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

[jji7skyline]

Is it true that the Athlon x4 860K has a better clock-for-clock performance than the latest AMD FX series CPUs? (FX4300, FX6300, FX8350, etc).

For example, is one Athlon x4 860K core at 4Ghz faster than one FX6300 core at 4Ghz?

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Is it true that the Athlon x4 860K has a better clock-for-clock performance than the latest AMD FX series CPUs? (FX4300, FX6300, FX8350, etc).

For example, is one Athlon x4 860K core at 4Ghz faster than one FX6300 core at 4Ghz?

Doesn't look like it if you look at the tests on the previous page, the 6300 has 8MB cache, might help a bit with clock/clock performance.

 

[know of fence]

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?

With Battlefield (3?) we've seen a DX 11 game that was released on the 360, so it's possible. I don't think it's quite the same as as games developed for the current generation with a specific thread count, but I guess we'll see tomorrow.[And it turned out you were right.]

 

[SlowSpyder]

Is it true that the Athlon x4 860K has a better clock-for-clock performance than the latest AMD FX series CPUs? (FX4300, FX6300, FX8350, etc).

For example, is one Athlon x4 860K core at 4Ghz faster than one FX6300 core at 4Ghz?

I think it is really close, at least in games. I've seen an FX 4350 and x4 860K at the same clockspeed, if I remember correctly the FX was a few percent faster (my guess is the L3 cache helping out). Not enough difference to make any practical change in game play, but worth noting none the less. I'd get the three module FX, personally.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

Dual core is dead. Time for an unlocked tri-core. Hmmm where do I remember this from... oh yeah 2009 called they want their Phenoms back.

 

[DrMrLordX]

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

It has. The 6300 is also going to stop winning benchmarks so convincingly once you step it back to 4.5 ghz or lower. Then throw in games like Starcraft 2, Homeworld: Remastered, and Skyrim that are not exactly optimized for multicore scenarios, and the benefit of having an extra module starts to fall off. You really need to keep that clockspeed up there with a Vishera to clearly win at everything, and that costs extra money.

On an 860k, you stand to save money on the chip, board, cooling, and potentially PSU if you're really being a cheapskate. It's not my go-to choice for a budget build, but if you're on a G3258-level shoestring budget, it is probably better to compare the AA Pentium to the 860k. The 6300 is not something I'd really want to OC by much on the stock HSF.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

FWIW Starcraft 2 now uses many cores during load times and up to two full threads during gameplay. It's an appreciated change from when the game came out and ran solely on one core.

Why an RTS wouldn't use many cores during gameplay is beyond me though.

 

[DrMrLordX]

At least they've got support for more than two threads when loading content. It's still not going to perform better on a hex or octocore chip than it is a quad during actual gameplay.

 

[cbn]

The 6300 is also going to stop winning benchmarks so convincingly once you step it back to 4.5 ghz or lower.

Looking at the stock clocked results that were linked back in post #50, A 3.7 GHz/4.0 Ghz turbo Athlon x4 860 only wins 3 games out of 15 (and only by a margin of a few percent) vs. the 3.5 Ghz/4.1 Ghz FX-6300.

If both processors were clocked at 4.5 Ghz I would expect around the same margin of victory for FX-6300.

In fact, there were even games where a stock clocked FX-6300 beats the 4.5 Ghz Athlon x4 860K.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I doubt there are many games where a stock 6300 is going to beat a 4.5 ghz 860k. Maybe on something that makes use of more than 4 cores. My guess is that your average 6300 is going to hit 4.1 ghz stable with the stock hsf and a bargain-basement board in most cases, whereas the 860k will hit 4.3-4.5 ghz on its stock hsf with similarly-priced board on average. Given the two, I'd prefer the 860k overall, since it would still come out a wee bit cheaper and would work quite well on discount (read: f2p or old/discounted) video games that a bargain shopper would want to play.

 

[cbn]

My guess is that your average 6300 is going to hit 4.1 ghz stable with the stock hsf and a bargain-basement board in most cases, whereas the 860k will hit 4.3-4.5 ghz on its stock hsf with similarly-priced board on average.

200 MHz faster would not be enough to allow Athlon x4 860K to pull significantly ahead of a 4.1 Ghz FX-6300. And then there are popular games like Crysis 3 (Welcome to the Jungle level), Far Cry 3 and Battlefield 4 MP where even a stock clocked FX-6300 will be ahead of a max air overclocked (aftermarket cooled) Athlon x4 860K.

Given the two, I'd prefer the 860k overall, since it would still come out a wee bit cheaper and would work quite well on discount (read: f2p or old/discounted) video games that a bargain shopper would want to play.

For F2P or old discounted games, Pentium G3258 would be the best choice because it already has a iGPU and is even cheaper than Athlon x4 860K.

 

[Erenhardt]

I have 6300. I somethimes put affinity on games to lock it on 4 threads.

Most of the time there is no difference between ruuning games on 4 threads and 6 threads.
Sometimes disabling every other thread (3Module, 3 Thread) doesn't impact framerates.
Sometimes games seem to run better when locked to 4 threads, instead of 6 .

I've done this by setting task affinity, so real world 3 or 4 thread CPU may have lower results, as is doesn't have free threads to process all the background stuff.

I find that games which don't use many threads will run good on any cpu. The games that use multiple threads are done so, because those need it. Multicore CPU is required in those games.

