• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pentium G4560 vs. Core i3-8100, which one will see worse shortage?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IRobot23 said:
Quad cores without SMT are pretty much dead end for any gamer that plays new games at consistent frames.
R5 1400/R5 1600 with DDR4 3200MT/s+ and 3,8-4GHz are new best friends for any gamer.
Click to expand...

Which new games are you talking about that don't run adequately on a non HT/SMT quad core CPU?
 
IRobot23 said:
Quad cores without SMT are pretty much dead end for any gamer that plays new games at consistent frames.
R5 1400/R5 1600 with DDR4 3200MT/s+ and 3,8-4GHz are new best friends for any gamer.
Click to expand...
The 8350K should certainly make a good effort.

It's an improved 7600K with additional cache, although the extra cache will probably not do much.
 
LTC8K6 said:
The 8350K should certainly make a good effort.

It's an improved 7600K with additional cache, although the extra cache will probably not do much.
Click to expand...

Actually would be interesting to see the gaming performance of the 8350K in newer games that can take advantage of more threads, if you look around these forums it seems suddenly 4C/4T CPUs are the 'bare minimum' when it comes to gaming which I find rather hard to fathom considering how well a highly clocked 2C/4T chip like a 7350K (or even Pentium G4560) fares in most current titles.
 
epsilon84 said:
Which new games are you talking about that don't run adequately on a non HT/SMT quad core CPU?
Click to expand...

Check latest games with good physics. Games like GTA V MP, Wild Lands, BF1, Battlefront 2 all those might use 75-100% when there is an action... simple thing is that in game physics can be really well threaded.

LTC8K6 said:
The 8350K should certainly make a good effort.

It's an improved 7600K with additional cache, although the extra cache will probably not do much.
Click to expand...

If i3 8350K will cost 130-140€ is good deal, if 165-170€ then it is not. Well you can get R5 1400 for 150€ or R5 1600 for 200€.
Soon R3 1200 will drop to around 90€.
 
Wouldn't you compare the i3-8350K with the R5-1500X? Both are 4 cores. The R5 has 8 threads, unlike the 8350's 4 threads. The R5 has 16MB L3 cache, whereas the i3 has 8MB. The advantage for the i3 is absolutely in the base clock being 4Ghz, whereas the XFR for the R5 tops out at 3.9Ghz. The 1500x should manage 4.0Ghz on most chips, but that's not a certainty, and is unlikely to ever get above 4.1Ghz, whereas the i3 should boost well into the 4+Ghz range. So, the true difference will be, where do the prices fall? The R5 is MSRP $189 and I can't imagine that the i3 will be more than $10 away from that either way. And, assuming that I'm wrong there, and Intel places it at $150, the boards are still going to make up the difference in price. So, it then comes down to use case. Do you need more threads? R5. Does what you do like that large L3 cache? R5. Do you need the best possible single thread performance for your buck? i3. There is still the PCI-Express lane advantage of the Ryzen, but if you're in that budget tier, having more than one GPU isn't usually an option, and loosing a bit of NVMe performance isn't going to be a big deal.
 
Single thread performance is very relative. Nobody is point that out, example : If you play WoW, GW2 which love ST performance whether action happens you won't be bounded by you thread performance. First it comes to memory bandwidth and other stuff that are not on users stuff. I am not and expert for that kind of stuff, but I do some testing.

Why is it really hard to understand, that you need fast memory for great ST performance?
 
IRobot23 said:
Single thread performance is very relative. Nobody is point that out, example : If you play WoW, GW2 which love ST performance whether action happens you won't be bounded by you thread performance. First it comes to memory bandwidth and other stuff that are not on users stuff. I am not and expert for that kind of stuff, but I do some testing.

Why is it really hard to understand, that you need fast memory for great ST performance?
Click to expand...
The 8350K will run all 4 cores at 4 ghz stock. The 8350K has no boost at all, since it's an i3.

It will almost certainly overclock all 4 cores to 4.9 though.

It will also almost certainly be able to use very fast ram.
 
LTC8K6 said:
http://techreport.com/review/31366/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-ryzen-7-1700x-and-ryzen-7-1700-cpus-reviewed/10

In this test, the extra cores aren't helping much.

Could not find an MP example though.
Click to expand...

