I3 over g3258

[john925]

if you build a gaming pc the proper way then all you will have to upgrade is the gpu at some time. as I already mentioned, a cpu can easily be kept for 4 years or more as cpu progress is quite slow. plus it is a heck of a lot more trouble to upgrade the cpu. you seem to buy demanding AAA games at launch for which to me is illogical if you dont even have the money to have a proper cpu to run them. if you dont have the funds for a system to run those games properly then common sense would dictate waiting until they are cheap and then the money you save doing that on just few games would get you the pc that you need. I see so many people on Steam that spend nearly 1000 bucks or more on games every year yet dont have a system that can run those games very well.

Yeah but 60 dollars and 200-300 are pretty big differences. Plus the only day one game I have is fallout 4. And that one isn't giving me issues. Hell the other ones aren't really giving me issues either, it's just every once in a while it'll stop for about 2 or 3 seconds and my cpu usage jumps to 100%. Other than that they all run pretty smoothly. And again, for the third time, I'm not complaining. I'm just looking for a little insight and opinions so I have it narrowed down for when I do upgrade. Plus I enjoy talking about this stuff so this is the perfect place.

 

[john925]

Might want to look at the E3 1231 V3 when you shop.

Yeah I brought that up on another post a while back. It's around the same price as an i5 if I'm not mistaken. The only downside is its not unlocked. I don't remember too much about it. I know everyone forgets about the xeon cpu's.

 

[Yuriman]

I'd strongly consider a Haswell Xeon. They're cheaper than an i7, often still significantly faster than an overclocked i5 due to the extra threads, and don't require the more expensive Z-series motherboards. I'm not sure what board you ended up with, but an unlocked i5 or i7 won't do you a lot of good if you're rocking a B- or H- series chipset.

 

[john925]

I'd strongly consider a Haswell Xeon. They're cheaper than an i7, often still significantly faster than an overclocked i5 due to the extra threads, and don't require the more expensive Z-series motherboards. I'm not sure what board you ended up with, but an unlocked i5 or i7 won't do you a lot of good if you're rocking a B- or H- series chipset.

Yeah if I get a quad core I won't be looking much into overclocking it. I have an h81 motherboard. It's not a gaming motherboard but it's been holding up so far.

 

[VirtualLarry]

it's just every once in a while it'll stop for about 2 or 3 seconds and my cpu usage jumps to 100%. Other than that they all run pretty smoothly.

That doesn't sound like stuttering, that sounds like a full-on freeze. Which could be caused by I/O timeouts.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Was just playing FO4 tonite. I have a quad core, so the cpu doesnt seem to be a problem, but it sure does hammer the hard drive (dont have an SSD). I was getting fairly long periods of 100% hard disk usage even during gameplay, not just loading screens or new areas. I was also getting a lot of stuttering, but turning off god rays completely and turning down a few other settings seems to have solved the problem. I have a pretty low end AMD gpu.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah I brought that up on another post a while back. It's around the same price as an i5 if I'm not mistaken. The only downside is its not unlocked. I don't remember too much about it. I know everyone forgets about the xeon cpu's.

It's not unlocked, but my Z-97A board runs all the cores at 3.8ghz under heavy loads.

Just set the multiplier to 38 and that's it. It's a 3.8ghz cpu.

Runs cool, too.

 

[boozzer]

newegg just had a sale for a 4790k @ 250$. people really should look for deals, especially the weeks leading up to BF.

 

[LTC8K6]

newegg just had a sale for a 4790k @ 250$. people really should look for deals, especially the weeks leading up to BF.

Yes, but the 4790K is temperamental.

 

[john925]

Yeah but $250 isn't bad. I may just play with a few auctions and see if I can get a good deal for the time being.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

well your "budget" does not allow you to meet your wants and needs. I just dont get the half ass approach to cpus some people make. you can keep a proper cpu for 4 years or more so either pony up and buy a proper cpu or dont bother. cutting corners just means a bad experience in some games and more cost and aggravation in the end when you finally wise up and get a cpu that you should have bought in the first place.

+1
The bottom line is simple. You want to play the newest multithreaded games with an enjoyable experience, well -- an i5 is the cost of admission. Dual cores are great for older games, but now that many PC games are being ported from 8 core game consoles..... 2 cores just ain't enough.

 

[Yuriman]

+1
The bottom line is simple. You want to play the newest multithreaded games with an enjoyable experience, well -- an i5 is the cost of admission. Dual cores are great for older games, but now that many PC games are being ported from 8 core game consoles..... 2 cores just ain't enough.

AMD's lowest-end quads aren't generally any better though. It's more a lack of CPU horsepower in general, I think.

 

[john925]

AMD's lowest-end quads aren't generally any better though. It's more a lack of CPU horsepower in general, I think.

Yeah a dual core Intel is generally more powerful than a low end quad core AMD, granted AMD tends to be like half the price of Intel's equivalent. I've also seen that the Jaguar 8-core is pretty low end as well and was intended for mobile platforms and things like that. Just an article I read recently.

 

[Yuriman]

Yeah a dual core Intel is generally more powerful than a low end quad core AMD, granted AMD tends to be like half the price of Intel's equivalent. I've also seen that the Jaguar 8-core is pretty low end as well and was intended for mobile platforms and things like that. Just an article I read recently.

Something like that, yeah. Jaguar is similar to Intel's Atom. They come in at clockspeeds <2ghz, focus on low TDP and high efficiency, are generally between $20 and $50 per CPU, and are often found in things like tablets and low-end AIO PCs. Performance of Atom and Jaguar/Kabini quads is usually considerably lower than "big core" dual cores.

They're neat little CPUs, are an excellent fit for low-power servers and some HTPC machines, but you wouldn't want to use one as a desktop computer.

