[TBG] The Best Gaming CPUs: Pentium vs. Core i3 vs. Core i5 vs. Core i7

[crashtech]

Edit: When i say im experiencing lagging it has nothing to do with fps drops since i always have more than 60fps constantly. No, it is like you have high pings but in reality my pings are low.

This sounds like the old "smoothness" debate, where assertions are made about subjective impressions that can't be quantified objectively.

 

[AtenRa]

Here are two screenshots (G3258 @ 4.5 GHz/R7 250X/1080p low) on Goldmund Railway with 64 players:

Thx, any pics on foot ??

 

[Erenhardt]

This sounds like the old "smoothness" debate, where assertions are made about subjective impressions that can't be quantified objectively.

Strange that wasn't a valid line of defense and was quickly dismissed when nv was throwing dirt at crossfire frame pacing. I expect someone to appear with wall of text crusade against pentium, in the name of better products...

 

[DrMrLordX]

If you guys do set up G3258 vs 760k benchmarks, would it also be possible for you to do G3258 vs 860k at some point? I don't know when those things will become widely (or even narrowly) available in retail. There are plenty of places listing the tray processor as "out of stock" so your guess is as good as mine as to when people will actually start selling the thing.

 

[cbn]

Thx, any pics on foot ??

 

[cbn]

Another picture:

 

[cbn]

If you guys do set up G3258 vs 760k benchmarks, would it also be possible for you to do G3258 vs 860k at some point? I don't know when those things will become widely (or even narrowly) available in retail. There are plenty of places listing the tray processor as "out of stock" so your guess is as good as mine as to when people will actually start selling the thing.

Some videos would be great too.

At what point does a game noticeably stutter with G3258 and/or Athlon x4 750K/760K/860K?

For my set-up It doesn't appear to be 1080p low.

1080p med? 1080p high? 1080p ultra?

P.S. I don't have BF4 anymore (I was using it via Origin Gametime), but I still have BF3.

 

[AtenRa]

cbn thx,

pity you dont have BF4 anymore, i would have ask you to enable Mantle. Anyway ill try at the same map same settings and post pics.

What driver did you use ??

 

[wand3r3r]

Well this is what I'v been saying about dual cores. You may have high fps but you have terrible gameplay.

The G3258 has higher fps than 750K

but then have a look at Frame Times,

I have also experienced this behavior in my Thief Mantle review with the Pentium G3420.

Same happens in BF4 even in Single mode, just imagine what happens in 64 Player maps in MP mode.

Thanks for that info!

So what’s the best CPU pick for PC gamers? As we said from the start, we know the Pentium has more to give in terms of clock speed, but so do the Core i5 and Core i7 processors. Plus, it’s the only CPU in this test that actually required the use of a more expensive Z97-based motherboard to achieve the results shown – all the other CPUs would have provided the same performance bolted to a budget H97 motherboard like the Gigabyte GA-H97M-HD3. Therefore, if you're on a strict budget, our best advice is to skip the Pentium and go for a midrange Hyperthreaded dual-core like the Intel Core i3-4150, which should provide performance nearly equal to the i3-4360 in most games for about $25 less.

If you're looking to put together more of a mid-range system, the very best bang for the buck is likely to be found in the $200 Core i5-4590. It will provide performance nearly identical to a 4690K, doesn’t need a Z97 motherboard to run, and won’t tempt you to mess with overclocks when you could be simply enjoying all of your games! Rest assured that the cash saved by skipping out on an overclocking CPU/motherboard setup will be well spent on a video card upgrade. Finally, i

f you’re building a high-end system, take your pick – both the 4690K and 4790K provide benefits concomitant with their prices, at least when you factor in the total system cost. That being said, the extra $100 you'd spend on a 4790K would probably net you a very significant GPU upgrade. ​

For more insights into building balanced gaming PCs, feel free to browse our PC builder's guides.

​

http://www.techbuyersguru.com/haswellgaming.php

Note that their budget recommendation is the i3. It does appear to be justified and the $70 cpu has some serious flaws, at least in certain games. If your budget is more then it's the i5.

 

[crashtech]

I wasn't a big fan of the G3258 when it came out, because the performance metrics just aren't that compelling, but subjective experience coupled with the fact that this CPU is the cheapest way to get into LGA 1150 have served to make me a bit of an evangelist for the little chip that could, with the caveat that it ought to be replaced with something better when funds allow. Unfortunately, there seems to be a core group to whom CPU upgrading is anathema, a belief for which I have yet to grasp the reasons. Especially if your case has a windowed mobo tray, it's about a 15 minute job to change a CPU.

 

[Freddy1765]

Unfortunately, there seems to be a core group to whom CPU upgrading is anathema, a belief for which I have yet to grasp the reasons.

