But to make it competitive to the 6300 or i3, you need to overclock the crap out of it.
That CPUBoss link is utter garbage btw. I did dig up this link - a FX6350 vs a G3258 was the only comparison where I could get some gaming benchmarks thrown in there, and these are taken at stock speeds (and seeing as how a 6350 is an 400Mhz OCed 6300, I am willing to interpolate, but not everyone may be).
Looking at the game benchmarks only: There are a few cases where a stock G3258 does beat a stock 6350 for gaming - but it's usually by a small margin (one outlier there of Bioshock, I admit, but looking at it it isn't playable on either at the settings they used). There are a lot of cases where the performance is about a wash. And there are a few cases where the 6350 runs away from the G3258 and it isn't even close.
So yeah, to get a G3258 competitive, you need to clock it up from around stock 3.2G to 4.5G+. Not everyone is willing to overclock, and it does put stress on your components: I wouldn't want to do that on a budget $50 motherboard. Although you may get lucky, I find that tends to cause more stability problems than is worth it. By most accounts, a G3258 is a pretty good overclocker, and paired with a decent motherboard (and the willingness and capability to so) you could get some good performance for cheap. But then again, a 6300 is a decent overclocker as well...
Originally posted by NightHaveN He should aim at a quad core chip at least. If his budget can't accommodate an i5, then he should go for an AMD chip. But these days, building a 2 core system is pointless. Not many games fully use multi core, even not all games are 64-bit, and still bound to the 4 GB memory space.
But again, things are suppose to move forward and improve. And today buying a 2 core chips is a waste of money.
Also the OP should consider an equivalent Axx APU instead. They use their own socket, so you cannot recycle an AM2+ one, but with an extra ATI card you are considering, they can work together in a Cross Fire kind of setup and improve frame rate.
Some dual cores out perform quad cores. Why people think that a quad core always means better.
Because if you CTRL+ALT+DEL and look at the process list, you will see A LOT of small programs running on your system. The more cores your computer has, thus the more responsive it will be.
But like I said earlier, that's for overall desktop multitasking, still the speed per each single core is also very important because each time one process or app get a core time, the faster the core is, the faster the job will get done.
I have seen an intell dual core run better benchmarks then a AMD quad core of the same price range. There is more to a CPU then just the number of cores. Any tech guy worth his salt knows this. AMD likes to chuck around lower end crap, box it up with multi cores and make it look awesome. In the end you need to look whats inside the CPU, how many levels of cache does it have etc. My main point is, AMD can make a CPU look awesome spec wise but in the end, same price point the intel with lower looking specs does better.
Dude, do the math... is simple... follow me.
Each program uses (most of them) a single core.
Since Intel is faster per core, and faster at floating point math, Intel will wipe AMD on X program benchmark.
But the few benchmarks that test overall system responsiveness, when multiple cores work at the same time, then you see the other way, AMD wiping Intel.
That's why at gaming where most logic is done by the main CPU core, Intel chips usually come in front.
Simple math.
PS. And AMD chips usually come with more memory in the dye, to compensate for the lackluster core performance.
AMD FX-6300 (3.5GHz)
L1
L2
L3
3x64k Instruction
6x16k Data
3x2MB
1x8MB
Intel i5-4460 (3.2 GHz)
L1
L2
L3
4x32k Instruction
4x32k Data
4x256k
1x6MB
Humm... AMD with more in dye memory, faster clock, but perform slower....
Highlighted your end statement and highlighted the answer I already gave you on that. Yes, looks like lower specs but benchmark it and more often Intel wins. Intel just does it better and I could list all sorts of reasons why but its all over the net when you google Intel vs AMD. AMD looks good on paper, Intel works better. At the same price point I would pick Intel 8 out of 10 times.
But to make it competitive to the 6300 or i3, you need to overclock the crap out of it.
That CPUBoss link is utter garbage btw. I did dig up this link - a FX6350 vs a G3258 was the only comparison where I could get some gaming benchmarks thrown in there, and these are taken at stock speeds (and seeing as how a 6350 is an 400Mhz OCed 6300, I am willing to interpolate, but not everyone may be).
