving me boosts in frames.








I'm going to try and find some settings which boost my frames and try out the performance in WvW and general questing.


----------



## Scorpion49

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> This game is pretty weird, whilst under half of my GPU is being utilized (40-50%, 35-50fps), dropping a few graphical settings here and there are giving me boosts in frames.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to try and find some settings which boost my frames and try out the performance in WvW and general questing.


IIRC shadows and post are done on the CPU in GW2, I can check in a bit on mine.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scorpion49*
> 
> IIRC shadows and post are done on the CPU in GW2, I can check in a bit on mine.


Yeah I've just realized that, when I saw my frames going up I figured that had to be the case, It reminds me of when people were saying Skyrim's shadows were done on the CPU.


----------



## Derp

Techreport's review is up here: http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor

The most shocking part for me here is the crysis 3 result which is a very well threaded game. Yet the overclocked pentium beats out the FX-8350....



In their words:

"Take a second to consider what those Crysis 3 results mean. At 4.8GHz, the Pentium G3258 avoids slowdowns much more capably than even AMD's FX-8350. Just like car guys say "there's no replacement for displacement," we've gotta admit that there's no replacement for per-thread performance."


----------



## Wirerat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> Techreport's review is up here: http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor
> 
> The most shocking part for me here is the crysis 3 result which is a very well threaded game. Yet the overclocked pentium beats out the FX-8350....
> 
> 
> 
> In their words:
> 
> "Take a second to consider what those Crysis 3 results mean. At 4.8GHz, the Pentium G3258 avoids slowdowns much more capably than even AMD's FX-8350. Just like car guys say "there's no replacement for displacement," we've gotta admit that there's no replacement for per-thread performance."


its beating a stock 2500k. Thats wild. Does the pentium have the same 8 execution ports per core?


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Do you still have R9 290X2?
> 
> PS. i am sorry looked at wrong benchmarks...


Look here,

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> Techreport's review is up here: http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor
> 
> The most shocking part for me here is the crysis 3 result which is a very well threaded game. Yet the overclocked pentium beats out the FX-8350....
> 
> 
> 
> In their words:
> 
> "Take a second to consider what those Crysis 3 results mean. At 4.8GHz, the Pentium G3258 avoids slowdowns much more capably than even AMD's FX-8350. Just like car guys say "there's no replacement for displacement," we've gotta admit that there's no replacement for per-thread performance."


So what happened Themisseble? Crysis 3 is well threaded game or are you going to say Crysis 3 is crap too?


----------



## iRUSH

Wow! Crysis 3 has amazing multi-threading too. The best I've experienced in gaming.

I'll have to try it with the i3 I'm using too and see how that goes.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> Techreport's review is up here: http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor
> 
> The most shocking part for me here is the crysis 3 result which is a very well threaded game. Yet the overclocked pentium beats out the FX-8350....
> 
> 
> 
> In their words:
> 
> "Take a second to consider what those Crysis 3 results mean. At 4.8GHz, the Pentium G3258 avoids slowdowns much more capably than even AMD's FX-8350. Just like car guys say "there's no replacement for displacement," we've gotta admit that there's no replacement for per-thread performance."


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Wow! Crysis 3 has amazing multi-threading too. The best I've experienced in gaming.
> 
> I'll have to try it with the i3 I'm using too and see how that goes.


God dayum!
I was bottleneck in that game with my Phenom II X4 B55, I'll have to give Crysis 3 a shot.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> Wow! Crysis 3 has amazing multi-threading too. The best I've experienced in gaming.
> 
> I'll have to try it with the i3 I'm using too and see how that goes.


not as well as [email protected] but probably pretty decent


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> Techreport's review is up here: http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor
> 
> The most shocking part for me here is the crysis 3 result which is a very well threaded game. Yet the overclocked pentium beats out the FX-8350....
> 
> 
> 
> In their words:
> 
> "Take a second to consider what those Crysis 3 results mean. At 4.8GHz, the Pentium G3258 avoids slowdowns much more capably than even AMD's FX-8350. Just like car guys say "there's no replacement for displacement," we've gotta admit that there's no replacement for per-thread performance."


That's some amazing performance for a dual core Pentium.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> That's some amazing performance for a dual core Pentium.


This thing is really impressing me in a couple of games, I'm working on Just Cause 2 and Battlefield 3 footage at the moment but here's a short clip of Battlefield 3 at 4.4GHz.





At the rate it's going, my thread is looking to have the most comprehensive coverage of the performance of this chip.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> Techreport's review is up here: http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor
> 
> The most shocking part for me here is the crysis 3 result which is a very well threaded game. Yet the overclocked pentium beats out the FX-8350....
> 
> 
> 
> In their words:
> 
> "Take a second to consider what those Crysis 3 results mean. At 4.8GHz, the Pentium G3258 avoids slowdowns much more capably than even AMD's FX-8350. Just like car guys say "there's no replacement for displacement," we've gotta admit that there's no replacement for per-thread performance."


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> This thing is really impressing me in a couple of games, I'm working on Just Cause 2 and Battlefield 3 footage at the moment but here's a short clip of Battlefield 3 at 4.4GHz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the rate it's going, my thread is looking to have the most comprehensive coverage of the performance of this chip.


These results also dispel the myth that AMD is smoother. We can see that even with a 3 year old stock 2500K... there is a huge variance compared to the top of the line FX processor, with less dips and slow downs, resulting in a smoother experience.

Intel platforms provide a much smoother and enjoyable gaming experience.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> These results also dispel the myth that AMD is smoother. We can see that even with a 3 year old stock 2500K... there is a huge variance compared to the top of the line FX processor, with less dips and slow downs, resulting in a smoother experience.
> 
> Intel platforms provide a much smoother and enjoyable gaming experience.


There's a myth that AMD is smoother? Which processors and in what games?


----------



## TheLAWNOOB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> These results also dispel the myth that AMD is smoother. We can see that even with a 3 year old stock 2500K... there is a huge variance compared to the top of the line FX processor, with less dips and slow downs, resulting in a smoother experience.
> 
> Intel platforms provide a much smoother and enjoyable gaming experience.


Metro LL actually runs less smooth after I went from a 4.7Ghz Pentium to a 3.2Ghz i5. Frametime differentiated more with the i5.

Maybe metro likes higher clocked CPUs after all.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheLAWNOOB*
> 
> Metro LL actually runs less smooth after I went from a 4.7Ghz Pentium to a 3.2Ghz i5. Frametime differentiated more with the i5.
> 
> Maybe metro likes higher clocked CPUs after all.


Damn I wish I had LL to test and record, I only have 2033.


----------



## fateswarm

I wouldn't call Crysis 3 "well threaded" or "amazing" multithreaded. It's multithreaded. But since this beats it, it's not amazing at multi. Also it's incredibly hard to make a game and an FPS game at that very well threaded because of overheads with intercommunication of threads.

And In general if you manage to make a game multithreaded you will still always need a fast thread to keep the global loop fast enough (it governs the FPS).

It's the main reasons you see this chip be fast. It doesn't conjure cores out of thin air. Those applications are just not purely multithreaded and like singles.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> There's a myth that AMD is smoother? Which processors and in what games?


It's actually a pretty funny myth about how AMD procs are smoother at.. everything.. in some way that you can't measure, as well as outside of games. I've written it off as placebo or fanatics looking for something to hold on to for why their chips are good/acceptable after a few hundred posts discussing it and Alatar posting DPC latency at load across both systems etc (one test he was asked to perform)


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Look here,
> So what happened Themisseble? Crysis 3 is well threaded game or are you going to say Crysis 3 is crap too?


I can probably quote him









"this is rubbish benchmark...run the blackhole...you will see multithreaded sucks...here is video showing core 2 duo e8400 sucking in games..and is same as g3258..because it dual-core"

Was I too accurate?


----------



## fateswarm

I thought an AMD laptop was "smoother" once. Then I realized it was because it did everything slower.


----------



## Cyro999

There's a big difference between "well threaded" and "scales well onto many CPU cores"

Amdahl's law again


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> There's a big difference between "well threaded" and "scales well onto many CPU cores"
> 
> Amdahl's law again


*Cough* Watch Dogs *Cough*
Was using 4 thread on my Phenom II X4 B55, when I disabled a core it performed pretty much the same, if anything it might of been more stable.
But then again I don't know how the code was written, there could be something like audio running on the 4th core/thread.


----------



## Wirerat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> I can probably quote him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "this is rubbish benchmark...run the blackhole...you will see multithreaded sucks...here is video showing core 2 duo e8400 sucking in games..and is same as g3258..because it dual-core"
> 
> Was I too accurate?


Its just cringe worthy post after cringe worthy post. Lol

Seriously though,
I hope amd can come up with something competitive before intel refreshes the refreshes.


----------



## fateswarm

I would not use "laws" in high level computing, unless it's a physical law that applies to the universe in whole. e.g. in this case parallelism depends on the chip, the cache size, the ability it has to intercommunicate between threads, the software. You can't just take a "law" from wikipedia and think that's how all software or hardware behaves.


----------



## fateswarm

It appears that "law" assumes an ideal situation where a program is either purely serial or partly serial in a very well define portion. I'm pretty sure that's not realistic at all. Multithreaded programming in gaming is extremely more complicated than that for the simple reason, you do not just split tasks, you have to very often communicate between threads, and that's the main reason of the slowdowns (because they are interactive applications and you have to keep a coherency).

The way you do that is not easily quantifiable at all in "serial" and "non serial".


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> I would not use "laws" in high level computing, unless it's a physical law that applies to the universe in whole. e.g. in this case parallelism depends on the chip, the cache size, the ability it has to intercommunicate between threads, the software. You can't just take a "law" from wikipedia and think that's how all software or hardware behaves.


To use the wikipedia example:

If you have a program that takes 10 hours to execute on a single core, but you can run 90% of it in parallel, it would take "x/9 +1" hours for a multi-core processor.

With a pretty simple CPU that has say 2 or 4 true cores, it's extremely accurate. You have to make some assumptions like "all cores run at 100.0% speed regardless of other cores running" etc, which are wrong, but the core of the "problem" is still exactly the same and you don't really have to worry about other effects throwing off calculations on say a Pentium or 4690k.

If you're being super in-depth about it, you're right that's not how everything works but it's a solid and easy to understand way to communicate that 4x cores does not necessarily mean 4x performance, for more than a few reasons


----------



## fateswarm

As I explained in a later reply, that's an ideal and unrealistic hypothesis. In reality interactive applications such as games don't just have purely serial and purely non-serial portions, they insert mutexes ("stops" to safely communicate variables between threads) or other similar methods and that's not easily quantifiable at all on what portion it made something non-parallel.

And I wouldn't be surprised if there are other additional nuances, e.g. cache(s), interprocess buses, who knows.

It might be purely theoretically able to be applied with the right numbers, but the numbers might be unknown.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> It appears that "law" assumes an ideal situation where a program is either purely serial or partly serial in a very well define portion. I'm pretty sure that's not realistic at all. Multithreaded programming in gaming is extremely more complicated than that for the simple reason, you do not just split tasks, you have to very often communicate between threads, and that's the main reason of the slowdowns (because they are interactive applications and you have to keep a coherency).
> 
> The way you do that is not easily quantifiable at all in "serial" and "non serial".


Yes, this is true however that "law" has some aspects which are somewhat relevant to multi-threaded programming, even if it's not 100%, the gaming influence is likely less than other applications though.


----------



## fateswarm

It might as well be giving perfect results. But I suspect the input data of it can't be derived accurately in most cases. And in that sense, what it means for pentium or an amd or whatever might be unknown.


----------



## PunkX 1

I'm getting a Noctua nh-u14s tomorrow









So may be able to push my chip a little higher and help with the Pentium K's performance thread


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> I'm getting a Noctua nh-u14s tomorrow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So may be able to push my chip a little higher and help with the Pentium K's performance thread


Nice, and thanks.
What cooler did you have before?

And are you sure that chip can take anymore clocks and volts? I think I recall seeing yours in the 1.5v range, or are you going to lock 2 or more cores and try and push the single-threaded performance to the limit?


----------



## fateswarm

It's likely the stock cooler is enough for anything.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> I can probably quote him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "this is rubbish benchmark...run the blackhole...you will see multithreaded sucks...here is video showing core 2 duo e8400 sucking in games..and is same as g3258..because it dual-core"
> 
> Was I too accurate?


Hehe you are ...
So what should i OC and disable cores (i7) to try Crysis 3? everyone is showing AMD as bad CPU.
It is bad comparison to compare pentium dual core at 4.4Ghz and phenom x4 at 3.9Ghz. Why dont you just make both as a dual cores and compare them ? you think that phenom x2 4.4Ghz cant make 50avg. with nvidia GPU?

So what? actually i did a lot of test and i know how it goes. You can make E8500 4.5Ghz look good even faster than stock i5 3350P/3570K. It is quite easy... Yes AMD is worse but as you can see it is never 2:1 clock per clock.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-17.html
wow is E8400 at 4.5Ghz faster than i5 3570K with turbo on 3.8Ghz in ST app?

You are all know that as soon as we will use mantle or Dx12 or nvidia GPU that pentium will look bad agianst FX 4300.

It is quite easy - example BF4 mantle or DX11
- use 2.0Ghz for all CPUs WHY? you will see 6 core will have 100% usage at 2.0Ghz thats why jaguar is very good CPU

- compare FX 4300 vs pentium vs i5 vs FX 6300 = i did

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-20.html
- E8400 3.0Ghz vs E8400 4.0Ghz = 24%/27% = quad at 2.8Ghz
- pentium 3.0Ghz vs pentium 4.0Ghz = 24%/27% = i5 2.8Ghz
this is how i see performance of this CHIp - i know that this isnt the most accurate but ...


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Nice, and thanks.
> What cooler did you have before?
> 
> And are you sure that chip can take anymore clocks and volts? I think I recall seeing yours in the 1.5v range, or are you going to lock 2 or more cores and try and push the single-threaded performance to the limit?


I have the Hyper 212X, and while that's an excellent cooler (especially for the price), better temps always help









I'll likely lock down my chip to 3 or 2 cores, since it overclocks crazy good that way! Athlons really get hot with high clocks and voltages, so I may be able to get more headroom with a better cooler.

The u14s is probably the best single-tower air cooler.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> It's likely the stock cooler is enough for anything.


I think he's referring to his current chip and seeing how high he can get his to battle the Pentium G3258 in possibly either single-threaded and or multi-threaded.

But Pssh, at 4.4GHz 1.271v and currently testing for stability at that voltage, I might be able to drop it even more.

It does get a little toasty touching 80c now and again but doesn't go much higher.
I didn't even notice I hadn't put the stock cooler at full speed until yesterday.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Hehe you are ...
> So what should i OC and disable cores (i7) to try Crysis 3? everyone is showing AMD as bad CPU.
> It is bad comparison to compare pentium dual core at 4.4Ghz and phenom x4 at 3.9Ghz. Why dont you just make both as a dual cores and compare them ? you think that phenom x2 4.4Ghz cant make 50avg. with nvidia GPU?
> 
> So what? actually i did a lot of test and i know how it goes. You can make E8500 4.5Ghz look good even faster than stock i5 3350P. It is quite easy... Yes AMD is worse but as you can see it is never 2:1 clock per clock.




Any comments? FX-8350 is a jittery mess compared to a crippled Haswell dual core processor.


----------



## Wirerat

Can someone link or run passmark on g3258 at 4.5ghz or above?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> 
> 
> Any comments? FX-8350 is a jittery mess compared to a crippled Haswell dual core processor.


Aren't the only things crippled in the chip the lack of AVX instructions sets?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wirerat*
> 
> Can someone link or run passmark at 4.5ghz or above?


I haven't obtained 4.5GHz yet but I'm pretty close to it, I'll likely try to reach it today, I'm just dropping my volts at 4.4GHz in an attempt to estimate how much more volts I could need for 4.5-4.6GHz.

But here's my 4.4GHz one.



I'm not sure if Passmark is as sensitve to ram clocks as Cinebench though, I haven't got 1600mhz sticks.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> 
> 
> Any comments? FX-8350 is a jittery mess compared to a crippled Haswell dual core processor.


so quad core steamroller almost beat 8 core piledriver with even lower clock speed? An that quad core doesnt have L3 cache


----------



## Wirerat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I haven't obtained 4.5GHz yet but I'm pretty close to it, I'll likely try to reach it today, I'm just dropping my volts at 4.4GHz in an attempt to estimate how much more volts I could need for 4.5-4.6GHz.
> 
> But here's my 4.4GHz one.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if Passmark is as sensitve to ram clocks as Cinebench though, I haven't got 1600mhz sticks.


passmark has a separate ram benchmark. I dont think it matters much like cinebench.

Thanks for posting.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> Techreport's review is up here: http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor
> 
> The most shocking part for me here is the crysis 3 result which is a very well threaded game. Yet the overclocked pentium beats out the FX-8350....


The most shocking part is how everyone overlooked the fact that a 4790 at stock is getting 75fps yet at 4.7ghz it's getting 74fps.. clearly there is a gpu limit at the 70 fps range either way... With it removed I'd like to really see what the average is for these to see where a 4790 at 4.7 really stands for example compared to a similarly clocked dual, just to see how well threaded the game truly is. I'd even love to throw a 4.7ghz 8350 into the mix just to see how clock for clock shy of 5ghz an intel quad and dual compare to an amd octo on one of the more known threaded games

Also the issue is though C3 is well threaded, it really depends on the scene in which the benchmark was run. 'Welcome to the Jungle' was the most threaded and notorious one if I recall.

Not only that, they used medium settings on a 7950.. if I recall some of the more cpu bound situations are actually directly related to the some of the graphics settings (I may be wrong on this one, though I recall it being more threaded as the settings go up)

Point being, throw a 295x2 at the thing and then crank it up.. we'll see just how good it does then


----------



## Exilon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> I would not use "laws" in high level computing, unless it's a physical law that applies to the universe in whole. e.g. in this case parallelism depends on the chip, the cache size, the ability it has to intercommunicate between threads, the software. You can't just take a "law" from wikipedia and think that's how all software or hardware behaves.


There's nothing wrong in using Amdahl to explain why 2 fast cores can be better than 8 slow cores, even if the 2C has less theoretical throughput. % of parallel operations being hard to estimate doesn't invalidate the inequality.


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> It's likely the stock cooler is enough for anything.


Yah, 1ghz OC on stock without being a smokey mess? What else does that this gen?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> The u14s is probably the best single-tower air cooler.


Well I'm glad I bought one. Keep us updated with the OC results.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Sorry I haven't been updating this. I've been out for medical reasons (collapsed lung). Back and well now, I'll add all the reviews later today.

I am about to order one of these and a Z97-A, I also have a Maximus 2 Formula to put my E7200 in, which I am going to pick up today. I hope to put the two face to face in some synthetics and a few games too.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Sorry I haven't been updating this. I've been out for medical reasons (collapsed lung). Back and well now, I'll add all the reviews later today.
> 
> I am about to order one of these and a Z97-A, I also have a Maximus 2 Formula to put my E7200 in, which I am going to pick up today. I hope to put the two face to face in some synthetics and a few games too.


Welcome back and sorry to hear about that, i hope you're all well and better.

Your benches should be very interesting, I look forward to seeing them.


----------



## Mr.N00bLaR

What's the max voltage we can put through these chips 24/7? and max for benching?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr.N00bLaR*
> 
> What's the max voltage we can put through these chips 24/7? and max for benching?


I'd say about 1.35v 24/7, 1.5 for benching but i wouldn't even boot that personally.

add 0.05 if you're wild (those values assuming air/clc/water)

There was a quote on OCN that went something like~~

:How much it can take scales inversely with how much you want it to not die

and since it's a $70 chip..


----------



## El Scotch

Gotta feel bad for AMD (owners) when a $70 chip beats the 8350 for gaming.

Next generation maybe.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *El Scotch*
> 
> Gotta feel bad for AMD (owners) when a $70 chip beats the 8350 for gaming.
> 
> Next generation maybe.


No, Dont say that!
If you say "AMD" Themisseble will come, I swear!

Ah dammit, i said it myself.


----------



## Deletive

Trying t
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> No, Dont say that!
> If you say "AMD" Themisseble will come, I swear!
> 
> Ah dammit, i said it myself.


LOL.

I'm so exicted for this chip, I just need to sell a few things than I'm going to get a z97m formula and a NZXT x60 for my next build. this should last me well itll broadwell or till christmas


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Welcome back and sorry to hear about that, i hope you're all well and better.
> 
> Your benches should be very interesting, I look forward to seeing them.


Haha, it was a good adventure. First surgery. First local anesthetic then one with general... I liked the first more







Other than a bit of residual pain from the pleurodesis I'm pretty much good as new. Worst part was probably the fact that I had to stay at the hospital for 5 days. With a tube sticking out of my chest....

Just in case you didn't find it, here's where I'll be putting the two head to head. http://www.overclock.net/t/1501172/intel-core-2-duo-e7200-and-pentium-g3258-comparison-review-dual-core-duels


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Haha, it was a good adventure. First surgery. First local anesthetic then one with general... I liked the first more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than a bit of residual pain from the pleurodesis I'm pretty much good as new. Worst part was probably the fact that I had to stay at the hospital for 5 days. With a tube sticking out of my chest....
> 
> Just in case you didn't find it, here's where I'll be putting the two head to head. http://www.overclock.net/t/1501172/intel-core-2-duo-e7200-and-pentium-g3258-comparison-review-dual-core-duels


Glad to hear you're doing better!









Looking forward to the benches


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> No, Dont say that!
> If you say "AMD" Themisseble will come, I swear!
> 
> Ah dammit, i said it myself.


LoL... he can say whatever he wants...

can you do watchdogs benchmark?


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *El Scotch*
> 
> Gotta feel bad for AMD (owners) when a $70 chip beats the 8350 for gaming.
> 
> Next generation maybe.


It's a limited chip and not even available worldwide so I don't see why anyone would feel bad but if we must go there how about you wait till your browser starts running one core maxed. My dual core laptop starts to show its limits then whereas my quad core doesn't. Thus I'd still rather have a quad than this dual.

Edit: Finally it's available in China, a month after release.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> Edit: Finally it's available in China, a month after release.


It's still not available in India. May be next month.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> It's a limited chip and not even available worldwide so I don't see why anyone would feel bad but if we must go there how about you wait till your browser starts running one core maxed. My dual core laptop starts to show its limits then whereas my quad core doesn't. Thus I'd still rather have a quad than this dual.
> 
> Edit: Finally it's available in China, a month after release.


I've been doing light to heavy multitasking in browsers, either having Chrome and Firefox open or one or the other and opening 40+ tabs, I haven't encountered anything like that currently, it's just as good as my Phenom II X4 AFAIK in things like that.


----------



## Liranan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> It's still not available in India. May be next month.


I saw it as vaourware till it was finally
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I've been doing light to heavy multitasking in browsers, either having Chrome and Firefox open or one or the other and opening 40+ tabs, I haven't encountered anything like that currently, it's just as good as my Phenom II X4 AFAIK in things like that.


Usually I run at least two VM's on my machine and then my browsers and other programs. While I don't max out my RAM (come close) I do regularly use over 50% of my CPU and this dual core just isn't enough for me, which is why I'd rather get an FX6300. While it may not gain the same FPS I can do a lot more on it than on a mere dual core. For someone who doesn't multitask as much this CPU is fine but FPS aren't the end all and be all of existence, if that were the case then Intel wouldn't need to release hexa cores and soon octa cores at a grand, we'd use higher clocked quads at best (this is disregarding AMD having released hex and octa cores long ago).


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liranan*
> 
> I saw it as vaourware till it was finally
> Usually I run at least two VM's on my machine and then my browsers and other programs. While I don't max out my RAM (come close) I do regularly use over 50% of my CPU and this dual core just isn't enough for me, which is why I'd rather get an FX6300. While it may not gain the same FPS I can do a lot more on it than on a mere dual core. For someone who doesn't multitask as much this CPU is fine but FPS aren't the end all and be all of existence, if that were the case then Intel wouldn't need to release hexa cores and soon octa cores at a grand, we'd use higher clocked quads at best (this is disregarding AMD having released hex and octa cores long ago).


Well if you're running VMs the more cores the better, that's where those FX chips shine thanks to their core count, they can be used for a ton of things at once and you can dedicate as many cores as you see fit, really handy, especially if you do rendering, they're fantastic for that.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Well if you're running VMs the more cores the better, that's where those FX chips shine thanks to their core count, they can be used for a ton of things at once.


If you divide them off per module.. you still only have four









Or per-thread, you don't get x8 scaling. What do you do, have one VM wait for another while it's using the FPU?


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *El Scotch*
> 
> Gotta feel bad for AMD (owners) when a $70 chip beats the 8350 for gaming.
> 
> Next generation maybe.


Obvious troll post but I'll respond anyways since people still fail to get one thing in to their heads.

The piledriver based FX has been out just shy of two years now and has been known to have less then stellar single core performance since day one. Why is it constantly compared to haswell as if it just released? I'm glad to see the $70 cpu beating it in older games and less threaded ones, because if it didn't that means intel screwed up big time.

Again, I know the FX-8350 is usually the main target here because that's all AMD has out, but it's getting long in the tooth and the comparison gets old after a while when most know the results.

It's been well established at this point since haswell's release that even for specialized needs (such as more cores) it's hard to recommend a 8300 over a Haswell i5 unless budget is extremely strict.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Why is it constantly compared to haswell as if it just released?


Because it's all that they have, and this:
Quote:


> It's been well established at this point since haswell's release that even for specialized needs (such as more cores) it's hard to recommend a 8300 over a Haswell i5 unless budget is extremely strict.


Is argued against by a significant portion of the forum


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

VMs? What are VMs?


----------



## bluedevil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> VMs? What are VMs?


Virtual machines.


----------



## sepiashimmer

He knows what VMs are.


----------



## solar0987

Anyone tried this chip on crossfire or sli setups?


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *solar0987*
> 
> Anyone tried this chip on crossfire or sli setups?


Xfire/SLI doesn't add more load to the CPU, they just typically expose CPU bound situations more because people are often bad at creating CPU bound scenario's. For almost every game you can already tell exactly how it would perform relative to other CPU's, with one GPU or with 2+


----------



## fateswarm

Most game engines work like this. There is a global loop everything goes through (even if there are threads dedicated to special jobs) and that global loop defines the FPS, unless there are restrictions like Vsync. If the GPU can't handle what it is fed, the global loop will run on lower FPS, if it can, or if it exceeds it, the CPU may be the bottleneck.

Notice the above does not address the nuances of the cpu needs of the game itself. e.g. The main thread might be very demanding or it may be very light. The special threads might be badly configured or very efficient, etc.


----------



## Wirerat

Sli will work fine with this gem of a cpu however it will be off balance. Why pair two gpu with a $70 cpu? It wouldnt make sense I do not think.

I would suggest no less than a locked i5 or above for SLI.


----------



## fateswarm

Isn't SLI and CF a singular process when it gets to the main system? i.e. Won't it just feed one GPU just as it feeds more than one GPUs? I suspect if a game is less than fully dual threaded, a pentium will be the same.

Exceptions include its lower cache, lack of instructions and all that.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *solar0987*
> 
> Anyone tried this chip on crossfire or sli setups?


Bottlenecks Gtx 660 Ti's in SLI


----------



## bhav

Id say this is the perfect CPU to pair with a GTX 750 Ti for a decent low cost mini ATX build.


----------



## Themisseble

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjV-kKz12To
as you can see it is huge bottleneck to a GTX 660Ti


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjV-kKz12To
> as you can see it is huge bottleneck to a GTX 660Ti


That's MY video and its not a bottleneck to a single card


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjV-kKz12To
> as you can see it is huge bottleneck to a GTX 660Ti


It's hold 60+fps what looks like over 95% of the time. I thought it did outstanding for a dual core. Or am I missing something?


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> It's hold 60+fps what looks like over 95% of the time. I thought it did outstanding for a dual core. Or am I missing something?


He just doesnt know what hes talking about. This processor clocked high wont bottleneck a single card setup very much unless youre running a 780 ti or Titan Black


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> It's hold 60+fps what looks like over 95% of the time. I thought it did outstanding for a dual core. Or am I missing something?


That is very bad benchmarks.. he dont want to show you CPU bottleneck.
IT is really hard to use MSI afterburner?

Yes it is GPu bottleneck and very bad performance of that CPU. As you can see CPU pikes ... i would like to see framegraph.

How do i know that that is GPU/CPU bottleneck? try it your self. When when GPu is bottleneck GPU/CPU graph is very steady (Line) but when CPU bottleneck GPu graph...


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

No.

Stuttering, which is seen as spikes in either the CPU or GPU graph can occur under either CPU or GPU bottlenecks. It is caused by bad optimization.


----------



## Olivon

*Overclockable Pentium Anniversary Edition Review: The Intel Pentium G3258 - AnandTech*
Quote:


> Please Intel, create an i3 overclocking processor.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> That is very bad benchmarks.. he dont want to show you CPU bottleneck.
> IT is really hard to use MSI afterburner?
> 
> Yes it is GPu bottleneck and very bad performance of that CPU. As you can see CPU pikes ... i would like to see framegraph.
> 
> How do i know that that is GPU/CPU bottleneck? try it your self. When when GPu is bottleneck GPU/CPU graph is very steady (Line) but when CPU bottleneck GPu graph...


Afterburner OSD is screwed up. It totally wont even allow me to run the game with it enabled.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> He just doesnt know what hes talking about. This processor clocked high wont bottleneck a single card setup very much unless youre running a 780 ti or Titan Black


Okay SHOW 1 more video about CPU/GPU + framegraph empty map vs 64 players. BF4 same map (zavod) and please dont do same benchmark... E;D;C

Check this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORj1lT5_EAQ

it cant keep up with GTX 750Ti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4pwKrvfKBs

G3258 is really good.. but when you need CPu power it cant compare to other CPUs....


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Okay SHOW 1 more video about CPU/GPU + framegraph empty map vs 64 players. BF4 same map (zavod) and please dont do same benchmark... show us mor
> 
> Check this
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORj1lT5_EAQ
> 
> it cant keep up with GTX 750Ti
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4pwKrvfKBs
> 
> G3258 is really good.. but when you need CPu power it cant compare to other CPUs....


