Skylake Pentium G4400 Overclocking

Aug 25, 2001
43,807
595
126
#1
Well, low-end SKL anyway, LOL.

Newegg had the Asus H110 mobo on sale for $49.99 + $1.99 shipping, and then I added a G4400 (I think that's the one), a 3.3Ghz SKL dual-core, though only the HD 510 iGPU. Also added a 4GB stick of DDR4, until I can afford a 16GB kit of decent DDR4.

Two things, how bad does HD 510 suck, compared to HD 530? If I'm not intending to play games with it? (Does it have QS, I forgot to check, oh well.)

Likelihood of Asus releasing BCLK-overclock BIOS for their entry-level boards, to OC a SKL Pentium? Yeah, I can dream, right? :)

Edit: I may end up building this for a friend, and throwing in a R9 270X 2GB GPU, I'll have to see. It should be interesting. (And yes, I do have a PS/2 keyboard, to be able to install Windows 7, LOL.)

Edit: Update. Now that the shoe has dropped, and ASRock released non-K OC BIOS for nearly (?) all of their Z170 boards, I decided to spend money that I don't really have, FOR SCIENCE! To get a cheap Z170 board. It didn't help that Newegg had a Z170 Pro4S on sale for $79.99. I also spent $39.99 on an 8GB kit of GSkill DDR4-2800 RAM.

What can I say, it's a budget board. But it OCs! (Downloaded the Beta BIOS already, for non-K "SKY OC".)
http://www.asrock.com/news/events/SkyOC/


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157636
 
Last edited:

Magic Carpet

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2011
3,107
0
81
#2
Why you didn't get an i3 instead? With BLCK overclocking it could just be it for you.
 

TeknoBug

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2013
2,078
1
91
#3
:eek: should've gotten i3 6100.
 
Aug 25, 2001
43,807
595
126
#6
Not quite sure why everyone thinks I should have paid 100% more for 30-40% more performance. It's not like the i3 is in a different class when it comes to overclocking. I'm not gaming on this rig, gaming isn't everything.
 

crashtech

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2013
8,976
250
126
#7
Well if you wanted to stick with a 2T CPU, another G3258 was likely a better bet, imo.
 

Burpo

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2013
4,060
31
126
#8

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,248
607
136
#9
Not quite sure why everyone thinks I should have paid 100% more for 30-40% more performance.
You invoke avoiding waste yet change computers like socks, consider gaming performance is not needed yet ask about iGPU performance, get 4GB RAM yet intend to upgrade to 16GB.

The conflict is obvious. And it's ok, you should embrace it.

My earlier comment was only partially ironic, I truly believe you enjoy tinkering with the low end machines, getting the faster components that just make everything work would simply deny you off most the fun you're having with this hobby.
 
Aug 25, 2001
43,807
595
126
#10
Because it's more like 50% increase in performance, and maybe we'd like to see you get something that will actually work for you without reservation. Those 4 threads come in handy for a lot of things..

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+G4400+@+3.30GHz

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-6100+@+3.70GHz
Thanks for the benchmarks. Single-threaded, is only around 10% faster. Which is the relevant benchmark for Firefox / Waterfox usage.

So, 100% more money, for 10% more performance? IST at their finest.
 
Aug 25, 2001
43,807
595
126
#12
consider gaming performance is not needed yet ask about iGPU performance
Because iGPU performance matters on the desktop too, and Intel's older HD-series (Sandy Bridge Pentium) were pretty anemic in this regard. I put a dGPU in my G630 rig because I couldn't stand the choppiness and tearing in Skype with the Intel iGPU.

So it stands to reason that I'm concerned that the HD 510, being half of the 530 (I think), will suck.

get 4GB RAM yet intend to upgrade to 16GB.
Shrug. Couldn't afford a 16GB kit this month too, and I wanted to be able to run + test my SKL rig right away when I get it, rather than wait a month for RAM.

I truly believe you enjoy tinkering with the low end machines, getting the faster components that just make everything work would simply deny you off most the fun you're having with this hobby.
Maybe, but my "tinkering" has practical limitations too, including budget.
 
Feb 2, 2009
12,965
230
126
#13
For everyday use (web browsing, video playback etc) you wont even feel the difference between a Pentium and Core i3.
 
Aug 25, 2001
43,807
595
126
#14
For everyday use (web browsing, video playback etc) you wont even feel the difference between a Pentium and Core i3.
That was my basic understanding.

My comment / question about HD 510 versus 530 was also in relation to media-decoding, for desktop usage. Like, can the 530 decode more simultaneous 1080P60 streams, for example? (Twitch.tv)
 

2is

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2012
4,287
1
106
#15
Not quite sure why everyone thinks I should have paid 100% more for 30-40% more performance. It's not like the i3 is in a different class when it comes to overclocking. I'm not gaming on this rig, gaming isn't everything.
Because people don't want to see you complaining about performance and building another low end rig in the next 30-90 days which has been your MO for the past several years.

How much money would you have NOT needed to spend on new junk if you didn't buy junk to begin with?
 

Magic Carpet

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2011
3,107
0
81
#16
You have Skype, web browsing, windows update, a real-time antivirus system, memory compression, etc. Are you saying you wouldn't notice a difference between 2T and 4T system? I say, bollocks. Unless we speak of some slow 4T AMD SoC versus 2T fast Intel APU.

I notice it every time I switch between such systems. Hell, even Chrome now is properly MT. What happens when you stumble upon a badly coded web site w/ 99% CPU utilization (js like falling snow can peg your cpu pretty heavily). With a dual-core CPU you really have to baby sit the system and your usage, if you are used to snappy system performance at all times. If you are not, that's okay. You would still be able to play music without skipping beats. Heh.

Larry, you disappoint me.
 
Aug 25, 2001
43,807
595
126
#17
Because people don't want to see you complaining about performance and building another low end rig in the next 30-90 days which has been your MO for the past several years.
I don't believe that I've ever complained about the performance of my G3258 (or any Haswell) rigs. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The only rigs that I've complained about the performance of, have been "small core" rigs, like my Foxconn NanoPCs with 1.0Ghz AMD C-70 APUs. At least, that I recall. That, and the thermal throttling of my MeegoPad T02 with Atom Z3735F.

As long as I stay away from "small core" CPUs, and stick to actual desktop CPUs, I don't expect to have any problems.

Or has the bar for a minimum-acceptable desktop rig been raised to a SKL i3, when I wasn't looking, LOL.
How much money would you have NOT needed to spend on new junk if you didn't buy junk to begin with?
I'm willing to concede that I should have done more homework before buying two of the Foxonn NanoPCs, but even initially, they were enough for my usage.

I'm not buying SKL because my G3258 rigs are "junk". Quite the opposite. I saw the opportunity to play with some new tech, for not much money. (Less than $150 for CPU/RAM/mobo.)
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,248
607
136
#18
So it stands to reason that I'm concerned that the HD 510, being half of the 530 (I think), will suck.
Half the 530 is still more than what the G3258 which you're familiar with has.
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,517
235
126
#19
The G4500 has HD530...

For some reason, the i3 has a few watts lower TDP than the 4400...
 
Mar 10, 2004
28,517
235
126
#20
The 4400, 4500, and i3-6100 all have Quick Sync.
 
Aug 25, 2001
43,807
595
126
#21
Runs acceptably on my N2830 Atom Bay Trail laptop, with two Atom cores at ~2Ghz. Shouldn't be a problem with a SKL 3.3Ghz dual-core. (Unless they move to H.265?)

, web browsing
Which runs acceptably for me, on an Atom Z3735F, on one of its cores. So again, should be no problem for a 3.3Ghz SKL dual-core core.

, windows update
When I keep shut off, and only do updates manually, when I'm not actively using the rig. (Since it requires a reboot or two.) I don't think that I've ever seen WU to be able to take advantage of more than 2 threads, anyway.

, a real-time antivirus system
Nope, no A/V bloat slowing my main rig down.

, memory compression
LOL. Nope, no Win10 update here. Win7.

Are you saying you wouldn't notice a difference between 2T and 4T system?
Not what I use my PC for, no. I did notice that my G3258 is faster than my Q9300. Threads aren't everything. I expect some performance increases from DDR4-2133 over DDR3-1333 (the max that G3258 supports).

I notice it every time I switch between such systems. Hell, even Chrome now is properly MT. What happens when you stumble upon a badly coded web site w/ 99% CPU utilization (js like falling snow can peg your cpu pretty heavily). With a dual-core CPU you really have to baby sit the system and your usage, if you are used to snappy system performance at all times. If you are not, that's okay. You would still be able to play music without skipping beats. Heh.
Well, I don't use Chrome spyware, and if a web site wants to take 100% CPU with a falling snowflake theme, then I guess I'll live with it. With single-threaded Firefox / Waterfox, the effect on the user would be the same, no matter how many hardware threads that you have.
Larry, you disappoint me.
IST, you amuse me. I give you points for trying.

(Some people don't use only Chrome, or games.)
 
Aug 25, 2001
43,807
595
126
#22
The 4400, 4500, and i3-6100 all have Quick Sync.
Thanks for confirming. I was kind of hoping that they would, seeing as how most (all?) Haswell Pentium and above chips have it.
 

Magic Carpet

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2011
3,107
0
81
#23
@VirtualLarry

You didn't want to pay more for better performance. I think I got your point :\
 
Aug 25, 2001
43,807
595
126
#24
@VirtualLarry

You didn't want to pay more for better performance. I think I got your point :\
It's just... the price/performance just seems to be a bit lacking on the i3 CPUs. I could see paying $120-130 for an unlocked i3, but to pay that much for a locked one? No thanks. Not when I can get 90% of the ST performance for $65.

If Intel really wanted to compete, they would drop the price of locked i3 CPUs to $90. (The AMD A8-7600 is that price, too.)

I will handily admit, that the i3 would likely be far superior for gaming, but as I don't anticipate doing that with this rig (if I build it for me), then that becomes less relevant.

Edit: The bottom line, though, was practical. I only had enough $$$ to scrounge up this budget rig. Otherwise, if I wanted an i3 and 16GB of RAM, I would have had to wait 1-2 more months.
 
Last edited:

crashtech

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2013
8,976
250
126
#25
Larry, would you mind benching your new rig with Cinebench 11.5 so I can add it to the dual core list? It could really use some more Skylake results.
 

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS