[Eurogamer] Budget dual core gaming in 2015 w/ G3258

[Yuriman]

i3's are the worst deals in the intel line-up. Budget gamers should just get a used i5-2500k.

As long as you don't consider platform, yeah. There isn't much availability of nice ITX motherboards with integrated WiFi on 1155. You're also getting close to stock 2500K performance at considerably less power consumption. I bet you could run a 270 + i3 on a 250w PSU. For my wife's computer, I wouldn't overclock either so an i3 makes more sense.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Probably the only time I will ever recommend AMD for gaming, but I think vs the pentium, I would choose an Athlon X4 or even FX6300 for the sub hundred dollar category. (Not sure of the price of the FX6300, but I know you can get a really cheap price plus a mb combo deal at microcenter). You give up performance in single threaded games, but probably still good enough, and have more flexibility for current and upcoming well threaded games.

I really hate these build articles that set a hard limit on price though. Granted you have to stop somewhere, but especially in this low price category, you can get a *lot* more performance by being a bit flexible with the budget. I especially hate the argument "buy a super cheap cpu and invest more in the gpu." Or "buy an APU because I cant afford a discrete card". Well, you are going to have to live with that system for a few years. Is it really worth it to save 40 or 50 dollars and have subpar performance for that length of time? Just wait a bit or cut some other expense somehow, and get at least an i3 or locked i5. A used i5 is also attractive, but unless I knew and trusted the seller, I am reluctant to by used hardware.

 

[cbn]

A someone else said, it seems like a fundamental flaw to lower the resolution instead of image quality in cpu demanding games. Such a test also begs for comparison with the athlon X4. It would have been nice to have a graph or chart showing ave fps and either minimums or frametimes as well.

That is the conventional wisdom, but i think with some of the newer games, lowering image quality supposedly leads to smoother gameplay (less hitching and stuttering) although not necessarily higher ave fps.

Regarding stuttering and smoothness, when Tom's tested OC G3258 vs. OC Athlon x4 750K the Pentium appeared to win in frame time variance 4 out of 7 games:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37175841&postcount=65

 

[cbn]

Probably the only time I will ever recommend AMD for gaming, but I think vs the pentium, I would choose an Athlon X4 or even FX6300 for the sub hundred dollar category.

I think the FX-6300 would be a much better choice for a budget gamer CPU than Athlon x 4 860K:

 

[cbn]

 

[SPBHM]

the video clearly shows that the i3 is a far better choice considering the total price of the computer, once Ryse Son of Rome starts it's clear that some games simply cannot work well with 2 threads.

but it's good to see such a basic CPU and modestly priced graphics card being able to keep up with the PS4.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

but it's good to see such a basic CPU and modestly priced graphics card being able to keep up with the PS4.

says more about the ps4

 

[lyssword]

the video clearly shows that the i3 is a far better choice considering the total price of the computer, once Ryse Son of Rome starts it's clear that some games simply cannot work well with 2 threads.

but it's good to see such a basic CPU and modestly priced graphics card being able to keep up with the PS4.

I don't know wtf is up with ryse son of rome, I'm very surprised, as I have g3258@4.6 and I don't think it ever stuttered like that or even close to it when I played ryse, it was very smooth. But I have r270, and they tested with 750 ti, maybe its nvidia driver? Amd cards seem to be better.

 

[cbn]

I don't know wtf is up with ryse son of rome, I'm very surprised, as I have g3258@4.6 and I don't think it ever stuttered like that or even close to it when I played ryse, it was very smooth. But I have r270, and they tested with 750 ti, maybe its nvidia driver? Amd cards seem to be better.

Ryse Son of Rome is a Microsoft studios title developed around Xbox One's GCN architecture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryse:_Son_of_Rome

So I would think it run better on AMD cards.

