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

[crashtech]

In 2014 yes Quad cores are most of the time much better both for applications and gaming.

Just have a look at AT Pentium G3258 review and see how the Pentium is doing against the 65W A8-7600 or the Core i3. Even OCed to 4.7GHz and most of the time it is slower than the Core i3 4330 and in some cases the A8-7600.
It is fun to play with but not something to recommend for you main 2014 System.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/...y-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae/2

Quad cores that actually have decent IPC, of course. Low-end AMD quads do not, and there's no getting away from the fact that in the majority of tasks done by an average user, the system with low IPC cores is going to be slower, whether there be 4, 6, or 8.

And why not a G3258 for a "main" system for a kid that plays games, does homework, and surfs the Internet. That's who these CPUs are aimed at, as evidenced by all the new posters coming into the G3258 OCing thread. I already told my nephew that he'd want to get an i5 or better once he learned more about the performance limitations of his system. I'll buy back his G3258 at that time; he understands the deal and for him it's a good one. Most of the performance he needs out of a CPU right now for less than 25% of the cost of an unlocked i5.

 

[cbn]

Just have a look at AT Pentium G3258 review and see how the Pentium is doing against the 65W A8-7600 or the Core i3. Even OCed to 4.7GHz and most of the time it is slower than the Core i3 4330 and in some cases the A8-7600.
It is fun to play with but not something to recommend for you main 2014 System.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/...y-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae/2

Looking at the benchmarks on that page, I only see 2 out of 17 where the A8-7600 beats 4.7 GHz G3258 (PC Mark8 v2 Creative 3.0 Open CL IGP and hybrid x265 4K).

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

In 2014 yes Quad cores are most of the time much better both for applications and gaming.

Just have a look at AT Pentium G3258 review and see how the Pentium is doing against the 65W A8-7600 or the Core i3. Even OCed to 4.7GHz and most of the time it is slower than the Core i3 4330 and in some cases the A8-7600.
It is fun to play with but not something to recommend for you main 2014 System.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/...y-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae/2

Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself.

You're not going have a lot of friends if you're recommending a G3258 for building their game machine. Because as soon as they fire up a game like Thief or BF4 -- that friend is going to think you just punked them.

An i3 is able to provide a consistent experience for games that rely on single threaded or multithreaded performance. The G3258 chokes on multithreaded games. It's definitely worth the extra $50 bucks.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Quad cores that actually have decent IPC, of course. Low-end AMD quads do not, and there's no getting away from the fact that in the majority of tasks done by an average user, the system with low IPC cores is going to be slower, whether there be 4, 6, or 8.

And why not a G3258 for a "main" system for a kid that plays games, does homework, and surfs the Internet. That's who these CPUs are aimed at, as evidenced by all the new posters coming into the G3258 OCing thread. I already told my nephew that he'd want to get an i5 or better once he learned more about the performance limitations of his system. I'll buy back his G3258 at that time; he understands the deal and for him it's a good one. Most of the performance he needs out of a CPU right now for less than 25% of the cost of an unlocked i5.

If I was your nephew, I would saran wrap your toilet for going so cheap with that PC build. The G3258 has such limited capabilities -- it's almost like buying him an atom cpu. What happens if he wants to do some video editing? Run a little photoshop? The G3258 is a lackluster offering without overclocking the hell out of it -- you really can't spring another $40 to 50 dollars on at least an i3???? You know.... a CPU that doesn't need to be abused to get decent performance (i3)? Thankfully, my uncles aren't such cheap skates. For most users, the G3258 is a product past its prime (a dual core living in a quad core world). I would never do that to any of my family members -- I wouldn't be able to look myself in the mirror. If you build an intel system, you most certainly get what you pay for.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Quad cores that actually have decent IPC, of course. Low-end AMD quads do not, and there's no getting away from the fact that in the majority of tasks done by an average user, the system with low IPC cores is going to be slower, whether there be 4, 6, or 8.

Even that is misleading -- I can probably go grab an ancient Pentium 4 and hook it up to a solid state..... And most users will probably think its faster at a majority of tasks than a Haswell with a hard drive in it.

IPC isn't the end all..... I know a lowly AMD FX-6300 that makes an i7 3970x look sluggish to most users at work -- because of the solid states in the AMD box (versus the hard drives in the i7).

 

[VirtualLarry]

The G3258 has such limited capabilities -- it's almost like buying him an atom cpu.

Hyperbole much? it's faster than a Core2Quad Q9650, once overclocked to 4.0 or above. (Should be trivial on a board that supports non-Z OC, even with the stock cooler.)

 

[cbn]

you really can't spring another $40 to 50 dollars on at least an i3????

I assume you are referring to the i3-4130? ($120 at Newegg compared to $70 for G3258)

However, In the United States the price difference is often times much greater than that $50 because the G3258 is very consistently available in sale priced processor/mobo bundles (some of the G3258/mobo bundles have gone as low as $75).

Best case scenario the person saves much more than $50 dollars compared to i3-4130 (possibly $100 or more due to the savings realized from the G3258/mobo bundle). Worst case scenario the person has to sell G3258 and buy a Core i3 Haswell. It's not like the motherboards that use G3258 can't take a Core i3. The processors are fully interchangeable so the risk of making the wrong decision is minimal.

 

[crashtech]

Even that is misleading -- I can probably go grab an ancient Pentium 4 and hook it up to a solid state..... And most users will probably think its faster at a majority of tasks than a Haswell with a hard drive in it.

IPC isn't the end all..... I know a lowly AMD FX-6300 that makes an i7 3970x look sluggish to most users at work -- because of the solid states in the AMD box (versus the hard drives in the i7).

Quoted for posterity, your first example in particular is unintentionally hilarious.

 

[Deders]

Quoted for posterity, your first example in particular is unintentionally hilarious.

You could do it with average users that just browse and word process, it would have to be a 3.6GHz model but it would work fine with enough ram, even with windows 7.

 

[Enigmoid]

You could do it with average users that just browse and word process, it would have to be a 3.6GHz model but it would work fine with enough ram, even with windows 7.

I think it would have major trouble doing something simple like 1080p youtube + skype.

 

[Lepton87]

But that is OK because that is a comparison of a $72 processor to a $147 one going by Intel Ark Box prices. (Current street prices using Newegg are $69.99 for G3258 and $139.99 for i3-4330)

The question (in my mind) is does the overclocked $72 processor meet "recommended specs" (in a functional sense, if not literally) for the latest games. I think it does for BF4 and COD Ghosts.

I assume you are referring to the i3-4130? ($120 at Newegg compared to $70 for G3258)

However, In the United States the price difference is often times much greater than that $50 because the G3258 is very consistently available in sale priced processor/mobo bundles (some of the G3258/mobo bundles have gone as low as $75).

Best case scenario the person saves much more than $50 dollars compared to i3-4130 (possibly $100 or more due to the savings realized from the G3258/mobo bundle). Worst case scenario the person has to sell G3258 and buy a Core i3 Haswell. It's not like the motherboards that use G3258 can't take a Core i3. The processors are fully interchangeable so the risk of making the wrong decision is minimal.

Hyperbole much? it's faster than a Core2Quad Q9650, once overclocked to 4.0 or above. (Should be trivial on a board that supports non-Z OC, even with the stock cooler.)

The problem with 2 threaded CPUs in games is that they have to juggle the game's threads which the Windows scheduler does it in a way that can be felt and measured in frame time variance. So that CPU can be perfectly fine everywhere, sometimes even feel more responsive than even CPUs that costs few times as much but in games frame times variance bothers some people and others couldn't care less about it. So recommending an overclocking 2T CPU to a gamer maybe risky. That C2Q may produce worse frame-rates but much less frame time variance because it doesn't have to juggle threads and deal with the scheduler inefficiencies. NV had a problem with low frame-rates when their cards were used with a 2-threaded CPU all of which they managed to fix entirely in software by releasing new drivers. Maybe some combination of scheduler improvements, drivers improvements and a game patch could help reduce those frame times variances in game that have the biggest problems with it. But it would cast money and I guess a lot of it so I'm sure that if it even can be done it won't, why spend money on people who buy low-margin products in the first place. Better to improve higher margin products and I actually agree with that under one stipulation, stop artificially gimping your cheaper hardware or making other shananigans (PsyX not working with a Radeon rendering the game, why greedy NV, why you greedy bastards?)
ps. I'm taking about a HW pentium at around 4.5GHz.

 

[crashtech]

I want to make sure that everyone knows that I agree with them that a better CPU will give a better experience, and one should be purchased if possible. But I am not sure how anyone can really argue with a CPU with a price tag below $70 that in most cases can be cranked high enough to give ST performance on par or even in excess of an OCed 4770K. As an introduction to overclocking and LGA 1150, it's a budget value that has no equal right now.

 

[Lepton87]

I want to make sure that everyone knows that I agree with them that a better CPU will give a better experience, and one should be purchased if possible. But I am not sure how anyone can really argue with a CPU with a price tag below $70 that in most cases can be cranked high enough to give ST performance on par or even in excess of an OCed 4770K. As an introduction to overclocking and LGA 1150, it's a budget value that has no equal right now.

I agree that this CPU is a great value and the biggest argument against it is that you have to buy a cooler but I don't know an enthusiast who doesn't have at least a few spare coolers I myself have a lot laying around. My best spare cooler is probably zalman CNPS 10X black which would be ample for this CPU. Even if I was building a rig for someone I would find somewhere in my collection a much better cooler than the Intel's BOX cooler and I would give it for free, because if I already decided to assemble someone a computer I at the very least must like that person.

 

[richierich1212]

You can use the stock cooler for the G3258 for up to 1.3vcore safely. I use arctic cooling mx-4 though.

 

[Lepton87]

You can use the stock cooler for the G3258 for up to 1.3vcore safely. I use arctic cooling mx-4 though.

I just hate the stock cooler and personally I'd never use it but that's just me. I like big coolers.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Quoted for posterity, your first example in particular is unintentionally hilarious.

Hilarious? I nearly did it......

You do realize that office workers don't generally run benchmarks all day.... And a solid state by itself can make mediocre hardware appear downright impressive.... Especially to people who are used to 5400 rpm hard drives.

BTW, someone discarded a Dell Optiplex with a P4-era Celeron as well as a SuperTalent 32 GB SSD..... So I threw them together to see what it would be like..... That antique was remarkably snappy and probably can run with many of the entry level laptops built today. I ended up donating that desktop to a local non-profit because it was still pretty useful after I installed Zorin OS Lite. But it's not a Pentium 4 can't run Windows 7 well, because it can.

 

[richierich1212]

I just hate the stock cooler and personally I'd never use it but that's just me. I like big coolers.

True I've never liked Intel's stock coolers either but the included one is much improved over previous ones and even has a copper base.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I want to make sure that everyone knows that I agree with them that a better CPU will give a better experience, and one should be purchased if possible. But I am not sure how anyone can really argue with a CPU with a price tag below $70 that in most cases can be cranked high enough to give ST performance on par or even in excess of an OCed 4770K. As an introduction to overclocking and LGA 1150, it's a budget value that has no equal right now.

Because that $70 is really a wasted investment -- in the long-term, more and more games and applications are going to tax it far more than the current crop of software. You'll get a longer useable life from the CPU by spending the extra money now. The future proof argument really does make a lot of sense in this case. Why spend $70 + the additional cost of upgrading to a better CPU, which can quickly add up to $200 - $300 total.... When they can simply pay the $120 and be done with it for quite a while. This TBG article actually made the same recommendation, I might add. They also said skip the Pentium -- and buy an i3 at the minimum. I'd still recommend stretching the budget to at least an unlocked i5 if you are a serious gamer.

Please learn from the lessons of my best friend. He outgrew his G3258 in only two months -- many on the Tom's forums recommended the G3258 for gaming, but it just falls short in demanding games..... He's angry at himself for not buying the i5 and being done with it.

 

[richierich1212]

I'm hoping there will be a deal or two on the upcoming AMD 860K. I'll probably pick one up to play with.

 

[cbn]

I'm hoping there will be a deal or two on the upcoming AMD 860K. I'll probably pick one up to play with.

Unfortunately we have not seen any processor/mobo combo deals (that I know of) on the 750K or 760K.

.....And I just wonder what It would take from AMD to see such a deal happen on a regular basis (on a mail order level rather than just purely in-store as with MC)? I am assuming these processor/mobo deals get created by the retailer as a means to sell other hardware.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I'm hoping there will be a deal or two on the upcoming AMD 860K. I'll probably pick one up to play with.

You know it's ironic if you think about it -- People have been complaining that AMD CPU's were lopsided in their performance..... Lackluster at single threaded, but strong at multi-threaded.

Now Intel has just built a lopsided chip as well in the G3258 -- only the polar opposite. Strong at single threaded, and lackluster at multi-threaded.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Unfortunately we have not seen any processor/mobo combo deals (that I know of) on the 750K or 760K.

.....And I just wonder what It would take from AMD to see such a deal happen on a regular basis (on a mail order level rather than just purely in-store as with MC)? I am assuming these processor/mobo deals get created by the retailer as a means to sell other hardware.

Pretty sure many of the CPU/mobo combo deals are funded by "marketing dollars" from the vendors. Newegg, for example, isn't likely eating the whole cost of the $79.99 G3258 combo. (And if they are, then they have been overcharging on CPUs and mobos for years then.)

 

[cbn]

Pretty sure many of the CPU/mobo combo deals are funded by "marketing dollars" from the vendors. Newegg, for example, isn't likely eating the whole cost of the $79.99 G3258 combo. (And if they are, then they have been overcharging on CPUs and mobos for years then.)

Yep, that is what I am thinking too.

Basically AMD needs to give us something of super value in order for Newegg or Tiger Direct to kick in the extra bonus.

 

[Ryujin Jakka]

Microcenter has super deals on amd cpu and motherboard combo as compared to newegg.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I think it would have major trouble doing something simple like 1080p youtube + skype.

1080p might be a bridge too far for most Pentium 4's -- although I do know that the later P4's can manage 720p with a good dedicated video card of their era (like a Radeon 9600 Pro). High CPU load, though -- but fairly smooth playback.