Gotta love the single player benchmarks


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Okay SHOW 1 more video about CPU/GPU + framegraph empty map vs 64 players. BF4 same map (zavod) and please dont do same benchmark... E;D;C
> 
> Check this
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORj1lT5_EAQ
> 
> it cant keep up with GTX 750Ti
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4pwKrvfKBs
> 
> G3258 is really good.. but when you need CPu power it cant compare to other CPUs....


You realize the same thing will happen with AMD FX-4300 etc, probably worse than the Pentium.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> Gotta love the single player benchmarks


What about your benchmark? You dont go in E;C;D... where CPUs struggles


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> You realize the same thing will happen with AMD FX-4300 etc, probably worse than the Pentium.


are you sure?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4z4igRnlLQ
i know this is FX 6300 and "high settings" but...

It is very simple...
Dx11 AMD - pentium G3258 is good against FX 6300
Dx11 NVIDIA - pentium G3258 fall behind FX 6300 by a lot
Mantle AMD.....


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjV-kKz12To
> as you can see it is huge bottleneck to a GTX 660Ti


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> That is very bad benchmarks.. he dont want to show you CPU bottleneck.
> IT is really hard to use MSI afterburner?
> 
> Yes it is GPu bottleneck and very bad performance of that CPU. As you can see CPU pikes ... i would like to see framegraph.
> 
> How do i know that that is GPU/CPU bottleneck? try it your self. When when GPu is bottleneck GPU/CPU graph is very steady (Line) but when CPU bottleneck GPu graph...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Okay SHOW 1 more video about CPU/GPU + framegraph empty map vs 64 players. BF4 same map (zavod) and please dont do same benchmark... E;D;C
> 
> Check this
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORj1lT5_EAQ
> 
> it cant keep up with GTX 750Ti
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4pwKrvfKBs
> 
> G3258 is really good.. but when you need CPu power it cant compare to other CPUs....


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> What about your benchmark? You dont go in E;C;D... where CPUs struggles


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> are you sure?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4z4igRnlLQ
> i know this is FX 6300 and "high settings" but...
> 
> It is very simple...
> Dx11 AMD - pentium G3258 is good against FX 6300
> Dx11 NVIDIA - pentium G3258 fall behind FX 6300 by a lot
> Mantle AMD.....


I'm really started to get tired of your ignorance.

Those videos are EXTREMELY cherry-picked and honestly, all they prove is the lack of understanding on your part. Let me break it down for you.

I'M SORRY THAT YOU HAVE BULLDOZER.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PunkX 1*
> 
> I'm really started to get tired of your ignorance.
> 
> Those videos are EXTREMELY cherry-picked and honestly, all they prove is the lack of understanding on your part. Let me break it down for you.
> 
> I'M SORRY THAT YOU HAVE BULLDOZER.


hehe very funny... you dont believe me even if i do youtube comparison, but i wont. i dont have to.. it is your own decision.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/overclockable-pentium-anniversary-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae

You can see that i3 4330 destroy pentium G3258 4.7Ghz with 2x GTX 770- Look at BF4 50% faster than pentium at 4.7Ghz? check out the minimum fps.


----------



## PunkX 1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> hehe very funny... you dont believe me even if i do youtube comparison, but i wont. i dont have to.. it is your own decision.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/overclockable-pentium-anniversary-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae
> 
> You can see that i3 4330 destroy pentium G3258 4.7Ghz with 2x GTX 770- Look at BF4 50% faster than pentium at 4.7Ghz? check out the minimum fps.


1. The i3 4330 does not "destroy pentium" lol, it's a really close call in almost every title.

2. As far as BF4 is concerned, which sane person would run this chip with a dual-GPU solution...except you?









3. Let's put aside the fact that the i3 has hyperthreading, the G3258 (in most of those gaming benchmarks) would probably best any AMD chip in the same price tier.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> hehe very funny... you dont believe me even if i do youtube comparison, but i wont. i dont have to.. it is your own decision.
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/overclockable-pentium-anniversary-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae
> 
> You can see that i3 4330 destroy pentium G3258 4.7Ghz with 2x GTX 770- Look at BF4 50% faster than pentium at 4.7Ghz? check out the minimum fps.










SLI'd 770's with a G3258

Now i've heard it all


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SLI'd 770's with a G3258
> 
> Now i've heard it all


yes and it is very interesting that i3 4300 has better score in FX1 2013 with single GTX 770.


----------



## wholeeo

Here's a Firestrike comparison I did over the weekend on my main rig with the G3258 clocked @ 4.7 & and a 4790K @ 4.7 (should have tested at stock clocks or even lower)

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/2431606/fs/2431818

This is with 780's in SLI.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wholeeo*
> 
> Here's a Firestrike comparison I did over the weekend on my main rig with the G3258 clocked @ 4.7 & and a 4790K @ 4.7 (should have tested at stock clocks or even lower)
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/2431606/fs/2431818
> 
> This is with 780's in SLI.


The Physics score for the Pentium was 4836. That's actually quite good.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> yes and it is very interesting that i3 4300 has better score in FX1 2013 with single GTX 770.


It can't win at everything. Just everything near its cost. The i3 is nearly double the cost of the pentium.

It can't be beat for its price.


----------



## PunkX 1

Themisseble, I have an old Core 2 Duo E4500. Want to bench against it with your FX4100?


----------



## jason387

Is there any reviews of the G3258 with an AMD GPU? With Nvidia's new GPU drivers CPU overloads were reduced. An AMD GPU user may get lower performance than a user with an Nvidia GPU and a G3258.


----------



## Wirerat

Fx6300 @ 5ghz bottlenecked my 660ti in sli. Its the reason I have intel now. The fps drops were bad.

I only needed it to hold 70fps which 660ti sli is a huge overkill yet it
had dips to the 40s like crazy in bf4.

I bet that g3258 would be worse.


----------



## jason387

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wirerat*
> 
> Fx6300 @ 5ghz bottlenecked my 660ti in sli. Its the reason I have intel now. The fps drops were bad.
> 
> I only needed it to hold 70fps which 660ti sli is a huge overkill yet it
> had dips to the 40s like crazy in bf4.
> 
> I bet that g3258 would be worse.


AMD CPU's can never run sli or crossfire properly.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wholeeo*
> 
> Here's a Firestrike comparison I did over the weekend on my main rig with the G3258 clocked @ 4.7 & and a 4790K @ 4.7 (should have tested at stock clocks or even lower)
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/2431606/fs/2431818
> 
> This is with 780's in SLI.


Why does it show as G3240 and it's speed as 3200?


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Why does it show as G3240 and it's speed as 3200?


Some benchmarks do that, I've noticed CPU-Z and a few other programs pickup my G3258 as a G3420 and say it's running at 3.2GHz in benchmarks, when in CPU-Z and other clock speed monitoring programs it shows as the clock speed I've set it at.

I'm gonna have to find out if there really is a G3420, I've never heard of it before.
EDIT: Apparently there is: http://ark.intel.com/products/77775/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G3420-3M-Cache-3_20-GHz
It seems that a couple of applications are registering it as a G3420.








The specs seem to mostly match up, I guess the G3258 could simply be an unlocked G3420 under a different name.


----------



## wholeeo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> Why does it show as G3240 and it's speed as 3200?


That's what CPUZ & 3DMark for whatever reason pick it up as. Clocks are never right for me on 3DMark as well. If you noticed it didn't pick up my 4790K's overclock either.

edit: actually, it did pick up my 4790K's overclock, interesting.


----------



## iRUSH

A lot of these software programs just need updating it seems.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wirerat*
> 
> Fx6300 @ 5ghz bottlenecked my 660ti in sli. Its the reason I have intel now. The fps drops were bad.
> 
> I only needed it to hold 70fps which 660ti sli is a huge overkill yet it
> had dips to the 40s like crazy in bf4.
> 
> I bet that g3258 would be worse.


fps drops? SLI (drivers) is the problem here or let me say 2Gb ram and low memory bandiwdth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-CaJ_wXJO8

FX 8320 is not that bad... actually is great option for someone who wants to put extra money for GPU. Also if your going to play old unoptimized games than pentium is great deal.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wirerat*
> 
> Fx6300 @ 5ghz bottlenecked my 660ti in sli. Its the reason I have intel now. The fps drops were bad.
> 
> I only needed it to hold 70fps which 660ti sli is a huge overkill yet it
> had dips to the 40s like crazy in bf4.
> 
> I bet that g3258 would be worse.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> fps drops? SLI (drivers) is the problem here or let me say 2Gb ram and low memory bandiwdth.


How can it be the card? If the i7 he has now supposedly improves it?


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> fps drops? SLI (drivers) is the problem here or let me say 2Gb ram and low memory bandiwdth.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-CaJ_wXJO8
> 
> FX 8320 is not that bad... actually is great option for someone who wants to put extra money for GPU. Also if your going to play old unoptimized games than pentium is great deal.


Switching to Intel improved his or her FPS so how is it driver related?

Oh don't tell me, if the driver detects you're using AMD you get stuttering.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> fps drops? SLI (drivers) is the problem here or let me say 2Gb ram and low memory bandiwdth.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-CaJ_wXJO8
> 
> FX 8320 is not that bad... actually is great option for someone who wants to put extra money for GPU. Also if your going to play old unoptimized games than pentium is great deal.


AMD sucks dude. Stop kidding yourself. Will bottleneck any 2 card setup


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> How can it be the card? If the i7 he has now supposedly improves it?


Kid...

Look i dont care what you think. If "STay Puff" manage to do new video about BF4 with GPu usage on screen, some CPu intensive action and framegraph. Put setting all on medium with AP-high +HBAO and AA off


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stay Puft*
> 
> AMD sucks dude. Stop kidding yourself. Will bottleneck any 2 card setup











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Kid...
> 
> Look i dont care what you think. If "STay Puff" manage to do new video about BF4 with GPu usage on screen, some CPu intensive action and framegraph. Put setting all on medium with AP-high +HBAO and AA off












You're on this still? making demands for people, and bashing this chip night and day?
Have you not got anything better to do with your life?
How much more benchmarks must you see before it is "acceptable" for you?

And Kid? you're the one that's acting like a child over this processor on every thread related to it, grow up.

If you don't like the chip leave the threads, good lord what harm is it doing you? I'm sure you'll survive by not reading or posting on G3258 threads if you dislike it so much.
How about you go run the Dolphin benchmark and PCSX2 on your FX since you like to make demands.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1460058/new-dolphin-cpu-benchmark-no-game-required

Go on, I dare ya.
This is one of the fields this CPU excels in, single threaded performance, just like how the FX chips do well in multi-threaded performance, just not in games because their cores are often underutilized, which is why they under perform.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Switching to Intel improved his or her FPS so how is it driver related?
> 
> Oh don't tell me, if the driver detects you're using AMD you get stuttering.


and then you call me a AMD fanboy? comparing skyrim...

AMD CPus doesnt sucks.. yes they are slower. It is just to many intel fanboys... but because i say that FX 8320 is good option for new games i am a big AMD fanboy??....

I dont want to be rude but this is "STUPID"!
Better to boy i5/i7 and slower GPU than pentium G3258 with GTX 760... next year you will upgrade GPU. We all know how fast does GPU drop its price...

FX 6300/FX8320 will get only better while pentium G3258 already hit its limit. So yes i prefer FX 8320/FX 6300 over any intel pentium or i3 .... but if you can grab i7 (Xeon) then get i7


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> [BT]his is one of the fields this CPU excels in, single threaded performance, just like how the FX chips do well in multi-threaded performance, [/B]just not in games because their cores are often underutilized, which is why they under perform.


I think this statement is inaccurate. AMD does well in multi-threaded workload only due to having many threads to spread the workload . Intel on the other hand at the same core count as AMD potentially has 2x-3x more performance for highly threaded workloads (6/8 core AMD vs 6 core Intel).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> and then you call me a AMD fanboy? comparing skyrim...
> 
> AMD CPus doesnt sucks.. yes they are slower. It is just to many intel fanboys... but because i say that FX 8320 is good option for new games i am a big AMD fanboy??....
> 
> I dont want to be rude but this is "STUPID"!
> Better to boy i5/i7 and slower GPU than pentium G3258 with GTX 760... next year you will upgrade GPU. We all know how fast does GPU drop its price...
> 
> FX 6300/FX8320 will get only better while pentium G3258 already hit its limit. So yes i prefer FX 8320/FX 6300 over any intel pentium or i3 .... but if you can grab i7 (Xeon) then get i7


Yes Skyrim is lightly threaded but I'm showing you a CPU bottleneck.


----------



## Themisseble

But why comparing old game? Why dont you just compare this in watchdogs, BF4 MP?

dont forget that CMT has better scaling then SMT...


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> and then you call me a AMD fanboy? comparing skyrim...
> 
> AMD CPus doesnt sucks.. yes they are slower. It is just to many intel fanboys... *but because i say that FX 8320 is good option for new games* i am a big AMD fanboy??....
> 
> I dont want to be rude but this is "STUPID"!
> Better to boy i5/i7 and slower GPU than pentium G3258 with GTX 760... next year you will upgrade GPU. We all know how fast does GPU drop its price...
> 
> FX 6300/FX8320 will get only better while pentium G3258 already hit its limit. So yes i prefer FX 8320/FX 6300 over any intel pentium or i3 .... but if you can grab i7 (Xeon) then get i7


I think you have been saying a lot more than that in this thread... GPU prices don't drop that much...

FX8320 will not get better because you can't upgrade from it... If you have a G3258 and lets say a Z97-A a year down the road, you get a broadwell i5 or i7 and done.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> But why comparing old game? Why dont you just compare this in watchdogs, BF4 MP?
> ..


Why did you edit your post?

You keep trolling here, basically claiming an unlocked Pentium is total crap for "new" games even though the OP showed you otherwise. In fact the Pentium sometimes fares better than AMD FX CPUs that cost ~2x more in some games.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I think you have been saying a lot more than that in this thread... GPU prices don't drop that much...
> 
> FX8320 will not get better because you can't upgrade from it... If you have a G3258 and lets say a Z97-A a year down the road, you get a broadwell i5 or i7 and done.


FX 8320 sits at 30-55% usage... while pentium g3258 is at 80-100% and it is already to weak for new titles. So FX 8320 will beat i5 in new better optimized titles...
You dont understand me.
Look at 7870 - Mar 5, 2012 - 350$ = R9 270 180$ in 2014
Look at i5 2500K ....

see the difference. Get the CPU that you want... dont buy CPu so you will upgrade it next year... Yes pentium G3258 is a toy to OC (or for someone who will play old games).

FX 6300 is sweet spot. Enough strong for old titles and really good for new titles ...


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> FX 8320 sits at 30-55% usage... while pentium g3258 is at 80-100% and it is already to weak for new titles. So FX 8320 will beat i5 in new better optimized titles...
> You dont understand me.
> Look at 7870 - Mar 5, 2012 - 350$ = R9 270 180$ in 2014
> Look at i5 2500K ....
> 
> see the difference. Get the CPU that you want... dont buy CPu so you will upgrade it next year... Yes pentium G3258 is a toy to OC (or for someone who will play old games).


I think you're confusing thread usage and execution. Even if X number of threads are getting used, it doesn't mean it will execute the game faster. In the situation you mentioned above, the i5 will still outperform FX 8320.


----------



## fateswarm

Sometimes you have to return on the first simple comments people were making on the Pentium: If the game benefits from more than 2 cores then this won't be great, in some cases, like BF4 SLI/CF examples, compared to i5/7. There's a lot of convoluted argumentation here that would be answered by simply keeping that in mind.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Sometimes you have to return on the first simple comments people were making on the Pentium: If the game benefits from more than 2 cores then this won't be great, in some cases, like SLI/CF, compared to i5/7. There's a lot of convoluted argumentation here that would be answered by simply keeping that in mind.


That's up for debate. If a Pentium executes the workload faster it could potentially offer better performance than say a FX-4100, even if the workload is spread over X number of threads.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> FX 8320 sits at 30-55% usage... while pentium g3258 is at 80-100% and it is already to weak for new titles. So FX 8320 will beat i5 in new better optimized titles...
> You dont understand me.
> Look at 7870 - Mar 5, 2012 - 350$ = R9 270 180$ in 2014
> Look at i5 2500K ....
> 
> see the difference. Get the CPU that you want... dont buy CPu so you will upgrade it next year... Yes pentium G3258 is a toy to OC (or for someone who will play old games).
> 
> FX 6300 is sweet spot. Enough strong for old titles and really good for new titles ...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> FX 8320 sits at 30-55% usage... while pentium g3258 is at 80-100% and it is already to weak for new titles. So FX 8320 will beat i5 in new better optimized titles...
> You dont understand me.
> Look at 7870 - Mar 5, 2012 - 350$ = R9 270 180$ in 2014
> Look at i5 2500K ....
> 
> see the difference. Get the CPU that you want... dont buy CPu so you will upgrade it next year... Yes pentium G3258 is a toy to OC (or for someone who will play old games).
> 
> FX 6300 is sweet spot. Enough strong for old titles and really good for new titles ...


What's the use of having all of those cores for them not to be used properly in games on demand for the games you want to play?
If someone wants to buy a CPU and upgrade it next year or whenever then they can, you can't tell them anything it's their decision, £50 out of pocket for a processor which fares better than AMD CPUs in a couple of games isn't the end of the world, you're also forgetting the G3258 is cheaper, you go buy the 6300, then what? for all we know AMD could be prepping a new platform with new CPUs, then you've bought a dead end platform, so when you want the extra CPU power you either get the 8320 or buy a new platform.

The decision is there, its up to the customer to choose what they want and they know what the Pentium's capabilities are from all of the coverage from reviewers and review sites like Toms hardware and EuroGamer.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I think you have been saying a lot more than that in this thread... GPU prices don't drop that much...
> 
> FX8320 will not get better because you can't upgrade from it... If you have a G3258 and lets say a Z97-A a year down the road, you get a broadwell i5 or i7 and done.


And that's it, pretty much whenever you go Intel with an an i5 or i7, especially a K CPU you're pretty much set CPU-wise for years to come, the 2600K would still shred an FX in current games and likely hold its own for years to come, especially once it's overclocked, which is why those who have those chips don't feel a need to upgrade.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> What's the use of having all of those cores for them not to be used properly in games on demand for the games you want to play?
> If someone wants to buy a CPU and upgrade it next year or whenever then they can, you can't tell them anything it's their decision, £50 out of pocket for a processor which fares better than AMD CPUs in a couple of games isn't the end of the world, you're also forgetting the G3258 is cheaper, you go buy the 6300, then what? for all we know AMD could be prepping a new platform with new CPUs, then you've bought a dead end platform, so when you want the extra CPU power you either get the 8320 or buy a new platform.
> 
> The decision is there, its up to the customer to choose what they want and they know what the Pentium's capabilities are from all of the coverage from reviewers and review sites like Toms hardware and EuroGamer.
> And that's it, pretty much whenever you go Intel with an an i5 or i7, especially a K CPU you're pretty much set CPU-wise for years to come, the 2600K would still shred an FX in current games and likely hold its own for years to come, especially once it's overclocked, which is why those who have those chips don't feel a need to upgrade.


There is no debate. AM3+ is dead (subpar CPUs, PCIE 2.0, subpar SATA controller, 3rd party USB 3.0 controller etc). If you're buying new, Z97 now or wait for X99 this fall.


----------



## Stay Puft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're on this still? making demands for people, and bashing this chip night and day?
> Have you not got anything better to do with your life?
> How much more benchmarks must you see before it is "acceptable" for you?
> 
> And Kid? you're the one that's acting like a child over this processor on every thread related to it, grow up.
> 
> If you don't like the chip leave the threads, good lord what harm is it doing you? I'm sure you'll survive by not reading or posting on G3258 threads if you dislike it so much.
> How about you go run the Dolphin benchmark and PCSX2 on your FX since you like to make demands.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1460058/new-dolphin-cpu-benchmark-no-game-required
> 
> Go on, I dare ya.
> This is one of the fields this CPU excels in, single threaded performance, just like how the FX chips do well in multi-threaded performance, just not in games because their cores are often underutilized, which is why they under perform.


Start reporting him for trolling because that's all hes doing in these threads.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> There is no debate. AM3+ is dead (subpar CPUs, PCIE 2.0, subpar SATA controller, 3rd party USB 3.0 controller etc). If you're buying new, Z97 now or wait for X99 this fall.


Your right... thats why i recommend i5/i7 + 97/87.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

IMO the whole problem is that sure, an FX has a small advantage in multi-threaded performance, but it has so many other problems. The intel offerings as far as i5 and i7 go are much more well rounded.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> That's up for debate. If a Pentium executes the workload faster it could potentially offer better performance than say a FX-4100, even if the workload is spread over X number of threads.


Of course. I compared it to i5/7 in what you quoted.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> IMO the whole problem is that sure, an FX has a small advantage in multi-threaded performance, but it has so many other problems. The intel offerings as far as i5 and i7 go are much more well rounded.


Only against the i5. i7 quads, Intel has better multi-threaded performance.

You also have to remember, this situation only occurs when ALL THREADS are fully loaded, which is a rarity.


----------



## thecore2kid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> There is no debate. AM3+ is dead (subpar CPUs, PCIE 2.0, subpar SATA controller, 3rd party USB 3.0 controller etc). If you're buying new, Z97 now or wait for X99 this fall.


And thats why i personally after a stack of research and originally really having my heart set on going for AMD 8320/8350 for my first ever PC build decided to go with the G3258 and the Z97 path - so i could upgrade to i5/i7in the future - plus i have to watch the budget as well at the moment, although i can't quite believe i've spent more than double the cost of the pentium on my motherboard!

It's hard being new to all this stuff!!!


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> but still your huge intel fanboy... you will try to show that pentium g3258 cna beat Fx 4300 or FX 6300 but it cant. Yes haswell has really good IPC bot not that good.


Like I said, you're confusing thread usage and execution. If the Pentium executes a workload faster for a certain game engine, it can potentially outperform FX CPUs, even if the workload is spread over a different number of threads.

Thread usage doesn't equal execution.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecore2kid*
> 
> And thats why i personally after a stack of research and originally really having my heart set on going for AMD 8320/8350 for my first ever PC build decided to go with the G3258 and the Z97 path - so i could upgrade to i5/i7in the future - plus i have to watch the budget as well at the moment, although i can't quite believe i've spent more than double the cost of the pentium on my motherboard!
> 
> It's hard being new to all this stuff!!!


why didnt you just grab i5 4670k ... anyway if your overclocker you will always play much more. Best budget Cpus are FX 6300/FX 8320 and Xeon (i7) .. That xeon with cheap mATX is OVERKill for anything. But still you with pentium g3258 At 4,.5Ghz you will have better ST


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> but still your huge intel fanboy... you will try to show that pentium g3258 cna beat Fx 4300 or FX 6300 but it cant. Yes haswell has really good IPC bot not that good.


Intel has had over 4 generations of processors and each has seen better IPC.

The IPC on the 6300, 8320, etc... is on par with that of the last Phenom x4s and that's me being generous.

Haswell, as much as I am unsatisfied with it, is that good in IPC. It wins. The IPC comparison is so brutal they can't air it on the news.

Let's put it this way. Intel's Pentium has better IPC than AMD's 'enthusiast' CPUs. Let that sink in.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecore2kid*
> 
> And thats why i personally after a stack of research and originally really having my heart set on going for AMD 8320/8350 for my first ever PC build decided to go with the G3258 and the Z97 path - so i could upgrade to i5/i7in the future - plus i have to watch the budget as well at the moment, although i can't quite believe i've spent more than double the cost of the pentium on my motherboard!
> 
> It's hard being new to all this stuff!!!


What board did you get?
And are you sure it was necessary for future proofing?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> Intel has had over 4 generations of processors and each has seen better IPC.
> 
> The IPC on the 6300, 8320, etc... is on par with that of the last Phenom x4s and that's me being generous.
> 
> Haswell, as much as I am unsatisfied with it, is that good in IPC. It wins. The IPC comparison is so brutal they can't air it on the news.


This, it's no joke, even a 2500K or 2600K hold up fine today, enough to wipe out an FX in most games.
Don't get me started on overclocking.

What's the use of having so many weak cores if they are under utilized by developers?
You might be able to get away with saying future proofing, but people buy PCs to play games now, not 2 years down the line when superior hardware will likely be available.

Things will get interesting when those 6 and 8 core FXs are put to good use.


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> I think this statement is inaccurate. AMD does well in multi-threaded workload only due to having many threads to spread the workload . Intel on the other hand at the same core count as AMD potentially has 2x-3x more performance for highly threaded workloads (6/8 core AMD vs 6 core Intel).


Intel cheats, it has 12 threads.









But seriously, while an Intel hexa-core does have 2-3x the performance, it also costs 2-3x more, so you'll pay pretty penny for that 2-3x performance. The niche market where AMD excels is multi-threading on a budget, where an i5-4670K (which performs like an 8-core Vishera in MT workload) costs more than an 8320. While the difference in power consumption will add up to the cost, the expense is spread over a certain time period rather than having to pay right away, which makes it attractive for MT workloads if the budget doesn't allow for an i5. 8350 and up are useless at their price point though, expensive and don't bring much.

That's why I have an 8320, with the i5-4670K being priced at $358 alone and 8320 falling to $120 ($170 was the total price of an 8320+970A-UD3 christmas combo), it was a no-brainer for what I do. Not to mention it beats having to drag along on an old Core 2 Duo that can't go over 3GHz till 2016 or so. CPU was good, board not so much.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Yes Skyrim is lightly threaded but I'm showing you a CPU bottleneck.


Let's not go there. I've seen Skyrim's insides and it's not a pretty sight. Imagine AI scripts looping for no reason, some even multiply and loop by restarting without terminating the previously running one, then imagine every script that ties to it being stuck and unable to execute, but using CPU resources, and multiply all that by five - that's Skyrim. That thing bogs down even an i5 once modded despite the fact that it would be able to happily run on a Core 2 Duo if the developers weren't rushing it out the door as soon as possible. It runs on Morrowind's Gamebryo with new stuff held to it with duct tape and devs slapped on a new coat of paint to cover it all up.

And the reason Skyrim is something that should be kept away from "AMD vs Intel" comparisons is the fact that it uses x87 code, same goes for Starcraft. Vishera has a hardware block on x87 while Intel has it fully enabled, they anre not even in the same ballpark that way. Which is why people lose all credibility with me as soon as they pull those out and claim a fair generalized comparison between architectures.

EDIT: Damn, I write slow.


----------



## thecore2kid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> why didnt you just grab i5 4670k ... anyway if your overclocker you will always play much more. Best budget Cpus are FX 6300/FX 8320 and Xeon (i7) .. That xeon with cheap mATX is OVERKill for anything. But still you with pentium g3258 At 4,.5Ghz you will have better ST


I knew nothing about the G3258 when i was initially looking to build a PC a few months back- i don't think it was even out then. but i did a hell of a lot of research on it, and for the price i think its unbeatable for a new CPU - I am building my rig step-by-step, got a case, psu, the g3258 and now just purchased a Gigabyte Z97X SOC which is probably completely daft for the pentium, but i will be upgrading - i thought it would make more sense spend more on the mobo than cpu to start with and get a system up and running.

Next step will be memory - have do do research into that because i don't know enough about it, then and SSD & HDD, and finally the GPU - i will hopefully be looking to get an R9 290, which again is probably completely ridiculous for the pentium and my current needs plus the fact i only have a 1080p analogue monitor at 60hz and will have to buy a displayport or dvi-d adaptor just to get it to work on my monitor, but then i'm hoping the 290 will last me a while.......

Hopefully i'll learn something from all this PC building fun!!!


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> What's the use of having so many weak cores if they are under utilized by developers?
> You might be able to get away with saying future proofing, but people buy PCs to play games now, not 2 years down the line when superior hardware will likely be available.


Game developers are often the smartest coders around. The reason it's harder to make good multithreading on interractive applications is that you have to communicate data between threads and that causes lag when you stop to read/write the variables (otherwise segfault). If you make something simple non-interactive like video encoding, you just throw in 999 threads, easy.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecore2kid*
> 
> I knew nothing about the G3258 when i was initially looking to build a PC a few months back- i don't think it was even out then. but i did a hell of a lot of research on it, and for the price i think its unbeatable for a new CPU - I am building my rig step-by-step, got a case, psu, the g3258 and now just purchased a Gigabyte Z97X SOC which is probably completely daft for the pentium, but i will be upgrading - i thought it would make more sense spend more on the mobo than cpu to start with and get a system up and running.
> 
> Next step will be memory - have do do research into that because i don't know enough about it, then and SSD & HDD, and finally the GPU - i will hopefully be looking to get an R9 290, which again is probably completely ridiculous for the pentium and my current needs plus the fact i only have a 1080p analogue monitor at 60hz and will have to buy a displayport or dvi-d adaptor just to get it to work on my monitor, but then i'm hoping the 290 will last me a while.......
> 
> Hopefully i'll learn something from all this PC building fun!!!


Over what period of time will you be doing this?
Wouldn't it be better to get the components when you can build the entire thing?
You might come across a price-drop or a slightly larger budget in the mean time.
Just a suggestion, not trying to change your mind or decision.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Game developers are often the smartest coders around. The reason it's harder to make good multithreading on interractive applications is that you have to communicate data between threads and that causes lag when you stop to read/write the variables (otherwise segfault). If you make something simple non-interactive like video encoding, you just throw in 999 threads, easy.


I know, I'm putting the blame mostly on AMD for their weak cores, not necessarily the developers.


----------



## thecore2kid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> What board did you get?


I went for the Gigabyte Z97X SOC (non force) - it's only 4 phase digital vrm apparantly, but i don't know why - i just like it, got it new/ sealed for a resonable price.

I could afford the Force. It was a toss up between the Gig Gaming 5, Asrock extreme 4, Asus Z97-A or the Gig SOC. i've been reading about mobos for ages now and been struggling to decide as i just don't know enough being new to all this - as much as i'm reading i only pick up on bits here and there - it doesn't all make sense tpo me about mosfets, vrms etc and all that jazz!

If i had kept on reading i would have never had made a decision and i need to get my rig built - not just read, dream and imagine what i might do - even if i make a few bad descisions along the way.