Just an example: (very simple)
4 cores@5GHz vs 6@3,5GHz cores

When you play empty map (or SP), your quad core wont be overloaded. So at 5GHz game engine will allow to reach 200Fps, because main thread is bottleneck... so no matter how many cores you have 200FPS is a limit for you. While 6 core CPU will have limit at 140FPS. Once you play MP your quad core CPU will get overloaded, and will hurt that main thread. While 6 core won't get overloaded and it wont hurt much of it. You will get almost same FPS as you got in empty map.

But there are other stuff like memory bandwidth...
 
IRobot23 said:
Just an example: (very simple)
4 cores@5GHz vs 6@3,5GHz cores

When you play empty map (or SP), your quad core wont be overloaded. So at 5GHz game engine will allow to reach 200Fps, because main thread is bottleneck... so no matter how many cores you have 200FPS is a limit for you. While 6 core CPU will have limit at 140FPS. Once you play MP your quad core CPU will get overloaded, and will hurt that main thread. While 6 core won't get overloaded and it wont hurt much of it. You will get almost same FPS as you got in empty map.

But there are other stuff like memory bandwidth...
Click to expand...
I understand the theory...
 
IRobot23 said:
I think that is best choice for Intel users with DDR4 2667MT/s. It might be just slower than ryzen with 3200MT/s, but it will do just great.
Click to expand...
I think we will be able to run much faster ram than that. Stock for the 8350K is 2400, but anyone who wants performance is going to go for much faster ram than that. IIRC, it is noticeable in minimum frame rates, rather than average frame rates.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I think we will be able to run much faster ram than that. Stock for the 8350K is 2400, but anyone who wants performance is going to go for much faster ram than that. IIRC, it is noticeable in minimum frame rates, rather than average frame rates.
Click to expand...

Well I was talking about i5 8400
 
mohit9206 said:
Because for $120, the i3-8100 having higher ST performance than ryzen, having actual 4 physical cores and having a hd630 igpu.
Only advantage to ryzen is it can be overclocked but that doesn't matter because ST performance can't beat intel.
Click to expand...

Stock R3 1200 yes, but probably not much or at all if you OC. Also I expect that the final pricing will mostly make i3-8100 a R3 1300X competitor (unless it is even more expensive), with R3 1200 being the smarter, cheaper option biting at both chips' legs.

VirtualLarry said:
Do we know final specs / clocks for the i3-8100? If Intel clocks them at like 3.8Ghz, then sure, they will be ahead of Ryzen 3 1200 (overclocked to 3.8, remember, since it's a walk in the part with any B350 mobo and the stock cooler included in the box) in ST, due to slightly better IPC. Probably MT too, but not Cinebench.
Click to expand...

There was this and it says i3-8100 = 3.6 GHz, no turbo. Or was it confirmed as fake?

Coffee-Lake-Core-i3-speficikace-pttcc-696x966.png
 
SPBHM said:
if the 8100 is only compatible with z370 for a while, it's going to be difficult to see it as the best option...
Click to expand...
This is something i don't understand. Why would you launch a budget cpu and not have a budget Motherboard on the market to pair it with? This is some next level stupidity from intel.
LTC8K6 said:
The 8400 will do 3.8 with 6 cores and 3.9 with 4 cores and should be relatively cheap.
Click to expand...
Our focus of discussion are the cheap $120 and under cpu. 8350k and 8400/8500 are not part of this.
They compete with ryzen 1400/1500x.
 
There should be an i3-8300, but it seems to not be on every list.

But yeah, the 8100 is 3.6 and the 8300 should be at 4.0, and i3's do not have any turbo boost.
 
mohit9206 said:
This is something i don't understand. Why would you launch a budget cpu and not have a budget Motherboard on the market to pair it with? This is some next level stupidity from intel.

Our focus of discussion are the cheap $120 and under cpu. 8350k and 8400/8500 are not part of this.
They compete with ryzen 1400/1500x.
Click to expand...
8350K has been discussed in the thread quite a bit, actually.
 
LTC8K6 said:
We don't really know pricing yet, but this is the latest speculation:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1184...fee-lakes-cpus-published-400-for-core-i78700k
Click to expand...
I'm estimating $179.99 MSRP, and $159.99 at Micro Center sounds about right. It will be $30-$40 more than i3-7350K, which will drop to $119.99 during Christmas time. I'll be interested in a i3-7350K if I can get it for $80 used, and i3-6100 drops further to $60 range since it can't no longer compete with Pentium G4560 and its refresh model.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top