 

[know of fence]

So some early benchmarks of Grand Theft Auto were posted in Video Cards and Graphics.
Even though FPS testing is a really misleading benchmark, seeing minimal framerates well below 20 is a clear indication of massive CPU constraints. And there is a significant performance gap between 2/4 and 4/4 CPUs.

I guess GTA V is one of those titles the G3258 owners will have to pick up at a later date, when they upgraded to Broadwell-K or when it's on sale for 9.99.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

A Phenom 2 quad is absolutely better than a Haswell dual core, even with the overclock. I'd like to see a C2Q on that list to be honest.

 

[jji7skyline]

A Phenom 2 quad is absolutely better than a Haswell dual core, even with the overclock. I'd like to see a C2Q on that list to be honest.

An interesting comparison article.

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

 

[sm625]

This article misses the mark because the G3258 is cheaper yet they did not plow that $50 savings into the next highest GPU. They just kept the same 750. They should have paired the i3 with the 750 and the G3258 with the R9 285. Same total cost. If you do that then the overall FPS of the G3258 system would be higher. For games like GTA V you have to find the settings that affect CPU usage. I seriously doubt the game would still be unplayable with lowered settigns.

 

[jji7skyline]

This article misses the mark because the G3258 is cheaper yet they did not plow that $50 savings into the next highest GPU. They just kept the same 750. They should have paired the i3 with the 750 and the G3258 with the R9 285. Same total cost. If you do that then the overall FPS of the G3258 system would be higher.

This would be more realistic, but would not result in an apples to apples test, which is probably what most buyers will be looking for when making a decision between two processors.

 

[NTMBK]

This article misses the mark because the G3258 is cheaper yet they did not plow that $50 savings into the next highest GPU. They just kept the same 750. They should have paired the i3 with the 750 and the G3258 with the R9 285. Same total cost. If you do that then the overall FPS of the G3258 system would be higher. For games like GTA V you have to find the settings that affect CPU usage. I seriously doubt the game would still be unplayable with lowered settigns.

The Pentium was getting minimum frame rates of 8FPS when paired with a 970... increasing the GPU isn't going to make a blind bit of difference, it's horribly CPU bottlenecked.

 

[frozentundra123456]

A Phenom 2 quad is absolutely better than a Haswell dual core, even with the overclock. I'd like to see a C2Q on that list to be honest.

That would definitely depend on the game. In games that use only one or two cores, a 3258 with a mild overclock to around 4gz would destroy a stock phenom 2 or C2Q. For newer highly threaded games, the pentium would be a stuttering mess, although the average framerate might still be acceptable.

If you want to play the latest games, though, I think you need a better cpu than either the 3258 or an old quad.

And people still keep using dual core erroneously in this thread. An i3 is in fact a dual core and is quite decent for GTA V, in fact very similar the highly overclocked AMD "8 core" although still losing to Intel haswell quads.

 

[Gikaseixas]

In games that use only one or two cores

Ancient games bro. Quad are overall better cpus.
Also the i3 is a dual but has HT and more cache compared to the pentium.

i3 > Phenom 2 > Pentium

 

[Yuriman]

In the case of GTA V, which runs terribly on the Pentium (with minimums that put it effectively at the bottom of the chart), an i3 is neck-and-neck with the FX-9590. An i3 is not simply a dual core.

In fact, based on the numbers, I'd say it's as much not a dual core as an FX-4300 is not a dual core.

 

[Magic Carpet]

A Phenom 2 quad is absolutely better than a Haswell dual core, even with the overclock. I'd like to see a C2Q on that list to be honest.

If you get lucky with the chip and the board, Phenom 2 can put up a fight, once overclocked. No idea how much power converts to heat, though

Source.

 

[Gikaseixas]

yeah i3 are decent for games, nothing wrong with them
Defending Pentium is a bit 2010

 

[cbn]

So some early benchmarks of Grand Theft Auto were posted in Video Cards and Graphics.
Even though FPS testing is a really misleading benchmark, seeing minimal framerates well below 20 is a clear indication of massive CPU constraints. And there is a significant performance gap between 2/4 and 4/4 CPUs.

I guess GTA V is one of those titles the G3258 owners will have to pick up at a later date, when they upgraded to Broadwell-K or when it's on sale for 9.99.

From the review:

http://translate.googleusercontent....0.html&usg=ALkJrhjOtuilh51RU2zdiIVNbTUqVoZDvg

4. If your computer is equipped with a 2-core processor and 2-thread (not include. Core i3 units, which are 4-weft) GTA V is the highest settings enabled stutters very much - in fact, it is difficult to talk about any meaningful playing. A little later, check to see whether the reduction of detail graphic design will improve the situation.

I also hope they check with AMD cards (re: As I have mentioned earlier in the thread a lot of folks have complained about Nvidia with G3258. I have noticed a significant difference myself using both R7 250X and 660 GTX with G3258, although the number of games I have played with both cards is limited to just BF4 and Crysis 3.)

 

[cbn]

In games that use only one or two cores, a 3258 with a mild overclock to around 4gz would destroy a stock phenom 2 or C2Q.

My Overclocked G3258 is much faster than my stock speed Xeon E5440 (Q9550 clocks and cache) even in multi-threaded games like Battlefield 4 64 player and Crysis 3 "Welcome to the Jungle Level".

In fact, I think a 4.5 Ghz G3258 even has better multi-thread than a 3.6 Ghz Q6600.