I think the thing that surprises me the most about building a PC is the amount of different options there are out there - for like evey single different part that makes one up!!!!


----------



## Overclocker.Monster

*For you experts of the g3258*, I'm looking for :

-mITX motherboard for this CPU, _not OVERKILL_ but stable enough to let me do *EXTREME OC.*

(Think I don't need to clarify the overkill ones but something like "impact VII" etc)


----------



## dhenzjhen

And there goes the pentium chip


----------



## thecore2kid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Over what period of time will you be doing this?
> Wouldn't it be better to get the components when you can build the entire thing?
> You might come across a price-drop or a slightly larger budget in the mean time.
> Just a suggestion, not trying to change your mind or decision.


I hear what your saying, and that would probably be the best and most sensible way do do it - especially as the price of components change so quickly, but it's kind of like a focused project for me - giving me something to work towards. I am having to buy the bits individually as and when i can afford to do so, thats just the way it is for me at the moment - like a big expensive jigsaw puzzle, but i'm gonna be over the moon when everythings all bought and i can start building - I was determined i wasn't gonna buy a pre-built PC, and learn how to do it myself, but the lack of experience with them and knowledge of PC's in general is making it hard - hence why joining this forum. But it's sure more interesting and educational than just going and buying a new games console which is what i did plan to do!!!


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Game developers are often the smartest coders around. The reason it's harder to make good multithreading on interractive applications is that you have to communicate data between threads and that causes lag when you stop to read/write the variables (otherwise segfault). If you make something simple non-interactive like video encoding, you just throw in 999 threads, easy.


Hail John Carmack.

Can't say I can confirm the video game programmer tidbit but I can confirm the rest. Parallelism is tough and takes a new look at programming. It isn't as easy to implement as you'd think, and its even harder for video games because of data intercommunication. Dependencies are the enemy of multi-threading.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecore2kid*
> 
> I went for the Gigabyte Z97X SOC (non force) - it's only 4 phase digital vrm apparantly, but i don't know why - i just like it, got it new/ sealed for a resonable price.
> 
> I could afford the Force. It was a toss up between the Gig Gaming 5, Asrock extreme 4, Asus Z97-A or the Gig SOC. i've been reading about mobos for ages now and been struggling to decide as i just don't know enough being new to all this - as much as i'm reading i only pick up on bits here and there - it doesn't all make sense tpo me about mosfets, vrms etc and all that jazz!
> 
> If i had kept on reading i would have never had made a decision and i need to get my rig built - not just read, dream and imagine what i might do - even if i make a few bad descisions along the way.
> 
> I think the thing that surprises me the most about building a PC is the amount of different options there are out there - for like evey single different part that makes one up!!!!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecore2kid*
> 
> I hear what your saying, and that would probably be the best and most sensible way do do it - especially as the price of components change so quickly, but it's kind of like a focused project for me - giving me something to work towards. I am having to buy the bits individually as and when i can afford to do so, thats just the way it is for me at the moment - like a big expensive jigsaw puzzle, but i'm gonna be over the moon when everythings all bought and i can start building - I was determined i wasn't gonna buy a pre-built PC, and learn how to do it myself, but the lack of experience with them and knowledge of PC's in general is making it hard - hence why joining this forum. But it's sure more interesting and educational than just going and buying a new games console which is what i did plan to do!!!


Yup there's a lot of choice and customizability
I know you're new to OCN but if you asked around on OCN and gave us a budget I'm sure a lot of people would of suggested an ideal and balanced build, that's what a lot of people come here to do, ask for suggestions on a build or what parts to upgrade, then you can work from a few components and pick out what suits your needs and budget, it also gets a lot easier and simpler when you learn more and more, from reading or personal experience.

I've been pretty much PC Gaming, fiddling with and building PCs from before I was even a teen, I've always been around PC Gaming, it's main merits are the freedom, customization and longevity of well chosen components.

Freedom because you can do whatever you wish with your Gaming PC, whether you game, watch movies/media, word process, work, learn, the list goes on and on, consoles are mainly just for gaming and the occasional media, you can't really get much if anything productive done on them, and a PC you may use most of the day or the week to do many different things.

Customization because you build it yourself and you choose what goes into it and what happens next, water cooled setups, air cooled setups, cool and flashy lights, a sleek case and so on.

Longevity, well chosen components will last years to come, honorable mentions would be the Core 2 Duos, Core 2 Quads the 2500K, the 8800 series, 4850/70/90 and there's bound to be more but those are just a few.

EDIT: Grammar


----------



## thecore2kid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dhenzjhen*
> 
> And there goes the pentium chip


6,214MHz???? wow........


----------



## thecore2kid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Yup there's a lot of choice and customizability
> I know you're new to OCN but if you asked around on OCN and gave us a budget I'm sure a lot of people would of suggested an ideal and balanced build, that's what a lot of people come here to do, ask for suggestions on a build or what parts to upgrade, then you can work from a few components and pick out what suits your needs and budget, it also gets a lot easier and simpler when you learn more and more, from reading or personal experience.


TBH i wished i'd joined and started asking questions earlier, but it was like a bit of a quick change of decision to decide to build a pc rather than buy a PS4 or XBone. I have already upgraded the cpu, ram, and graphics card in my old rig so know a little - it's just a lot harder when choosing new and current components that you know very little about and trying to piece them altogether.

The thing is i am unsure on total budget as i am just saving and getting a bit hear and there what i can afford when i can afford it, i'm hoping to start building by sort of end of august / september time hopefully.

I just went for the G3258 due to great reviews, price and performance for what it is - plus the upgrade path sealed it for me!


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> Hail John Carmack.
> 
> Can't say I can confirm the video game programmer tidbit but I can confirm the rest. Parallelism is tough and takes a new look at programming. It isn't as easy to implement as you'd think, and its even harder for video games because of data intercommunication. Dependencies are the enemy of multi-threading.


Yep. You throw it a few mutexes to protect very few variables and there goes performance. I'm not into that stuff anymore, only as a hobbyist a while ago, but it was enough time to see the severe issue first hand.


----------



## thecore2kid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Overclocker.Monster*
> 
> *For you experts of the g3258*, I'm looking for :
> 
> -mITX motherboard for this CPU, _not OVERKILL_ but stable enough to let me do *EXTREME OC.*
> 
> (Think I don't need to clarify the overkill ones but something like "impact VII" etc)


If i could help you, i would - but i had a hard enough job picking my own ATX board and i'm still wondering if i've done the right thing - lol.









I'm sure someone else with a lot more knowledge than me will be able to suggest some options for you.


----------



## thecore2kid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Yup there's a lot of choice and customizability
> I know you're new to OCN but if you asked around on OCN and gave us a budget I'm sure a lot of people would of suggested an ideal and balanced build, that's what a lot of people come here to do, ask for suggestions on a build or what parts to upgrade, then you can work from a few components and pick out what suits your needs and budget, it also gets a lot easier and simpler when you learn more and more, from reading or personal experience.
> 
> I've been pretty much PC Gaming, fiddling with and build PC from before I was even a teen, I've always been around PC Gaming, it's main merits are the freedom, customization and longevity of well chosen components.
> 
> Freedom because you can do whatever you wish with your Gaming PC, whether you game, watch movies/media, word process, work, learn, the list goes on and on, consoles are mainly just for gaming and the occasional media, you can't really get much if anything productive done on them, and a PC you may use most of the day or the week to do many different things.
> 
> Customization because you build it yourself and you choose what goes into it and what happens next, water cooled setups, air cooled setups, cool and flashy lights, a sleek case and so on.
> 
> Longevity, well chosen components will last years to come, honorable mentions would be the Core 2 Duos, Core 2 Quads the 2500K, the 8800 series, 4850/70/90 and there's bound to be more but those are just a few.


Yes, in hindsight i wished i'd really got into PC's a lot earlier, but i have had fun with my consoles over the years - it's now just time to move on, i guess i'm finding that with the customizability and choice is more chances to go wrong (or feel like you have) if you don't know that much about the subject.

I think the satisfaction of when i get mine built and up and running will far outshine the feeling of buying a new console though!


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecore2kid*
> 
> Yes, in hindsight i wished i'd really got into PC's a lot earlier, but i have had fun with my consoles over the years - it's now just time to move on, i guess i'm finding that with the customizability and choice is more chances to go wrong (or feel like you have) if you don't know that much about the subject.
> 
> I think the satisfaction of when i get mine built and up and running will far outshine the feeling of buying a new console though!


Indeed, have fun and good luck!


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> You realize the same thing will happen with AMD FX-4300 etc, probably worse than the Pentium.


The funny thing about people comparing the FX-4300 to the Pentium is that it doesn't even make sense...You'll be spending an extra ~$50 or so for the FX overall and won't have the ability to get Broadwell or even just a plain-jane Haswell 4790k later. The ideal budget gaming chip would be an i3 because it'd just be this with HT to help with games that actually can use the cores up.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jason387*
> 
> AMD CPU's can never run sli or crossfire properly.


There's a platform bottleneck that Intel also had until Nehalem. A friend of mine had SLI GTX 480s and only noticed a 2fps difference between SLI and single card on his Phenom II x4 965 but a much higher one on his i7, but it's clearly not a CPU bottleneck because Phenom II x4s and the like aren't bottlenecked by GPUs faster than a GTX 480. I think Anand or Guru3D did a review showing that Nehalem was much faster than Conroe/Deneb with dual GPUs despite games not typically being _that_ much faster with single GPUs.

All in all, CFX or SLI on AMD is a waste of time and money but they're still great for single-card budget gaming. (This Pentium gives Intel competition in that area though)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> We all know how fast does GPU drop its price...


I bought a HD7950 mid-last year for $300...The rebranded R9 280 is currently $279 (On sale) at the same store.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> Let's put it this way. Intel's Pentium has better IPC than AMD's 'enthusiast' CPUs. Let that sink in.


It's lucky that IPC means nothing on its own, hence why despite the higher IPC Intel didn't have competitors in this section of the market until they released an unlocked Pentium.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Game developers are often the smartest coders around. The reason it's harder to make good multithreading on interractive applications is that you have to communicate data between threads and that causes lag when you stop to read/write the variables (otherwise segfault). If you make something simple non-interactive like video encoding, you just throw in 999 threads, easy.


Programming in general is still a very new thing compared to other skills people can learn (Compare say, baking or metal working that have been learnt and taught for hundreds of years to programming that really has only been somewhat popular for ~70 or so) so it's hard now but that's because it really is pioneering an entirely new style of coding with platforms that really haven't been that up to the task at the moment. With DX12, Mantle and the new consoles forcing developers to start working out how to do it it's pretty clear that we'll see some significant strides in the next decade.


----------



## Overclocker.Monster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecore2kid*
> 
> If i could help you, i would - but i had a hard enough job picking my own ATX board and i'm still wondering if i've done the right thing - lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure someone else with a lot more knowledge than me will be able to suggest some options for you.


Intention counts!







I know that someone is going to give me a hand with it.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Overclocker.Monster*
> 
> Intention counts!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that someone is going to give me a hand with it.


I thought it goes something like being part of the master race is not about having the best PC, rather about knowing and believing that the PC is the best platform...


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Programming in general is still a very new thing compared to other skills people can learn (Compare say, baking or metal working that have been learnt and taught for hundreds of years to programming that really has only been somewhat popular for ~70 or so) so it's hard now but that's because it really is pioneering an entirely new style of coding with platforms that really haven't been that up to the task at the moment. With DX12, Mantle and the new consoles forcing developers to start working out how to do it it's pretty clear that we'll see some significant strides in the next decade.


The general premise of what you say first has some merit. The programming culture may have road ahead, even if some multithreading problems are too straightforward to be avoided, e.g. protecting a variable used by 2 threads at the same time - and that is a reason for lag. But the second part is an oxymoron, since Mantle/DX12/Latest OpenGL mainly try to avoid using the CPU doing draw calls as a main benefit, which puts the CPU/Main System out of the equation anyway, so it's not a solution since regular procedural programming will always be required (NVIDIA is even thinking of adding an ARM processor on their chips).


----------



## JambonJovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> why didnt you just grab i5 4670k ...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecore2kid*
> 
> And thats why i personally after a stack of research and originally really having my heart set on going for AMD 8320/8350 for my first ever PC build decided to go with the G3258 and the Z97 path - so i could upgrade to i5/i7in the future - plus *i have to watch the budget as well at the moment*, although i can't quite believe i've spent more than double the cost of the pentium on my motherboard!
> 
> It's hard being new to all this stuff!!!


Reading properly helps a lot


----------



## thecore2kid

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Indeed, have fun and good luck!


Cheers, i'm really looking forward to getting it all up and rolling!









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JambonJovi*
> 
> Reading properly helps a lot


Yeah, true - although i've been doing so much of it that i've been going round in circles, getting confused and not making total sense of it all...but it's all good fun!

To anyone thats ever owned or has a core2duo or anyone that may know, how much better performing should i expect a G3258 with Z97X mobo to be coming from a E6700 Conroe with p5lp-le asus / oem HP in general?


----------



## Overclocker.Monster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I thought it goes something like being part of the master race is not about having the best PC, rather about knowing and believing that the PC is the best platform...


Sorry but I don't understand what u mean. OR what doest it have to deal about what I asked


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Overclocker.Monster*
> 
> Sorry but I don't understand what u mean. OR what doest it have to deal about what I asked


/r/pcmasterrace agreed with "the intention counts"


----------



## TPCbench

*Intel Pentium G3258 On Linux*
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_pentium_g3258&num=1
Quote:


> Overall, the Pentium G3258 on this ASRock Z97 system had an overall system power consumption average of 55 Watts during a wide range of tests while it bottomed out at 33 Watts and peaked at 59 Watts. When overclocked to 4.4GHz, the G3258 had an average system power consumption of 67 Watts and a peak of 87 Watts.
> 
> I haven't had my hands on a Pentium processor in a while, but playing around with the Pentium G3258 this month has been interesting and brought back many memories. While the G3258 represents twenty years of the Pentium brand, I wouldn't recommend this $70 CPU to many Linux users.
> 
> If you're mostly bound to running simple single-threaded applications, aren't running any games or making extensive use of the HD Graphics, and do plan to overclock this CPU to get an extra ~40% clock speed, then the Intel Pentium G3258 is a decent offering for Linux users. Besides being a dual-core part without Hyper Threading, the other performance limitation with the Pentium line-up comes down to the lack of AVX that can benefit many computationally intensive Linux applications and the AES-NI support that makes things faster for those utilizing Linux disk encryption. However, if performance is important to you or this is a machine you'll be using full time outside of light desktop work, you're better off getting at least a Core i3 series CPU with greater performance potential and better HD Graphics.


----------



## TPCbench

Intel Pentium G3258 - review by Anand Tech
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/overclockable-pentium-anniversary-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae










































Quote:


> Please Intel, create an i3 overclocking processor.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Intel Pentium G3258 - review by Anand Tech
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/overclockable-pentium-anniversary-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae
> -snip-


An unlocked i3.
Such dream.
Many thread
Wow.


----------



## iRUSH

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Intel Pentium G3258 - review by Anand Tech
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/overclockable-pentium-anniversary-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae


I'd love an i3k. For now my i3-4360 does everything I need it to do, but I do miss overclocking. I'd rather see intel simplify their CPU selection and only offer unlocked chips. Perhaps someone here could explain the PROS and CONS to that.


----------



## fateswarm

Those saying it may cannibalize into i5 sales had a point. i5 users already cut all the corners of the i7 benefits so they will not care of multithreaded programs. If they derive their game can't use more than the i3, i5 will not be gotten.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iRUSH*
> 
> I'd love an i3k. For now my i3-4360 does everything I need it to do, but I do miss overclocking. I'd rather see intel simplify their CPU selection and only offer unlocked chips. Perhaps someone here could explain the PROS and CONS to that.


I know a great ton of the Core 2 Duo and Pentium chips you could overclock, although I cant remember if they simply had unlocked multipliers or their FSB was adjustable, some people have said they can't OC their CPUs too high because of their low speed ram, I think my Home Server has 1066mhz and I've OC'd a Core 2 Duo from 2.6GHz to perhaps about 4GHz, and the Pentium I could bring that up to 4.2GHz.

The main pros and cons I can think of is profit, there would be not much if any reason to buy a i5 4670K if the i5 4670 could overclock, perhaps the same could be said for the i5 4440, and I've noticed Intel have been charging price premiums for clock speed boosts, for a 100mhz higher chip you could end up paying a bit more, roughly £5-10 more in the UK, other stores and countries may have different costs, but I don't think it would be drastically different.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

The different C2D models simply had different multipliers, exactly the same as with the current chips. The difference is that FSB overclocking has a much larger range than Bclk overclocking, so while even on a cheap board I could get a 2.53GHz E7200 to around 3.3GHz, you can't do that with the cheap LGA1150 or 1155 boards.


----------



## Internet Swag

What irritates me as an i3 user is that my CPU is 3 years old and it's successor, both spiritually and economically, is barely worthy of being called an upgrade.

If you compare the 2120 to the 4130 benchmarks, there's a passmark single core score increase of almost 300 points. This is pathetic for 3 years of progress, especially since it's a CPU benchmark score and not a real world performance reflection. It is imo not worthy of replacing a CPU and a motherboard.

The only real improvement I see with new CPU's is power consumption, 53 TDP to 43 TDP is nice, but why even bother with this all the time, Broadwell is gonna reduce the TDP as well? Why not push the envelope, release an i3 that goes for really high single core performance with a high clock speed and a TDP of 60, 65 or w/e.

My honest opinion, the people who got their moneys worth were those who bought i5 2500k and OC'd it to 4.5 GHZ.

I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to CPU's, but why doesn't Intel give me a reason to upgrade? Apple enthusiasts upgrade almost yearly.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

There is a) not much point in further pushing single thread performance and b) (probably) not much they have to do as far as making the process more efficient.

I mean look at how far behind AMD's single thread performance is...

Apple enthusiasts upgrade almost yearly because a) they have the money, and b) they don't actually care about or look at the specs.


----------



## Internet Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> There is a) not much point in further pushing single thread performance and b) (probably) not much they have to do as far as making the process more efficient.
> 
> I mean look at how far behind AMD's single thread performance is...
> 
> Apple enthusiasts upgrade almost yearly because a) they have the money, and b) they don't actually care about or look at the specs.


Why is there no reason to push single thread performance more?


----------



## bhav

CPU clock scalling has hit a hard wall now, and all the latest consoles are also multi core.

If game developers want to increase their performance, they cant rely on single threaded performance much longer and need to start utilizing multithreading.

I really see this Pentium as a great benching chip, or as a great budget, low power use chip, but overall for a gaming setup, I couldn't reccomend anything less than the I5 4440, or the nearest unlocked k version depending on whether or not its going to be OCed.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> CPU clock scalling has hit a hard wall now, and all the latest consoles are also multi core.
> 
> If game developers want to increase their performance, they cant rely on single threaded performance much longer and need to start utilizing multithreading.
> 
> I really see this Pentium as a great benching chip, or as a great budget, low power use chip, but overall for a gaming setup, I couldn't reccomend anything less than the I5 4440k, or the nearest unlocked k version depending on whether or not its going to be OCed.


It's kinda hard to recommend a 4690k with a gtx 750 though.

It's a great chip and awesome to recommend, but it's "high end" in that it's a better gaming choice than everything below it and the entire FX lineup. There's also nothing better than 4690k for almost every game out there that won't scale with HT or >4 cores - you can't just recommend the best CPU for everything and every budget, as much as it would be nice for everyone to have one


----------



## bhav

I5s are high end? Cmon now, theyre barely any more expensive than AMD quad cores.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> I5s are high end? Cmon now, theyre barely any more expensive than AMD quad cores.


pentium costs £50
fx8320 costs £98
unlocked i5 costs £165

by standards of many on OCN they are "high end", unless you want to call everything below that low-midrange


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> anything less than the I5 4440k,


I thought it was a typo before but you keep mentioning the i5 4440*k* but that seems to not exist. There's a locked version of this chip but nothing unlocked. The K is used on unlocked chips.

Unless google is failing me here....


----------



## bhav

Sorry I made a mistake. I keep calling it k by habbit, I mean the non K basic one, cheapest Intel quad core.


----------



## fateswarm

The "faster cpu is not needed" notion is a fallacy but it's straightforward to understand why: The GPUs are just not as effective per cost as Intel CPUs, possibly because of Intel's foundry superiority (the cpu is a bottleneck only on SLI/CF usually and that on the very high end GPUs). Also, the PCI-E bus is very slow compared to the VRAM<->GPU connection so in the special case of gaming for the last 10-20 years it's an ongoing process to generally offload as much stuff as we can to the VRAM before even beginning rendering (most of the PCI-E stuff are micro-transactions that even them suffer for PCI-E's bandwidth-bound latency so even them can be avoided, hence Mantle/DX12/beta OpenGL).


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> CPU clock scalling has hit a hard wall now, and all the latest consoles are also multi core.
> 
> If game developers want to increase their performance, they cant rely on single threaded performance much longer and need to start utilizing multithreading.
> 
> I really see this Pentium as a great benching chip, or as a great budget, low power use chip, but overall for a gaming setup, I couldn't reccomend anything less than the I5 4440, or the nearest unlocked k version depending on whether or not its going to be OCed.


The people buying this chip are mostly buying it for specific applications, it has it's uses and only does well when it takes advantage of AMD's weakness in the field of per core performance in games which don't scale with 4+ threads, the people who are buying this chip are the ones which want an up to date platform with many upgrade paths and more to come and to upgrade within a few months to a more future proof CPU, and for the biggest selling point of all, single threaded performance.

The ones who want a more futureproof CPU from the get go would get an FX6300 or an i5 and leave it at that, as for when you say you wouldn't recommend anything less than an i5 4440, this chip isn't the jack of all trades, it can be onpar in multi-threading against quad core AMD chips, but if a game wants more threads they're going to give it trouble, this is also in an entirely different price/performance bracket from the i5 4440, a CPU which would be close to the i5 would be the 6300 or 8320 and for the Pentium an FX4300 from AM3+ or a 750K from FM2.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> It's kinda hard to recommend a 4690k with a gtx 750 though.
> 
> It's a great chip and awesome to recommend, but it's "high end" in that it's a better gaming choice than everything below it and the entire FX lineup. There's also nothing better than 4690k for almost every game out there that won't scale with HT or >4 cores - you can't just recommend the best CPU for everything and every budget, as much as it would be nice for everyone to have one


This.
However seemingly unbalanced builds with strong CPUs can have a future proof appeal, because once you have that i5 K, you're pretty much set CPU-wise for gaming for years to come, the CPU is perhaps one of the longest lasting components you can have in a system, I had my Phenom II for years and it went through a 4670, 4850, 6850 and the 760 Hawk I have now, If I had a 2500K or a 2600K I'd still be going with that chip. (Baring in mind those came after the Phenom II chips IIRC)

Imo it's probably better to spend more on the CPU than the GPU in some cases, as that CPU if it's powerful enough and futureproof it can last longer than a GPU and often outlives them in usefulness, you still have people rocking Core 2 Quads, although they can bottleneck stronger GPUs.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> It's kinda hard to recommend a 4690k with a gtx 750 though.
> 
> It's a great chip and awesome to recommend, but it's "high end" in that it's a better gaming choice than everything below it and the entire FX lineup. There's also nothing better than 4690k for almost every game out there that won't scale with HT or >4 cores - you can't just recommend the best CPU for everything and every budget, as much as it would be nice for everyone to have one


The difference is that a GTX 880 is outdated and starting to show its age in ~4 years while that 4690k will likely still be going strong for another 6+ years..I mean you've got people on Nehalem (From 2008) only now starting to get more CPU bottlenecks and SB was a _big_ jump from that...Anyone owning SB, IB or Haswell will likely be able to happily run that chip in a gaming PC with a more modern GPU still bottlenecking games in 6 years short of some major revolution occurring that pushes CPU usage up.

Personally, if I was buying on a budget right now I'd spend big on the CPU, motherboard and PSU, then save up as much as I can for the 16nm Maxwells and M.2/SATA Express NVMe SSDs next year as that seems to be the best idea for longevity.


----------



## Wirerat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> The difference is that a GTX 880 is outdated and starting to show its age in ~4 years while that 4690k will likely still be going strong for another 6+ years..I mean you've got people on Nehalem (From 2008) only now starting to get more CPU bottlenecks and SB was a _big_ jump from that...Anyone owning SB, IB or Haswell will likely be able to happily run that chip in a gaming PC with a more modern GPU still bottlenecking games in 6 years short of some major revolution occurring that pushes CPU usage up.
> 
> Personally, if I was buying on a budget right now I'd spend big on the CPU, motherboard and PSU, then save up as much as I can for the 16nm Maxwells and M.2/SATA Express NVMe SSDs next year as that seems to be the best idea for longevity.


I would buy a decent z97 board as much gpu as I could and get the g3258. Then save for broadwell i5. Then do what you are saying.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> The difference is that a GTX 880 is outdated and starting to show its age in ~4 years while that 4690k will likely still be going strong for another 6+ years..I mean you've got people on Nehalem (From 2008) only now starting to get more CPU bottlenecks and SB was a _big_ jump from that...Anyone owning SB, IB or Haswell will likely be able to happily run that chip in a gaming PC with a more modern GPU still bottlenecking games in 6 years short of some major revolution occurring that pushes CPU usage up.
> 
> Personally, if I was buying on a budget right now I'd spend big on the CPU, motherboard and PSU, then save up as much as I can for the 16nm Maxwells and M.2/SATA Express NVMe SSDs next year as that seems to be the best idea for longevity.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wirerat*
> 
> I would buy a decent z97 board as much gpu as I could and get the g3258. Then save for broadwell i5. Then do what you are saying.


This.
Motherboard and CPU, the most important components in a system alongside the PSU.
The G3258 would be a sweet placeholder for an i5 or an i7 providing you are not in urgent need for higher multi-threaded performance.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

My i7 960 that I found proved to have better single threaded performance than my 8350, so I swapped them out. I would probably have better multi with my 8350 at 4.4GHz, but my cooler for that chip is a little gimped. I wanted better single thread performance because the few games I play rely on two or three threads. Don't get me wrong, both these chips at the speeds I got them to are amazing and I rarely dip below 60 on either of them, but the i7 dips below 60 less then the 8350.

Again, this is personal experience. Don't start a flame war by using 'benchmarks'.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> My i7 960 that I found proved to have better single threaded performance than my 8350, so I swapped them out. I would probably have better multi with my 8350 at 4.4GHz, but my cooler for that chip is a little gimped. I wanted better single thread performance because the few games I play rely on two or three threads. Don't get me wrong, both these chips at the speeds I got them to are amazing and I rarely dip below 60 on either of them, but the i7 dips below 60 less then the 8350.
> 
> Again, this is personal experience. Don't start a flame war by using 'benchmarks'.


Makes sense since Piledrivers have Phenom 1 IPC.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> I'd love an i3k. For now my i3-4360 does everything I need it to do, but I do miss overclocking. I'd rather see intel simplify their CPU selection and only offer unlocked chips. Perhaps someone here could explain the PROS and CONS to that.


Quote:


> Those saying it may cannibalize into i5 sales had a point. i5 users already cut all the corners of the i7 benefits so they will not care of multithreaded programs. If they derive their game can't use more than the i3, i5 will not be gotten.


I don't think an overclockable Core i3 will negatively affect the sales of Core i5

















http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i3-530-overclock-lga-1156,2626.html

Core i3 530 @ 4.4 GHz = Core i5 750 @ 2.66 GHz

Core i3 needs to run at a clock speed 65% higher than that of Core i5

If we extrapolate from that data, Core i3 "4130K" @ 5.6 GHz = Core i5 4670K @ 3.4 GHz

Based from various reviews I have seen, Haswell seems to be limited to around 4.6 to 4.8 GHz on air cooling

I hope there are Core i7 4770K/4790K users kind enough who would run tests comparing a simulated Core i3 4130K @ ~4.8 GHz and a simulated Core i5 4670K @ 3.4 GHz


----------



## HMBR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> I don't think an overclockable Core i3 will negatively affect the sales of Core i5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i3-530-overclock-lga-1156,2626.html
> 
> Core i3 530 @ 4.4 GHz = Core i5 750 @ 2.66 GHz
> 
> Core i3 needs to run at a clock speed 65% higher than that of Core i5
> 
> If we extrapolate from that data, Core i3 "4130K" @ 5.6 GHz = Core i5 4670K @ 3.4 GHz
> 
> Based from various reviews I have seen, Haswell seems to be limited to around 4.6 to 4.8 GHz on air cooling
> 
> I hope there are Core i7 4770K/4790K users kind enough who would run tests comparing a simulated Core i3 4130K @ ~4.8 GHz and a simulated Core i5 4670K @ 3.4 GHz


the winrar graph is not representative, the i3 530 had an external memory controller (on package, but different die), the i5 760 had a much faster Internal memory controller (on die),
as far as I know winrar is significantly affected by memory speed,

also haswell i3 43xx have 4MB of l3 and all the i5s 6MB, while the i5 750 had 8MB (same as the i7s from that era),

no to mention winrar pre 4.20 had a problem (less performance benefit) with HT as far as I know!?

and look at the 3dsmax graph, the i3 is doing well considering it's much cheaper, and games don't scale nearly as well as 3dsmax, so a unlocked i3 would be pretty good for gaming compared to the more expensive locked i5s,

HT is very significant on dual core CPUs, it's pretty obvious when you compare Pentium and i3 at the same clock on games like Watch Dogs

I think the lack of unlocked i3 is a protection to the lower cost i5s (like the 4440), because i5s are higher margin parts (even with the die size difference)


----------



## fateswarm

Those are pure multithreading. The argument about i3 killing the 5 was about gaming only. Games and interactive applications in general do not find it easy to multithread (because of lag when sharing data between threads).


