On the threshold of "Pleasurable Computing".

[Magic Carpet]

I haven't tried, I have a 7950 in there. I read in the notes about "SKY OC" that it wasn't usable.

So did I, but maybe ASRock fixed that, once things got more mature. Guess, it's too early to tell.

 

[cbn]

I wonder, now, testing the i3-6100, and finding it not much faster than my G1820... both use the Intel iGPU, and both use SATA6G SSDs.

The G4400 @ 4.455Ghz is using a PCI-E 3.0 x4 AHCI M.2 SSD.

I'm wondering if the page load times that I'm seeing, are not down to my internet connection speed, but rather, my SSD's ability to read/write lots of small files (browser cache, on an image-heavy page like Newegg)?

Because the G4400 does seem subjectively faster.

Larry, could you downclock your G4400 and see if the browsing (with M.2 SSD) slows down?

And if it does slow down, maybe compare it at some equivalent Skylake clockspeed to your G1820 (2.7 Ghz Haswell) with SATA 6 Gbps SSD?

(Curious how much M.2 is factoring in here from a subjective standpoint)

 

[cbn]

Now that I own an i3... I'm curious how an overclocked AMD Kaveri "quad" compares.

But I should probably save that project for another day, or until I get rid of this i3-6100 rig. (If I can convince my friend he should get it.)

Edit: Then again, I've been disappointed in the performance of an A6-5400K (Trinity single-module), and a mobile Richland dual-module, as far as single-threaded performance. Maybe I should stick to Intel for that, it seems to be their dept.

Here is a passmark comparison of several processors to give you an idea where a stock Athlon x4 860K stands:

Athlon x4 860K: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+X4+860K+Quad+Core (5605 MT, 1598 ST)

Core i3 6100: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-6100+@+3.70GHz (5516 MT, 2087 ST)

G1820: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Celeron+G1820+@+2.70GHz (2835 MT, 1585 ST)

Core i5 2400: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2400+@+3.10GHz (5833 MT, 1734 ST)

For a comparison of an overclocked Athlon x4 860K I think you could just extrapolate based on a stock Athlon x4 860K (which runs 4.0 Ghz on all cores for turbo). (Example: Athlon x4 860K @ 4.4 Ghz = 6165 MT, 1757 ST)

 

[ShintaiDK]

For a comparison of an overclocked Athlon x4 860K I think you could just extrapolate based on a stock Athlon x4 860K (which runs 4.0 Ghz on all cores for turbo). (Example: Athlon x4 860K @ 4.4 Ghz = 6165 MT, 1757 ST)

But you dont compare with a stock 860K to begin with. Passmark takes stock and OC results and you have close to no idea what is what. Plus faster and slower memory etc.

 

[VirtualLarry]

But you dont compare with a stock 860K to begin with. Passmark takes stock and OC results and you have close to no idea what is what. Plus faster and slower memory etc.

Yep.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+G3258+@+3.20GHz&id=2267

G3258: ST 2173 MT 3993

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-6100+@+3.70GHz&id=2617

i3-6100: ST 2087 MT 5516

A 3.7Ghz Skylake CPU having worse single-threaded than a 3.2Ghz Haswell? I don't think so...

 

[Burpo]

G3258 @ 3.2: ST 1983 MT 3510

Usually find the ones running stock at the bottom of the page..

I just use Passmark as a ballpark to compare CPU's at a glance. It works fine for that..

 

[crashtech]

Passmark is theoretically supposed to cull OCed results and put them in their own category, but their detection algorithm fails at least some of the time

 

[cbn]

But you dont compare with a stock 860K to begin with. Passmark takes stock and OC results and you have close to no idea what is what. Plus faster and slower memory etc.

I just ran my Athlon x4 860K at stock speed (RAM is dual channel DDR3 1866 CAS 9).

6223 CPU marks for multi-thread and 1682 CPU marks for single thread.

That actually beats the average score of 5605 CPU marks for multi-thread and 1598 CPU marks for single thread:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+X4+860K+Quad+Core

 

[Torn Mind]

Now that I own an i3... I'm curious how an overclocked AMD Kaveri "quad" compares.

But I should probably save that project for another day, or until I get rid of this i3-6100 rig. (If I can convince my friend he should get it.)

Edit: Then again, I've been disappointed in the performance of an A6-5400K (Trinity single-module), and a mobile Richland dual-module, as far as single-threaded performance. Maybe I should stick to Intel for that, it seems to be their dept.

http://anandtech.com/bench/product/1200?vs=1257

Seems like the quad core Kaveri provides better performance for tasks that need more cores, like some video editing or 7zip zipping. But it seems that tasks that tax one core will perform the exact same as an Ivy Bridge G1620.

So, if one has Chrome open, the webpages would render at the same speed. Where Kaveri might have the advantage is if you have a bunch of tabs open in Chrome and some of them are resource-intensive and eating up CPU clock cycles, such as Flash.

