G3258 @ 4.0 is a powerhouse for web browsing.

Aug 25, 2001
42,938
373
126
#1
I had been using my Q9300 (at stock, 2.5Ghz) with 8GB DDR2-800, an R7 250X 2GB DDR3, and variously, a Silicon Power 240GB SSD with Windows 7, and a Vertex 2 50GB SSD with Linux Mint 17.3 Cinnamon beta.

I re-formatted and mothballed that rig, and swapped in my G3258 @ 4.0Ghz rig, with a 240GB Crucial M500 SSD with Windows 7, and a 7950 3GB GDDR5 card.

Even with running F@H in the background, at 55% CPU load, and 98% GPU load, the G3258 web browses speedily and effortlessly.

The Q9300 w/R7 250X was sluggish in comparison, though some of that could have been the SSDs, since that platform (P35) only supports SATA2.

I guess, even with the load placed on it, that a 4.0Ghz Haswell core, is worlds faster than a 2.5Ghz Core2 core.

So if you want a speedy web-browsing box, pick up a G3258 combo, and a decent MLC SATA6G SSD, and install Windows 7. You won't be disappointed.
 

Leyawiin

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2008
3,191
1
91
#2
One of my secondary PCs has a G3258 @4.5 Ghz. I was totally happy with it for mostly RPG and MMO gaming until I got Fallout 4. Kind of chokes and stutters on that in many spots.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2015
152
0
36
www.adamantine.me
#3
Nice, I'm a fan of the G3258. I started noticing it after I bought an i5 though, oh well. Seems like it would be cool to do a mATX build with and fool around with overclocking.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,370
191
126
#4
My G3258 system, at 4.6 or so, was the fastest, snappiest, and smoothest general browsing and office work computer I had ever owned.

Only my 4790K felt about the same.
 
Apr 22, 2012
20,395
0
106
#5
SSD on SATA2 or SATA6 doesn't have any effect for you.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
4,762
27
106
#6
SSD on SATA2 or SATA6 doesn't have any effect for you.
yes I think the 250-300MB/s limit is not relevant for this..

the speed difference from Core 2 2.5GHz to Haswell 4GHz is supposed to be huge, and web browsing is not going to scale with 4 threads like video conversion,
 

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
14,264
254
55
#7
What browser? Firefox? That would not surprise me at all. Chrome? That would surprise me a little. (IE on Linux Mint would surprise me very much. :p)
 
Aug 25, 2001
42,938
373
126
#8
What browser? Firefox? That would not surprise me at all. Chrome? That would surprise me a little. (IE on Linux Mint would surprise me very much. :p)
Yes. Newest version of Waterfox (64-bit Firefox) on Windows 7 64-bit, and Firefox 64-bit on Linux Mint.
 

tenpole

Senior member
Aug 21, 2013
265
0
81
#9
Still more than happy with my G3258 build in February despite the nay sayers claiming only an i3 is the minimum. No thanks guys, bought my G3258 and mobo for same price as an i3.
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
6,067
146
126
#10
Yes. Newest version of Waterfox (64-bit Firefox) on Windows 7 64-bit, and Firefox 64-bit on Linux Mint.
I haven't actually tested it myself, but I believe Chrome's renderer and layout engine is very multithreaded now. Firefox not so much. The Javascript engine is still single threaded for the most part though.
 

crashtech

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2013
8,825
58
126
#11
The thing about 2C/2T CPUs these days is that if an errant process comes along and starts hogging up a core, all that snappy feeling goes right out the window. So this setup is for users that run a "tight ship," so to speak.
 