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> the winrar graph is not representative, the i3 530 had an external memory controller (on package, but different die), the i5 760 had a much faster Internal memory controller (on die),
> as far as I know winrar is significantly affected by memory speed,
> 
> also haswell i3 43xx have 4MB of l3 and all the i5s 6MB, while the i5 750 had 8MB (same as the i7s from that era),
> 
> no to mention winrar pre 4.20 had a problem (less performance benefit) with HT as far as I know!?
> 
> and look at the 3dsmax graph, the i3 is doing well considering it's much cheaper, and games don't scale nearly as well as 3dsmax, so a unlocked i3 would be pretty good for gaming compared to the more expensive locked i5s,


That is why I said this

_I hope there are Core i7 4770K/4790K users kind enough who would run tests comparing a simulated Core i3 4130K @ ~4.8 GHz and a simulated Core i5 4670K @ 3.4 GHz_

Quote:


> I think the lack of unlocked i3 is a protection to the lower cost i5s (like the 4440), because i5s are higher margin parts (even with the die size difference)


Before, it was this simple

Core i5 750S 2.40 GHz
Core i5 750 2.66 GHz
Core i5 760 2.80 GHz

Now, it's like this

Core i5 4430S 2.7 GHz
Core i5 4430 3.0 GHz
Core i5 4440S 2.8 GHz
Core i5 4440 3.1 GHz
Core i5 4570S 2.9 GHz
Core i5 4570 3.2 GHz
Core i5 4670S 3.1 GHz
Core i5 4670 3.4 GHz
Core i5 4670K 3.4 GHz

I think it would better if Intel just ditched all the models lower than Core i5 4670K coz an overclockable Core i3 can cover that


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> I think it would better if Intel just ditched all the models lower than Core i5 4670K coz an overclockable Core i3 can cover that


Interesting, maybe if they only had an unlocked quad core, maybe two from different binnings, then they could potentially sell all their quad dies at over $200, sounds like profit for them...


----------



## TPCbench

Pentium G3258 is still not available here in the Philippines

I'm thinking if I'll just buy online

What online stores can you recommend ? Also, what are things I should know about buying online (Amazon, Newegg, etc). Never done it before


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> I think it would better if Intel just ditched all the models lower than Core i5 4670K coz an overclockable Core i3 can cover that


No, no it can't. Not many people actually overclock and no overclocking kinda beats the purpose of an unlocked CPU. I know a whole lot of people who bought 4670K units just because everyone recommends them, not because they overclock their CPU, despite the fact that a 4670 is otherwise identical. Granted, they're idiots, but my point still stands. We who look at a machine with an unlocked CPU running on stock clocks and experience an urge to vomit are in a minority. So yeah, locked i5s fill that market segment nicely and an unlocked i3 would just leave a big hole in it.

You also have to take into consideration that the i5-whateverS models are lower-power models, designed for smaller machines that utilize weaker cooling systems/smaller PSUs, like HTPCs on steroids and OEM PCs. An unlocked i3 can't cover that segment cause it would require to be overclocked to match the speed of that i5, which would bring the power consumption high enough that it couldn't be used for low-power applications. An overclocked G3258 can match a stock 4670K in power draw, and HT only adds up to power consumption, so low-power use once overclocked is out of the question and it can't compete on stock.

Regardless of all that, an unlocked i3 would be something I'd very much like to get my hands on.

As a side-note, G3258 finally popped up in Croatia, was wondering when it will come here. It's $100 though, cheaper than G3440 and 3450 ($111 and $125 respectively) but way out of my budget for something I'll use for nothing other than overclocking, so I think I'll grab one from the used market next year after the prices settle a bit.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Werne*
> 
> No, no it can't. Not many people actually overclock and no overclocking kinda beats the purpose of an unlocked CPU. I know a whole lot of people who bought 4670K units just because everyone recommends them, not because they overclock their CPU, despite the fact that a 4670 is otherwise identical. Granted, they're idiots, but my point still stands. We who look at a machine with an unlocked CPU running on stock clocks and experience an urge to vomit are in a minority. So yeah, locked i5s fill that market segment nicely and an unlocked i3 would just leave a big hole in it.
> 
> You also have to take into consideration that the i5-whateverS models are lower-power models, designed for smaller machines that utilize weaker cooling systems/smaller PSUs, like HTPCs on steroids and OEM PCs. An unlocked i3 can't cover that segment cause it would require to be overclocked to match the speed of that i5, which would bring the power consumption high enough that it couldn't be used for low-power applications. An overclocked G3258 can match a stock 4670K in power draw, and HT only adds up to power consumption, so low-power use once overclocked is out of the question and it can't compete on stock.


I saw a build log with a non Z motherboard and an i5 K a few months back.
The locked chips have their place and is simpler to the user, it'll run at the speeds it's sold at and that's it, but for those interested in future proofing their processors and pushing them further in later years instead of going out and replacing them, the unlocked chips make alot of sense hence the reason why alot of gamers are referred to the 4670/4690K and are still rocking 2500Ks overclocked.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> That is why I said this
> 
> _I hope there are Core i7 4770K/4790K users kind enough who would run tests comparing a simulated Core i3 4130K @ ~4.8 GHz and a simulated Core i5 4670K @ 3.4 GHz_
> 
> *I think it would better if Intel just ditched all the models lower than Core i5 4670K coz an overclockable Core i3 can cover that*


What Werne says above, and also profit, if all i5s could overclock there would be no reason for the K series, unless those have increased overclocking potential or are simply higher yields.

We used to be able to overclock on many CPUs, now it's limited to K chips, I'm unsure if this is due to technical reasons or not.

An unlocked i3 I'd very much love to play with, I'll have an i5 by then but I would want to use it in another build, it'll likely end up cannibalizing quad core AMD chips and replacing the second Phenom II build I have, and doing as the G3258 does in the field of single threaded performance, but also in the field of multi-threading up to 4 threads, this should give it the boost to being a jack of all trades, whilst the G3258's specialty is single-thread, the i3-K would have it's hands on multi-thread too.

But all of these unlocked chips appeal primarily to overclockers, or those who want to futureproof their system by clocking it up in later years when they want a performance boost, the G3258 is basically at it's peak already once overclocked to the highest the user can take it, a stock 4670K/4690K would have some steam left if it's an average clocking chip and should be stable out of the box, when you overclock a chip you have to find out whether it's stable or not which could be too much for those who don't overclock.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

But still, would it not be more profitable for intel to sell their dual core chips at high prices than sell their quad core chips at low prices?

I'd think that if they sold an i3k for around the price of a i5-4430 and ditched the lower end i5s they'd be in for a hell of a lot of profit...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Internet Swag*
> 
> Why is there no reason to push single thread performance more?


Because AMD is uncompetitive


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> I saw a build log with a non Z motherboard and an i5 K a few months back.
> The locked chips have their place and is simpler to the user, it'll run at the speeds it's sold at and that's it, but for those interested in future proofing their processors and pushing them further in later years instead of going out and replacing them, the unlocked chips make alot of sense hence the reason why alot of gamers are referred to the 4670/4690K and are still rocking 2500Ks overclocked.


I can understand getting a 4670K if the guy intends to buy a Z87/97 board later on and overclock it, or buys one immediately and intends to overclock when/if needed. But half the people who buy 4670Ks are those who have no intention of overclocking, and they still get the more expensive unlocked CPU because they are advised to.

Right now I can find a whole pile of unlocked Sandy/Ivy chips on the local used market that never ran out of factory spec, not even by 100MHz, but were bought because someone told them to buy it over a locked equivalent. I talked with a bunch of people selling those when upgrading my old machine (was looking to get Sandy) and when I asked why wasn't an unlocked chip like that overclocked, they just stared at me blankly with their mouths open like I'm speaking Chinese and have four eyes or something. They heard about it but don't understand it. Some didn't even know what overclocking is.









That's also why I prefer buying stuff from guys who do overclock. Even though 90% of the time they say hardware wasn't overclocked for some reason, they start divulging info once I explain to them it will be abused as much as it allows as soon as I install it. I'd rather know what the chips is capable of than fumble in the dark.


----------



## sepiashimmer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Pentium G3258 is still not available here in the Philippines
> 
> I'm thinking if I'll just buy online
> 
> What online stores can you recommend ? Also, what are things I should know about buying online (Amazon, Newegg, etc). Never done it before


I don't think newegg ships to Philippines. Ordering it from Amazon or any other site from US will make it cost almost double because of shipping taxes and other taxes, it'll be a lot better to buy i3 4150 or i3 4160 from your country. You can check with your country's Intel to know about the availability of G3258. Are you considering this to play with it's overclocking or because of your budget?


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sepiashimmer*
> 
> I don't think newegg ships to Philippines. Ordering it from Amazon or any other site from US will make it cost almost double because of shipping taxes and other taxes, it'll be a lot better to buy i3 4150 or i3 4160 from your country. You can check with your country's Intel to know about the availability of G3258. Are you considering this to play with it's overclocking or because of your budget?


I'm getting a Pentium G3258 coz I want to test it myself









I think I'll wait until August before buying online

Core i7 4790K and Core i5 4690K are already available here in the Philippines


----------



## JambonJovi

Here's some more gaming benchmarks by TweakTown.

LINK


----------



## 66racer

Been out of this thread a bit, was it confirmed that they can overclock on z87? My buddy just bought an msi z87m gaming mobo and wondering if he can oc the g3258. It will be his first time overclocking, he just doesnt live close enough for me to physically show him if it can.


----------



## josephimports

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *66racer*
> 
> Been out of this thread a bit, was it confirmed that they can overclock on z87? My buddy just bought an msi z87m gaming mobo and wondering if he can oc the g3258. It will be his first time overclocking, he just doesnt live close enough for me to physically show him if it can.


He'll need to update to the latest bios. Im using an Asus Z87 and G3258 with no problems.


----------



## 66racer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *josephimports*
> 
> He'll need to update to the latest bios. Im using an Asus Z87 and G3258 with no problems.


Thanks


----------



## Internet Swag

Is passmark a good indicator of CPU performance?


----------



## Cyro999

No


----------



## TPCbench

Intel Pentium G3258 review at Tech Spot
http://www.techspot.com/review/849-intel-pentium-anniversary-edition-overclock/


















_Overall, we feel budget gamers would be better off purchasing the Pentium G3258, overclocking the hell out of it and saving a little money in the process. The only consideration is the fact that you will need to spend roughly $30 more on a decent cooler like the Silverstone Argon Series AR02 to reach 4.4GHz or beyond, whereas the Core i3-4130 will game happily with the box cooler. Even taking that into account, the Pentium is around $20 cheaper and provides the added enjoyment of some budget overclocking fun.

As a side note, AMD's A8-6600K is worth considering for $100, though we feel if you are going for a discrete graphics card such as the GTX 750 Ti or R9 270 then it makes more sense to buy the gutsier Pentium._


----------



## Themisseble

Very interesting watchdogs benchmark







lol

Kinda fail benchmarks...


----------



## Pip Boy

So in Arma 3 a stock 8 Core top end FX8350 AMD CPU is slower than a stock budget Intel dual core by 10FPS ? and slower by 30FPS when overclocked at 1200p ?

AMD are such a fail at CPU's now, this is a shame.

If Intel released a 3 core variant with HT there would be little need for gamers to run an i5 over above? This would give that extra 10-20fps the very top Intels give, there doesn't seem to be much need on some titles for even a decent i3.


----------



## [CyGnus]

This CPU is really appealing i might get one to play with


----------



## TPCbench

WTH

The AMD fanboy is here again and still do not want to accept the fact that Pentium G3258 @ ~4.5 GHz is faster than a quad-core AMD CPU in gaming

Anyway, Pentium G3258 is already available here in our country. I'll be getting one next month and do gaming tests using a GTX 750 Ti

Tomb Raider 2013 (FRAPS benchmark in Mountain Village part)
Hitman: Absolution (built-in benchmark)
Lost Planet 2 (built-in benchmark)
Metro: Last Light (built-in benchmark)


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phill1978*
> 
> So in Arma 3 a stock 8 Core top end FX8350 AMD CPU is slower than a stock budget Intel dual core by 10FPS ? and slower by 30FPS when overclocked at 1200p ?
> 
> AMD are such a fail at CPU's now, this is a shame.
> 
> If Intel released a 3 core variant with HT there would be little need for gamers to run an i5 over above? This would give that extra 10-20fps the very top Intels give, there doesn't seem to be much need on some titles for even a decent i3.


Pssh, 3 core variant with HT?
I bet even a 3rd core would cement it, when I did my performance analysis for Watch Dogs the 3rd core added a miraculous performance improvement over dual core, the 4th core didn't do much.
I'm not sure about Star Citizen though.

If there was a 3 core unlocked Pentium, my goodness!
That's one core off of an i5 and I'm sure it would perform deadly close.


----------



## Imitationcrabme

I've been pleased with the G3258/MSI Z97 PC Mate combo from Microcenter. It replaced my old HTPC which was a Athlon X2 5200. I haven't overclocked the G3258 yet, but it already performs much better than the system it replaced. I had all the spare parts from upgrading my gaming PC. I re-used a 10 year old Seasonic Super Silencer 350W, which despite being 20-pin works flawless with this system.

The only problem I encountered was that the IGP can only output 1080P, except on HDMI 1.4. Most 1440P monitors do not support this input, and many like mine only have Dual-link DVI inputs and no scaler. I had to re-use my GT520 video card for this HTPC, which is silent, but adds about 5-7 watts. The benefit is that it has 1gb dedicated ram, instead of sharing with the cpu.

This system is virtually silent as an HTPC. The motherboard has 3 fan headers which can be controlled in the Bios, and 2 that can't. I used a splitter so all 3 case fans are controlled, and set them to where they are just barely audible at normal operation. The 4-pin Intel fan is the upgraded copper core version, and is very quiet without overclock, and cools just fine. Even with the fan set to max, it is not very loud. The cpu stays at 40c with a 28C ambient during video playback and the stock cooler is silent.

With 1 SSD, 2 hdd's, and DVD drive, the system runs at 55W during video playback, and about 52W idle. With a modern power supply that should drop by 8-10W, but it would take 20 years of savings to justify the cost, and the Seasonic is inaudible.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Pssh, 3 core variant with HT?
> I bet even a 3rd core would cement it, when I did my performance analysis for Watch Dogs the 3rd core added a miraculous performance improvement over dual core, the 4th core didn't do much.
> I'm not sure about Star Citizen though.
> 
> If there was a 3 core unlocked Pentium, my goodness!
> That's one core off of an i5 and I'm sure it would perform deadly close.


I wonder why Tom's Hardware doesn't make this kind of article anymore ?

It would be great if they can do this kind of test again on modern games

How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?
April 2009
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280.html

(Core 2 Quad Q6600)









Part 2: How Many CPU Cores Do You Need?
August 2009
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-cores-performance,2373.html

(Phenom II X4 955BE)


----------



## Pip Boy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> Pssh, 3 core variant with HT?
> I bet even a 3rd core would cement it, when I did my performance analysis for Watch Dogs the 3rd core added a miraculous performance improvement over dual core, the 4th core didn't do much.
> I'm not sure about Star Citizen though.
> 
> If there was a 3 core unlocked Pentium, my goodness!
> That's one core off of an i5 and I'm sure it would perform deadly close.


would Intel do this though? I mean, it would become the definitive Gaming CPU/Steambox CPU, low cost and full able to supply the FPS needed from top end GPU's. Furthermore at 1440p and above where its not quite so important that would finally nail it for most people.

come on Intel just one more core and not much more money ( $10-15$) and you have the biggest seller on your hands right there.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phill1978*
> 
> would Intel do this though? I mean, it would become the definitive Gaming CPU/Steambox CPU, low cost and full able to supply the FPS needed from top end GPU's. Furthermore at 1440p and above where its not quite so important that would finally nail it for most people.
> 
> come on Intel just one more core and not much more money ( $10-15$) and you have the biggest seller on your hands right there.


The pricing could be right between a Pentium and a locked/unlocked i5.
I don't know if Intel would do it, I know some of the tri-core Athlon chips were binned Phenom II X4s or Athlon X4s and Intel have at least 4 dies, Ivy did anyway.

For a tri-core I think Intel would likely use a binned i5 that may have had the cores and cache of it disabled because it wasn't "worthy" enough of being an i5, a separate die might cost them too much, I suppose the unlocked i3 would be more realistic as that's already an existing die.

From Ivy.


----------



## ChampN252

I'm kinda jumping in and could be totally wrong, but some of the proir post I saw were completely discrediting this chip. And I thought I saw something about it not beng able to handle top tier gpus. Guy on youtube had 1 with a 780 TI and averaged mid 60s on the tomb raider bench at 1440p


----------



## Jugurnot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChampN252*
> 
> I'm kinda jumping in and could be totally wrong, but some of the proir post I saw were completely discrediting this chip. And I thought I saw something about it not beng able to handle top tier gpus. Guy on youtube had 1 with a 780 TI and averaged mid 60s on the tomb raider bench at 1440p


Why are there so many saying things like this?

"This $70 chip is crap! It can't even keep up with my $800 GPU!"

This chip has a beautiful place in this world!


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jugurnot*
> 
> Why are there so many saying things like this?
> 
> "This $70 chip is crap! It can't even keep up with my $800 GPU!"
> 
> This chip has a beautiful place in this world!


Because people are too stuck up with the fact that it's a dual core named Pentium...


----------



## ChampN252

I know it hard to understand that a $70 processor can hang with a 4790k. I would't mind using a g3258 with a couple of 290Xs or 780 ti and trying 4K. The guy in the earlier post used sli 780 and matched his 4790k graphically.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChampN252*
> 
> I know it hard to understand that a $70 processor can hang with a 4790k. I would't mind using a g3258 with a couple of 290Xs or 780 ti and trying 4K. The guy in the earlier post used sli 780 and matched his 4790k graphically.


The performance deficit should have less of an effect at higher resolutions due to the lower frame rates involved.


----------



## bhav

Why do people on this forum carry on buying / supporting AMD trashy CPUs in comparison to this?

If only there could be a 3 core variant, no HT for a little bit more, bye bye AMD, it was nice knowing you.


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> _Overall, we feel budget gamers would be better off purchasing the Pentium G3258, overclocking the hell out of it and saving a little money in the process. The only consideration is the fact that you will need to spend roughly $30 more on a decent cooler like the Silverstone Argon Series AR02 to reach 4.4GHz or beyond, whereas the Core i3-4130 will game happily with the box cooler. Even taking that into account, the Pentium is around $20 cheaper and provides the added enjoyment of some budget overclocking fun._


You don't even need anything above stock, that alone was pushing most reviewers to 4.7 with little trouble. Maybe if you want 5.0...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> The "faster cpu is not needed" notion is a fallacy but it's straightforward to understand why: The GPUs are just not as effective per cost as Intel CPUs, possibly because of Intel's foundry superiority (the cpu is a bottleneck only on SLI/CF usually and that on the very high end GPUs). Also, the PCI-E bus is very slow compared to the VRAM<->GPU connection so in the special case of gaming for the last 10-20 years it's an ongoing process to generally offload as much stuff as we can to the VRAM before even beginning rendering (most of the PCI-E stuff are micro-transactions that even them suffer for PCI-E's bandwidth-bound latency so even them can be avoided, hence Mantle/DX12/beta OpenGL).


My understanding of OpenGL and its history is that it has always been relatively low level, always more so than DX.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> I don't think an overclockable Core i3 will negatively affect the sales of Core i5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i3-530-overclock-lga-1156,2626.html
> 
> Core i3 530 @ 4.4 GHz = Core i5 750 @ 2.66 GHz
> 
> Core i3 needs to run at a clock speed 65% higher than that of Core i5
> 
> If we extrapolate from that data, Core i3 "4130K" @ 5.6 GHz = Core i5 4670K @ 3.4 GHz
> 
> Based from various reviews I have seen, Haswell seems to be limited to around 4.6 to 4.8 GHz on air cooling
> 
> I hope there are Core i7 4770K/4790K users kind enough who would run tests comparing a simulated Core i3 4130K @ ~4.8 GHz and a simulated Core i5 4670K @ 3.4 GHz


It'll be tough to find someone with Haswell @ 4.8







. Results would be neat though, someone please?

Also cache will impact results.


----------



## NuclearPeace

I see a lot of people still knocking the Pentium because its still only "just a dual core".

The Pentium isn't just a dual core. Its a dual core that isn't even using all of its resources (no HT).

Its also a CPU that's dirt cheap and can overclockreally well right out of the box. Doing so makes it beat most of AMD's quad cores.

An i3 (which I would infer would be a fully utilized dualcore) walks all over AMD quad cores and gives the 6300 something to look out for.

Yeah. So its " just a dual core". Kind of how a McLaren F1 is "just a car".

Edit: posting on a phone right now and I have a bad grip which made me touch " submit" early.


----------



## Themisseble

Yes ofcourse it is faster against AMD FX.... but you have to know that intle is faster just because of FPU! not because of integer performance. So if you comapare pentium g3258 in watchdogs or BF4 MP FX 4300 will win by a lot.


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> Why do people on this forum carry on buying / supporting AMD trashy CPUs in comparison to this?


Because some of us don't play games much, if at all, and can't afford to shell out $358 for an i5. Hell, I was barely able to afford an 8320 with a mobo which was $180 for both. Plus, for some people AMD CPUs are perfectly fine performance-wise, you don't need the latest and greatest for everything. Granted, I'd rather be running a X5670 or a hexa-core i7 which are dirt-cheap but the 1366 boards have been non-existent here for years now and other high core count units like Abu Dhabi Opterons are to damn expensive to even consider (not to mention G34 boards are like 1366, impossible to find). So yeah, 8320 fills the role of a workhorse unit nicely.

This Pentium however does seem rather attractive for certain things, there's one on the used market for $64 (half the price







) which I'm planning to get, it'll be great for 3D sculpting. But honestly, I just want to overclock it even if it's useless to me, last Pentium I had was an 800MHz Coppermine which was my first processor as well as the first CPU I overclocked, so I'm a bit nostalgic.


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes ofcourse it is faster against AMD FX.... but you have to know that intle is faster just because of FPU! not because of integer performance. So if you comapare pentium g3258 in watchdogs or BF4 MP FX 4300 will win by a lot.


One game which is horribly ruined by stuttering so its dropped out of conversation like a lead brick and the other which has been shown to be entirely playable with little defecit to an AMD whatever.

Congrats to AMD, they win in one game. Themisseble, just stop posting. You're not adding anything to this thread.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> One game which is horribly ruined by stuttering so its dropped out of conversation like a lead brick and the other which has been shown to be entirely playable with little defecit to an AMD whatever.
> 
> Congrats to AMD, they win in one game. Themisseble, just stop posting. You're not adding anything to this thread.


also if we compare BF3 FX 4300 will be faster than pentium G3258... i dont want to compare FX 4300 and intel pentium G3258. Actually i will like to see skylake pentium K model with 512Bit FPU

BVut this is why intel wins because of their FPU.. while integer performance is different. But soon we will use iGPU for FPU ...


----------



## iSlayer

You've brought up Battlefield in just about every new post you've made to this thread.

We get it, you'll excuse performance and price failures from AMD to justify your processor purchases.

Just stop posting.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> You've brought up Battlefield in just about every new post you've made to this thread.
> 
> We get it, you'll excuse performance and price failures from AMD to justify your processor purchases.
> 
> Just stop posting.


you angry of what?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Why are we even listening to this guy... He is our equivalent of the idiots who run the music publishing system, backwards, narrow minded, and just plain dumb...

Tried lambda-tek.com? They charge 11 quid to ship boxed CPUs to Croatia. Just under 80EUR for new CPU.


----------



## Themisseble

http://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/Relocate/443974911.html?categoryId=3019&pos=9&price=57.65&productid=4429667&search=pentium+G3258&sid=20942&type=offer

+11 €

So your like under 70€

Problem is you! You will try to tell other that that pentium beats all AMD CPUs... i could say that FX 8350 beats intel hexa core CPU in 1 benchmark. Who cares... you buy what you need. i AM not saying that thta pentium is bad choice for gamers who like to OC and play old games... and i am also saying that FX 6300 and OLD MB is very good buy.

So personally Cheap MB with FX 6300 is still best budget CPU. It will do just fine in unoptimized games and it will fly in optimized games.

So yes personally i would recommend Fx 4300 over pentium g3258 for budged. WHY? FX 8320 is really cheap if you will need more CPU power. FX 4300 has much better MT...

Of course i will recommend this CPU for most users but they still want more cores and they usually get Fx 6300.

Pentium G3258 is not really good as "BUDGET CPU" but as a "STOP GAP". While FX 6300 or FX 4300 are both great budget CPUs.

Fx 4300 is easy to OC and you will get it to 4.7Ghz-5.2Ghz any time.


----------



## Deletive

Just picked up the G3258. still at 3.2 ghz and I have no problems with it at all.







i'll get to overclocking inawhile >







i need to get this h80i to do it's justice


----------



## bigpoppapump

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> http://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/Relocate/443974911.html?categoryId=3019&pos=9&price=57.65&productid=4429667&search=pentium+G3258&sid=20942&type=offer
> 
> +11 €
> 
> So your like under 70€
> 
> Problem is you! You will try to tell other that that pentium beats all AMD CPUs... i could say that FX 8350 beats intel hexa core CPU in 1 benchmark. Who cares... you buy what you need. i AM not saying that thta pentium is bad choice for gamers who like to OC and play old games... and i am also saying that FX 6300 and OLD MB is very good buy.
> 
> So personally Cheap MB with FX 6300 is still best budget CPU. It will do just fine in unoptimized games and it will fly in optimized games.
> 
> So yes personally i would recommend Fx 4300 over pentium g3258 for budged. WHY? FX 8320 is really cheap if you will need more CPU power. FX 4300 has much better MT...
> 
> Of course i will recommend this CPU for most users but they still want more cores and they usually get Fx 6300.
> 
> Pentium G3258 is not really good as "BUDGET CPU" but as a "STOP GAP". While FX 6300 or FX 4300 are both great budget CPUs.
> 
> Fx 4300 is easy to OC and you will get it to 4.7Ghz-5.2Ghz any time.


And you've been saying it over and over in every thread about this chip for like three weeks now. You've made this exact post at least ten times.

I don't even know who you think you're arguing with. This chip is for three groups of people: overclocking enthusiasts, people who want a cheap and functional entry chip that they can upgrade to an i5/i7 later without buying a new motherboard, and people who need cheap single-thread performance. AMD does not do B or C.

Nobody who posts in this thread wants an 8320.


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deletive*
> 
> Just picked up the G3258. still at 3.2 ghz and I have no problems with it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'll get to overclocking inawhile >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i need to get this h80i to do it's justice


Eek Pentium must be a monster underwater. Gonna shoot for 5.0?


----------



## Jugurnot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> Eek Pentium must be a monster underwater. Gonna shoot for 5.0?


I will have a full loop cooling mine in a few weeks. 720mm of rad space enough?


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Tried lambda-tek.com? They charge 11 quid to ship boxed CPUs to Croatia. Just under 80EUR for new CPU.


It's €73 in Links anyway. With EU prices and shipping the costs are the same basically so it's better to just pick it up locally, much quicker that way.


----------



## Madvillan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jugurnot*
> 
> I will have a full loop cooling mine in a few weeks. 720mm of rad space enough?


I'd reckon you'd get away with 240MM with a good block!









I've been trying to avoid combo's with this CPU for a while but I think I may eventually get one, beat on it (5ghz suicide run on air







) and use it as a LAN machine/storage box/etc.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Well at least you are better off than the folks down here in South America... $380 for a 4690k and $550 for a 4790k...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madvillan*
> 
> I'd reckon you'd get away with 240MM with a good block!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been trying to avoid combo's with this CPU for a while but I think I may eventually get one, beat on it (5ghz suicide run on air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and use it as a LAN machine/storage box/etc.


I'd think a 45mm thick 120mm rad would do quite fine. Just need to optimize the thermal interface because dissipating 120w from one of those rads is a piece of cake.

Just a hunch that my H87-D3H can overclock it, there is a multiplier setting in the BIOS and I can pin a 4440 to 33x. Really would like to see those IR3553s in action.


----------



## Jugurnot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Madvillan*
> 
> *I'd reckon you'd get away with 240MM with a good block!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> I've been trying to avoid combo's with this CPU for a while but I think I may eventually get one, beat on it (5ghz suicide run on air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and use it as a LAN machine/storage box/etc.


For sure it would, but its also cooling a titan and in the future there will be a broadwell chip in the g3258's place


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jugurnot*
> 
> For sure it would, but its also cooling a titan and in the future there will be a broadwell chip in the g3258's place


Seeing the 295x2 I'd think you can get away with 120 for the titan and 120 for the pentium.


----------



## dlee7283

can someone explain what "RING BUS" is on MSI board.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Is it a clock speed or voltage? Ring bus would refer to the bus that connects several major components of the CPU, usually in a ring configuration.


----------



## bhav

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Werne*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> Why do people on this forum carry on buying / supporting AMD trashy CPUs in comparison to this?
> 
> 
> 
> Because some of us don't play games much, if at all, and can't afford to shell out $358 for an i5. Hell, I was barely able to afford an 8320 with a mobo which was $180 for both. Plus, for some people AMD CPUs are perfectly fine performance-wise, you don't need the latest and greatest for everything. Granted, I'd rather be running a X5670 or a hexa-core i7 which are dirt-cheap but the 1366 boards have been non-existent here for years now and other high core count units like Abu Dhabi Opterons are to damn expensive to even consider (not to mention G34 boards are like 1366, impossible to find). So yeah, 8320 fills the role of a workhorse unit nicely.
> 
> This Pentium however does seem rather attractive for certain things, there's one on the used market for $64 (half the price
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) which I'm planning to get, it'll be great for 3D sculpting. But honestly, I just want to overclock it even if it's useless to me, last Pentium I had was an 800MHz Coppermine which was my first processor as well as the first CPU I overclocked, so I'm a bit nostalgic.
Click to expand...

None of your defense makes any sense because I was directly comparing AMD CPUs to this pentium, which costs significantly less.

Want a low budget rig for gaming or even non gaming? Why get anything other than this unlocked pentium now?

You can also upgrade it to an I5 / I7 later.


----------



## robertparker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> None of your defense makes any sense because I was directly comparing AMD CPUs to this pentium, which costs significantly less.
> 
> Want a low budget rig for gaming or even non gaming? Why get anything other than this unlocked pentium now?
> 
> You can also upgrade it to an I5 / I7 later.


The other day you expressed the opinion that you probably wouldn't purchase *any* AMD cpu, even if were half or less the cost of the g3258. I don't think you are in a good positon to make a strict value argument.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *robertparker*
> 
> The other day you expressed the opinion that you probably wouldn't purchase *any* AMD cpu, even if were half or less the cost of the g3258. I don't think you are in a good positon to make a strict value argument.