Looking at the game benchmarks only: There are a few cases where a stock G3258 does beat a stock 6350 for gaming - but it's usually by a small margin (one outlier there of Bioshock, I admit, but looking at it it isn't playable on either at the settings they used). There are a lot of cases where the performance is about a wash. And there are a few cases where the 6350 runs away from the G3258 and it isn't even close.
So yeah, to get a G3258 competitive, you need to clock it up from around stock 3.2G to 4.5G+. Not everyone is willing to overclock, and it does put stress on your components: I wouldn't want to do that on a budget $50 motherboard. Although you may get lucky, I find that tends to cause more stability problems than is worth it. By most accounts, a G3258 is a pretty good overclocker, and paired with a decent motherboard (and the willingness and capability to so) you could get some good performance for cheap. But then again, a 6300 is a decent overclocker as well...
CPUBoss is not garbage its an over all rating. Also I go by what people have stated and not synthetic benchmark. If we go by synthetic benchmark then the g3258 has far stronger cores.
You can pick up a really good overclocking board for 80$ slap a fan on it and be good to go. The boards can self over clock now days anyways. The G3258 run really cool for being overclocked so high.
In the end as long as the cpu doesn't bottle neck the GFX then it doesn't really matter unless the game is cpu dependent.
I only see a couple of games that the 6300 beats the G3258 but if this is at stock speed then the G3258 overclocked will be on par or beat it hands down.
Overclocking isn't like it was. I've overclocked all my stuff for years and on my new board I use asus's new app that does it all for me. 5820k at 4.4ghz at 42C. The boards these days are amazing.
I'm going to use my ricer vs. half-ton diesel truck analogy here again and hopefully you will understand what's going on.
cores = # of cylinders
memory cache = engine displacement
Weight = Processes (Programs, apps, background processes, Windows processes)
Ricer = dual-core - 2-cylinder
Diesel Truck = 6-core - 6-cyliner
The ricer may be fast off the line with little weight to drag around. Once you start adding more weight the ricer will reach it's capacity waaaaay before the diesel truck. The diesel truck is designed to haul more load. The diesel truck may not be the quickest off the line but it'll get you from A to B and back with more weight than a ricer can.
When a tricked out (overclocked) ricer is at 100% capacity the diesel truck is chilling at less than 50% chugging along. If you run a ricer at 100% cap all the time, you will notice wear on your parts a lot faster than if at normal use.
But to make it competitive to the 6300 or i3, you need to overclock the crap out of it.
That CPUBoss link is utter garbage btw. I did dig up this link - a FX6350 vs a G3258 was the only comparison where I could get some gaming benchmarks thrown in there, and these are taken at stock speeds (and seeing as how a 6350 is an 400Mhz OCed 6300, I am willing to interpolate, but not everyone may be).
Looking at the game benchmarks only: There are a few cases where a stock G3258 does beat a stock 6350 for gaming - but it's usually by a small margin (one outlier there of Bioshock, I admit, but looking at it it isn't playable on either at the settings they used). There are a lot of cases where the performance is about a wash. And there are a few cases where the 6350 runs away from the G3258 and it isn't even close.
So yeah, to get a G3258 competitive, you need to clock it up from around stock 3.2G to 4.5G+. Not everyone is willing to overclock, and it does put stress on your components: I wouldn't want to do that on a budget $50 motherboard. Although you may get lucky, I find that tends to cause more stability problems than is worth it. By most accounts, a G3258 is a pretty good overclocker, and paired with a decent motherboard (and the willingness and capability to so) you could get some good performance for cheap. But then again, a 6300 is a decent overclocker as well...
CPUBoss is not garbage its an over all rating. Also I go by what people have stated and not synthetic benchmark. If we go by synthetic benchmark then the g3258 has far stronger cores.
You can pick up a really good overclocking board for 80$ slap a fan on it and be good to go. The boards can self over clock now days anyways. The G3258 run really cool for being overclocked so high.
In the end as long as the cpu doesn't bottle neck the GFX then it doesn't really matter unless the game is cpu dependent.
I only see a couple of games that the 6300 beats the G3258 but if this is at stock speed then the G3258 overclocked will be on par or beat it hands down.
Overclocking isn't like it was. I've overclocked all my stuff for years and on my new board I use asus's new app that does it all for me. 5820k at 4.4ghz at 42C. The boards these days are amazing.
I'm going to use my ricer vs. half-ton diesel truck analogy here again and hopefully you will understand what's going on.
cores = # of cylinders
memory cache = engine displacement
Weight = Processes (Programs, apps, background processes, Windows processes)
Ricer = dual-core - 2-cylinder
Diesel Truck = 6-core - 6-cyliner
The ricer may be fast off the line with little weight to drag around. Once you start adding more weight the ricer will reach it's capacity waaaaay before the diesel truck. The diesel truck is designed to haul more load. The diesel truck may not be the quickest off the line but it'll get you from A to B and back with more weight than a ricer can.
When a tricked out (overclocked) ricer is at 100% capacity the diesel truck is chilling at less than 50% chugging along. If you run a ricer at 100% cap all the time, you will notice wear on your parts a lot faster than if at normal use.
Sorry your diesel truck analogy just doesn't work in the computer world. More core for gaming does nothing at this time. Most games only use 2 cores. Now if said person runs windows 10 and is playing a DX12 game then yes it'll come into play. Like I said if they need the extra cores for more then gaming then yes it'll help for like video editing. The funny part is the 6 cores amd has in that chip are just weak and the cores intel uses are just better.
I also didn't need this goofy analogy as I know the difference. I have a 5820k and as of right now the 4970k does better in gaming but I wanted the 6 cores for the future that DX12 holds.
The G3258 is an amazing chip overclocked. It takes AMD 6 weak cores to hold ground against a dual core.
I ran AMD for a long, long time. I spent 700$ on my 64 bit x2 when they came out like 10 years ago all the way up to amd phenom ii. Changed to Intel and never looked back. Intel is faster, cooler and just has all around better chipsets.
I already posted this and no one seems to want to read it because AMD fanboys can't stand an Intel dual core stacking up to AMDs 6-core
All in all he needs to go with what he can afford so if the AMD is what he can afford and wants then he should get it.
Why would anyone in their right mind spend hard earned money on a brand new PC that will match minimum requirements of the latest titles and titles to come in the future? If you build a PC for minimum requirements you might as well go and buy a console since it will have a shelf life expectancy of 8-10 years as apposed to updating to minimum specs every year or two. PC gamers don't build PCs only to take on one task at a time.
But to make it competitive to the 6300 or i3, you need to overclock the crap out of it.
That CPUBoss link is utter garbage btw. I did dig up this link - a FX6350 vs a G3258 was the only comparison where I could get some gaming benchmarks thrown in there, and these are taken at stock speeds (and seeing as how a 6350 is an 400Mhz OCed 6300, I am willing to interpolate, but not everyone may be).
Looking at the game benchmarks only: There are a few cases where a stock G3258 does beat a stock 6350 for gaming - but it's usually by a small margin (one outlier there of Bioshock, I admit, but looking at it it isn't playable on either at the settings they used). There are a lot of cases where the performance is about a wash. And there are a few cases where the 6350 runs away from the G3258 and it isn't even close.
So yeah, to get a G3258 competitive, you need to clock it up from around stock 3.2G to 4.5G+. Not everyone is willing to overclock, and it does put stress on your components: I wouldn't want to do that on a budget $50 motherboard. Although you may get lucky, I find that tends to cause more stability problems than is worth it. By most accounts, a G3258 is a pretty good overclocker, and paired with a decent motherboard (and the willingness and capability to so) you could get some good performance for cheap. But then again, a 6300 is a decent overclocker as well...
CPUBoss is not garbage its an over all rating. Also I go by what people have stated and not synthetic benchmark. If we go by synthetic benchmark then the g3258 has far stronger cores.
You can pick up a really good overclocking board for 80$ slap a fan on it and be good to go. The boards can self over clock now days anyways. The G3258 run really cool for being overclocked so high.
In the end as long as the cpu doesn't bottle neck the GFX then it doesn't really matter unless the game is cpu dependent.
I only see a couple of games that the 6300 beats the G3258 but if this is at stock speed then the G3258 overclocked will be on par or beat it hands down.
Overclocking isn't like it was. I've overclocked all my stuff for years and on my new board I use asus's new app that does it all for me. 5820k at 4.4ghz at 42C. The boards these days are amazing.
I'm going to use my ricer vs. half-ton diesel truck analogy here again and hopefully you will understand what's going on.
cores = # of cylinders
memory cache = engine displacement
Weight = Processes (Programs, apps, background processes, Windows processes)
Ricer = dual-core - 2-cylinder
Diesel Truck = 6-core - 6-cyliner
The ricer may be fast off the line with little weight to drag around. Once you start adding more weight the ricer will reach it's capacity waaaaay before the diesel truck. The diesel truck is designed to haul more load. The diesel truck may not be the quickest off the line but it'll get you from A to B and back with more weight than a ricer can.
When a tricked out (overclocked) ricer is at 100% capacity the diesel truck is chilling at less than 50% chugging along. If you run a ricer at 100% cap all the time, you will notice wear on your parts a lot faster than if at normal use.
Sorry your diesel truck analogy just doesn't work in the computer world. More core for gaming does nothing at this time. Most games only use 2 cores. Now if said person runs windows 10 and is playing a DX12 game then yes it'll come into play. Like I said if they need the extra cores for more then gaming then yes it'll help for like video editing. The funny part is the 6 cores amd has in that chip are just weak and the cores intel uses are just better.
I also didn't need this goofy analogy as I know the difference. I have a 5820k and as of right now the 4970k does better in gaming but I wanted the 6 cores for the future that DX12 holds.
The G3258 is an amazing chip overclocked. It takes AMD 6 weak cores to hold ground against a dual core.
I ran AMD for a long, long time. I spent 700$ on my 64 bit x2 when they came out like 10 years ago all the way up to amd phenom ii. Changed to Intel and never looked back. Intel is faster, cooler and just has all around better chipsets.
I already posted this and no one seems to want to read it because AMD fanboys can't stand an Intel dual core stacking up to AMDs 6-core
All in all he needs to go with what he can afford so if the AMD is what he can afford and wants then he should get it.
Why would anyone in their right mind spend hard earned money on a brand new PC that will match minimum requirements of the latest titles and titles to come in the future? If you build a PC for minimum requirements you might as well go and buy a console since it will have a shelf life expectancy of 8-10 years as apposed to updating to minimum specs every year or two. PC gamers don't build PCs only to take on one task at a time.
That's what he would be doing with the AMD computer what are you talking about? It would be a waste to build any AMD system as its a very very old socket and chipset. He might as well wait till skylake comes out and make the jump to ddr 4. Just so you know the g3258 is an lga 1150 socket so gives him far more room to upgrade to a better chip. I guess the 69$ chip is just to much or is it maybe people just hate in intel to hate.
He could pick up a i7 4970k down the road for cheap and that would last him years.
All nice and dandy but 6300/8320 will also last couple of years without a need for 200+$ upgrade down the line.
Buying dulacore now is wasting money. At lest i3 has some fluff to try to compete (but it doesnt). And thats why its more expencive than 6300. But its dual core CPU. Buying pretty much native dual core today is throwing 69$ away and setting yourfself for 200+$ upgrade in near future.
200$ would be MUCH spent on SSD than CPU. SSD would add much more the rig than pontless CPU upgrade.
Buying 6300/8320 and very good GPU IS setting up your rig to last a quite a few years WITHOUT need to touch anything.
And again, by your logic everyone should just forget about i3/i5/i7 because theres g3258. And by your logic upgrading is absolutely out of question. But suggesting picking up i7 (wtf for), g3258 does the trick? But then again, even Phenom II does that particular trick.
That's what he would be doing with the AMD computer what are you talking about? It would be a waste to build any AMD system as its a very very old socket and chipset. He might as well wait till skylake comes out and make the jump to ddr 4. Just so you know the g3258 is an lga 1150 socket so gives him far more room to upgrade to a better chip. I guess the 69$ chip is just to much or is it maybe people just hate in intel to hate.
He could pick up a i7 4970k down the road for cheap and that would last him years.
Wow, that link you posted. OC'ing on a cheap MOBO using the stock heat sink - that's some sound advice right there, no it's not. With that set up in the video you are really rolling the dice with your PC. Hitting limits on the MOBO, fan, and CPU? No thank you, I like my PCs working please.