Aug 25, 2001
42,938
373
126
#12
The thing about 2C/2T CPUs these days is that if an errant process comes along and starts hogging up a core, all that snappy feeling goes right out the window. So this setup is for users that run a "tight ship," so to speak.
Not true. See my OP, I was and am running Folding@Home at full strength. That's what struck me as so amazing. The G3258, even with 1.2 cores fully loaded, is much snappier than a 2.5Ghz C2Q running unloaded.
 

crashtech

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2013
8,825
58
126
#13
Not true. See my OP, I was and am running Folding@Home at full strength. That's what struck me as so amazing. The G3258, even with 1.2 cores fully loaded, is much snappier than a 2.5Ghz C2Q running unloaded.
With all due respect, F@H is a well-behaved process that puts itself at low priority. Not all software users will install will exhibit such benign behavior.
 

aaksheytalwar

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2012
3,389
0
76
#14
What I have been saying since ages. In exactly the same way a i5 750 will probably be sluggish compared to a i3 6100/6300. Or something along the same lines.

Anything less than a 3770k/4690k is dated, especially for gaming. The minimum acceptable today is i5 2500k OC.
 

TeknoBug

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2013
2,078
0
91
#15
It came to my surprise that the X7 Z8700 is also a beast for web browsing.

Anything less than a 3770k/4690k is dated, especially for gaming. The minimum acceptable today is i5 2500k OC.
ugh... *stays silent*
 

escrow4

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2013
3,321
6
106
#16
Still more than happy with my G3258 build in February despite the nay sayers claiming only an i3 is the minimum. No thanks guys, bought my G3258 and mobo for same price as an i3.
It is. The 4170 I have here runs @ 3.7GHz flat out when needed with 2 hyperthreaded cores providing that extra bit of grunt. Even my phones are quad core. A dual is meh.
 

Magic Carpet

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2011
3,107
0
81
#17
The thing about 2C/2T CPUs these days is that if an errant process comes along and starts hogging up a core, all that snappy feeling goes right out the window. So this setup is for users that run a "tight ship," so to speak.
Agreed. Same story all over again (Core 2 Duo versus Core 2 Quad). But yeah, 2 modern cores might equal or surpass 4 older cores in MT. Still, I'd pick a modern i3 these days over anything dual-core.
 
Last edited:

Zodiark1593

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2012
2,232
0
76
#18
Agreed. Same story all over again (Core 2 Duo versus Core 2 Quad). But yeah, 2 modern cores might equal or surpass 4 older cores in MT. Still, I'd pick a modern i3 these days over anything dual-core.
An i3 is dual core...
 

crashtech

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2013
8,825
58
126
#20
Increased parallelism in each generation has made notable improvements to HT, today's i3s are formidable as far as dual cores go.



 
Last edited:
Aug 25, 2001
42,938
373
126
#21
Increased parallelism in each generation has made notable improvements to HT, today's i3s are formidable as far as dual cores go.
Very nice improvements indeed, but I still think that a G3258 @ 4.0Ghz (or higher, most likely higher), is still going to give more "snap" to web browsing, in Firefox and derivatives, than a 3.7Ghz SKL i3. (Of course, the SKL i3 will likely win hands-down in gaming.)

Price-wise, though, it's no contest. The G3258 CPU + mobo combo for under $100 wins easily, when budget is concerned.
 

crashtech

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2013
8,825
58
126
#22
Very nice improvements indeed, but I still think that a G3258 @ 4.0Ghz (or higher, most likely higher), is still going to give more "snap" to web browsing, in Firefox and derivatives, than a 3.7Ghz SKL i3. (Of course, the SKL i3 will likely win hands-down in gaming.)

Price-wise, though, it's no contest. The G3258 CPU + mobo combo for under $100 wins easily, when budget is concerned.
You are right! The unlocked Pentium was and is a very compelling solution for single thread dominance on the cheap. It comes with some caveats, though, as the demands of modern OSes and software increase.
 
Aug 25, 2001
42,938
373
126
#23
We really wouldn't even be having this debate, if Intel released an unlocked i3 CPU.
 

crashtech

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2013
8,825
58
126
#24
That would be a lot of fun, for sure, but it would really make the i5-6400 look like the turd it is, and they'd have to speed bump the entire i5 line.
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS