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

W

wand3r3r

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
422
An interesting comparison across the Intel CPU range.

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

It's a great representation of the current CPUs. The differences that e.g. cores, cache, and hyperthreading make are interesting to see.

They compare these CPUs.
Intel Pentium G3258 3.2GHz 3MB (overclocked to 3.7GHz) - $69
Intel Core i3-4360 3.7GHz 4MB - $149
Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz 3MB (Turbo to 3.7GHz) - $240
Intel Core i7-4770K 3.5GHz 4MB (Turbo to 3.7GHz, Hyperthreading disabled) - $330
Intel Core i7-4770K 3.5GHz 4MB (Turbo to 3.7GHz) - $330
Intel Core i7-4790K 4.0GHz 4MB (Turbo to 4.2GHz) - $340

Does it solidify your CPU choice?
 
Without question you can build a decent budget gaming system around the G3258. Still most [H]ard Gamers will gravitate to the i5 or i7. Of course it depends on how cpu bound the game is. BF4 is a good example of why the G3258 is not an across the board slam dunk choice.

Also it probably goes without saying but anyone building a system around a $70 cpu is likely not going to pair that with a $600-700 video card [GTX 780 Ti]. Almost everyone would agree a better use of $700 for a cpu-gpu combo would be a 4770k or 4790k with an R9 290.

Still the point is well made that the G3258 has a place especially for the budget conscious
 
Since all G3258s can go to 4.2 even with stock coolers, it seems unfair that they only OC-ed it by 500mhz. 4200 would've been fair, as anything above that you need luck, but 4200 is basically guaranteed out of the box when you go for the G3258.
 
GonzoP said:
Without question you can build a decent budget gaming system around the G3258. Still most [H]ard Gamers will gravitate to the i5 or i7. Of course it depends on how cpu bound the game is. BF4 is a good example of why the G3258 is not an across the board slam dunk choice.

Also it probably goes without saying but anyone building a system around a $70 cpu is likely not going to pair that with a $600-700 video card [GTX 780 Ti]. Almost everyone would agree a better use of $700 for a cpu-gpu combo would be a 4770k or 4790k with an R9 290.

Still the point is well made that the G3258 has a place especially for the budget conscious
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not a slam dunk by any means but it's pretty solid for $70. What's interesting to me is anything over the $200 or so price point doesn't differentiate too strongly despite costing even 50% more.

M76 said:
Since all G3258s can go to 4.2 even with stock coolers, it seems unfair that they only OC-ed it by 500mhz. 4200 would've been fair, as anything above that you need luck, but 4200 is basically guaranteed out of the box when you go for the G3258.
Click to expand...

The point was to compare them on even footing. I guess they can all (the tested CPUs) go 4.2 no problem so you have a similar situation. It wasn't focused on "OC" vs anything, just putting the lone slower CPU up to the speed of the others. Now the difference of the cache, HT, cores are demonstrated. They have a couple articles exploring cores, threads, etc. but this was across the whole intel CPU line.
 
wand3r3r said:
Yeah, it's not a slam dunk by any means but it's pretty solid for $70. What's interesting to me is anything over the $200 or so price point doesn't differentiate too strongly despite costing even 50% more.



The point was to compare them on even footing. I guess they can all (the tested CPUs) go 4.2 no problem so you have a similar situation. It wasn't focused on "OC" vs anything, just putting the lone slower CPU up to the speed of the others. Now the difference of the cache, HT, cores are demonstrated. They have a couple articles exploring cores, threads, etc. but this was across the whole intel CPU line.
Click to expand...

Speaking of $70 cpu's that's the exact price I paid for my Xeon 5650 [the Hexa Core version of the first gen i7 basically]. I'll tell you what that breathing some new life into my aging x58 system. Should get me to Skylake now. I'm running her at 4.5Ghz and at that speed I can best a 4770k or 3930k in most benchmarks. Again all for $70
 
I've always maintained that, since the release of the Sandy Bridge Pentium, Intel has had the low-end value gaming sector locked-up. This new unlocked Pentium just seals the deal, and gives enthusiasts tweakers a cheaper alternative than AMD.

You get a lot of performance for that $70, and can even game on the lowly $50 Celeron (which will drop framerates only by 15% or so). Just had a friend build himself a Celeron-powered low-end gaming system 2 years ago, and he was amazed how fast it was...and he has yet to complain and need an upgrade :D

One thing: I still recommend to people with the cash to go with an i5. The extra cores mean more fluid frames in today's games, and a lot longer viable lifetime (6-7 years, versus 4-5 for the Pentium). You also have enough cores to scale sli or cfx if you ago desire. Not bad for a hundred more.
 
Last edited:
Does it solidify your CPU choice? NO




I been playing with my Xeon X5660 and keeping things just like what you see as stock clocks for all those cpu's listed as I used and everything is on and ram is 1410Mhz .. this is x58 chipset and cpu is at 1.21v.. cpu cost was $140

Base clock 3.68 Ghz
Turbo clock 4.0 Ghz

Firestrike Physics Score 13664

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2632895
 
tobi54 said:
Quick question, of the cuff, how would my i5 [email protected] compare with this list? Thanks in advance, I'm at work, Barracuda blocks everything.
Click to expand...

Your 2500k performance AT STOCK would be between the i3 and the i5 STOCK.

The performance would be similar to the i3 in games that used two cores, and faster in games that used 4 cores (Crysis 3, Battlefield 4). It would be slower than the Core i5 in all tests, but probably not by much.

Overclocked, your 2500k would be faster than the i5 they tested, but not by much, since (in this test) it was already lightly overclocked to 3.7 GHz to compare more directly to the Core i3.

It's generally agreed that Haswell processors are 10-15% faster than Sandy Bridge per-clock, and that the average overclock on them is in the 4.3-4.4 GHz range (Sandy could get 4.5-4.6 without trying). This makes performance when overclocked VERY CLOSE, since the slightly faster overclock speed of Sandy Bridge negates the increase in performance per clock Haswell has.
 
Last edited:
I recently upgraded my HTPC/kids computer from an X2 3800+ to a Celeron G1850. That $43 dual core has impressed me to no end. Anyone that wants a capable gaming system but is stricken with an insanely tight budget should have zero doubts or reservations regarding entry-level Intel dual core offerings.

At the rate things are progressing, I'd be willing to assume that in 4-8 years we will see unlocked Pentium chips that are triple or quad core for < $100.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top