Just an added note as I saw 6300 in the title etc.
Son has overclocked [email protected] on a y120 fan on standard heatsink - does not get above 50c top loaded.
Runs everything today thrown at it, even ark funny enough, coupled with a gtx970. No cpu/gpu bound issues at all.
All major new titles that are coded well running at max settings on 1920*1080.
It is a great little cpu for its low cost etc, of course intel is way to go if you can wangle the wonga a bit more or lot more rather lol, but bang for buck you can not go wrong. Was very impressed, if you are one of those must have max fps guys for competitive csgo :P then 400-500 fps unlocked in game is admirable for those that like snappy fast sh*t.
Makes me giggle as well because the stock cooler and a strapped on 120 fan is not hindering the cpu at all, it idles with the amd temp offsets corrected at 26c on standard uk day right now.. Not bad at all. Sod that water lark
Originally posted by 13lake Dual cores are useless now, by september 2016 they're gonna be extinct.
The point so much isnt that someone should go with a dual core, its more that an Intel Dual Core at the same price point of an AMD quad core, the Intel 8 out of 10 times ends up being the better option and out preforms the AMD even if it looks like it has lower specs. The point is, Intel is almost always the better option even if it looks like its lower specs.
Originally posted by 13lake Dual cores are useless now, by september 2016 they're gonna be extinct.
The point so much isnt that someone should go with a dual core, its more that an Intel Dual Core at the same price point of an AMD quad core, the Intel 8 out of 10 times ends up being the better option and out preforms the AMD even if it looks like it has lower specs. The point is, Intel is almost always the better option even if it looks like its lower specs.
Originally posted by 13lake Dual cores are useless now, by september 2016 they're gonna be extinct.
The point so much isnt that someone should go with a dual core, its more that an Intel Dual Core at the same price point of an AMD quad core, the Intel 8 out of 10 times ends up being the better option and out preforms the AMD even if it looks like it has lower specs. The point is, Intel is almost always the better option even if it looks like its lower specs.
Nope.
You can say nope all you like, but I have been building PC for over 20 years. I have even had friends challenge me on this when they build their own PC and we built one head to head with the same amount of money. The Intel almost always won even when on paper it looked like to the layman the AMD had higher specs =-)
Originally posted by 13lake Dual cores are useless now, by september 2016 they're gonna be extinct.
The point so much isnt that someone should go with a dual core, its more that an Intel Dual Core at the same price point of an AMD quad core, the Intel 8 out of 10 times ends up being the better option and out preforms the AMD even if it looks like it has lower specs. The point is, Intel is almost always the better option even if it looks like its lower specs.
Nope.
You can say nope all you like, but I have been building PC for over 20 years. I have even had friends challenge me on this when they build their own PC and we built one head to head with the same amount of money. The Intel almost always won even when on paper it looked like to the layman the AMD had higher specs =-)
Ive been buiding PCs for 25 years.
I dont tend to put overpriced pieces of HW in rigs unless someone insits on wasting money.
OTOH you waste other peoples money leisurely based unfounded bias.
Originally posted by 13lake Dual cores are useless now, by september 2016 they're gonna be extinct.
The point so much isnt that someone should go with a dual core, its more that an Intel Dual Core at the same price point of an AMD quad core, the Intel 8 out of 10 times ends up being the better option and out preforms the AMD even if it looks like it has lower specs. The point is, Intel is almost always the better option even if it looks like its lower specs.
Nope.
You can say nope all you like, but I have been building PC for over 20 years. I have even had friends challenge me on this when they build their own PC and we built one head to head with the same amount of money. The Intel almost always won even when on paper it looked like to the layman the AMD had higher specs =-)
That doesn't automatically make you right There are certainly times when an AMD system will outperform the same priced Intel system. Once you get to the i7 AMD cannot compete except in very specific cases.
Originally posted by 13lake Dual cores are useless now, by september 2016 they're gonna be extinct.
The point so much isnt that someone should go with a dual core, its more that an Intel Dual Core at the same price point of an AMD quad core, the Intel 8 out of 10 times ends up being the better option and out preforms the AMD even if it looks like it has lower specs. The point is, Intel is almost always the better option even if it looks like its lower specs.
Nope.
You can say nope all you like, but I have been building PC for over 20 years. I have even had friends challenge me on this when they build their own PC and we built one head to head with the same amount of money. The Intel almost always won even when on paper it looked like to the layman the AMD had higher specs =-)
Ive been buiding PCs for 25 years.
I dont tend to put overpriced pieces of HW in rigs unless someone insits on wasting money.
OTOH you waste other peoples money leisurely based unfounded bias.
Sorry but no, I put in AMD in people PC when it matters but my point still stands. 8 out of 10 times, Intel is the better option. Also for the life of the PC and upgrade paths, Intel still gives the best options.
Originally posted by 13lake Dual cores are useless now, by september 2016 they're gonna be extinct.
The point so much isnt that someone should go with a dual core, its more that an Intel Dual Core at the same price point of an AMD quad core, the Intel 8 out of 10 times ends up being the better option and out preforms the AMD even if it looks like it has lower specs. The point is, Intel is almost always the better option even if it looks like its lower specs.
Nope.
You can say nope all you like, but I have been building PC for over 20 years. I have even had friends challenge me on this when they build their own PC and we built one head to head with the same amount of money. The Intel almost always won even when on paper it looked like to the layman the AMD had higher specs =-)
Ive been buiding PCs for 25 years.
I dont tend to put overpriced pieces of HW in rigs unless someone insits on wasting money.
OTOH you waste other peoples money leisurely based unfounded bias.
Sorry but no, I put in AMD in people PC when it matters but my point still stands. 8 out of 10 times, Intel is the better option. Also for the life of the PC and upgrade paths, Intel still gives the better options.
I very rarely agree with Malabooga, but in this case he is right. There is no earthly reason to get a dual core I3. The minimal performance gain that you might get in a few games (and I mean a few FPS) is outweighed by the ability to multitask and the performance gained in programs and games that are able to utilize the extra cores.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
Originally posted by 13lake Dual cores are useless now, by september 2016 they're gonna be extinct.
The point so much isnt that someone should go with a dual core, its more that an Intel Dual Core at the same price point of an AMD quad core, the Intel 8 out of 10 times ends up being the better option and out preforms the AMD even if it looks like it has lower specs. The point is, Intel is almost always the better option even if it looks like its lower specs.
Nope.
You can say nope all you like, but I have been building PC for over 20 years. I have even had friends challenge me on this when they build their own PC and we built one head to head with the same amount of money. The Intel almost always won even when on paper it looked like to the layman the AMD had higher specs =-)
Ive been buiding PCs for 25 years.
I dont tend to put overpriced pieces of HW in rigs unless someone insits on wasting money.
OTOH you waste other peoples money leisurely based unfounded bias.
Sorry but no, I put in AMD in people PC when it matters but my point still stands. 8 out of 10 times, Intel is the better option. Also for the life of the PC and upgrade paths, Intel still gives the better options.
I very rarely agree with Malabooga, but in this case he is right. There is no earthly reason to get a dual core I3. The minimal performance gain that you might get in a few games (and I mean a few FPS) is outweighed by the ability to multitask and the performance gained in programs and games that are able to utilize the extra cores.
There are no games that use multi core (4-6-8) as it stands. Software is just not using it =-) Now if you are talking about someone who is really multi tasking. My question is why are you spending so little on your PC. If its just a gaming rig and you running one game at a time. Again, 8 out of 10 times, its Intel as the best path and the BEST path for later upgrades.
There are no games that use multi core (4-6-8) as it stands. Software is just not using it =-) Now if you are talking about someone who is really multi tasking. My question is why are you spending so little on your PC. If its just a gaming rig and you running one game at a time. Again, 8 out of 10 times, its Intel as the best path and the BEST path for later upgrades.
There are lots of games that use 4 cores, with some using up to 8. Some games now require 4 cores to run properly. With even slightly older ones, 4-6 cores are well used. Take Crysis 3:
Originally posted by 13lake Dual cores are useless now, by september 2016 they're gonna be extinct.
The point so much isnt that someone should go with a dual core, its more that an Intel Dual Core at the same price point of an AMD quad core, the Intel 8 out of 10 times ends up being the better option and out preforms the AMD even if it looks like it has lower specs. The point is, Intel is almost always the better option even if it looks like its lower specs.
Nope.
You can say nope all you like, but I have been building PC for over 20 years. I have even had friends challenge me on this when they build their own PC and we built one head to head with the same amount of money. The Intel almost always won even when on paper it looked like to the layman the AMD had higher specs =-)
Ive been buiding PCs for 25 years.
I dont tend to put overpriced pieces of HW in rigs unless someone insits on wasting money.
OTOH you waste other peoples money leisurely based unfounded bias.
Sorry but no, I put in AMD in people PC when it matters but my point still stands. 8 out of 10 times, Intel is the better option. Also for the life of the PC and upgrade paths, Intel still gives the better options.
I very rarely agree with Malabooga, but in this case he is right. There is no earthly reason to get a dual core I3. The minimal performance gain that you might get in a few games (and I mean a few FPS) is outweighed by the ability to multitask and the performance gained in programs and games that are able to utilize the extra cores.
There are no games that use multi core (4-6-8) as it stands. Software is just not using it =-) Now if you are talking about someone who is really multi tasking. My question is why are you spending so little on your PC. If its just a gaming rig and you running one game at a time. Again, 8 out of 10 times, its Intel as the best path and the BEST path for later upgrades.
Beacause AMD ensured that you can spend so little and can still do it.
CPU upgrade is pointless, by the time you will HAVE to upgrade your FX all your "Intel upgrade paths" will be dead and you will have to get new CPU/mobo/RAM anyway.
Guess what, CPU will matter even less in near future than now. And now it only matters IF you have TOP GPU, dont play at very high res AND upgrade your GPU to new TOP regularly.
Its quite funny, but you ARE the layman you mentioned.
Originally posted by 13lake Dual cores are useless now, by september 2016 they're gonna be extinct.
The point so much isnt that someone should go with a dual core, its more that an Intel Dual Core at the same price point of an AMD quad core, the Intel 8 out of 10 times ends up being the better option and out preforms the AMD even if it looks like it has lower specs. The point is, Intel is almost always the better option even if it looks like its lower specs.
Nope.
You can say nope all you like, but I have been building PC for over 20 years. I have even had friends challenge me on this when they build their own PC and we built one head to head with the same amount of money. The Intel almost always won even when on paper it looked like to the layman the AMD had higher specs =-)
Ive been buiding PCs for 25 years.
I dont tend to put overpriced pieces of HW in rigs unless someone insits on wasting money.
OTOH you waste other peoples money leisurely based unfounded bias.
Sorry but no, I put in AMD in people PC when it matters but my point still stands. 8 out of 10 times, Intel is the better option. Also for the life of the PC and upgrade paths, Intel still gives the better options.
I very rarely agree with Malabooga, but in this case he is right. There is no earthly reason to get a dual core I3. The minimal performance gain that you might get in a few games (and I mean a few FPS) is outweighed by the ability to multitask and the performance gained in programs and games that are able to utilize the extra cores.
There are no games that use multi core (4-6-8) as it stands. Software is just not using it =-) Now if you are talking about someone who is really multi tasking. My question is why are you spending so little on your PC. If its just a gaming rig and you running one game at a time. Again, 8 out of 10 times, its Intel as the best path and the BEST path for later upgrades.
I guess you need to do some research before your next build. Things have changed in the last twenty years. There are lots of games and programs that use more than two cores.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
Number of eggs on Newegg is how I prefer to rate my hardware purchases as well.
*edit*
If you want to use the G3258 with the reasoning that you can upgrade to a Core iX later on, then you don't want to pair it with the cheapest H87 or H97 motherboard you can find, you'd want a Z97 - and that's going to be considerably more expensive. You don't ~have~ to, but if your the guy that drops a i7 4790 into an H87 motherboard because you couldn't afford a Z97, you need to take a look at what your priorities are in the first place.
And if you want to use a G3258, you want an aftermarket heat sink to overclock. That's not terribly expensive, but a decent entry-level one that I would trust would be about $30.
The heat sink that comes with anything stock isn't good by any means, but it's good enough to run at stock clocks. I wouldn't trust them to overclock at all though.