The marginal (gaming) benefits of IB or HW over SB provide compelling reasons not to upgrade the CPU until at least a couple of generations have gone by. I for one am struggling to justify the upgrade from 2500k to something like a 4790k, however much I feel the itch.

Furthermore, unless an individual is in the market for HW E-series CPUs, the introduction of DDR4 memory will further diminish the benefit of upgrading since what is now considered the 'cutting edge' has a tangible expiration date.
This fact certainly helps to alleviate this itch of mine.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I wasn't a big fan of the G3258 when it came out, because the performance metrics just aren't that compelling, but subjective experience coupled with the fact that this CPU is the cheapest way to get into LGA 1150 have served to make me a bit of an evangelist for the little chip that could, with the caveat that it ought to be replaced with something better when funds allow. Unfortunately, there seems to be a core group to whom CPU upgrading is anathema, a belief for which I have yet to grasp the reasons. Especially if your case has a windowed mobo tray, it's about a 15 minute job to change a CPU.

I used to be in the "install and forget it" camp when it came to CPUs. Now that I've gone through three different CPUs on my AM3 rig, I can confidently say that I don't mind it so much anymore.

And this is when using CLU which, while hardly the most difficult TIM to apply, certainly brings with it some eccentricities that make application an involved process.

 

[cbn]

cbn thx,

pity you dont have BF4 anymore, i would have ask you to enable Mantle. Anyway ill try at the same map same settings and post pics.

What driver did you use ??

On those runs I posted, turns out I was using the old AMD driver provided by Windows 8.1 (which explains the lack of being able to select APIs).

Earlier in the week I had the 14.4 driver I downloaded from AMD. (Long story on how the drivers got changed. Long story.)

 

[cbn]

Thanks for that info!

http://www.techbuyersguru.com/haswellgaming.php

Note that their budget recommendation is the i3.

Two things I want to point out from the following:

So what’s the best CPU pick for PC gamers? As we said from the start, we know the Pentium has more to give in terms of clock speed, but so do the Core i5 and Core i7 processors. Plus, it’s the only CPU in this test that actually required the use of a more expensive Z97-based motherboard to achieve the results shown – all the other CPUs would have provided the same performance bolted to a budget H97 motherboard like the Gigabyte GA-H97M-HD3. Therefore, if you're on a strict budget, our best advice is to skip the Pentium and go for a midrange Hyperthreaded dual-core like the Intel Core i3-4150, which should provide performance nearly equal to the
in most games for about $25 less.

Achieving the results of 3.7 Ghz G3258 can be accomplished with any of the Non-Z boards listed in this thread --> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2389948

(So Z board is not an absolute necessity)

Regarding the comparison of i3-4150 to i3-4360 , I am not sure what to say about that at this time. We rarely ever see 3MB cache i3 tested. However in the following test 3MB cache i3 did lose quite often to OC G3258---> https://translate.google.com/transl...sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://pclab.pl/art57691.html

Side Note: I did not post all the results from the review above. (only the results in which G3258 beat the 3MB Haswell Core i3)

 

[cbn]

Well this is what I'v been saying about dual cores. You may have high fps but you have terrible gameplay.

The G3258 has higher fps than 750K

but then have a look at Frame Times,

I have also experienced this behavior in my Thief Mantle review with the Pentium G3420.

Same happens in BF4 even in Single mode, just imagine what happens in 64 Player maps in MP mode.

Here are some more frame time variance tests:

 

[cbn]

Looking over those charts, it looks like Pentium 3258 wins 4 out 7 games (vs. Athlon x4 750K) as far as frame time variation goes.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I wasn't a big fan of the G3258 when it came out, because the performance metrics just aren't that compelling, but subjective experience coupled with the fact that this CPU is the cheapest way to get into LGA 1150 have served to make me a bit of an evangelist for the little chip that could, with the caveat that it ought to be replaced with something better when funds allow. Unfortunately, there seems to be a core group to whom CPU upgrading is anathema, a belief for which I have yet to grasp the reasons. Especially if your case has a windowed mobo tray, it's about a 15 minute job to change a CPU.

I thought the overclocked G3258 would be awesome until I started trying to run modern games on it. But frame variance really hurts it on a lot of games. I didn't realize how many new games need a quad core to run properly. Now having a better understanding, I would definitely recommend that people who can only afford the G3258 take a look at the upcoming Athlon X4 860K for the extra $20 bucks. I just don't think any game machine should be built with less than 4 cores. At the minimum, people should at least step up to a hyperthreaded dual core (i3) -- although, even then its still a locked chip

 

[cbn]

I thought the overclocked G3258 would be awesome until I started trying to run modern games on it. But frame variance really hurts it on a lot of games.