 

[2is]

Nearly 15 years and over 30,000 posts later. Virtual Larry finds out faster processors are faster then slower processors.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I just use Passmark as a ballpark to compare CPU's at a glance. It works fine for that..

:thumbsup:

Nearly 15 years and over 30,000 posts later. Virtual Larry finds out faster processors are faster then slower processors.

It's a revelation, isn't it? ()

 

[VirtualLarry]

Nearly 15 years and over 30,000 posts later. Virtual Larry finds out faster processors are faster then slower processors.

Faster, yes. More expensive, no.

My overclocked G4400 is faster than a 6700K at stock, for ST.

 

[Magic Carpet]

My overclocked G4400 is faster than a 6700K at stock, for ST.

The Pentium would struggle with >2 workers though. ST is very important, but it has to be balanced, imo. That's why I'd even prefer the lower clocked i3 6100 versus OC'ed G4400 as the minimum these days. Speaking of which, how is it doing? May I ask ya, IS IT GOOD ENOUGH for you?

 

[cbn]

Yep.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+G3258+@+3.20GHz&id=2267

G3258: ST 2173 MT 3993

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-6100+@+3.70GHz&id=2617

i3-6100: ST 2087 MT 5516

A 3.7Ghz Skylake CPU having worse single-threaded than a 3.2Ghz Haswell? I don't think so...

It doesn't surprise me there would be a wide variation in the G3258 since it is capable of a 50+% overclock on an aftermarket air cooler and up to a 40% overclock on the copper bottom 95W stock cooler. This, in contrast, to the Athlon x4 860K where 4.5Ghz (using aftermarket cooler) is only a 12.5% overclock.

For determining what a 3.2 Ghz Pentium is capable of G3240 would be good to use (since it can't be overclocked):

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+G3420+@+3.20GHz (3444 MT, 1861 ST)

 

[cbn]

So, if one has Chrome open, the webpages would render at the same speed. Where Kaveri might have the advantage is if you have a bunch of tabs open in Chrome and some of them are resource-intensive and eating up CPU clock cycles, such as Flash.

That is interesting what you brought up, but shouldn't the GPU be reducing Flash usage of the CPU?

 

[VirtualLarry]

The Pentium would struggle with >2 workers though. ST is very important, but it has to be balanced, imo. That's why I'd even prefer the lower clocked i3 6100 versus OC'ed G4400 as the minimum these days. Speaking of which, how is it doing? May I ask ya, IS IT GOOD ENOUGH for you?

Well, I haven't quite decided. I think I need to add an AMD dGPU to the i3-6100. I think that's the part that's missing. My G4400 OCed rigs each have a 7950 3GB, and I think that has a lot to do with how snappy they are, besides the ST speed.

I'm still having issues with the Intel video drivers. I've got 2x4GB GSkill DDR4-2800 @ 21333 in my H110M-A board, with the i3-6100, and I had been running the 4300 drivers. I tried the 4352 drivers, and unlike with my other configs, they didn't BSOD immediately or when installing, but ... they won't re-sync with the monitor after monitor sleep mode. So I have to shut down the PC, and start it up again to get the screen back. No good.

(Did I mention Intel's video drivers generally suck anyways?)

 

[Torn Mind]

That is interesting what you brought up, but shouldn't the GPU be reducing Flash usage of the CPU?

My G550 sometimes gets pegged at maximum clockspeed and percentage in Chrome. Closing sites with flash or something script heavy like Hfboards forums, amazon, etc, would drop the CPU percentage by a bunch. That means something on those sites was taxing my CPU hard.

 

[VirtualLarry]

TBH, I expected more responses from other people with higher-end rigs, that would say, "Yeah, my rig is fast and smooth and pleasurable to use." I didn't want this thread to be only about me. Only that I finally had the epiphany of experiencing a PC that I wanted to use, over all my other functional equivalents. Not that I was using it just because I wanted a little variety to break up the monotony of using a single PC. (One reason I have multiple PCs to use. I guess it's kind of like having a Harem.)

Of course, I've also been forcing myself to use my i3-6100 rig, to see how I like that (non-OCed, with a SATA6G SSD). I think I prefer the G4400 w/PCI-E SSD.

 

[escrow4]

TBH, I expected more responses from other people with higher-end rigs, that would say, "Yeah, my rig is fast and smooth and pleasurable to use." I didn't want this thread to be only about me. Only that I finally had the epiphany of experiencing a PC that I wanted to use, over all my other functional equivalents. Not that I was using it just because I wanted a little variety to break up the monotony of using a single PC. (One reason I have multiple PCs to use. I guess it's kind of like having a Harem.)

Of course, I've also been forcing myself to use my i3-6100 rig, to see how I like that (non-OCed, with a SATA6G SSD). I think I prefer the G4400 w/PCI-E SSD.