 

[Leyawiin]

I bought the WoW Warlords of Draenor expansion last fall and decided on a whim to assemble a PC using a G3258. Got it to 4.5 Ghz and out of curiosity paired it with the GTX 780 from my main PC. It was a stuttering mess on Ultra with 8X MSAA in many of the expansion's zones compared to an i5-4690k at stock with that same GPU. Even in Skyrim it would have these strong stutters where it would drop 10-15 FPS running between Riverwood and Whiterun. It didn't do it at all with the i5. These two games are hardly cutting edge and while they'll run OK on the Pentium they're much better on an i5. Yeah, I don't see how anyone could recommend it even for older games.

 

[tential]

The sad thing is is that even with the MASSIVE amount of people who probably bought this processor even for fun, we needed this long for an article to come out telling us what we already know rather than people regurgitating that this is a great budget processor without thinking of anything going on today.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

We're at the point that quad cores are highly recommended and quad-threaded CPUs are the absolute minimum. In the games I play most (NBA 2K15, Flight SIM X, SC2) the first two often use all 8 threads on my CPU to the fullest extent, a ~90% single-process load at times. If I had these settings going on any dual core it'd be a choke fest.

Starcraft 2 is the only game I'd ever consider a dual core for. It uses many cores during loading but only two threads for/during gaming. It does however love cache/memory speed during custom games like Bunker Wars X (down to 5fps on my desktop, 1 fps on my laptop).

 

[cbn]

We're at the point that quad cores are highly recommended

A person still needs to weed out the slow quad cores to make that recommendation work.

 

[cbn]

The sad thing is is that even with the MASSIVE amount of people who probably bought this processor even for fun, we needed this long for an article to come out telling us what we already know rather than people regurgitating that this is a great budget processor without thinking of anything going on today.

I only wish Eurogamer would have used an AMD card with OC G3258. (re: If comparing to console at least have GCN on the PC as well. Also, it seems for whatever reason a lot of complaints about stuttering with G3258 seem to come from Nvidia owners.)

 

[Dice144]

I own both a 4770k (main rig) and a G3258. The dual core chokes on some newer games randomly like Dragon Age Inquisition.

Even Starcraft 2 and trying to play a youtube video on a second monitor has issues.

 

[Dice144]

I only wish Eurogamer would have used an AMD card with OC G3258. (re: If comparing to console at least have GCN on the PC as well. Also, it seems for whatever reason a lot of complaints about stuttering with G3258 seem to come from Nvidia owners.)

My G3258 is paired with an overpowered water cooled 290x. It still stutters in Titanfall, Dragon Age and Starcraft 2 won't allow youtube going at same time.

 

[cbn]

I only wish Eurogamer would have used an AMD card with OC G3258. (re: If comparing to console at least have GCN on the PC as well. Also, it seems for whatever reason a lot of complaints about stuttering with G3258 seem to come from Nvidia owners.)

My G3258 is paired with an overpowered water cooled 290x. It still stutters in Titanfall, Dragon Age and Starcraft 2 won't allow youtube going at same time.

If Eurogamer were to test OC G3258 with an AMD card, I'm thinking maybe something like a R7 260X maximum.

That watercooled R9 290X (while an AMD card) is something that might cause draw call problems for a modest CPU if the detail settings are dialed up to increase GPU utilization.

 

[Dice144]

You would think clocked over 4 Ghz it would be fine thought. Starcraft 2 is pretty old now and it destroys the CPU if you try to do any type of background tasks. IE Youtube music videos on a second screen.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

A person still needs to weed out the slow quad cores to make that recommendation work.

Any Phenom 2 X4/Qx94xx or better, clearly!

 

[escrow4]

GTA V has been made for the single-threaded 360, and it's not that great of a re-master on the PS4. Just as a the Pentium stuggles to run games written for 6 threads, getting old single-thread games to run on a slow multi threaded 8-core console appears to be difficult. The new generation of consoles does not only not get many new big games, even the old re-masters are rather hitchy and terrible according to reviews.

Other that from Ubisoft, who always try to be first on a platform with their often half-baked assembly-line games. There aren't all that many demanding titles out there, not to mention free-to-play gradually sullying and destroying the market. My guess/hope is that developers allocated their efforts into VR games.

On the contrary PCGamer in their Rockstar interview clearly specified that those who worked on MP3 worked on GTA V and from the beginning were targeting DX 11 and 64-bit. Plus they downscaled high res assets for console. Given all that, would you really say that V won't be very well threaded?