At this point in time I don't really see the point in buying an AMD CPU... If I got one in a giveaway or something like that I'd probably sell it unless it's a really good chip, and even then I might consider selling it for a bloated price.

FM2+ is meh, not really much to upgrade without having to change sockets. OK, maybe if I was going to make a low performance build for browsing, I guess, but why not just get a cheap laptop...

AM3+ is dead, no question about that. The gaming performance of the CPUs is so inconsistent anyway I would not consider one for a gaming rig. Productivity? Maybe, but I still don't see the point in shelling out my money on a dead socket and CPUs with a dead architecture.

Don't even get me started on AM1 and Baytrail... I think they are junk... If I want a low cost low performance machine I get a Celeron, they are less than 30 quid a pop...

Z97 gives you options, which is what someone like me, who has a decent budget, but not (yet) a stable income wants. And I think I can speak for quite a large group of the gaming community. They want something they can upgrade as easily as possible should they need to. Besides, upgrading from a 4690k is already questionable, and I think will remain questionable for most gamers for a very long time. And yes, I know, a 4690k and a decent board cost more than a good AM3+ board and 8350, but it means I don't need to get a new motherboard when I realize the single thread performance of my CPU is absolute rubbish, which I inevitably will due to the games I play.

I'd quite happily buy a Z97-A and G3258 at this point, if I was to build a rig, and I would probably throw in a Broadwell i5k or i7k when they come out. Heck, there was a guy on /r/buildapc who "went full ******" and built a HTPC/Gaming rig with a G3258 and I am not kidding, a GTX 780 and he says it runs games fine and he is quite happy with it. And like him, I would probably upgrade to an i5 or i7 down the road, and then I won't have $200 of useless AM3+ junk lying around 2 years down the line...


----------



## bhav

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *robertparker*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> None of your defense makes any sense because I was directly comparing AMD CPUs to this pentium, which costs significantly less.
> 
> Want a low budget rig for gaming or even non gaming? Why get anything other than this unlocked pentium now?
> 
> You can also upgrade it to an I5 / I7 later.
> 
> 
> 
> The other day you expressed the opinion that you probably wouldn't purchase *any* AMD cpu, even if were half or less the cost of the g3258. I don't think you are in a good positon to make a strict value argument.
Click to expand...

Yes and why exactly would I buy any AMD CPU over the g3258 or an I5?


----------



## robertparker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> Yes and why exactly would I buy any AMD CPU over the g3258 or an I5?


Specifically you mentioned the g3258. In essence you were saying that you would purchase it over a hypothetical $35 8350. I don't know how popular of a choice that would be if others were given the same opportunity, but I get it.

My point is that if you are going to favor Intel regardless of cost, don't be surprised if someone on the other end prefers their "trash" (as you call them) AMD cpu,


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Is it a clock speed or voltage? Ring bus would refer to the bus that connects several major components of the CPU, usually in a ring configuration.


And runs the cache in addition to those.

The voltage I mean.


----------



## Werne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> Yes and why exactly would I buy any AMD CPU over the g3258 or an I5?


There are cases where neither of those two is a good choice. For example, if you don't have the money for an i5 and want multi-threading performance for a workhorse machine, you take a 6/8-core FX, it has enough grunt to take on an i5 in workloads capable of using all 8 cores and single-threaded performance is crap. But if you want single-threaded performance and can't afford an i5, you take a G3258, same thing with 1/2 the cores and 1/4 the price, it's a no-brainer. If you want best of both worlds, well, buy an i5 or an i7, unless you can't afford them in which case you're screwed.

Though honestly, I don't even get why you're arguing about this, everyone buys what suits them most. It's not particle physics, it's personal preference based on needs and requirements, something that differs between each and every human on this planet. I can't afford an i5, I need multi-threaded performance, I took an 8320, case closed, full stop. Multi-threading, exact same reason you don't have a Pentium. One size does not fit all, if that were the case we'd all be having the same exact hardware with exact same OS, exact same choices/needs, etc. It's the same in Windows vs Linux vs OS X arguments, or iOS vs Android, or Nvidia vs AMD/ATI, mobo/graphics card manufacturer vs other mobo/graphics card manufacturer, etc. It's all about personal preference.

You don't want the hardware I have, don't buy it, it's what you want and everyone is perfectly fine with that. But you're basically insinuating that everyone with hardware different than yours is an idiot for making a choice to take something you don't prefer, and then you proceed to cram your own opinion and choice down people's throats instead of respecting theirs. Don't expect people to be fine with that attitude, cause I'm pretty damn sure you wouldn't be fine with me continuously cramming my opinion down your throat.


----------



## JambonJovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigpoppapump*
> 
> And you've been saying it over and over in every thread about this chip for like three weeks now. You've made this exact post at least ten times.
> 
> I don't even know who you think you're arguing with. This chip is for three groups of people: overclocking enthusiasts, people who want a cheap and functional entry chip that they can upgrade to an i5/i7 later without buying a new motherboard, and people who need cheap single-thread performance. AMD does not do B or C.
> 
> Nobody who posts in this thread wants an 8320.


Not only that, but it's a great chip for people who never tried OCing yet.
It's as easy as changing 2 settings and your value for money goes up.
This will bring a lot of potential customers in and introduce them to the
enthusiast side of things. Intel know exactly what they are doing here.

Meanwhile AMD released the Athlon X4 860K and FX 8300 in an effort
to try and swerve the market on their side into a ditch lol.


----------



## Themisseble

Why AMD because it is cheaper... FX 6300 is only about 20€/30$ more expensive than pentium g3258 and FX 6300 has much more potential than pentium G3258. WHY? Better optimization(DX12, mantle), Physics to GPU.

So if you get Fx 4300 really cheap and i can tell if you look you can get it cheaper than pentium g3258. So you need MB to OC - which is also cheap - so if you OC it to 4.8Ghz you get best budget CPU.

We can argue ...

Still you will say that AMD CPUs are pointless

go and buy AMD FX 6300 and OC it to 5.0Ghz and test it then talk about it? OK?!


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> Yes and why exactly would I buy any AMD CPU over the g3258 or an I5?


Well i regularly make i5's, i3's choke. They are great chips, but they aren't "perfect"... meanwhile my fx8320 or even a quad core i7 can keep up with my needs on a Day to Day basis... I'm sorta curious... have you ever actually used a dual core haswell i3/pentium... i see you have an old Nehelam i7... which imho I would gladly take over ANY modern dual core intel. How about you use one before you defend them so hard

You can tell when you drop from a quad core intel to a dual core intel. REGARDLESS what the benches say. It's not a mental thing, a very real lag develops in the end user experience... especially the more you're doing. It gets worse with the non-hyperthreaded pentiums. Its because of this very real "slowness" that i refuse to suggest to anyone that is building a new computer that they get an i3 or quad core amd... with the 6300 and a bit of an overclock you get an end user experience pretty similar to an i5. It's not perfect but it's close enough. The best chips i've had my hands on though are the 8 core piledrivers and core i7s... and in my experience the difference in performance isn't enough to justify the cost of the intel.

Now if i was benching for cinibench scores i'd want a core i7. If i had a 120hz 1080p monitor, or was running a xfire/SLi setup in larger resolutions... yeah i'd say a core i7 is probably worth the $$ over an 8 core AMD. But i'm not doing either... and the types of multitasking and VM stuff i'm doing make an i5 choak... so i find myself quite happy with my 8 core fx. I suspect though from reading your post that you've never actually used a piledriver, nor have ever used the modern haswell cpus. The difference in performance just isn't there to justify your comment.

(understand i'm talking strictly from MY perspective. I overclock. I run a lot of VMs... i do a lot of multitasking, for me more cores is huge. I'm also NOT talking about quad core or less AMD cpus. The quad core AMD offerings are as bad or worse then the i3s and Pentiums. I'll not argue that point. If this was a discussion about which is better, a g3258 or a a10-7850k, i'd take the g3258 every day of the week. Nor is this some comment that intel suck. Intel make fanstic chips... but people let the benchmarks blind them to reality. The reality is the difference between an intel and amd cpu isn't that huge, and in most cases, completely invisible to the average user. Most gamers game on 1080p 60hz monitors... i do myself... and in that case there is no difference between a 6-8 core piledriver clocked up to say... 4.4ghz and ANY intel cpu out there. In my own experience the difference in performance from an AMD cpu and an Intel vanishes completely by the time you get a piledriver up to 4.8ghz or so... by that point i suspect SSD/Hard drive bottlenecks make the user experience pretty much identical between the two... and no amount of overclocking on the intel will change it.)


----------



## Wirerat

Judging from benches and the potential for upgrading the unlocked pentium gets my vote for a budget gamer. I mean strictly gaming rig though. No background or min background apps.

Is it perfect?

no but it will allow you to buy a better gpu and later upgrade to i7/i5.

Anyone with vms in mind or workstation needs has no reason to ever consider a dual core. But for pure gaming with upgrade path its proving itself over and over.

I am far from a intel fan boy. I had to hold my nose on my first haswell install but amd did not offer anything for my needs at the present.


----------



## JambonJovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> go and buy AMD FX 6300 and OC it to 5.0Ghz and test it then talk about it? OK?!


go and buy AMD FX 6300 and OC it to 5.0Ghz and test it then look at the TOTAL POWER DRAW.

Wait, what's that ?! Yeah, all of a sudden the FX 6300 stops being a BUDGET chip,
when you're eye-balling the electricity bill every month, wondering what happened.


----------



## bhav

ITS OVER 9000 WATTS!


----------



## JambonJovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> ITS OVER 9000 WATTS!


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> ITS OVER 9000 WATTS!


When you OC i5 you get over 200W in prime

mine isnt great OC-er (stock 165W prime 95)
(92%) 240W for 4.8Ghz (wall)
92% 160W (less than stock) for 4.2Ghz - 115W for 3.7Ghz ATX (MB) wall - prime 95 (wall)
i7 4770K mATX 110W prime 95 88% eff Wall or 100W undervolted (kinda like it)

Fx has more fans in 4 more fans in case

340W prime 95 1.67-1.69V FX 6300 92% wall

Oced FX 4300 at 4.8Ghz will use less than OCed i5 at 4.8Ghz
with 4 cores at 4.8Ghz you will get around 180W or less - depends on chip


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wirerat*
> 
> Judging from benches and the potential for upgrading the unlocked pentium gets my vote for a budget gamer. I mean strictly gaming rig though. No background or min background apps.
> 
> Is it perfect?
> 
> no but it will allow you to buy a better gpu and later upgrade to i7/i5.
> 
> Anyone with vms in mind or workstation needs has no reason to ever consider a dual core. But for pure gaming with upgrade path its proving itself over and over.
> 
> I am far from a intel fan boy. I had to hold my nose on my first haswell install but amd did not offer anything for my needs at the present.


you don't need to run VMs to choak a i3 or pentium. but you're right. if all you're doing is gaming and your only concern is fps then yes. the g3258 is an excellent option. Though imho NO ONE buys a system/cpu with the intention of "upgrading" that cpu at a later date. Oh sure... they talk about it. They even plan builds around the idea. Some people might even buy the g3258 with every intention to get an i7 down the road. But no one actually does it. By the time they replace that cpu they'll replace the motherboard and gpu, and build themselves a new system

I'm not kidding. that scenario has to die a fiery death... its the 2nd biggest white lie i see in this community (the biggest being people looking to xfire/sli "down the road"... if upgrading a cpu later rarely happens, this NEVER happens). the idea of buying small now and upgrading later. It doesn't happen. they might say they will but it never happens. This is 20+ years of experience talking. If you doubt me, check out how many times someone actually is looking on these forums for an upgrade to their cpu. Its rare... even rarer are the times they chose to keep the platform they're on. I think I've seen in 2 times all year... and both were coming from dual core phenom Is on an AM3 motherboard, moving up to 6 thuban cored phenom IIs... and the only reason those would work is because they had unusually solid motherboards to support the switch (they might have bought those boards 3 years ago with the intention of upgrading the cpu... their good luck you can still get thuban cpus... but think about that... they're using a 7 year old cpu, and a 4 year old motherboard... and by pure chance they can still get their hands on a PhenomII x6 1100T, a scenario only possible because AMD seriously supports old socket designs)

I've never seen someone looking to upgrade their i3 intel being advised to keep their motherboard and stick with the upgrade path they have. I can't tell you how many times i'll see someone with a sandybridge i3 being advised to get a new motherboard and haswell. Its not bad advise, their crappy "B" series motherboards really wouldn't support much of an increase anyway, but we're drawn back to the heart of the issue. so we'll have people 3 years down the road looking to upgrade form their g3258s on their h series motherboards being told in this forum to ditch the motherboard for a z/x series board and skylake.

See what i mean? so lets just bury this "upgrade later" justification argument. Its an extremely unlikely scenario... as a community we should be telling people that they should build for the best build they can afford NOW, and not with an eye to 3 years down the road.


----------



## Themisseble

Yes your right but pentium g3258 is little to weak for new games. It cant run smoothly Star citizen and watchdogs...


----------



## Jugurnot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> you don't need to run VMs to choak a i3 or pentium. but you're right. if all you're doing is gaming and your only concern is fps then yes. the g3258 is an excellent option. Though imho NO ONE buys a system/cpu with the intention of "upgrading" that cpu at a later date. Oh sure... they talk about it. They even plan builds around the idea. Some people might even buy the g3258 with every intention to get an i7 down the road. But no one actually does it. By the time they replace that cpu they'll replace the motherboard and gpu, and build themselves a new system
> 
> I'm not kidding. that scenario has to die a fiery death... its the 2nd biggest white lie i see in this community (the biggest being people looking to xfire/sli "down the road"... if upgrading a cpu later rarely happens, this NEVER happens). the idea of buying small now and upgrading later. It doesn't happen. they might say they will but it never happens. This is 20+ years of experience talking. If you doubt me, check out how many times someone actually is looking on these forums for an upgrade to their cpu. Its rare... even rarer are the times they chose to keep the platform they're on. I think I've seen in 2 times all year... and both were coming from dual core phenom Is on an AM3 motherboard, moving up to 6 thuban cored phenom IIs... and the only reason those would work is because they had unusually solid motherboards to support the switch (they might have bought those boards 3 years ago with the intention of upgrading the cpu... their good luck you can still get thuban cpus... but think about that... they're using a 7 year old cpu, and a 4 year old motherboard... and by pure chance they can still get their hands on a PhenomII x6 1100T, a scenario only possible because AMD seriously supports old socket designs)
> 
> I've never seen someone looking to upgrade their i3 intel being advised to keep their motherboard and stick with the upgrade path they have. I can't tell you how many times i'll see someone with a sandybridge i3 being advised to get a new motherboard and haswell. Its not bad advise, their crappy "B" series motherboards really wouldn't support much of an increase anyway, but we're drawn back to the heart of the issue. so we'll have people 3 years down the road looking to upgrade form their g3258s on their h series motherboards being told in this forum to ditch the motherboard for a z/x series board and skylake.
> 
> See what i mean? so lets just bury this "upgrade later" justification argument. Its an extremely unlikely scenario... as a community we should be telling people that they should build for the best build they can afford NOW, and not with an eye to 3 years down the road.


Its a good thing this is just your humble opinion. Because what you are saying is the 'upgradeable' desktop PC any consumer buys, rarely ever gets upgraded?

You may consistently see people plan to upgrade, and never do. But don't go saying things like 'NO ONE', 'NEVER', 'RARELY'


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> you don't need to run VMs to choak a i3 or pentium. but you're right. if all you're doing is gaming and your only concern is fps then yes. the g3258 is an excellent option. Though imho NO ONE buys a system/cpu with the intention of "upgrading" that cpu at a later date. Oh sure... they talk about it. They even plan builds around the idea. Some people might even buy the g3258 with every intention to get an i7 down the road. But no one actually does it. By the time they replace that cpu they'll replace the motherboard and gpu, and build themselves a new system
> 
> I'm not kidding. that scenario has to die a fiery death... its the 2nd biggest white lie i see in this community (the biggest being people looking to xfire/sli "down the road"... if upgrading a cpu later rarely happens, this NEVER happens). the idea of buying small now and upgrading later. It doesn't happen. they might say they will but it never happens. This is 20+ years of experience talking. If you doubt me, check out how many times someone actually is looking on these forums for an upgrade to their cpu. Its rare... even rarer are the times they chose to keep the platform they're on. I think I've seen in 2 times all year... and both were coming from dual core phenom Is on an AM3 motherboard, moving up to 6 thuban cored phenom IIs... and the only reason those would work is because they had unusually solid motherboards to support the switch (they might have bought those boards 3 years ago with the intention of upgrading the cpu... their good luck you can still get thuban cpus... but think about that... they're using a 7 year old cpu, and a 4 year old motherboard... and by pure chance they can still get their hands on a PhenomII x6 1100T, a scenario only possible because AMD seriously supports old socket designs)
> 
> I've never seen someone looking to upgrade their i3 intel being advised to keep their motherboard and stick with the upgrade path they have. I can't tell you how many times i'll see someone with a sandybridge i3 being advised to get a new motherboard and haswell. Its not bad advise, their crappy "B" series motherboards really wouldn't support much of an increase anyway, but we're drawn back to the heart of the issue. so we'll have people 3 years down the road looking to upgrade form their g3258s on their h series motherboards being told in this forum to ditch the motherboard for a z/x series board and skylake.
> 
> See what i mean? so lets just bury this "upgrade later" justification argument. Its an extremely unlikely scenario... as a community we should be telling people that they should build for the best build they can afford NOW, and not with an eye to 3 years down the road.


Well, that is your own opinion


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jugurnot*
> 
> Its a good thing this is just your humble opinion. Because what you are saying is the 'upgradeable' desktop PC any consumer buys, rarely ever gets upgraded?
> 
> You may consistently see people plan to upgrade, and never do. But don't go saying things like 'NO ONE', 'NEVER', 'RARELY'


Maybe some people have have the power to see the future


----------



## JambonJovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> When you OC i5 you get over 200W in prime


No, no you don't.









And there's no point throwing in imaginary numbers from your imaginary hat
and comparing your FX 6300 to an *i5* or *i7* when the processor, that
is being discussed in this thread is a dual core Pentium G3258 with a TDP of 53W.
53W would be considered BUDGET. 95W ? Hmm, not so much...

DEAL WITH IT.


----------



## Wirerat

Why bury the idea of upgrading? Thats insane.

I upgraded many amd cpu over the years. I also moved from an i5 to an i7 because i had another use for the i5.

Upgrading at a later date can be a very good reason to pick a certain mobo and platform when budget is tight.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> you don't need to run VMs to choak a i3 or pentium. but you're right. if all you're doing is gaming and your only concern is fps then yes. the g3258 is an excellent option. Though imho NO ONE buys a system/cpu with the intention of "upgrading" that cpu at a later date. Oh sure... they talk about it. They even plan builds around the idea. Some people might even buy the g3258 with every intention to get an i7 down the road. But no one actually does it. By the time they replace that cpu they'll replace the motherboard and gpu, and build themselves a new system
> 
> I'm not kidding. that scenario has to die a fiery death... its the 2nd biggest white lie i see in this community (the biggest being people looking to xfire/sli "down the road"... if upgrading a cpu later rarely happens, this NEVER happens). the idea of buying small now and upgrading later. It doesn't happen. they might say they will but it never happens. This is 20+ years of experience talking. If you doubt me, check out how many times someone actually is looking on these forums for an upgrade to their cpu. Its rare... even rarer are the times they chose to keep the platform they're on. I think I've seen in 2 times all year... and both were coming from dual core phenom Is on an AM3 motherboard, moving up to 6 thuban cored phenom IIs... and the only reason those would work is because they had unusually solid motherboards to support the switch (they might have bought those boards 3 years ago with the intention of upgrading the cpu... their good luck you can still get thuban cpus... but think about that... they're using a 7 year old cpu, and a 4 year old motherboard... and by pure chance they can still get their hands on a PhenomII x6 1100T, a scenario only possible because AMD seriously supports old socket designs)
> 
> I've never seen someone looking to upgrade their i3 intel being advised to keep their motherboard and stick with the upgrade path they have. I can't tell you how many times i'll see someone with a sandybridge i3 being advised to get a new motherboard and haswell. Its not bad advise, their crappy "B" series motherboards really wouldn't support much of an increase anyway, but we're drawn back to the heart of the issue. so we'll have people 3 years down the road looking to upgrade form their g3258s on their h series motherboards being told in this forum to ditch the motherboard for a z/x series board and skylake.
> 
> See what i mean? so lets just bury this "upgrade later" justification argument. Its an extremely unlikely scenario... as a community we should be telling people that they should build for the best build they can afford NOW, and not with an eye to 3 years down the road.


You realize Broadwell CPUs will be compatiable with Z87 and 97, it's a huge incentive to buy into a modern Intel platform... as opposed to a AM3+, which is an outdated chipset (PCIe 2.0, subpar SATA controller, garbage 3rd party USB controller, no SSD RAID trim support and host of other issues) with maybe a new Vishera refresh later down the road that sucks more power than a nuclear power plant (LGA 2011 CPUs uses less power but gives 2x the performance of 8C FX CPUs in heavily multi-threaded workloads).

And an 8C Vishera will choke way before a Haswell quad core and Broadwell will only further the gap.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes your right but pentium g3258 is little to weak for new games. It cant run smoothly Star citizen and watchdogs...


Runs games better than your 4C FX CPU.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JambonJovi*
> 
> No, no you don't.


200W is actually possible on i5 (i7 is very similar). But you may need above 4.7, prime95 smallFFTs and it depends on voltages. e.g. I can do 196W to the VRM and 172W to the CPU from the VRM on my current modest overclock.

PS. TDP is unrelated to this. TDP is a number that Intel uses to tell heatsink manufacturers how much heat to handle. And it may have other uses, but it's not "total power consumption" or anything like that (but it's usually very distantly correlated, but always lower than total consumption).


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jugurnot*
> 
> Its a good thing this is just your humble opinion. Because what you are saying is the 'upgradeable' desktop PC any consumer buys, rarely ever gets upgraded?
> 
> You may consistently see people plan to upgrade, and never do. But don't go saying things like 'NO ONE', 'NEVER', 'RARELY'


you're right, i shouldn't have used such strong language, but it's still a uncommon enough that the "upgrade later" argument is basically a white lie told in this community. We should be examining the advice we give others for truthfulness. So we're not leading people wrong. Do you think something that happens less then 5% of the time (i'm being very generous with that... i'd be very surprised it if happened HALF as often as that) is a statistically significant occurrence and therefor a "selling point" when giving advice to a new pc builder?

No... i don't either
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Well, that is your own opinion


it's rare enough to be statistically insignificant compared to the amount it's talked about. I'm pretty confident in this one. I've been building and setting up pcs a long time. This community is definitely outside the "norm" and even inside this community this rarely happens.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> Maybe some people have have the power to see the future


nope... but you can see trends if you're in this long enough...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> You realize Broadwell CPUs will be compatiable with Z87 and 97, it's a huge incentive to buy into a modern Intel platform... as opposed to a AM3+, which is an outdated chipset (PCIe 2.0, subpar SATA controller, garbage 3rd party USB controller, no SSD RAID trim support and host of other issues) with maybe a new Vishera refresh later down the road that sucks more power than a nuclear power plant (LGA 2011 CPUs uses less power but gives 2x the performance of 8C FX CPUs in heavily multi-threaded workloads).
> 
> And an 8C Vishera will choke way before a Haswell quad core and Broadwell will only further the gap.


considering intel themselves claim zero IPC improvement in broadwell (broadwell is apparently an igpu upgrade, skylake will be the ipc upgrade) and intel's rapidly evolving chipsets and socket designs, i hardly see this as a selling point. and if you read my comment again you'll notice i don't suggest AM3+ as being an "upgradable option either. My comment wasn't narrowly directed at g3258 upgradability, but all cpus. AMD OR INTEL.

now that's out of the way... the rest of your comment about AM3+ is flat out crazy talk. My samsung 840EVO has trim support, operates at advertised speeds too. So i'd say the SATA controller and trim work fine. Did you know PCI-E 2.0x8 won't bottleneck any gpu currently on the market except for the titan/780/780ti/290/290x/295x2/titanZ... and even those it will only bottleneck to the score of 2%-5%, PCI-E 2.0x16 is twice as fast... frankly it will probably be another 2 or 3 gpu generations before they start to max pci-e 2.0x16... the only advantage pci-e 3.0 has is for things like pcie storage... my USB3.0 devices work at advertised speeds too, they also have been issue free. so again not sure where that's coming from.

Finally if i paid the electric where i live i might care about power consumption... I don't so i don't... furthermore until intel made power consumption a thing in Ivy Bridge i don't think i ever saw MENTION about power consumption on desktop chips in an overclocking forum. Seriously? Power consumption? Yeah... I don't care, I never cared, and i don't plan to care. Frankly i'm upset intel cares... because i think it's holding back performance in their extreme series cpus. What i really want to see is a 220W monster extreme series 8c/16t cpu. but i know intel will do it's best to keep those power numbers down... for reasons i don't understand... and never will.


----------



## JambonJovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> 200W is actually possible on i5 (i7 is very similar). But you may need above 4.7, prime95 smallFFTs and it depends on voltages. e.g. I can do 196W to the VRM and 172W to the CPU from the VRM on my current modest overclock.


Ah yeah, fair enough. But how often do you see people get past that.
Not saying everyone, but the majority of peeps get to around 4.4-4.6GHz
which seems to be the "sweet spot" from what I've seen.
The average if you will. And yes, the voltage is a big factor of course.
If someone has a weak chip and needs to pump plenty of voltage in
the 200W seems plausible, but other than that, you're looking at ~160-170W.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> PS. TDP is unrelated to this. TDP is a number that Intel uses to tell heatsink manufacturers how much heat to handle. And it may have other uses, but it's not "total power consumption" or anything like that (but it's usually very distantly correlated, but always lower than total consumption).


I am aware of what TDP means. I just posted it for comparisons sake.
And that 53W vs 95W difference is still pretty kind towards the FX compared
to what the actual total power draw would be when both chips get overclocked
and put under load.


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JambonJovi*
> 
> how often do you see people get past that.


It's rare. It's also practically impossible on regular uses like gaming. I got those numbers on prime95 smallFFTs latest, I get up to 130-140W on blend mode which might be more realistic.

I'm not sure about video encoding, rendering and stuff like that. Those I guess could approach some prime95 modes.


----------



## Themisseble

piledriver
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JambonJovi*
> 
> Ah yeah, fair enough. But how often do you see people get past that.
> Not saying everyone, but the majority of peeps get to around 4.4-4.6GHz
> which seems to be the "sweet spot" from what I've seen.
> The average if you will. And yes, the voltage is a big factor of course.
> If someone has a weak chip and needs to pump plenty of voltage in
> the 200W seems plausible, but other than that, you're looking at ~160-170W.


What usually they get over 4.6Ghz... i havent see pilderiver that wouldnt go over 4.7Ghz


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> When you OC i5 you get over 200W in prime
> 
> mine isnt great OC-er (stock 165W prime 95)
> (92%) 240W for 4.8Ghz (wall)
> 92% 160W (less than stock) for 4.2Ghz - 115W for 3.7Ghz ATX (MB) wall - prime 95 (wall)
> i7 4770K mATX 110W prime 95 88% eff Wall or 100W undervolted (kinda like it)
> 
> Fx has more fans in 4 more fans in case
> 
> 340W prime 95 1.67-1.69V FX 6300 92% wall
> 
> Oced FX 4300 at 4.8Ghz will use less than OCed i5 at 4.8Ghz
> with 4 cores at 4.8Ghz you will get around 180W or less - depends on chip


What I've seen from OC'd DC power draw benches makes me highly skeptical of these numbers.

That is me politely saying you're lying.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes your right but pentium g3258 is little to weak for new games. It cant run smoothly Star citizen and watchdogs...


Watchdogs doesn't run smooth in general lol...

Star Citizen is an Alpha. It is unoptimized as it gets.


----------



## JambonJovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> What usually they get over 4.6Ghz... i havent see pilderiver that wouldnt go over 4.7Ghz


Read.









I was talking about the i5's that you brought up, remember ?


----------



## solar0987

Well g3258 at 4.5 and a 270x with mantle i never drop below 60 fps ever even on 64 player maps on high so far. No complaints from me.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JambonJovi*
> 
> Read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about the i5's that you brought up, remember ?


misunderstood
I would recommend everybody i5 over FX 6300 or pentium G3258. Very good thing is P/W.. while i dont know if i5 3.0-3.2Ghz will be fast as FX 6300 4.6Ghz in MT APPS or optimized games.


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *solar0987*
> 
> Well g3258 at 4.5 and a 270x with mantle i never drop below 60 fps ever even on 64 player maps on high so far. No complaints from me.


heh
your lucky your without FPS drops? Cant believe actually... textures on high just destroy Use more than 2GR of VRAM
TRY paracel storm (storm) minimap 64 player.


----------



## solar0987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> heh
> your lucky your without FPS drops?
> 
> TRY paracel storm (storm) minimap 64 player.


Actually just played that one. Still above 60 the whole time. it usually stays around 70ish


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *solar0987*
> 
> Actually just played that one. Still above 60 the whole time. it usually stays around 70ish


what driver? and how you dont get CPU pikes?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> Well i regularly make i5's, i3's choke. They are great chips, but they aren't "perfect"... meanwhile my fx8320 or even a quad core i7 can keep up with my needs on a Day to Day basis... I'm sorta curious... have you ever actually used a dual core haswell i3/pentium... i see you have an old Nehelam i7... which imho I would gladly take over ANY modern dual core intel. How about you use one before you defend them so hard
> 
> You can tell when you drop from a quad core intel to a dual core intel. REGARDLESS what the benches say. It's not a mental thing, a very real lag develops in the end user experience... especially the more you're doing. It gets worse with the non-hyperthreaded pentiums. Its because of this very real "slowness" that i refuse to suggest to anyone that is building a new computer that they get an i3 or quad core amd... with the 6300 and a bit of an overclock you get an end user experience pretty similar to an i5. It's not perfect but it's close enough. The best chips i've had my hands on though are the 8 core piledrivers and core i7s... and in my experience the difference in performance isn't enough to justify the cost of the intel.
> 
> Now if i was benching for cinibench scores i'd want a core i7. If i had a 120hz 1080p monitor, or was running a xfire/SLi setup in larger resolutions... yeah i'd say a core i7 is probably worth the $$ over an 8 core AMD. But i'm not doing either... and the types of multitasking and VM stuff i'm doing make an i5 choak... so i find myself quite happy with my 8 core fx. I suspect though from reading your post that you've never actually used a piledriver, nor have ever used the modern haswell cpus. The difference in performance just isn't there to justify your comment.
> 
> (understand i'm talking strictly from MY perspective. I overclock. I run a lot of VMs... i do a lot of multitasking, for me more cores is huge. I'm also NOT talking about quad core or less AMD cpus. The quad core AMD offerings are as bad or worse then the i3s and Pentiums. I'll not argue that point. If this was a discussion about which is better, a g3258 or a a10-7850k, i'd take the g3258 every day of the week. Nor is this some comment that intel suck. Intel make fanstic chips... but people let the benchmarks blind them to reality. The reality is the difference between an intel and amd cpu isn't that huge, and in most cases, completely invisible to the average user. Most gamers game on 1080p 60hz monitors... i do myself... and in that case there is no difference between a 6-8 core piledriver clocked up to say... 4.4ghz and ANY intel cpu out there. In my own experience the difference in performance from an AMD cpu and an Intel vanishes completely by the time you get a piledriver up to 4.8ghz or so... by that point i suspect SSD/Hard drive bottlenecks make the user experience pretty much identical between the two... and no amount of overclocking on the intel will change it.)


From a gaming perspective an E7200 at 4GHz is adequate. At least in the desktop it was not choking or stuttering, and it ran most pre-2010 games very well with a 760. Now, I would not be convinced that it would fair that well in let's say Rome 2: Total War, BF4 64p, or something else very CPU intensive. But for everyday usage it works...


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Also FX4300s get FPS drops...


----------



## Themisseble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Also FX4300s get FPS drops...


Yes but still faster than pentium.... Okay pentium is great for emulators and MMOS and many games.
i3 bottleneck GTX 760 so does pentium g3258
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MPb7Rinq0

Still, i asked him about CPU pikes? What GPU driver he use?


----------



## PhilWrir

Cleaned (a bit)

Keep it professional everyone


----------



## bhav

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Wirerat*
> 
> Judging from benches and the potential for upgrading the unlocked pentium gets my vote for a budget gamer. I mean strictly gaming rig though. No background or min background apps.
> 
> Is it perfect?
> 
> no but it will allow you to buy a better gpu and later upgrade to i7/i5.
> 
> Anyone with vms in mind or workstation needs has no reason to ever consider a dual core. But for pure gaming with upgrade path its proving itself over and over.
> 
> I am far from a intel fan boy. I had to hold my nose on my first haswell install but amd did not offer anything for my needs at the present.
> 
> 
> 
> you don't need to run VMs to choak a i3 or pentium. but you're right. if all you're doing is gaming and your only concern is fps then yes. the g3258 is an excellent option. Though imho NO ONE buys a system/cpu with the intention of "upgrading" that cpu at a later date. Oh sure... they talk about it. They even plan builds around the idea. Some people might even buy the g3258 with every intention to get an i7 down the road. But no one actually does it. By the time they replace that cpu they'll replace the motherboard and gpu, and build themselves a new system
> 
> I'm not kidding. that scenario has to die a fiery death... its the 2nd biggest white lie i see in this community (the biggest being people looking to xfire/sli "down the road"... if upgrading a cpu later rarely happens, this NEVER happens). the idea of buying small now and upgrading later. It doesn't happen. they might say they will but it never happens. This is 20+ years of experience talking. If you doubt me, check out how many times someone actually is looking on these forums for an upgrade to their cpu. Its rare... even rarer are the times they chose to keep the platform they're on. I think I've seen in 2 times all year... and both were coming from dual core phenom Is on an AM3 motherboard, moving up to 6 thuban cored phenom IIs... and the only reason those would work is because they had unusually solid motherboards to support the switch (they might have bought those boards 3 years ago with the intention of upgrading the cpu... their good luck you can still get thuban cpus... but think about that... they're using a 7 year old cpu, and a 4 year old motherboard... and by pure chance they can still get their hands on a PhenomII x6 1100T, a scenario only possible because AMD seriously supports old socket designs)
> 
> I've never seen someone looking to upgrade their i3 intel being advised to keep their motherboard and stick with the upgrade path they have. I can't tell you how many times i'll see someone with a sandybridge i3 being advised to get a new motherboard and haswell. Its not bad advise, their crappy "B" series motherboards really wouldn't support much of an increase anyway, but we're drawn back to the heart of the issue. so we'll have people 3 years down the road looking to upgrade form their g3258s on their h series motherboards being told in this forum to ditch the motherboard for a z/x series board and skylake.
> 
> See what i mean? so lets just bury this "upgrade later" justification argument. Its an extremely unlikely scenario... as a community we should be telling people that they should build for the best build they can afford NOW, and not with an eye to 3 years down the road.
Click to expand...

'No one upgrades their CPU'

OMG LOL.

I wonder why I upgraded my I7 920 to a 980 if that's the case.

I don't see how you can honestly argue against the idea of buying the Pentium if on a low budget, and then upgrading later to an I5 or I7 once the user can afford it, just because in your fairy goo goo lala land nobody would ever do that.

Also you bought up the argument of multithreaded applications earlier, were talking about a £50 budget CPU here, not a £250+ I7. There's a place and a market for dual, quad, hex, octo cores, but for the sheer value you get out of this chip, plus the future upgrade potential, it makes absolutely zero sense to buy anything else for a low budget build.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> 'No one upgrades their CPU'
> 
> OMG LOL.
> 
> I wonder why I upgraded my I7 920 to a 980 if that's the case.
> 
> I don't see how you can honestly argue against the idea of buying the Pentium if on a low budget, and then upgrading later to an I5 or I7 once the user can afford it, _just because in your fairy goo goo lala land nobody would ever do that._
> 
> Also you bought up the argument of multithreaded applications earlier, were talking about a £50 budget CPU here, not a £250+ I7. *There's a place and a market for dual, quad, hex, octo cores, but for the sheer value you get out of this chip, plus the future upgrade potential, it makes absolutely zero sense to buy anything else for a low budget build*.


I agree. I mean if your budget is <$600 and to plan to game MMOs or single/dual threaded titles and don't mind a little overclocking I agree. It would be foolish to look at anything else... granted every situation is different, so i probably shouldn't say foolish... more like, it would be rare for there to be a better option in the sub $600 market. However there is a point you have to ask a few questions such as "is my budget so tight that this is the best i can do"

I'm glad you enjoy the upgrade from the older 920 to the slightly newer 980, though my comment wasn't directed to claim that no one upgrades... heck even my computer could be called an "evolution" or upgrade.... i was speaking about a system pre-PLANNED for an upgrade. As in did you buy that 920 with the intention of upgrading it later? I doubt it. Even my "upgrade" was unintentional. I had planned on an i7 for my next build, moving off the phenomII i had... when my motherboard blew up on the PHII system months before i was ready to spend the $$ on the upgrade. I ended up spending $80 on a new motherboard and figured since i just burnt up that cash a modern AM3+ board i might as well buy an fx8 core... in no way would you consider that a planned upgrade. I didn't get the phenomII with the intention of upgrading at a later date. So it's not part of what i'm talking about. I'm talking about building a system with upgrade at some point in time in the future. I'm sure there are plenty of people who do this... but the list of people who ACTUALLY does it is very very small...

I'm not sure what you're point is with the rest of your comment, but i'm sure it was exciting enough to demand all the colorful invective hurled at me in it.


----------



## bhav

The reason I decided on getting the I7 980 was because I didn't want to get rid of my R3E, and it cost the same as a new motherboard and CPU would have together.

Right now I would really like to have the 4 Ghz devils canyon CPU, but Z97 motherboards are rubbish and none of them support 3 way SLI which I also want eventually.

So its more of a case of not wanting to downgrade my motherboard, and I think I can hold out to the next high end after X99.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I wouldn't even bother upgrading if I had a decent 1366 hex core...


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> The reason I decided on getting the I7 980 was because I didn't want to get rid of my R3E, and it cost the same as a new motherboard and CPU would have together.
> 
> Right now I would really like to have the 4 Ghz devils canyon CPU, but Z97 motherboards are rubbish and none of them support 3 way SLI which I also want eventually.
> 
> So its more of a case of not wanting to downgrade my motherboard, and I think I can hold out to the next high end after X99.


as i said. it wasn't planned before hand. so you don't actually fit what i'm talking about. I'm talking about the biggest white lie in our hobby being the "pre-planned" purchase leading to an upgrade at some nebulous "later" date. as in "go buy that a10-6800k, on an fm2+ motherboard... the best part is down the road you can get an a10-7850k!" or... "go get that g3258, later on down the road you can get a i5-4440!" that stuff gets talked about all the time around here as justification for the "lesser" chip yet the amount of times the person will follow through at that "unknown" later date is pretty f-in small.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I wouldn't even bother upgrading if I had a decent 1366 hex core...


I agree, i suggest you actually use a haswell dual core before you start wishing for one. Personally i'd rather your old 6 core over that dual core. I certainly wouldn't call it an upgrade.


----------



## Jugurnot

@azanimefan

Im curious why this scenario grinds your gears so much. Do you follow up with all these people who 'plan' to upgrade but never do? Why do you think the scenario should die a fiery death?

My situation is this, I bought an msi z97m with the intention of using a broadwell chip, which isnt released yet. I bought the $70 pentium because

A) This is a unique chip that stands out among the rest, something to hold onto forever.

B) I can continue playing the games I love

C) I can continue building my rig, testing, changing, benching, modding, until the flagship broadwell chip comes out.

Now whether or not I carry out my plan, is unknown. But so is everything else in life isnt it? Things happen and life takes it course. Maybe I sell this z97 setup and go for something more? Maybe I get out this hobbie entirely?

I think your mentality on this subject isnt limited to just PC upgrading. I could be wrong but maybe you care about what others are doing too much, and it bothers you when other people dont follow through with initial intentions.

At the end of day, what people plan to do with their systems, is their decision.


----------



## mbreslin

ITT: People who think PC building is a team sport. Their team doesn't exist at the high end. Now there is a (very) competitively priced and great performing (in quite a lot of scenarios) chip from the other team in the low end. But you're supposed to go with my team if you're on a budget and the other team if you go high end, do not upset the balance! My world will come crashing down!

(the above is just a gentle ribbing towards people that actually care about such things, hint: neither company cares about you, we're all just walking wallets)

I am looking to do a small build for the master bedroom closet for steam streaming from my main pc. Is there a reasonably cheap motherboard out there that will overclock well?

Thanks.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jugurnot*
> 
> @azanimefan
> 
> Im curious why this scenario grinds your gears so much. Do you follow up with all these people who 'plan' to upgrade but never do? Why do you think the scenario should die a fiery death?
> 
> My situation is this, I bought an msi z97m with the intention of using a broadwell chip, which isnt released yet. I bought the $70 pentium because
> 
> A) This is a unique chip that stands out among the rest, something to hold onto forever.
> 
> B) I can continue playing the games I love
> 
> C) I can continue building my rig, testing, changing, benching, modding, until the flagship broadwell chip comes out.
> 
> Now whether or not I carry out my plan, is unknown. But so is everything else in life isnt it? Things happen and life takes it course. Maybe I sell this z97 setup and go for something more? Maybe I get out this hobbie entirely?
> 
> I think your mentality on this subject isnt limited to just PC upgrading. I could be wrong but maybe you care about what others are doing too much, and it bothers you when other people dont follow through with initial intentions.
> 
> At the end of day, what people plan to do with their systems, is their decision.


i've been helping people build, upgrade and replace their systems for most of my life. Years ago i stopped with the whole "upgrade later!" advice for the reasons i've outlined... the last time i ever helped someone build a system with "upgrade later!" as an option on the table was because my friend begged me to help him with it, and REALLY WANTED to upgrade later. Of course he still didn't upgrade later... he bought a freakin' overclockable motherboard and a g620 pentium... spent a fortune on parts to support the eventual upgrade to an i5-2500k... heck the last time we talked about it he could have stuck a i5-3570k into it... and still didn't do it. I knew he wouldn't before we built the system... i wasn't surprised he didn't in the end. It just was the final nail in the coffin for me with that argument.

It bugs me when i see it because it simply doesn't happen. It rather irritates me when i see a community filled with rather intelligent performance minded people who harbor this love for what is basically a myth... "upgradeability!" Just because from time to time we upgrade our systems piece by piece doesn't mean its a valid scenario for systems built from scratch. IMHO most of the time this scenerio falls appart because the part they get as a placeholder is "good enough"... and by the time it's no longer good enough tech has moved on far enough to make upgrading unattractive. People don't like wasting money. tossing $80 in the fireplace just to keep warm for a short peird of time doesn't attract them... now if they can buy $80 worth of firewood... well that will keep them warmer longer...

When you get a g3258 you'll get "good enough" and in the end you'll be asking yourself is _it really worth it to spend "$230" on an i5... i mean i can get 60fps in any title with this chip... what do i get with an i5 that i can't get with this?_ That question will hit you every time you look at upgrading... and in the end you'll probably put it off until the platform is dead and simply replace the motherboard/ram and cpu all at once with skylake.

At least that's what i think will happen. Who knows. you could be one of the very few who trades in his g3258 for a new i5. even if you do it that will simply make you unique. a very rare example even in this unique and select community

and remember this community is NOT normal, the normal pc user will NEVER upgrade, i'll tell you that right now; but the fact this rarely happens here is just proof positive of what i'm saying. this is damned near urban myth status... so to point out "upgrade later" is the worst type of advice... it's a white lie people tell others to make them happy with compromises they made in their builds... "i can't afford the i5 i want now, so i'll get this g3258 now and upgrade later!" well if you can't afford the i5 now, how are you going to afford it later? yes, we don't ask those questions much around here do we? isn't $150 easier to save then $230 (230 for an i5-4670k -$80 for a g3258 = $150 more money to save, meanwhile if you buy a g3258, you'll need to save a full $230 for that upgrade)? isn't $230 (i5 price) cheaper then $310 (i5+g3258)... why would we advise others to spend more later then saving a few dollars more now?

and if they can't afford the i5 now or later shouldn't we be establishing this fact and instead of wasting their money on builds that are build for the later upgrade, shouldn't' we be focusing our attention on maximizing the cash they have now to get the MOST out of the build NOW... rather then focusing on the rather unlikely "later" date they might upgrade? it costs more money to get a z series motherboard... cpu coolers better psus... all of these cost money... which i see get added into a "upgrade later!" build all the time. why give them poor advice built around a very unlikely scenario... when instead we could be focusing on what they're building now and getting them the best machine possible today. Heck... SSDs still aren't standard in our build suggestions... they need to be. those are far better uses for people's money then some parts they'll never use in a future upgrade that will probably never happen; if you don't agree with the SSD, then at least we could shove every dollar saved from ditching the future upgrade parts and shove them into a better gpu... i'm certain that would be far better use of their money as well.

it seems pretty straight forward to me. not sure why this is even a debatable issue.


----------



## Jugurnot

Ok im understanding you a bit better now.

I think the root of the problem comes down to the 'normal' pc users who dont quite understand what kind of hardware they really need to do what they do an a regular bases.

So when they finally get the g3258 running, they realize "wow! This is good enough and I can save $200."


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I agree that most users won't upgrade later, but as you seem to be pointing out, tweakers/overclockers/hardware enthusiasts are the exception and will often upgrade their systems, at least they are a lot more likely to do so than the average user.

On top of that, the average user would probably be quite happy with one of these chips, so they would not see the need to upgrade.


----------



## Jugurnot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I agree that most users won't upgrade later, but as you seem to be pointing out, tweakers/overclockers/hardware enthusiasts are the exception and will often upgrade their systems, at least they are a lot more likely to do so than the average user.
> 
> On top of that, the average user would probably be quite happy with one of these chips, so they would not see the need to upgrade.


Thats exactly it. Usually when you build rigs for people, its their first custom pc, and they dont know any better, so its important for you to point out this 'upgrade myth' like you said before @azanimefan.

But on this forum exists users who are part the rare examples of people who DO upgrade. So yes, expect some debate.


----------



## 66racer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I agree that most users won't upgrade later, but as you seem to be pointing out, tweakers/overclockers/hardware enthusiasts are the exception and will often upgrade their systems, at least they are a lot more likely to do so than the average user.
> 
> On top of that, the average user would probably be quite happy with one of these chips, so they would not see the need to upgrade.


Yeah I can see the normal non-enthusiast never upgrading later but the average OCN member is a different story. I myself normally invest in a high end motherboard then run a few cpu's through the socket. Had some fun with the 1100T, then 8150 on my asus CH 990fx, then on intel put a 2500k, 3570k, and my current 2700k through my gene-z. Might try a 3770k delid before jumping to 1150 but if I do since money isnt as abundant now that I am married







I will likely jump into 1150 with the g3258 and work my way up again


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> I agree, i suggest you actually use a haswell dual core before you start wishing for one. Personally i'd rather your old 6 core over that dual core. I certainly wouldn't call it an upgrade.


This. I'd only go to this chip if I was upgrading off of a very old quad (Phenom II/badly clocking FX/Q6*00/Q9**0) or any other dual core on a budget.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *66racer*
> 
> Yeah I can see the normal non-enthusiast never upgrading later but the average OCN member is a different story. I myself normally invest in a high end motherboard then run a few cpu's through the socket. Had some fun with the 1100T, then 8150 on my asus CH 990fx, then on intel put a 2500k, 3570k, and my current 2700k through my gene-z. Might try a 3770k delid before jumping to 1150 but if I do since money isnt as abundant now that I am married
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will likely jump into 1150 with the g3258 and work my way up again


yeah.. but i wouldn't say you built that system to "upgrade later" you were building those systems to bench and overclock. That's a little bit different mindset. who knows... as i said... this community is a bit outside the norm.


----------



## mbreslin

So is there a reasonably priced mb that will oc the pentium well? You know for people who might actually buy it rather than argue all day about why you shouldn't buy it.

Thanks.


----------



## Shogon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbreslin*
> 
> So is there a reasonably priced mb that will oc the pentium well? You know for people who might actually buy it rather than argue all day about why you shouldn't buy it.
> 
> Thanks.


From my initial experience the z97-P from Asus has been pretty good. I have 4.5 GHz @ 1.22v and 4.7 GHz 1.37v profiles on my dual core. It's $110 or so for the board, also handling my overclocked Samsung memory to 2133 pretty well. I'm pretty impressed by this little dual core, both in overclocking and gameplay. Getting well over 70 fps in BF3 with medium graphics, 2xAA with a 750ti at 1080p 100 Hz.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132229


----------



## mbreslin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shogon*
> 
> From my initial experience the z97-P from Asus has been pretty good. I have 4.5 GHz @ 1.22v and 4.7 GHz 1.37v profiles on my dual core. It's $110 or so for the board, also handling my overclocked Samsung memory to 2133 pretty well. I'm pretty impressed by this little dual core, both in overclocking and gameplay. Getting well over 70 fps in BF3 with medium graphics, 2xAA with a 750ti at 1080p 100 Hz.
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132229


Cool thank you. A 750ti seems like a good match. I will keep my eyes open for deals.


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> Eek Pentium must be a monster underwater. Gonna shoot for 5.0?


I probably could shoot for 5.0ghz; I'm sitting around 4.5ghz with 1.294, could probably go lower with voltages. maybe 1.249V.

I literally just went like and just pressed in 4.5ghz, and put 1.294 volts and called it a day


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbreslin*
> 
> Cool thank you. A 750ti seems like a good match. I will keep my eyes open for deals.


Really nice match for a low power build.


----------



## Jugurnot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Really nice match for a low power build.


Low power AND low cost. I cant think of anything with better price/performance from Intel.


----------



## bhav

Pentium G3258 + 750 ti is my dream matx build.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

I wouldn't exactly call a Z97 board an a 750Ti the most cost efficient of things, but sure...


----------



## bhav

Maybe they arent the 'lowest possible price', but comparing price / performance / watt, the combination is unbeatable, thus it is very cost efficient.

Sometimes its worth paying a little bit extra if the performance gain is higher than the extra cost.


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> When you OC i5 you get over 200W in prime
> 
> mine isnt great OC-er (stock 165W prime 95)
> (92%) 240W for 4.8Ghz (wall)
> 92% 160W (less than stock) for 4.2Ghz - 115W for 3.7Ghz ATX (MB) wall - prime 95 (wall)
> i7 4770K mATX 110W prime 95 88% eff Wall or 100W undervolted (kinda like it)
> 
> Fx has more fans in 4 more fans in case
> 
> 340W prime 95 1.67-1.69V FX 6300 92% wall
> 
> Oced FX 4300 at 4.8Ghz will use less than OCed i5 at 4.8Ghz
> with 4 cores at 4.8Ghz you will get around 180W or less - depends on chip


When you OC and use new instructions, yes.

i5 uses a lot of power when it gets 240gflops @4.5ghz.

You can just run at 3.3ghz and 0.9vcore though and get like 170gflops and laugh at every chip without avx2/fma3 instructions if that happens though.

Don't bring power usage and performance with new instructions (new prime/linpack) into this. It is THE domain of Haswell. It also doesn't apply to pentium because it lacks avx2.


----------



## Jugurnot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> I wouldn't exactly call a Z97 board an a 750Ti the most cost efficient of things, but sure...


Well dont quite need a z97, but a z87 is prob alot cheaper


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> When you OC i5 you get over 200W in prime
> 
> mine isnt great OC-er (stock 165W prime 95)
> (92%) 240W for 4.8Ghz (wall)
> 92% 160W (less than stock) for 4.2Ghz - 115W for 3.7Ghz ATX (MB) wall - prime 95 (wall)
> i7 4770K mATX 110W prime 95 88% eff Wall or 100W undervolted (kinda like it)
> 
> Fx has more fans in 4 more fans in case
> 
> 340W prime 95 1.67-1.69V FX 6300 92% wall
> 
> Oced FX 4300 at 4.8Ghz will use less than OCed i5 at 4.8Ghz
> with 4 cores at 4.8Ghz you will get around 180W or less - depends on chip


As usual, spouting BS.

Just give it up Themisseable. You keep bringing up FX4300 to a Pentium G3258 thread. I'm sorry the Pentium is faster than FX 4300 in games, deal with it.


----------



## bhav

Its sad that people keep on denying this dual core Pentiums raw stompage of mostly everything by AMD for gaming, its like they just keep on covering their ears, closing their eyes, and singing 'lalalalala, I cant hear you, I cant see you, AMD is still better, lalalalalala'.

'But not everyone plays games!!!!'

For frigging £50, its still better than just about anything if you arent gaming. Office work? Just web browsing? Simple PC use? You dont need an AMD fail-quad - Lmao-octocore for that either.

'But but but only 2 cores, not enough for multithreaded' ...

Youre fully set to upgrade to an I5 / I7 later, in the case that you cant afford them right away, and if you can then obviously just get an I5 / I7.

'But but but AMD!!!!'

They have no more relevance for CPUs, they are long dead.

Oh and another one ...

'But but but it doesnt even compare to your I7 980, why are you even interested in it???'

I7 980 - over £400

Pentium G3258 - £50!!!!

I mean seriously people, ITS ONLY £50 AND VERY OFTEN RIGHT UP THERE ALONGSIDE THE 4790K .... How can you not like this unbelievable lord jeebus CPU?

Wait no it isnt £50 .... ITS £45!!!!!

http://www.scan.co.uk/products/intel-pentium-k-anniversary-g3258-s1150-haswell-dual-core-32ghz-oc-up-to-45ghz-5-gt-s-dmi-32x-ratio-

Show me anything from AMD for £45 that can compete / tie with a 4790k in single threaded gaming performance, I'm waiting for it.

And the teeny tiny minuscule low power requirement!!! I mean how have you not gone HHHHNNNNNGGGGGGHHHHHH and wet your underpants yet?


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jugurnot*
> 
> Well dont quite need a z97, but a z87 is prob alot cheaper


yeah but than you need to bios update for it to work.

I'm running a G3258 with a 750ti. The cpu at 4.5ghz doesn't go above 65C and the funs are really quiet, well the overclocked 750ti only goes up to 58C on a full load.

Great combo, Hwmonitor says my cpu is only using like 40W... but it doesn't seem right because than my system will be pulling a max of 160-170 watts.


----------



## Jugurnot

I thought an OC'd 3258 pulled nearly the same as a stock 4690k? Or something like that.....


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bhav*
> 
> Its sad that people keep on denying this dual core Pentiums raw stompage of mostly everything by AMD for gaming, its like they just keep on covering their ears, closing their eyes, and singing 'lalalalala, I cant hear you, I cant see you, AMD is still better, lalalalalala'.
> 
> 'But not everyone plays games!!!!'
> 
> For frigging £50, its still better than just about anything if you arent gaming. Office work? Just web browsing? Simple PC use? You dont need an AMD fail-quad - Lmao-octocore for that either.
> 
> 'But but but only 2 cores, not enough for multithreaded' ...
> 
> Youre fully set to upgrade to an I5 / I7 later, in the case that you cant afford them right away, and if you can then obviously just get an I5 / I7.
> 
> 'But but but AMD!!!!'
> 
> They have no more relevance for CPUs, they are long dead.
> 
> Oh and another one ...
> 
> 'But but but it doesnt even compare to your I7 980, why are you even interested in it???'
> 
> I7 980 - over £400
> 
> Pentium G3258 - £50!!!!
> 
> I mean seriously people, ITS ONLY £50 AND VERY OFTEN RIGHT UP THERE ALONGSIDE THE 4790K .... How can you not like this unbelievable lord jeebus CPU?
> 
> Wait no it isnt £50 .... ITS £45!!!!!
> 
> http://www.scan.co.uk/products/intel-pentium-k-anniversary-g3258-s1150-haswell-dual-core-32ghz-oc-up-to-45ghz-5-gt-s-dmi-32x-ratio-
> 
> Show me anything from AMD for £45 that can compete / tie with a 4790k in single threaded gaming performance, I'm waiting for it.


AMD isn't as bad you're making it out to be, the FX6300 is a pretty solid chip.

The G3258 performs as well as it does because it takes advantage of the weakness the current FX chips have, single-core performance, and games not scaling to their 4-8 threads.
As I wrote in my thread.
Quote:


> All in all, this processor will excel in single-thread dependent tasks, and take on chips with inferior single-threaded performance, however will be more likely to perform worse in tasks which are heavily multi-threaded or multi-thread dependent which are becoming more and more frequent in the future of software and game development, it takes advantage of one of AMD's major flaws, their weak core performance and performs better than them in most tasks which demand strong core performance.


When people come to me asking about the G3258 or the FX6300, I narrow it down to two things, longevity, whether they'll have the chip for long term, and usage, what they'll be doing with it and using it for.

If they want a chip for long term the FX6300 is where it's at, AMD's chips underperform in games because not to many games scale well from 4-8 cores/threads, and AMD has taken the more cores approach with their current FX chips, meanwhile their single-core performance is pretty seriously lacking, the G3258 falls short in multi-threading because of it's lack of cores/threads, and when developers start pushing to use more cores/threads it'll certainly struggle as it does pretty notably in Watch Dogs and Star Citizen, it's not exactly a "jack of all trades" chip because of this, meanwhile the FX6300 has 6 cores at it's disposal.

The G3258 takes advantage of the weakness the current FX chips have, and is a really nice candidate of a chip for those who want high single-threaded performance for their games, MMOs such as World of Warcraft, games like Skyrim, PlanetSide 2, StarCraft 2 and so on, it also has a very good upgrade path and a ton of other uses, for example it could make for a pretty fast and affordable Minecraft server.
Quote:


> This is not the most future proof processor, but I guess it was never meant to be, it is able to topple AMD chips in their fields of weakness and if you can find a use for this CPU it's pretty much untouchable in it's area


There's other things to consider, AM3+ with it's unclear fate, will the next AMD chips be supported on AM3+ or will AMD make AM4?
Intel has said for 1150 Z97 that Broadwell will be supported, providing your board is compatible and so on.
So you have what can be perceived as a future proof platform to upgrade to the Haswell or Broadwell chip of your choice providing your motherboard is compatible.
Allowing those who have the G3258 to upgrade to a stronger CPU in the future, whether it be a Haswell or a Broadwell chip.
Quote:


> When/If games start requiring 4-8 threads to be playable, this CPU will likely struggle, as it does in Star Citizen and Watch Dogs, so it isn't really a future proof CPU, but for a really affordable Intel processor, it isn't really expected to stay relevant performance-wise for long, however you can futureproof the platform your PC is on by going the Z97 1150 route, that way you can upgrade to the processors which are the best for gaming, the i5s and i7s.


Bare in mind Star Citizen is currently in Alpha and isn't the most optimized game because of this, and Watch Dogs is a game which notoriously runs poorly for a multitude of systems.


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Paratrooper1n0*
> 
> Such fanboying, much fail. XD
> Mutli-treaded applications say hi.


hahahha...


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

My problem is that at the lower price brackets AMD is too weak on single threaded performance and Intel too weak on multithreaded.


----------



## PureBlackFire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> My problem is that at the lower price brackets AMD is too weak on single threaded performance and Intel too weak on multithreaded.


at this price level you aren't going to get a good all around solution. buy an i5. problem solved.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PureBlackFire*
> 
> at this price level you aren't going to get a good all around solution. buy an i5. problem solved.


No, and that's what I hate. I'd happily get a CPU that had 4 cores with each 70% the power of a haswell i5 priced at ~$150


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> No, and that's what I hate. I'd happily get a CPU that had 4 cores with each 70% the power of a haswell i5 priced at ~$150


2 pentiums are 160$... they are each half a i5 anyways... :| I can see why you're complain.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deletive*
> 
> 2 pentiums are 160$... they are each half a i5 anyways... :| I can see why you're complain.


Can or can't? I want a dual socket 1150 board.


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> Can or can't? I want a dual socket 1150 board.