 

[john925]

Something like that, yeah. Jaguar is similar to Intel's Atom. They come in at clockspeeds <2ghz, focus on low TDP and high efficiency, are generally between $20 and $50 per CPU, and are often found in things like tablets and low-end AIO PCs. Performance of Atom and Jaguar/Kabini quads is usually considerably lower than "big core" dual cores.

They're neat little CPUs, are an excellent fit for low-power servers and some HTPC machines, but you wouldn't want to use one as a desktop computer.

Wouldn't want one in a console either. They had some issues with a few games that they had to dial back because they couldn't handle it. I'd go for an AMD 6 or 8 core but I don't want to have to swap out my motherboard too.

 

[Yuriman]

Wouldn't want one in a console either. They had some issues with a few games that they had to dial back because they couldn't handle it. I'd go for an AMD 6 or 8 core but I don't want to have to swap out my motherboard too.

If buying new, I probably wouldn't put anything but an i3 or i7 in a PC, budget permitting of course. i3 for a low-requirements machine (e.g. for my father), and i7 in a high demands machine (e.g. for myself). Those who bought the first-gen i7's back in late 2008 are really only recently starting to feel pressure to upgrade, while those who bought lower-end CPUs may have had to replace their entire platform 2 or 3 times within that period.

AMD's CPUs are still doing OK today (nearly 4 years later), but due to poor single-threaded performance, their longevity isn't as good as some might have hoped; They're holding out about as well as Nehalem. I wouldn't buy a 4 year old CPU architecture for a new computer.

 

[john925]

If buying new, I probably wouldn't put anything but an i3 or i7 in a PC, budget permitting of course. i3 for a low-requirements machine (e.g. for my father), and i7 in a high demands machine (e.g. for myself). Those who bought the first-gen i7's back in late 2008 are really only recently starting to feel pressure to upgrade, while those who bought lower-end CPUs may have had to replace their entire platform 2 or 3 times within that period.

AMD's CPUs are still doing OK today (nearly 4 years later), but due to poor single-threaded performance, their longevity isn't as good as some might have hoped; They're holding out about as well as Nehalem. I wouldn't buy a 4 year old CPU architecture for a new computer.

I've seen some fairly priced 1st Gen i7's but I don't think they were 1150 socket. Why wouldn't you get a 3rd or 4th Gen i5? That's what I'm looking at given the prices.

 

[escrow4]

Yeah but 60 dollars and 200-300 are pretty big differences. Plus the only day one game I have is fallout 4. And that one isn't giving me issues. Hell the other ones aren't really giving me issues either, it's just every once in a while it'll stop for about 2 or 3 seconds and my cpu usage jumps to 100%. Other than that they all run pretty smoothly. And again, for the third time, I'm not complaining. I'm just looking for a little insight and opinions so I have it narrowed down for when I do upgrade. Plus I enjoy talking about this stuff so this is the perfect place.

Then save up. FO4 hammers the CPU, just like Skyrim did on release. Its the creaky old engine combined with the all stuff packed in. Anything less than an i5 as a bare minimum is unacceptable. Same with a SSD. Load times are irritating enough on my 500GB EVO in FO4, if I had a HDD I'd throw the box out the window.

 

[Yuriman]

I've seen some fairly priced 1st Gen i7's but I don't think they were 1150 socket. Why wouldn't you get a 3rd or 4th Gen i5? That's what I'm looking at given the prices.

First-gen i7 is actually several sockets ago, and you shouldn't buy one because they're bordering on obsolete. My point was that people who bought an i7 back in 2008 got 7 years out of their CPU.

3rd gen i5's are not 1150 socket, either, they're 1155. Your best choice is probably to (when you can afford it) drop in a socket 1150 i7 or 8 thread Xeon. You'll get many, many years of great performance out of it, and end up spending less in the long term.

 

[john925]

Then save up. FO4 hammers the CPU, just like Skyrim did on release. Its the creaky old engine combined with the all stuff packed in. Anything less than an i5 as a bare minimum is unacceptable. Same with a SSD. Load times are irritating enough on my 500GB EVO in FO4, if I had a HDD I'd throw the box out the window.

Loading times can be a bit long, but gameplay as a whole is actually better than I expected. I don't get any bottlenecking, but my framerates could be better. But still playable. I have no complaints on that front.

 

[john925]

First-gen i7 is actually several sockets ago, and you shouldn't buy one because they're bordering on obsolete. My point was that people who bought an i7 back in 2008 got 7 years out of their CPU.

3rd gen i5's are not 1150 socket, either, they're 1155. Your best choice is probably to (when you can afford it) drop in a socket 1150 i7 or 8 thread Xeon. You'll get many, many years of great performance out of it, and end up spending less in the long term.

Yeah I'd love an i7 but I don't want to have to wait until I have the $300-$400 to get a decent one. An i5 is right in the middle. If I can get a decent one, it could last me some time.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Then save up. FO4 hammers the CPU, just like Skyrim did on release. Its the creaky old engine combined with the all stuff packed in. Anything less than an i5 as a bare minimum is unacceptable. Same with a SSD. Load times are irritating enough on my 500GB EVO in FO4, if I had a HDD I'd throw the box out the window.

Yea, but what is "acceptable" to you? Seems like I recall you are not satisfied with anything less than 60FPS minimum.

 

[john925]

Yea, but what is "acceptable" to you? Seems like I recall you are not satisfied with anything less than 60FPS minimum.

Hell I'd be happy with anything solid between 30-60fps

 

[john925]

That doesn't sound like stuttering, that sounds like a full-on freeze. Which could be caused by I/O timeouts.

How would one fix it?

 

[john925]

I don't know if that'll show up, but those are my settings. I'll take another one later in game so you can see my fps and all that fun stuff. I like to have RivaTuner running in my games.