Also if you are targeting console settings and lowering res and can only afford a Pentium buy a console. You really want an i5 for longevity which then leads into a half decent PSU (not some included case cheapo throwaway) which then leads into a decent case with decent cooling which then leads into spending a touch more on the mobo than a H81 since you are buying parts to last which then leads into . . . .

 

[cbn]

Any Phenom 2 X4/Qx94xx or better, clearly!

I don't think there is G3258 vs Core 2 quad direct comparison at any of the review sites. The closest thing I can find is the following review (comparing 2.9 Ghz Ivy Bridge Pentium to Q9550):

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-20.html

Here was the composite gaming comparison:

And here are the Crysis 3 results (which favor multithreading) from the above review:

Core 2 quad (even the Q9550 which is one of the better Core 2 quads due to the 12MB cache) is showing its age and is not that much faster than a stock clocked Ivy Bridge Pentium. So do these older processors really make the cut for quad core recommendations?

P.S. Based on my own personal experience with a stock clocked Xeon E5440 (identical clocks and cache to Q9550) and OC G3258 in Crysis 3, I would think a Core 2 quad would have to be overclocked to a pretty high level to even approach a OC G3258.

 

[cbn]

Also if you are targeting console settings and lowering res and can only afford a Pentium buy a console.

But then the person would miss all the advantages of having PC hardware for gaming. (Example: mods like this Skyrim total conversion I am waiting for ---> http://www.pcgamer.com/skyrim-enderal-the-shards-of-order-mod/ )

P.S. If comparing G3258 to a console I actually think the Xbox One would have been a better target.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I thought they would, specifically the 12MB L2 variants. They also overclock on most boards to 430FSB with ease, so I'd expect it to be overclocked this late in the game.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I think the FX-6300 would be a much better choice for a budget gamer CPU than Athlon x 4 860K:

Depends on the budget. An 860k can get to or near 4.5 pretty frequently with the stock cooler. If you aren't particular about pushing past 4.5, you can even get there on some of the "cheap" boards (read: something other than the Asus A88x-Pro or Crossblade Ranger).

Getting an FX-6300 to 4.7 ghz is going to be technically more difficult and require some decent-to-good aftermarket cooling. It'll also affect your board choice. The low-price 4+1 boards out there will (mostly) not cut it. On top of that, the 6300 is ~$20 more expensive than the 860k.

 

[cbn]

Getting an FX-6300 to 4.7 ghz is going to be technically more difficult and require some decent-to-good aftermarket cooling. It'll also affect your board choice. The low-price 4+1 boards out there will (mostly) not cut it. On top of that, the 6300 is ~$20 more expensive than the 860k.

Look at the margin of victory in those results though:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37011310&postcount=8

I've been noticing about $10 difference between FX-6300 and Athlon x4 860K at both the regular price level ($99.99 for FX 6300 and $89.99 for Athlon x4 860K) and the sale price level ($79.99 for FX-6300 and $69.99 for Athlon x4 860K).

But is going for the Athlon x4 860K really worth saving the $10 (on average)?

Based on these overclocked results:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36998949&postcount=10
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36998951&postcount=11

(Athlon x4 860K just barely wins 1 game out of 15)

And these stock clocked results:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37003724&postcount=18
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37003725&postcount=19

(Athlon x4 860K only wins 3 games out of 15 and by a margin of only a few percent.)

I am thinking definitely no.

P.S. When the FX-6300 beats the Athlon x4 860K in those charts, the margin is often much bigger than a few percent. In some cases it is 10's of percent (with the BF 4 MP results being 55% or greater FPS for FX-6300 over Athlon x4 860K)

So based on that I would think a lower overclock would be plenty for the FX-6300 to prevail over the 4.5 Ghz Athlon x 4 860K. And knowing about how these construction cores scale with frequency/voltage I am sure the cooling requirements would drop quite a bit on the overclocked FX-6300 without losing much frequency.

P.S. The price difference might have returned to $20 since I wrote that.