I completely see what you mean by the price of an i5.... I really wish for a dual socket 1150; it made me realize that they their i5's are priced because they can.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorbazTheDragon*
> 
> My problem is that at the lower price brackets AMD is too weak on single threaded performance and Intel too weak on multithreaded.


If a Core i3 4330 can compete with an overclocked AMD quad-core CPU, maybe Intel thinks there is no reason to offer unlocked Core i3

















http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849.html

But in my opinion, an overclocked Core i3 would be a challenge to FX-6300 and FX-8320


----------



## Serios

It would be a challenge for a locked i5 actually and that would be the main problem.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Serios*
> 
> It would be a challenge for a locked i5 actually and that would be the main problem.


The line up would be like this

Core i3 4330K
Core i5 4690K
Core i7 4790K

Simple, just like in the days of the 1st generation Core i3/i5/i7. Every CPU can be overclocked


----------



## Faithh

Here's a new source that has 6300's at 4.7GHz vs g3258 at 4.7GHz included: http://pclab.pl/art57691.html


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Faithh*
> 
> Here's a new source that has 6300's at 4.7GHz vs g3258 at 4.7GHz included: http://pclab.pl/art57691.html


And thus we returned into post 5 http://www.overclock.net/t/1495300/various-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-reviews#post_22404164


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes but still faster than pentium.... Okay pentium is great for emulators and MMOS and many games.
> i3 bottleneck GTX 760 so does pentium g3258
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MPb7Rinq0
> 
> Still, i asked him about CPU pikes? What GPU driver he use?


Hmmmm

I can choose between faster in most or faster in an alpha, a stuttery mess and one single game (BF4).

Hey guys let's all spend more for an FX 6
4300!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deletive*
> 
> I probably could shoot for 5.0ghz; I'm sitting around 4.5ghz with 1.294, could probably go lower with voltages. maybe 1.249V.
> 
> I literally just went like and just pressed in 4.5ghz, and put 1.294 volts and called it a day


Honestly I think you may be able to push 1.2v with some work.

I wonder if I can push 4.5 @ 1.2v....hmmmmmm...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> As usual, spouting BS.
> 
> Just give it up Themisseable. You keep bringing up FX4300 to a Pentium G3258 thread. I'm sorry the Pentium is faster than FX 4300 in games, deal with it.


Yah but
But

Multithreading!!!
Stuttery crap games!!!!!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TopicClocker*
> 
> AMD isn't as bad you're making it out to be, the FX6300 is a pretty solid chip.
> 
> The G3258 performs as well as it does because it takes advantage of the weakness the current FX chips have, single-core performance, and games not scaling to their 4-8 threads.
> As I wrote in my thread.
> When people come to me asking about the G3258 or the FX6300, I narrow it down to two things, longevity, whether they'll have the chip for long term, and usage, what they'll be doing with it and using it for.
> 
> If they want a chip for long term the FX6300 is where it's at, AMD's chips underperform in games because not to many games scale well from 4-8 cores/threads, and AMD has taken the more cores approach with their current FX chips, meanwhile their single-core performance is pretty seriously lacking, the G3258 falls short in multi-threading because of it's lack of cores/threads, and when developers start pushing to use more cores/threads it'll certainly struggle as it does pretty notably in Watch Dogs and Star Citizen, it's not exactly a "jack of all trades" chip because of this, meanwhile the FX6300 has 6 cores at it's disposal.
> 
> The G3258 takes advantage of the weakness the current FX chips have, and is a really nice candidate of a chip for those who want high single-threaded performance for their games, MMOs such as World of Warcraft, games like Skyrim, PlanetSide 2, StarCraft 2 and so on, it also has a very good upgrade path and a ton of other uses, for example it could make for a pretty fast and affordable Minecraft server.
> There's other things to consider, AM3+ with it's unclear fate, will the next AMD chips be supported on AM3+ or will AMD make AM4?
> Intel has said for 1150 Z97 that Broadwell will be supported, providing your board is compatible and so on.
> So you have what can be perceived as a future proof platform to upgrade to the Haswell or Broadwell chip of your choice providing your motherboard is compatible.
> Allowing those who have the G3258 to upgrade to a stronger CPU in the future, whether it be a Haswell or a Broadwell chip.
> Bare in mind Star Citizen is currently in Alpha and isn't the most optimized game because of this, and Watch Dogs is a game which notoriously runs poorly for a multitude of systems.


As I've said way too many times before, look at the market right now and how fast wellthreading is being done.

Now go try and write some wellthreaded code.

Now come to terms with the fact that games taking advantage of 8 cores or MS word being optimized for a 15 core Xeon JUST IS NOT HAPPENING.

The # of people who try and ignore the present, past, rate of change and difficulty of well done parallel processing is becoming too much for me.

Keep living in yer pipe dream.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> If a Core i3 4330 can compete with an overclocked AMD quad-core CPU, maybe Intel thinks there is no reason to offer unlocked Core i3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849.html
> 
> But in my opinion, an overclocked Core i3 would be a challenge to FX-6300 and FX-8320


A well priced i3 unlocked would pose a huge threat to AMD.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Faithh*
> 
> Here's a new source that has 6300's at 4.7GHz vs g3258 at 4.7GHz included: http://pclab.pl/art57691.html


already quoted in this thread. the results are about what you'd expect... in single and dual threaded titles it kicked butt... in titles that used more it was largely non-competitive with even a fx4300.

more interesting to me was the fps delivered by all cpus... with one or two exceptions those fps were up over 60fps on every title.


----------



## mbreslin

It doesn't matter what kind of threat an unlocked i3 would be to AMD. It's a threat to the i5 so isn't likely to ever happen.

As to (good) multithreading in games you're exactly right. I will quote myself








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbreslin*
> 
> While games may be "going that route", they certainly aren't there today. We're lucky to get a PC game that isn't just a poorly optimized console port, much less get one that is coded well for multiple threads. Most games are "multi-threaded" but games that actually do it efficiently enough to give a big boost to quad core over dual aren't very common yet. The reason is because thread dispatching and scheduling efficiently is actually hard, and adds significant development time and requires programming talent with a particular skillset. Since most AAA titles are published by multi-billion dollar publicly traded companies that put enormous pressure on dev teams to ship the product quickly they opt to skip doing the work necessary to really take advantage of modern cpus.
> 
> So, "these days" it's not about multi-threaded power, though it (hopefully) may be "soon" (whatever "soon" means, one upcoming engine purports to do multi-threading well that I know of so far.)


----------



## iSlayer

Intel would never. They can't really afford to push AMD any further out of the market and risk putting them out of business.


----------



## ChampN252

Just ordered mine. The build begins. I doing either 1440p to take the easy way out, 1600p just to show off (most likely choice) or 4K if I put in some extra hours. We'll see. I've seen a vid of this and a 290x run 1600p flawless.


----------



## Faithh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Themisseble*
> 
> Yes but still faster than pentium.... Okay pentium is great for emulators and MMOS and many games.
> i3 bottleneck GTX 760 so does pentium g3258
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_MPb7Rinq0
> 
> Still, i asked him about CPU pikes? What GPU driver he use?


His GPU was consistently at 99% so no CPU bottlenecking. Also I tried i3's out with 2 780's in SLI, got easily 50/50% load so that equals a single card at 99% - doesnt bottleneck a single 780.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOYzmu51Zp8


----------



## ChampN252

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Faithh*
> 
> His GPU was consistently at 99% so no CPU bottlenecking. Also I tried i3's out with 2 780's in SLI, got easily 50/50% load so that equals a single card at 99% - doesnt bottleneck a single 780.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOYzmu51Zp8


To anybody, could we get a good explaination of when bottlenecking happens? It a very thrown around term. I've read most modern era cpus can't be bottlenecked.


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChampN252*
> 
> To anybody, could we get a good explaination of when bottlenecking happens? It a very thrown around term. I've read most modern era cpus can't be bottlenecked.




as the image shows a bottleneck is like the neck of a bottle, in computing a bottleneck occurs when the capacity of an application or a computer system is severely limited by a single component. sorta to the point where other compenents can no longer operate at their full potential.


----------



## ChampN252

And I read usually it's not the cpu/gpu, but another component like the hard dive or cheap cables.


----------



## Cyro999

Well, it's a pretty bad term IMO but another way of saying you're only as fast as the weakest link

if your CPU can handle 35fps in a given game scene, then it doesn't matter if at 1080p, max settings, one GPU can render 50fps and another 150fps. They'd both be functionally the same because your game would run at 35fps.

That's what people call "bottlenecking", when there is something significantly slower than something else for their intended games/settings that would make upgrading certain areas past a certain level quite pointless.

Hard drive and cables don't really determine performance that a lot of people care about, like FPS in a game i mean, though slow HDD can make OS usage and moving/viewing files etc, loading stuff quite slow in comparison to a good SSD


----------



## Deletive

I can't get above 60% Gpu usuage in bf4 multiplayer >


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deletive*
> 
> I can't get above 60% Gpu usuage in bf4 multiplayer >


Put your render scale on 1.25-1.5x and you won't have that issue.

You might have an issue with the FPS that you can get in a given situation though, which isn't really relevant to GPU load (but results in low GPU load when you're running graphical settings "too low" for that FPS and GPU) - to fix that, make sure you're using Mantle if you're not using an Nvidia GPU with driver version ~337.50 or later. If you still have issues, it's likely just "low" CPU performance if there's no other cause. What are your system specs?


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> Yah but
> But
> 
> Multithreading!!!
> Stuttery crap games!!!!!
> As I've said way too many times before, look at the market right now and how fast wellthreading is being done.
> 
> Now go try and write some wellthreaded code.


You're ignoring the new consoles and improved APIs allowing developers more control. Games can be threaded fairly well (SupCom and FSX prove this) but there wasn't really a reason to..I mean you can still get away with running a Core 2 Quad (8 years old) without too much of a CPU bottleneck in quite a few games.

As for stuttery crap games, don't expect a Pentium G3258s performance to improve over time: An FX-6 or 8 core owner will see improved performance in games as they become more multi-threaded, which is pretty much a given with the new consoles having many weak cores..Mantle and DX12 help too, by allowing developers more direct to metal coding.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Hard drive and cables don't really determine performance that a lot of people care about, like FPS in a game i mean, though slow HDD can make OS usage and moving/viewing files etc, loading stuff quite slow in comparison to a good SSD


Actually, Skyrim and Fallout 3/NV with mods along with TS2, TS3 and no doubt TS4 can be bottlenecked by HDD performance pretty easily. Running them on an SSD is more than enough to fix it, though.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deletive*
> 
> 
> 
> as the image shows a bottleneck is like the neck of a bottle, in computing a bottleneck occurs when the capacity of an application or a computer system is severely limited by a single component. sorta to the point where other compenents can no longer operate at their full potential.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Well, it's a pretty bad term IMO but another way of saying you're only as fast as the weakest link
> 
> if your CPU can handle 35fps in a given game scene, then it doesn't matter if at 1080p, max settings, one GPU can render 50fps and another 150fps. They'd both be functionally the same because your game would run at 35fps.
> 
> That's what people call "bottlenecking", when there is something significantly slower than something else for their intended games/settings that would make upgrading certain areas past a certain level quite pointless.
> 
> Hard drive and cables don't really determine performance that a lot of people care about, like FPS in a game i mean, though slow HDD can make OS usage and moving/viewing files etc, loading stuff quite slow in comparison to a good SSD


Spot on!








Perfectly explained by you two.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> You're ignoring the new consoles and improved APIs allowing developers more control. Games can be threaded fairly well (SupCom and FSX prove this) but there wasn't really a reason to..I mean you can still get away with running a Core 2 Quad (8 years old) without too much of a CPU bottleneck in quite a few games.
> 
> As for stuttery crap games, don't expect a Pentium G3258s performance to improve over time: An FX-6 or 8 core owner will see improved performance in games as they become more multi-threaded, which is pretty much a given with the new consoles having many weak cores..Mantle and DX12 help too, by allowing developers more direct to metal coding.
> Actually, Skyrim and Fallout 3/NV with mods along with TS2, TS3 and no doubt TS4 can be bottlenecked by HDD performance pretty easily. Running them on an SSD is more than enough to fix it, though.


This.


----------



## larkhon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> Well i regularly make i5's, i3's choke. They are great chips, but they aren't "perfect"... meanwhile my fx8320 or even a quad core i7 can keep up with my needs on a Day to Day basis... I'm sorta curious... have you ever actually used a dual core haswell i3/pentium... i see you have an old Nehelam i7... which imho I would gladly take over ANY modern dual core intel. How about you use one before you defend them so hard
> 
> You can tell when you drop from a quad core intel to a dual core intel. REGARDLESS what the benches say. It's not a mental thing, a very real lag develops in the end user experience... especially the more you're doing. It gets worse with the non-hyperthreaded pentiums. Its because of this very real "slowness" that i refuse to suggest to anyone that is building a new computer that they get an i3 or quad core amd... with the 6300 and a bit of an overclock you get an end user experience pretty similar to an i5. It's not perfect but it's close enough. The best chips i've had my hands on though are the 8 core piledrivers and core i7s... and in my experience the difference in performance isn't enough to justify the cost of the intel.
> 
> Now if i was benching for cinibench scores i'd want a core i7. If i had a 120hz 1080p monitor, or was running a xfire/SLi setup in larger resolutions... yeah i'd say a core i7 is probably worth the $$ over an 8 core AMD. But i'm not doing either... and the types of multitasking and VM stuff i'm doing make an i5 choak... so i find myself quite happy with my 8 core fx. I suspect though from reading your post that you've never actually used a piledriver, nor have ever used the modern haswell cpus. The difference in performance just isn't there to justify your comment.
> 
> (understand i'm talking strictly from MY perspective. I overclock. I run a lot of VMs... i do a lot of multitasking, for me more cores is huge. I'm also NOT talking about quad core or less AMD cpus. The quad core AMD offerings are as bad or worse then the i3s and Pentiums. I'll not argue that point. If this was a discussion about which is better, a g3258 or a a10-7850k, i'd take the g3258 every day of the week. Nor is this some comment that intel suck. Intel make fanstic chips... but people let the benchmarks blind them to reality. The reality is the difference between an intel and amd cpu isn't that huge, and in most cases, completely invisible to the average user. Most gamers game on 1080p 60hz monitors... i do myself... and in that case there is no difference between a 6-8 core piledriver clocked up to say... 4.4ghz and ANY intel cpu out there. In my own experience the difference in performance from an AMD cpu and an Intel vanishes completely by the time you get a piledriver up to 4.8ghz or so... by that point i suspect SSD/Hard drive bottlenecks make the user experience pretty much identical between the two... and no amount of overclocking on the intel will change it.)


I completely agree with you! To add to what you are saying, I'd also be considering the pricing strategy (at least on Intel CPUs). Anyone who would think "I've buying a crappy CPU now and look for the i7 when it's cheaper" is going to be disappointed. Price will not drop that much meaning that even used ones will remain expensive.

Then comes also the motherboard features ; maybe you thought you'd never OC and bought a motherboard with H77 or B75. And then you think why do to Z77/IB when you could go Z97/DC? You never considered Wifi useful on a motherboard but maybe making this a mini-ITX build and moving it to the living room is not looking so bad... once you've set your mind into changing your hardware, you never go for the upgrade path you had decided at first.

And here we're talking about upgrading from a Pentium to i5/i7. Biggest lie of all is considering upgrading from i5/i7 while staying on same socket. Why would one go from i7 2700k to i7 3770k? again, if it brings that 5fps you were looking for, is it worth the money? most users will skip one or two generation and buy both MB and CPU.


----------



## JambonJovi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *larkhon*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree with you! To add to what you are saying, I'd also be considering the pricing strategy (at least on Intel CPUs). Anyone who would think "I've buying a crappy CPU now and look for the i7 when it's cheaper" is going to be disappointed. Price will not drop that much meaning that even used ones will remain expensive.
> 
> Then comes also the motherboard features ; maybe you thought you'd never OC and bought a motherboard with H77 or B75. And then you think why do to Z77/IB when you could go Z97/DC? You never considered Wifi useful on a motherboard but maybe making this a mini-ITX build and moving it to the living room is not looking so bad... once you've set your mind into changing your hardware, you never go for the upgrade path you had decided at first.
> 
> And here we're talking about upgrading from a Pentium to i5/i7. Biggest lie of all is considering upgrading from i5/i7 while staying on same socket. Why would one go from i7 2700k to i7 3770k? again, if it brings that 5fps you were looking for, is it worth the money? most users will skip one or two generation and buy both MB and CPU.


You basically regurgitated what azanimefan has said a number of
times a few pages back, and which to me is still a whole lot of bull.

I plan on buying the G3258 and a Z97 mobo and I fully
intend on upgrading it to an i5 when I am able to comfortably
save up for it. Reason being is that even though I consider the
Pentium being a great value chip, I am also fully aware of its drawbacks.
In no way will it be a wasted investment though since I will be able to
have my cake and still eat it.

Sue me...


----------



## iSlayer

When the "omg multithreads errywhere its the future I clearly have never written a single line of multithreaded game code in my life" crowd writes some well threaded game code they'll suddenly realize just how nuts their prophecies are.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> You're ignoring the new consoles and improved APIs allowing developers more control. Games can be threaded fairly well (SupCom and FSX prove this) but there wasn't really a reason to..I mean you can still get away with running a Core 2 Quad (8 years old) without too much of a CPU bottleneck in quite a few games.


...

There has always been a reason to do so, better performance isn't exactly a new thing that just came out of the woodwork.

Level of control isn't an issue, not sure who told you that. It won't help you well thread game code, just reduce drawcalls and gain better, faster direct control of the rendering hardware.
Quote:


> As for stuttery crap games, don't expect a Pentium G3258s performance to improve over time: An FX-6 or 8 core owner will see improved performance in games as they become more multi-threaded, which is pretty much a given with the new consoles having many weak cores..


Remind me, don't the PS4 and Xbone have 8 cores? And doesn't the FX 8350 have 8 cores? And doesn't watchdogs barely use an 8 core?

Multithreading isn't exactly taking off, and as we have seen in every game that isn't an alpha or stuttery mess, the little Pentium can strongarm its lack of threads.

Now. If by some miracle game devs had the resources on hand to hire the professionals that can write well threaded game code, maybe then we would see some changes.

Till then, people on the Pentium with a z97 can go, "hmmmm I wonder when they'll make games use more threads beyond 3. I was looking for an excuse to upgrade to DC or Broadwell but I won't now. Sure am glad I didn't go with an outdated socket with no upgrade path that's already feeling old and only grows older by the moment."
Quote:


> Mantle and DX12 help too, by allowing developers more direct to metal coding.


As previously covered, low level APIs aren't there for that.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JambonJovi*
> 
> You basically regurgitated what azanimefan has said a number of
> times a few pages back, and which to me is still a whole lot of bull.
> 
> I plan on buying the G3258 and a Z97 mobo and I fully
> intend on upgrading it to an i5 when I am able to comfortably
> save up for it. Reason being is that even though I consider the
> Pentium being a great value chip, I am also fully aware of its drawbacks.
> In no way will it be a wasted investment though since I will be able to
> have my cake and still eat it.
> 
> Sue me...


I did say something pretty close to that. I also acknowledged this community is well outside the norm. That said if you do replace your g3258 with an i5 or i7, I'm pretty sure that will make you rare even in this unique community.


----------



## Clairvoyant129

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azanimefan*
> 
> considering intel themselves claim zero IPC improvement in broadwell (broadwell is apparently an igpu upgrade, skylake will be the ipc upgrade) and intel's rapidly evolving chipsets and socket designs, i hardly see this as a selling point. and if you read my comment again you'll notice i don't suggest AM3+ as being an "upgradable option either. My comment wasn't narrowly directed at g3258 upgradability, but all cpus. AMD OR INTEL.
> 
> now that's out of the way... the rest of your comment about AM3+ is flat out crazy talk. My samsung 840EVO has trim support, operates at advertised speeds too. So i'd say the SATA controller and trim work fine. Did you know PCI-E 2.0x8 won't bottleneck any gpu currently on the market except for the titan/780/780ti/290/290x/295x2/titanZ... and even those it will only bottleneck to the score of 2%-5%, PCI-E 2.0x16 is twice as fast... frankly it will probably be another 2 or 3 gpu generations before they start to max pci-e 2.0x16... the only advantage pci-e 3.0 has is for things like pcie storage... my USB3.0 devices work at advertised speeds too, they also have been issue free. so again not sure where that's coming from.
> 
> Finally if i paid the electric where i live i might care about power consumption... I don't so i don't... furthermore until intel made power consumption a thing in Ivy Bridge i don't think i ever saw MENTION about power consumption on desktop chips in an overclocking forum. Seriously? Power consumption? Yeah... I don't care, I never cared, and i don't plan to care. Frankly i'm upset intel cares... because i think it's holding back performance in their extreme series cpus. What i really want to see is a 220W monster extreme series 8c/16t cpu. but i know intel will do it's best to keep those power numbers down... for reasons i don't understand... and never will.


Actually Intel said 5%+ IPC improvements with a 20% reduction in power (Haswell vs Broadwell), unlike AMD which increased power consumption and decreased IPC (Bulldozer/Vishera vs Thuban/Deneb).



Haswell i5s are already pretty much even with top of the line FX CPUs in heavily threaded workloads and with the IPC improvements in Broadwell, Broadwell i5 will take away AMD's last advantage. i7, let's not even go there as AMD is no where near it in terms of performance.

Yes SB950 has TRIM support for single SSDs, not RAID, please read what I said. Also, PCIe 2.0 vs 3.0 isn't just about bandwidth but latency, which is far more important.

Also you might not care about power costs and heat but I sure don't want a power reactor in my den during 90F weather.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> Level of control isn't an issue, not sure who told you that. It won't help you well thread game code, just reduce drawcalls and gain better, faster direct control of the rendering hardware.
> Remind me, don't the PS4 and Xbone have 8 cores? And doesn't the FX 8350 have 8 cores? *And doesn't watchdogs barely use an 8 core*?


Agree with you there, except for the bolded part. WD uses 4 threads. We have yet to see a console specific game use more than 4. We will more than likely see a game using the 6 threads they have access to, but I'd say it will be a bit further down the road. Game dev's are having to recode their engine for the new CPUs.


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Agree with you there, except for the bolded part. WD uses 4 threads. We have yet to see a console specific game use more than 4. We will more than likely see a game using the 6 threads they have access to, but I'd say it will be a bit further down the road. Game dev's are having to recode their engine for the new CPUs.


Sorry, I should've said "make significant usage of more than 3 such that the fourth core is actually beneficial". That's referring to the part with the hypothetical quote.

WD doesn't really take advantage of the 8 cores so I'm not sire what there is to argue about that.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Yea, I forgot it and then edited it, but then you came along and...


----------



## mbreslin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbreslin*
> 
> While games may be "going that route", they certainly aren't there today. We're lucky to get a PC game that isn't just a poorly optimized console port, much less get one that is coded well for multiple threads. Most games are "multi-threaded" but games that actually do it efficiently enough to give a big boost to quad core over dual aren't very common yet. The reason is because thread dispatching and scheduling efficiently is actually hard, and adds significant development time and requires programming talent with a particular skillset. Since most AAA titles are published by multi-billion dollar publicly traded companies that put enormous pressure on dev teams to ship the product quickly they opt to skip doing the work necessary to really take advantage of modern cpus.
> 
> So, "these days" it's not about multi-threaded power, though it (hopefully) may be "soon" (whatever "soon" means, one upcoming engine purports to do multi-threading well that I know of so far.)


----------



## iSlayer

^ I'm sure we will start seeing better implementations of multithreading but its timely, difficult and requires talent to do. AMD has been very future thinking since Bulldozer but they've very much overestimated the pacing on the software side. Also their market power.

Its the same reason HSA will not work, but that's another story for another thread.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Yea, I forgot it and then edited it, but then you came along and...


Not the first ninja by me this week







.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Multithreading has started happening. It isn't much, but more and more games are starting to use more than two cores with these last couple years. It's too bad developers do not see a real need to code their engines to allocate more threads - even if it only benefits by a small margin. We have games like TES that only use two threads, but yet have heavy scripting and AI. On top of that, there is PlanetSide 2 that uses three threads, but yet you can have 3 teams of 128+ in air and ground vehicles. Your frame rate does drop, but at least the recent patches have been helping.

It may seem like too few games are using more threads, but seeing these recent yew years and the release of WD, there may be hope that in 2016 we can see games that can _properly_ use 6 threads. And when that happens, I can't wait to see what those engines can do...


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clairvoyant129*
> 
> Actually Intel said 5%+ IPC improvements with a 20% reduction in power (Haswell vs Broadwell), unlike AMD which increased power consumption and decreased IPC (Bulldozer/Vishera vs Thuban/Deneb).
> 
> 
> 
> Haswell i5s are already pretty much even with top of the line FX CPUs in heavily threaded workloads and with the IPC improvements in Broadwell, Broadwell i5 will take away AMD's last advantage. i7, let's not even go there as AMD is no where near it in terms of performance.
> 
> Yes SB950 has TRIM support for single SSDs, not RAID, please read what I said. Also, PCIe 2.0 vs 3.0 isn't just about bandwidth but latency, which is far more important.
> 
> Also you might not care about power costs and heat but I sure don't want a power reactor in my den during 90F weather.


those are for mobile broadwell... perhaps the intel engineer was mistaken, and there will be an ipc increase for desktop broadwell, but that article you quoted is not about desktop broadwell. The latency argument might matter for PCI-E SSDs, but it doesn't seem to matter much for GPUs... maybe in xfire/sli... and i've never used SSD's in RAID so i don't know.


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Multithreading has started happening. It isn't much, but more and more games are starting to use more than two cores with these last couple years. It's too bad developers do not see a real need to code their engines to allocate more threads - even if it only benefits by a small margin. We have games like TES that only use two threads, but yet have heavy scripting and AI. On top of that, there is PlanetSide 2 that uses three threads, but yet you can have 3 teams of 128+ in air and ground vehicles. Your frame rate does drop, but at least the recent patches have been helping.
> 
> It may seem like too few games are using more threads, but seeing these recent yew years and the release of WD, there may be hope that in 2016 we can see games that can _properly_ use 6 threads. And when that happens, I can't wait to see what those engines can do...


This.
Not many games currently scale to 8 cores/threads, but they are arising slowly.
Yes multi-threaded code is difficult undoubtedly but things on the software front are slowly changing, especially for those next generation consoles such as the PS4 and Xbox One which behold 8 Jagaur cores.


----------



## ChampN252

When mantle becomes available to all, the g3258 will look like an even better value. Mantle was built for chips like. I'm official gonna tackle 4k with mine. Just orde the monitor and the chip is coming. If it can hang with the 4790k for the most part, I see no issues.

Well, I actually just saw a review of the g3258 against the 4790k at 4K and it matched frame for frame gaming


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ChampN252*
> 
> When mantle becomes available to all, the g3258 will look like an even better value. Mantle was built for chips like. I'm official gonna tackle 4k with mine. Just orde the monitor and the chip is coming. If it can hang with the 4790k for the most part, I see no issues.
> 
> Well, I actually just saw a review of the g3258 against the 4790k at 4K and it matched frame for frame gaming


4k is going to be hell on GPU. It's not really a CPU benching test. Running 4k with anything less than the top of the line is going to show the same FPS as almost any dual to octo chip released in the last 4 years. (Might be a bit of an exaggeration)


----------



## larkhon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JambonJovi*
> 
> You basically regurgitated what azanimefan has said a number of
> times a few pages back, and which to me is still a whole lot of bull.
> 
> I plan on buying the G3258 and a Z97 mobo and I fully
> intend on upgrading it to an i5 when I am able to comfortably
> save up for it. Reason being is that even though I consider the
> Pentium being a great value chip, I am also fully aware of its drawbacks.
> In no way will it be a wasted investment though since I will be able to
> have my cake and still eat it.
> 
> Sue me...


well, I'm actually buying one too, that's how I ended up posting here. Of course, purpose is not the same, I just need the single threaded performance from an unexpensive CPU that will be running 24/7.

I'm not saying it's not worth buying this one and upgrade later. On LGA775 I went from E7200 to E8400 to Q9650, saving for the next upgrade everytime. However, if you can afford to buy the i5 directly, what kind of upgrade will be left? i7? Broadwell will have little interest on the desktop side, and Skylake is LGA1151.

Upgrade should mean that you could buy the newest generation and still use it on your 3-4 years old motherboard. Here we're just talking going up the product range, this is not the same, obviously.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> When the "omg multithreads errywhere its the future I clearly have never written a single line of multithreaded game code in my life" crowd writes some well threaded game code they'll suddenly realize just how nuts their prophecies are.
> ...
> 
> There has always been a reason to do so, better performance isn't exactly a new thing that just came out of the woodwork.
> 
> Level of control isn't an issue, not sure who told you that. It won't help you well thread game code, just reduce drawcalls and gain better, faster direct control of the rendering hardware.
> Remind me, don't the PS4 and Xbone have 8 cores? And doesn't the FX 8350 have 8 cores? And doesn't watchdogs barely use an 8 core?
> 
> Multithreading isn't exactly taking off, and as we have seen in every game that isn't an alpha or stuttery mess, the little Pentium can strongarm its lack of threads.
> 
> Now. If by some miracle game devs had the resources on hand to hire the professionals that can write well threaded game code, maybe then we would see some changes.
> 
> Till then, people on the Pentium with a z97 can go, "hmmmm I wonder when they'll make games use more threads beyond 3. I was looking for an excuse to upgrade to DC or Broadwell but I won't now. Sure am glad I didn't go with an outdated socket with no upgrade path that's already feeling old and only grows older by the moment."
> As previously covered, low level APIs aren't there for that.


Once again, some games are already multi-threaded to the point where they use 8+ cores proving its possible to do it, new consoles are going to force developers to learn how to do it in one way or another regardless.

If level of control isn't an issue, why did DICE want Mantle for more console like coding? Why is Firaxis going on about the benefits of Mantle essentially being a much smaller driver allowing the dev more control over the hardware? ("Much of the work that drivers used to do on an application's behalf is now the responsibility of the game engine. This means that the Mantle API is able to be backed by a very small, simple driver, which is thus considerably faster. It also means that this work, which must still be done, is done by someone with considerably more information. Because the engine knows exactly what it will do and how it will do it, it is able to make design decisions that drivers could not.") Both of their games are ones that use 4+ cores, too...It might not directly help with multi-threading but having more freedom in how the engine works (ie. Drivers being much smaller and games picking up more of that work) should help in some ways.