And that thread title. Mmmmmm. Or I have been Xvideoing too much?

I actually don't like i3s. If you want a dual core buy a Celeron. Paying $130 for a dual core in 2016, meh, may as well get a 6500 instead. The i3 is in that weird zone where you go dual -> dual -> STILL dual -> quad. Yes its hyperthreaded but real cores count.

 

[XavierMace]

TBH, I expected more responses from other people with higher-end rigs

That's because most of us have the game general response as 2is.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I actually don't like i3s. If you want a dual core buy a Celeron. Paying $130 for a dual core in 2016, meh, may as well get a 6500 instead. The i3 is in that weird zone where you go dual -> dual -> STILL dual -> quad. Yes its hyperthreaded but real cores count.

Yeah, after purchasing the i3-6100 for $130, rather than $65 for the G4400, I'm questioning the move.

For distributed-computing, it can run four threads, but those extra two are kind of like "jam packed in", where they don't quite fit. Meaning, it causes all of the task threads to run much longer. Sure, maybe I'm gaining 10% efficiency overall, but subjectively, it seems like the DC tasks take twice as long. Also, with the cores more loaded down with HyperThreads, it seems like there is less CPU time available, not more, paradoxically, than with my G4400 dual-core OCed, for web browsing, while doing DC.

I've relegated the DC tasks to only two threads, on the i3.

Maybe I'll sell off the i3, and buy the G3900 Celeron when it comes out.

 

[cbn]

I actually don't like i3s. If you want a dual core buy a Celeron. Paying $130 for a dual core in 2016, meh, may as well get a 6500 instead. The i3 is in that weird zone where you go dual -> dual -> STILL dual -> quad. Yes its hyperthreaded but real cores count.

I was just thinking that myself.

Pretty much the whole area between the G3258 and the unlocked Core i5 is a dead zone of value for DIYers.

Now for pre-built desktops, the Core i3 turns out to be a good value because of the volume pricing made available to OEMs.

What we need is a new category that awakens that $75 to $150 DIY zone. An unlocked Core i3 would help, but it still doesn't cover all the bases.

To cover all the bases, I feel that we need Intel to silently release the X79 again to OEMs so we can make use of the Surplus E5 2670 Xeon (and others).

 

[Torn Mind]

The clockspeed and IPC creep on the Celerons make them more powerful than they were for previous generations. During the Sandy Bridge era, G530s and G540s were the chips available to non-Microcenter buyers, and they were clocked at 2.3 and 2.4 GHz, respectively.

The Skylake chips cost the same but are clocked at 2.8, 2.9 GHz. What would have cost $70-90 upon release of the Sandy Bridge Celerons now costs only $45.

My guesstimate is that the Skylake Celeron would approximately be the equivalent of a 3.3-3.5 Sandy Bridge dual-core. I assuming slightly over 100 Mhz clock bump to approximate the processing gains over each generation, starting from Sandy Bridge.

 

[hhhd1]

I have to say that I agree with VirtualLarry, many mid to low end processors today provide 'good enough' performance for the average user.

A family member that have a "Pentium sandybridge + iGPU" is able to do everything he needs, even watching FHD videos.

Even some older games, are playable, and there is allot of games options to run on those low end processors, even with iGPU only.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The clockspeed and IPC creep on the Celerons make them more powerful than they were for previous generations. During the Sandy Bridge era, G530s and G540s were the chips available to non-Microcenter buyers, and they were clocked at 2.3 and 2.4 GHz, respectively.

The Skylake chips cost the same but are clocked at 2.8, 2.9 GHz. What would have cost $70-90 upon release of the Sandy Bridge Celerons now costs only $45.

My guesstimate is that the Skylake Celeron would approximately be the equivalent of a 3.3-3.5 Sandy Bridge dual-core. I assuming slightly over 100 Mhz clock bump to approximate the processing gains over each generation, starting from Sandy Bridge.

Well, if you look carefully... each new generation of Core CPU has somewhere between roughly 5-10% IPC bump. (Closer to 5% than 10%, for most software.)

But also for "marketing" reasons, I suspect, the rated clock speed of each successive generation of Celeron CPU has received a 1-multiplier / 100-Mhz clock-speed bump.

So the IVB Celeron G1610 was 2.6Ghz, HSW Celeron G1820 was 2.7Ghz, and SKL Celeron G3900 is 2.8Ghz.

At least, from memory, that's how I think that they stack up.

And the price of each of those has hovered between $40-45 at most retailers.

That's quite a bit of value at the low-end. Sure, it's not a powerhouse for gaming (much), or video-editing, but it's perfectly adequate for most desktop tasks.

Plus, it's a lot better than the 1.6Ghz C2D Pentium dual-core E2140 CPUs. Although, those could easily be overclocked to twice their default frequency on the right boards. Only now, with Z170 SKY OC and SKL CPUs, have we been able to do the same thing.