What GPU and detail settings do you use with your G3258?

I didn't realize how many new games need a quad core to run properly. Now having a better understanding, I would definitely recommend that people who can only afford the G3258 take a look at the upcoming Athlon X4 860K for the extra $20 bucks. I just don't think any game machine should be built with less than 4 cores.

Even Tom's Hardware who did the frame variance testing in this review recommends G3258 over Athlon x4 750K in their Best Gaming CPUs for the money guide:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html

Speaking of the Pentium G3258, Chris Angelini took a closer look at its behavior matched up to a no-frills motherboard and stock heat sink in The Pentium G3258 Cheap Overclocking Experiment, which is worth a read if you're curious about the highest possible performance you can achieve with the lowest investment. With the G3258's potential more than proven, we've removed the Athlon X4 750K from our recommended list.

Now regarding the Athlon x4 860K, it will be interesting to see how that does. My guess is that a Kaveri Athlon x4 variant would be on par with the x4 760K (Kaveri has higher IPC than Richland, but clocks lower), but with AMD crippling cache on 860K I have no idea where it will be performance wise?

 

[cbn]

Looking at the BF4 frame time variance results more closely:

Nvidia GTX Titan 6GB is listed as the video card:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-overclocking-performance,3849-3.html

1.) I wonder what would have happened if a Radeon GPU was used and the Mantle API were selected?

2.) I wonder what happens to frame time variance if detail settings are lowered from 1080p ultra to something better balanced to the small cpus we are discussing in this thread? (A smaller GPU can be used to keep GPU calculation times in balance if necessary)

3.) At what point does frame time variance no longer matter?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yea, I wonder about the frame time variance as well, what is the acceptable value. I thought anything under 5 was considered not to be a problem. Dont really have a source for that, just seems like I have seen some comments to that effect, but cant find the source.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

What GPU and detail settings do you use with your G3258?

Even Tom's Hardware who did the frame variance testing in this review recommends G3258 over Athlon x4 750K in their Best Gaming CPUs for the money guide:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html

Now regarding the Athlon x4 860K, it will be interesting to see how that does. My guess is that a Kaveri Athlon x4 variant would be on par with the x4 760K (Kaveri has higher IPC than Richland, but clocks lower), but with AMD crippling cache on 860K I have no idea where it will be performance wise?

The G3258 was using a Radeon R7 265 -- just didn't seem like a good match to the G3258.

The 750K is an ancient Trinity based chip. I would hope it is not as good as a G3258. Nobody is using those things any more... the 760K or 860K would likely be the chips people would use for a build today.

Without the heat of the GPU on the 860K, I'd imagine it could probably overclock to levels close to Richlands. I'm also curious about the cache performance, but I'd imagine the 860K outperforms the 760K which is a pretty good performer for the price.

The A10 7850K was a nice improvement over the Richland, even though the clock speed was lower.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Actually except for a very few isolated applications, the 7850k is a fairly small improvement over the 6850k in cpu performance. anand bench, Most of the ipc gain was lost because of lower clocks. So I am not sure 860k would show much difference. As I said at the start of this thread though, it is too bad the article the op cited did not include some AMD cpus, especially the Athlons and FX6300 for comparison with the overclocked pentium and i3.

 

[MongGrel]

Dual X5690's on a SR2?

I have no idea how they stack up these days and not buying em to find out.

 

[cbn]

Some videos would be great too.

At what point does a game noticeably stutter with G3258 and/or Athlon x4 750K/760K/860K?

For my set-up It doesn't appear to be 1080p low.

1080p med? 1080p high? 1080p ultra?

P.S. I don't have BF4 anymore (I was using it via Origin Gametime), but I still have BF3.

cbn thx,

pity you dont have BF4 anymore, i would have ask you to enable Mantle. Anyway ill try at the same map same settings and post pics.

What driver did you use ??

On those runs I posted, turns out I was using the old AMD driver provided by Windows 8.1 (which explains the lack of being able to select APIs).

Earlier in the week I had the 14.4 driver I downloaded from AMD. (Long story on how the drivers got changed. Long story.)

Now that I am thinking about this more, I wonder if my two moments of noticeable stutter (in over 7 hours of BF4 gameplay) were related to having the 13.1 driver installed (rather than the 14.4)?

At some point I'll probably post up videos of complete BF gameplay using the 14.4 driver (after I buy BF4 and learn how to record and post videos on YouTube).

Numbers are really great to have for comparison purposes, but I think actually seeing the gameplay helps quite a bit too.

 

[wand3r3r]

Since the new e edition cpus are based on haswell, can't we basically assume they will fall in line with these results with the exception being where more cores can be utilized.