Remind me, how long have the PS4 and Xbox One been out? Were you complaining about how graphics hadn't really moved on far from PS2 level graphics in 2006-2007? It usually takes 2-3 years for games to start fully taking advantage of new consoles and stop being ported to old ones...You're essentially expecting what I said to happen overnight and saying it's crap because of that. You can bet by the time this generation is over that most developers will have at least a basic form of 4+ core multi-threading in their games simply because they'll have to. Especially since *some* games already make the Pentium a stuttery mess even when OCed...You might have decent averages but any dual core is going to have significant performance drops, even in games that are just threaded to use 2 cores. Games are still held back by last generations consoles and will continue to be for the next couple years just like every cycle. (Seriously, compare Oblivion to Skyrim on the 360 then remember both are on the exact same hardware and that's with Oblivion not even getting a port to the previous generation)

You're doing the same argument that people say against Linux gaming which essentially comes down to "But it hasn't happened yet so it'll never happen!", completely ignoring the fact that the trends tend to support it starting to take off (BF4, Crysis 3, SupCom, FSX, Civ V, etc) even if it isn't going to be a short or simple process. While a quad core is more than likely going to be fine for this entire generation, a dualie even as fast as this Pentium is really only appropriate if you plan to play a few weaker games, don't mind that you might have to turn down a few settings or plan to upgrade/have a faster chip and the Pentium to muck around with anyway.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Once again, some games are already multi-threaded to the point where they use 8+ cores


Which games? And how much is that compared to the rest of the games made in the last couple years?


----------



## fateswarm

It's important to note that when something uses 999 threads and you see a benchmark getting higher scores because of it, it does not necessarily mean it is coded properly. It might be *because* it is coded inefficiently that you see it getting some juice out of of threads, while another programmer might have had *better results on fewer threads*. In general multithreading on interactive applications is *very* tricky because of overheads due to the requirement to communicate variables between threads that have to be locked with methods like mutexes.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Which games? And how much is that compared to the rest of the games made in the last couple years?


As mentioned elsewhere in my post, BF3, BF4, Crysis 3, SupCom, FSX, Civ V to name a few that are out today. Civ Beyond Earth, no doubt Battlefront 3 and Battlefield 5, possibly Unreal if they plan to try and make UE4 the go to engine for the new consoles. I don't get why people think it's not going to happen..It's inevitable and has been done previously showing its not impossible, it only makes sense to do it now that there's consoles with many weak CPU cores to get the maximum performance out of them. (You know, that thing developers have done with literally every console to the point of learning how to code for Cell for the PS3..)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> It's important to note that when something uses 999 threads and you see a benchmark getting higher scores because of it, it does not necessarily mean it is coded properly. It might be *because* it is coded inefficiently that you see it getting some juice out of of threads, while another programmer might have had *better results on fewer threads*. In general multithreading on interactive applications is *very* tricky because of overheads due to the requirement to communicate variables between threads that have to be locked with methods like mutexes.


Either way, they'll be aiming to get as much performance as possible and other games have proven that they run better on an 8 core/thread CPU than a quad. (That A10-7850k should be equal to the FX-8350 due to increased IPC and slightly lower clock speeds if only 4 threads are being used.)


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> Put your render scale on 1.25-1.5x and you won't have that issue.
> 
> You might have an issue with the FPS that you can get in a given situation though, which isn't really relevant to GPU load (but results in low GPU load when you're running graphical settings "too low" for that FPS and GPU) - to fix that, make sure you're using Mantle if you're not using an Nvidia GPU with driver version ~337.50 or later. If you still have issues, it's likely just "low" CPU performance if there's no other cause. What are your system specs?


sorry for late reply; G3258 at 4.5ghz 750ti and 8gb's of ram (now 12)


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> As mentioned elsewhere in my post, BF3, BF4, Crysis 3, SupCom, FSX, Civ V to name a few that are out today. Civ Beyond Earth, no doubt Battlefront 3 and Battlefield 5, possibly Unreal if they plan to try and make UE4 the go to engine for the new consoles. I don't get why people think it's not going to happen..It's inevitable and has been done previously showing its not impossible, it only makes sense to do it now that there's consoles with many weak CPU cores to get the maximum performance out of them. (You know, that thing developers have done with literally every console to the point of learning how to code for Cell for the PS3..)
> Either way, they'll be aiming to get as much performance as possible and other games have proven that they run better on an 8 core/thread CPU than a quad. (That A10-7850k should be equal to the FX-8350 due to increased IPC and slightly lower clock speeds if only 4 threads are being used.)


Speaking of Supcom, Planetary annhilation runs nicely on 2 cores considering it's really CPU intensive.


----------



## daviejams

Watchdogs not use 6 cores ? The watchdogs benchmark on the G3258 is pretty poor


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> due to increased IPC


I guess the overheads I describe is the reason for that lust for more IPC sought after lately. I doubt it's that important on non-interactive software like encoding.


----------



## Horsemama1956

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> Which games? And how much is that compared to the rest of the games made in the last couple years?
> 
> 
> 
> As mentioned elsewhere in my post, BF3, BF4, Crysis 3, SupCom, FSX, Civ V to name a few that are out today. Civ Beyond Earth, no doubt Battlefront 3 and Battlefield 5, possibly Unreal if they plan to try and make UE4 the go to engine for the new consoles. I don't get why people think it's not going to happen..It's inevitable and has been done previously showing its not impossible, it only makes sense to do it now that there's consoles with many weak CPU cores to get the maximum performance out of them. (You know, that thing developers have done with literally every console to the point of learning how to code for Cell for the PS3..)
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> It's important to note that when something uses 999 threads and you see a benchmark getting higher scores because of it, it does not necessarily mean it is coded properly. It might be *because* it is coded inefficiently that you see it getting some juice out of of threads, while another programmer might have had *better results on fewer threads*. In general multithreading on interactive applications is *very* tricky because of overheads due to the requirement to communicate variables between threads that have to be locked with methods like mutexes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either way, they'll be aiming to get as much performance as possible and other games have proven that they run better on an 8 core/thread CPU than a quad. (That A10-7850k should be equal to the FX-8350 due to increased IPC and slightly lower clock speeds if only 4 threads are being used.)
Click to expand...

Those are 8 super weak cores in the consoles though, so of course games are meant to use most of them. The IPC improvements in steamroller dont really translate in games with no l3 cache which now seems more important than ever.

Console versions of the games you list are not going to be 60 fps. They drop frames and I would imagine a game running 60 100% of the time will not need a powerful cpu for the pc version to do the same.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Watchdogs not use 6 cores ? The watchdogs benchmark on the G3258 is pretty poor


Sure, but a 5Ghz 9590 runs the game worse than a stock Intel quad, Sandy and up. Also Ubisoft sucks, so best not to use them as a metric for PC performance.


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> As mentioned elsewhere in my post, BF3, BF4, Crysis 3, SupCom, FSX, Civ V to name a few that are out today. Civ Beyond Earth, no doubt Battlefront 3


I can pitch in on Civ 5, it does not use 8 threads. I never get above 75% usage on a quad core or 37% on an octo core. IIRC, BF4 and Crysis 3 only use 6 threads - two of them are not really needed, and I _thought_ (not sure) that BF3 only used 4 threads. Not sure about SupCom or FSX though. Now, are you looking at Task Manager and seeing that X cores are being used? If so, that is wrong. There has only been one application that I have *ever* seen that accurately displays true per-core usage. It was the updater for Heroes of Newerth which shows one core being loaded to 100%.
The real way to check how many threads a game uses is to make sure you are not having a GPU bottleneck and looking at the CPU usage being used by the task itself. An easy example would be to look at Skyrim. It's task will only use 25% max of an octo core chip, because it's dual threaded. However, it may show that 6 of my threads are being used in task manager.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Watchdogs not use 6 cores ? The watchdogs benchmark on the G3258 is pretty poor


WD only uses four threads.

EDIT: Looks like Crysis 3 uses four threads. Brutuz, that difference in frame rate between the octo and quad core variant is the shared resources that the quad core has to do. Since it has four cores that are in CMT, they lose a little bit of performance when two cores of the same module are being used. The octo core variant didn't experience that.


----------



## Imglidinhere

What's this!?

OCNers PEACEFULLY DEBATING!?

I'm so proud of you guys...


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imglidinhere*
> 
> What's this!?
> 
> OCNers PEACEFULLY DEBATING!?
> 
> I'm so proud of you guys...


Ughh... it's too early. Is that sarcasm? Are you talking about me?


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imglidinhere*
> 
> What's this!?
> 
> OCNers PEACEFULLY DEBATING!?
> 
> I'm so proud of you guys...


I think the above post is called adding gasoline into the fire.


----------



## daviejams

I sometimes have core temp program running and I think that would tell you how many cores a program or game is using


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> I sometimes have core temp program running and I think that would tell you how many cores a program or game is using


Just ran a quick test with Skyrim, and just like Task Manager it is wrong. It reports that all four of my threads (HT off i7 960) is loaded to about 50%. That is wrong as only two of my threads are being used, and those two threads are just about maxed out. I also have a few other programs open, so my total CPU usage was about ~60%.

Per-core resource detectors are incorrect. Please don't say a game uses X threads because that's how many threads are being 'used'. That statement is not directed at anyone, it's just a request to the general population that is going to read this post.


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Once again, some games are already multi-threaded to the point where they use 8+ cores proving its possible to do it, new consoles are going to force developers to learn how to do it in one way or another regardless.


Its possible for me to produce a binary search that uses 32 threads, it doesn't mean it's more efficient.
Quote:


> If level of control isn't an issue, why did DICE want Mantle for more console like coding? Why is Firaxis going on about the benefits of Mantle essentially being a much smaller driver allowing the dev more control over the hardware? ("Much of the work that drivers used to do on an application's behalf is now the responsibility of the game engine. This means that the Mantle API is able to be backed by a very small, simple driver, which is thus considerably faster. It also means that this work, which must still be done, is done by someone with considerably more information. Because the engine knows exactly what it will do and how it will do it, it is able to make design decisions that drivers could not.") Both of their games are ones that use 4+ cores, too...It might not directly help with multi-threading but having more freedom in how the engine works (ie. Drivers being much smaller and games picking up more of that work) should help in some ways.


You were mistaking a low level API allowing greater GPU control / reducing CPU for facilitating better multithreading. That's not really the case, they're two separate things.
Quote:


> Remind me, how long have the PS4 and Xbox One been out? Were you complaining about how graphics hadn't really moved on far from PS2 level graphics in 2006-2007? It usually takes 2-3 years for games to start fully taking advantage of new consoles and stop being ported to old ones...You're essentially expecting what I said to happen overnight and saying it's crap because of that. You can bet by the time this generation is over that most developers will have at least a basic form of 4+ core multi-threading in their games simply because they'll have to. Especially since *some* games already make the Pentium a stuttery mess even when OCed...You might have decent averages but any dual core is going to have significant performance drops, even in games that are just threaded to use 2 cores. Games are still held back by last generations consoles and will continue to be for the next couple years just like every cycle. (Seriously, compare Oblivion to Skyrim on the 360 then remember both are on the exact same hardware and that's with Oblivion not even getting a port to the previous generation)


I was pretty wowed by the 7th gens right out of the gate so that isn't the best of examples.
Quote:


> You're doing the same argument that people say against Linux gaming which essentially comes down to "But it hasn't happened yet so it'll never happen!", completely ignoring the fact that the trends tend to support it starting to take off (BF4, Crysis 3, SupCom, FSX, Civ V, etc) even if it isn't going to be a short or simple process. While a quad core is more than likely going to be fine for this entire generation, a dualie even as fast as this Pentium is really only appropriate if you plan to play a few weaker games, don't mind that you might have to turn down a few settings or plan to upgrade/have a faster chip and the Pentium to muck around with anyway.


Listen, multithreading will advance but its not going to be easy any time soon, especially well threaded games. Where performance scales with cores and each core is seeing significant usage.

We know Watchdogs is barely using 8 cores for example. Its nice that you dumped the ticking of the number of people killed variable to a separate thread but that doesn't exactly boost performance.

Multithreading ain't easy and though software devs are moving forward its still VERY difficult to multithread something let alone do it well.

The point wasn't look these things aren't advancing so they will never, it was that they're not advancing because there are reasons hindering it.

Again, write some multithreaded code. Then try doing it for a game engine. Have fun learning!


----------



## Cyro999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> I sometimes have core temp program running and I think that would tell you how many cores a program or game is using


You can get a really good idea just from looking at task manager performance tab (update frequency set to max) - on w7, at least


----------



## TopicClocker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Watchdogs not use 6 cores ? The watchdogs benchmark on the G3258 is pretty poor


Take a look at this.





In my performance analysis the 3rd thread worked wonders!
http://www.overclock.net/t/1491602/watch-dogs-2gb-vram-performance-analysis-and-graphics-337-88-driver-improvement


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> You can get a really good idea just from looking at task manager performance tab (update frequency set to max) - on w7, at least


It would be best if you found the task that the game uses. Watch to see what the maximum CPU usage is. Skyrim = 50% on quad cores, 75% on PlanetSide 2, etc...

Now I'm going to stop posting these things. I have a feeling I'm getting on the nerves of some people.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcEsSalvation*
> 
> I can pitch in on Civ 5, it does not use 8 threads. I never get above 75% usage on a quad core or 37% on an octo core. IIRC, BF4 and Crysis 3 only use 6 threads - two of them are not really needed, and I _thought_ (not sure) that BF3 only used 4 threads. Not sure about SupCom or FSX though. Now, are you looking at Task Manager and seeing that X cores are being used? If so, that is wrong. There has only been one application that I have *ever* seen that accurately displays true per-core usage. It was the updater for Heroes of Newerth which shows one core being loaded to 100%.
> The real way to check how many threads a game uses is to make sure you are not having a GPU bottleneck and looking at the CPU usage being used by the task itself. An easy example would be to look at Skyrim. It's task will only use 25% max of an octo core chip, because it's dual threaded. However, it may show that 6 of my threads are being used in task manager.
> WD only uses four threads.
> 
> EDIT: Looks like Crysis 3 uses four threads. Brutuz, that difference in frame rate between the octo and quad core variant is the shared resources that the quad core has to do. Since it has four cores that are in CMT, they lose a little bit of performance when two cores of the same module are being used. The octo core variant didn't experience that.


Have you ever ran large games with mods and plenty of Civs? I max out my i5 easily. It's typically GPU limited, however...Unless you're trying to say that a i7 990X is faster than a 2600k in something that uses <4 threads. (Look at the no-render score) Hell, even a 3.3Ghz 6 Core Phenom II is beating a 3.6Ghz Quad core Phenom II there...extra cache doesn't make _that_ much of a difference in Civ V.

As for Crysis 3, Why is there a clear trend to more cores being faster here? Or here? I know I also saw a review showing an i7 3770k getting a good 20fps increase over an i5 3570k as of patch 1.3...BF4 is also tuned for more threads than 2, it might not need 8 right now but that's because it's not completely next-gen yet.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> Its possible for me to produce a binary search that uses 32 threads, it doesn't mean it's more efficient.
> 
> *Yet SupCom runs very well, and there's FPS improvements to various games (See above for Crysis 3 and Civ V benchmarks) clearly coming from increased cores and not slightly more cache or slightly higher clocks.*
> 
> You were mistaking a low level API allowing greater GPU control / reducing CPU for facilitating better multithreading. That's not really the case, they're two separate things.
> 
> *You're not understanding what I'm trying to say, I'm not going to try and reword it again.*
> 
> I was pretty wowed by the 7th gens right out of the gate so that isn't the best of examples.
> 
> *Skyrim vs Oblivion, same hardware and similar performance levels yet Skyrim looks ridiculously better. Point still stands, it takes 2-3 years for games to really start taking advantage of the new hardware.*
> 
> Listen, multithreading will advance but its not going to be easy any time soon, especially well threaded games. Where performance scales with cores and each core is seeing significant usage.
> 
> We know Watchdogs is barely using 8 cores for example. Its nice that you dumped the ticking of the number of people killed variable to a separate thread but that doesn't exactly boost performance.
> 
> Multithreading ain't easy and though software devs are moving forward its still VERY difficult to multithread something let alone do it well.
> 
> The point wasn't look these things aren't advancing so they will never, it was that they're not advancing because there are reasons hindering it.
> 
> Again, write some multithreaded code. Then try doing it for a game engine. Have fun learning!
> 
> *Then we're agreeing here, I'm saying that it's going to happen sooner rather than later simply because devs will need to in order to get the most out of the consoles like they've done with every weird bit of hardware like the N64 and PS3 among others. There's already some games showing it and adoption is only speeding up.*


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> As for Crysis 3, Why is there a clear trend to more cores being faster here? Or here?


Tom's is kind of broken on my computer. NoScript does that to some sites








As for TechSpot, I'm seeing an i5 4FPS behind an i7, and the i7 is clocked higher. That i5 also has the same frame rate as an octo core from AMD (clocked higher but lower IPC balances it out). Finally, a quad core from AMD with lower frame rate than the octo although it's at a higher frequency - that's because of the shared resources. I'm still not seeing the 'more than four threads help' proof here. If you look a little further down, you can see a higher clocked quad Phenom II beating a lower clocked hex Phenom II. If the game was for sure able to use 6 threads, that hex core would beat that quad, even with the clock speed offset.


----------



## Brutuz

It can be higher than 4 fps. Honestly, I'd put that down to an apparent GPU bottleneck in at least some of their testing more than anything. There's barely any average FPS increase between CPUs that are definitely faster.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> As for Crysis 3, Why is there a clear trend to more cores being faster here? Or here?


Tom's Hardware and Tech Spot did not use the same part of the game

Tom's Hardware used "Welcome to the Jungle" which is known for being very CPU dependent


----------



## AcEsSalvation

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> It can be higher than 4 fps. Honestly, I'd put that down to an apparent GPU bottleneck in at least some of their testing more than anything. There's barely any average FPS increase between CPUs that are definitely faster.


Again, minor difference between Phenom II and the higher clocked BD. Slightly higher avg and a bit higher FPS between hex with HT and quad w/o. That can be caused by the higher turbo clock. Higher clock 8350 is in same league as the locked i5. If this game could use ore than four threads, the 8350 would have pulled ahead of the i5.

The best way to tell how many threads this game uses is to watch something like Task Manager and see how much the actual task uses. If it's anything higher than 50% on an eight thread CPU, then we have our answer.


----------



## larkhon

has anyone managed to oc the G3258 on a H97 Gigabyte motherboard? I own the H97N WIFI and with the latest BIOS we get access to new menu items, and I managed to get the multiplier set to 47, I can see a range from 8 to 47 in CPU-Z, but the CPU will never reach it, it is stuck at stock value... any ideas?


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *larkhon*
> 
> has anyone managed to oc the G3258 on a H97 Gigabyte motherboard? I own the H97N WIFI and with the latest BIOS we get access to new menu items, and I managed to get the multiplier set to 47, I can see a range from 8 to 47 in CPU-Z, but the CPU will never reach it, it is stuck at stock value... any ideas?


Can you go above 1.2v? The other non-Z97 chipsets can't on gigabyte.


----------



## daviejams

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Can you go above 1.2v? The other non-Z97 chipsets can't on gigabyte.


he's managed to overclock it , he's got it set to 47 in the multiplier in the bios


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *daviejams*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Can you go above 1.2v? The other non-Z97 chipsets can't on gigabyte.
> 
> 
> 
> he's managed to overclock it , he's got it set to 47 in the multiplier in the bios
Click to expand...

I asked about Vcore. It's an important issue. Also he is stuck to stock freq if you read his message again.


----------



## larkhon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> I asked about Vcore. It's an important issue. Also he is stuck to stock freq if you read his message again.


I will check that when I get back home. I tried different ways, from BIOS, "as usual", from EasyTune both Autotune and manually. Most of the time changing the multiplier would have no effect. Only Autotune seemed to work properly, as the system became unstable.

Then again, the OC options in the BIOS are a bit funny, seems they did it in a hurry. I have one setting called 'OC performance', or something like that, whose values are 'Auto', 'i7 4770k at 4.3ghz','i7 4770k at 4.4ghz', etc... I'm not sure what it's doing, and I'm a bit concerned as you can still change all multipliers and settings.

I've opened a ticket to Gigabyte support anyway, but if anyone has tried oc'ing with a non Z97 board from them, I'd love to hear about it.

Edit: I've also tried minor OCs like 3.6ghz


----------



## fateswarm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *larkhon*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> I asked about Vcore. It's an important issue. Also he is stuck to stock freq if you read his message again.
> 
> 
> 
> I will check that when I get back home. I tried different ways, from BIOS, "as usual", from EasyTune both Autotune and manually. Most of the time changing the multiplier would have no effect. Only Autotune seemed to work properly, as the system became unstable.
> 
> Then again, the OC options in the BIOS are a bit funny, seems they did it in a hurry. I have one setting called 'OC performance', or something like that, whose values are 'Auto', 'i7 4770k at 4.3ghz','i7 4770k at 4.4ghz', etc... I'm not sure what it's doing, and I'm a bit concerned as you can still change all multipliers and settings.
> 
> I've opened a ticket to Gigabyte support anyway, but *if anyone has tried oc'ing with a non Z97 board from them*, I'd love to hear about it.
> 
> Edit: I've also tried minor OCs like 3.6ghz
Click to expand...

see http://www.overclock.net/t/1500423/non-z97-z87-boards-than-can-overclock-the-pentium-k-g3258


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Have you ever ran large games with mods and plenty of Civs? I max out my i5 easily. It's typically GPU limited, however...Unless you're trying to say that a i7 990X is faster than a 2600k in something that uses <4 threads. (Look at the no-render score) Hell, even a 3.3Ghz 6 Core Phenom II is beating a 3.6Ghz Quad core Phenom II there...extra cache doesn't make _that_ much of a difference in Civ V.
> 
> As for Crysis 3, Why is there a clear trend to more cores being faster here? Or here? I know I also saw a review showing an i7 3770k getting a good 20fps increase over an i5 3570k as of patch 1.3...BF4 is also tuned for more threads than 2, it might not need 8 right now but that's because it's not completely next-gen yet.


Random thoughts since inline replies make quotes break.

Game engines advance with time. It isn't like games are failing to use the hardware, they're just not using them as efficiently as possible. Not sure what that has to do with anything you're saying though.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you but you go back to trying to make the same point paragraphs later so maybe you're not totally sure what you're trying to say.

I believe it was in this thread that tomshardware comparisons between core count and performance in Crysis 3 was posted. Past 3 there weren't advantages.

No, we aren't agreeing at all.

Advancements aren't going to come rapidly. Much like the PS3 wasn't used to the fullest. Sure it'll speed up, but it won't be nearly as fast as you're thinking.

Never forget, sometimes game devs get a little bit lazy. On PC @ 60fps there is a problem with weapon degradation in Dark Souls because a timer wasn't used but a frame counter, a legacy result of PS3 being hard to program for.


----------



## larkhon

thanks for the link. Gigabyte support got back to me with an unrelease BIOS that worked. But of course, since I'm stuck at 1.2v I can only get the G3248 stable at 4.1ghz. But temps are looking ok, in the range of 55-60c, so I guess I'll be waiting for sales on Z87/Z97 mini-itx boards to push it further.

I also came across a tool called Throttlestop developed by some guy on another forum. With this I was able to set the frequency to 4.1ghz even on the old non-working bios. Maybe it can also override the Vcore limit, but I'm a bit concerned I might harm the board itself...


----------



## Horsemama1956

Try using Easy Tune. When I had my Gigabyte H97 it let me go all the way up beyond 1.6, though when I formatted and reinstalled it I was stuck at 1.2, so it may not work. That's when I grabbed my Z97.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

My Gigabyte H87-D3H has voltage options that appear to work with the i5-4440 I have in it. The bios has a rather strange layout, so the voltage settings are a bit hard to find. The multiplier setting also seems to work because I can pin the CPU to the 33x boost multiplier and under 4 core load it will stay at 3.3GHz, whic is only the default 2 core load speed. I am guessing it will be able to overclock other CPUs, but I would have to try it to be sure.


----------



## rGhost

Do you think I'll be able to get good oc with ASRock Z97 Pro 4 ?


----------



## Wirerat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rGhost*
> 
> Do you think I'll be able to get good oc with ASRock Z97 Pro 4 ?


that will be plenty if mobo to max the pentium.


----------



## Adonis

Can anyone who has this OC'd or not and who owns Arma 3 please get online and test the fps you get. I know GPU matters too but I just wanna see how this would perform on arma since it's very dependent on two cores only for the most part.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adonis*
> 
> Can anyone who has this OC'd or not and who owns Arma 3 please get online and test the fps you get. I know GPU matters too but I just wanna see how this would perform on arma since it's very dependent on two cores only for the most part.


I hope this helps

http://www.techspot.com/review/849-intel-pentium-anniversary-edition-overclock/


----------



## Adonis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> I hope this helps
> 
> http://www.techspot.com/review/849-intel-pentium-anniversary-edition-overclock/


Only issue is with that altis benchmark is I get the same if not better fps with my current rig as the g3258. But if I get on an actual altis multiplayer server my computer bogs down and I get 10-30 fps. Benchmark and actual online gameplay give different fps by far. I was hoping someone here could actually get into the game and join a near full server to see how they perform then with 80-100 players online.


----------



## No Hands 55

so im looking to build an ncase m1 mitx z97 impact build, coming from a 3570k. im thinking about this chip to hold me over until broadwell i7 is available. the most intensive game ill play is skyrim fully modded which seem itll handle fine. I do quite a bit of graphic work though. I will be doing 3d occasionally but mostly just illustrator and indesign. my question is i know itll be slow but can this still handle 3d rendering and big photoshop files? id like to play with this and oc it pretty high so i dont have to get an i5 and sell it for the broadwell i7.

what do you guys think about my plan? will the pentium do what i want or be extremely frustrating?


----------



## GorbazTheDragon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *No Hands 55*
> 
> so im looking to build an ncase m1 mitx z97 impact build, coming from a 3570k. im thinking about this chip to hold me over until broadwell i7 is available. the most intensive game ill play is skyrim fully modded which seem itll handle fine. I do quite a bit of graphic work though. I will be doing 3d occasionally but mostly just illustrator and indesign. my question is i know itll be slow but can this still handle 3d rendering and big photoshop files? id like to play with this and oc it pretty high so i dont have to get an i5 and sell it for the broadwell i7.
> 
> what do you guys think about my plan? will the pentium do what i want or be extremely frustrating?


Depend, I don't know too much about rendering/CAD, but I'd guess it is more GPU based than CPU based, so it should not be too big of a problem. Now, if it is CPU based, but not multi threaded, it will be faster. You will only see a significant drop in performance if you are doing something like multithreaded CPU physics or encoding.


----------



## TPCbench

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *No Hands 55*
> 
> so im looking to build an ncase m1 mitx z97 impact build, coming from a 3570k. im thinking about this chip to hold me over until broadwell i7 is available. the most intensive game ill play is skyrim fully modded which seem itll handle fine. I do quite a bit of graphic work though. I will be doing 3d occasionally but mostly just illustrator and indesign. my question is i know itll be slow but can this still handle 3d rendering and big photoshop files? id like to play with this and oc it pretty high so i dont have to get an i5 and sell it for the broadwell i7.
> 
> what do you guys think about my plan? will the pentium do what i want or be extremely frustrating?


Pentium G3258 @ 4.5 GHz

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849.html


----------



## scy1192

Can't find much about this online. My GPU still has a week or so in the mail so until then I'm stuck with integrated graphics. Does anyone know of any good benchmarks that use the integrated graphics rather than a dedicated GPU? I'd at least like to be able to play Team Fortress 2 while I wait.


----------



## Horsemama1956

It should play TF2 fine.


----------



## iSlayer

It'll play TF2 though you'll want to lower settings or rock an FPS config to maintain 180+.


----------



## Shogon

10% of the total posts in this thread, and 1/4 of his total on the site. My god Intel you created a monster (talking about the dual core







).


----------



## Cyro999

How can i see my post count in a thread?


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cyro999*
> 
> How can i see my post count in a thread?


Go to your subscriptions. Click replies ''next to total views'' , you Cyro999 have posted 114 times in this thread


----------



## TPCbench

I think this is the first review site who got a bad OC chip like mine
http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/intel_pentium_k_anniversary_g3258_review,5.html

4.5 GHz @ 1.460 Vcore


----------



## c64ocuk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TPCbench*
> 
> I think this is the first review site who got a bad OC chip like mine
> http://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/intel_pentium_k_anniversary_g3258_review,5.html
> 
> 4.5 GHz @ 1.460 Vcore


Not meaning to patronise or appear nerdy but are you overlcocking that chip correctly ? try default uncore 32x or 33x and auto uncore voltage and use manual cpu vcore voltage only with all power saving states off and 2.0-2.1 VCCIN when you stress test


----------



## DrFPS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *c64ocuk*
> 
> Not meaning to patronise or appear nerdy but are you overlcocking that chip correctly ? try default uncore 32x or 33x and auto uncore voltage and use manual cpu vcore voltage only with all power saving states off and 2.0-2.1 VCCIN when you stress test


LOOK at the DATE, its almost a year old.


----------



## jamtin

cpu core voltage was manual 1.46V and the cache/ring ratio was 1.185 (more ring voltage doesn't help at all).

 I got this processor last week and have been gradually burning it in. For the moment I've left the cpu core voltage set to auto, the cache 1.185 (i never have to change this) and the multiplier to 47 with speedstep enabled. Using Noctua NH-L9i to cool the cpu atm

More testing... (i got an x41 aio too, i'll get to that)

** Edit - Processor is currently @ 47x101 with 1.396V still air cooled. In the process of fine tuning...


----------



## jamtin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jamtin*
> 
> cpu core voltage was manual 1.46V and the cache/ring ratio was 1.185 (more ring voltage doesn't help at all).


I increased the CPU Cache ratio to 45 with an offset voltage of .368.


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Locked please continue the discussion here
http://www.overclock.net/t/1500524/intel-pentium-g3258-performance-and-owners-club-now-with-gtx-970/0_100


----------