So while a G3528 is capable, when overclocked, of being a decent gaming platform - by the time you get the heatsink you've totally erased any savings margin. And if you want to use the "upgrade path" logic, you've more than lost any savings by getting a motherboard that's worthwhile of upgrading in later on.
That also goes for AMD - a 6300 (or 83x0) isn't bad stock, but it can be overclocked pretty far as well. But if you are planning on doing that for any sort of reliable gains, you don't want to skimp on the heatsink, motherboard, or power supply - and that's going to cost something.
No where did I state it was sound advice nor did I ever say overclocking on the stock fan was a good idea. It was to point out what the dual core can do which you seem to keep ignoring. The board has 4 eggs on newegg as most high end boards have.
Thanks for that fact filled opinion by the way I learned so much. When you decide to post facts and not opinion will talk till then you have a great day.
You obviously have not been following what I've been posting about Intel Dual-Core CPUs on this thread. I've stated numerous times that the Dual-cores are great for gaming if you are only going to build a PC for the sole purpose of gaming. Though if you are going to do that you might as well use your money on a getting a console system since it will have a shelf life of 8-10 years. I have posted links from REPUTABLE hardware reviewers (PCPer), not some Joe Shmoe with a video camera telling people to get a bunch of cheap products to overclock to kingdom come and hope it doesn't blow up.
I've tried to use a simple analogy as to why a six-core CPU is more beneficial than a dual-core CPU in hopes that you would understand the reasoning behind getting an FX 6300 over an Intel dual-core. I will say it again, if you are not going to multi task with a PC you might as well buy a console since it will last longer.
If you are going off of eggs from the Newegg site the FX 6300 has a rating of five (reviewed by over 1100 people) eggs. By your logic, not only is the FX 6300 a great part, it's an outstanding part. Just because you love Intel parts and they are really good parts, there's no denying that, does not mean you should come in here when the OP is asking about AMD FX 6300 and FX 8350 and say, "you should just get an Intel dual-core just because it's an Intel and to prove how great it is, here's a link to a video of a guy holding a firecracker with a closed fist".
In case you missed it, here's the link I've posted earlier in the thread. It includes an i3 so don't get your panties in a bunch because the title says quad core gaming roundup.
This is now the 125th post (counting deleted ones) since the original poster last posted on this thread. I rather suspect that he didn't continue reading so far as the end of the first page.
Comments
The G3258 isn't a bad CPU, especially for $70.
But to make it competitive to the 6300 or i3, you need to overclock the crap out of it.
That CPUBoss link is utter garbage btw. I did dig up this link - a FX6350 vs a G3258 was the only comparison where I could get some gaming benchmarks thrown in there, and these are taken at stock speeds (and seeing as how a 6350 is an 400Mhz OCed 6300, I am willing to interpolate, but not everyone may be).
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1281?vs=1265
Looking at the game benchmarks only:
There are a few cases where a stock G3258 does beat a stock 6350 for gaming - but it's usually by a small margin (one outlier there of Bioshock, I admit, but looking at it it isn't playable on either at the settings they used). There are a lot of cases where the performance is about a wash. And there are a few cases where the 6350 runs away from the G3258 and it isn't even close.
So yeah, to get a G3258 competitive, you need to clock it up from around stock 3.2G to 4.5G+. Not everyone is willing to overclock, and it does put stress on your components: I wouldn't want to do that on a budget $50 motherboard. Although you may get lucky, I find that tends to cause more stability problems than is worth it. By most accounts, a G3258 is a pretty good overclocker, and paired with a decent motherboard (and the willingness and capability to so) you could get some good performance for cheap. But then again, a 6300 is a decent overclocker as well...
Highlighted your end statement and highlighted the answer I already gave you on that. Yes, looks like lower specs but benchmark it and more often Intel wins. Intel just does it better and I could list all sorts of reasons why but its all over the net when you google Intel vs AMD. AMD looks good on paper, Intel works better. At the same price point I would pick Intel 8 out of 10 times.
I'm going to use my ricer vs. half-ton diesel truck analogy here again and hopefully you will understand what's going on.
cores = # of cylinders
memory cache = engine displacement
Weight = Processes (Programs, apps, background processes, Windows processes)
Ricer = dual-core - 2-cylinder
Diesel Truck = 6-core - 6-cyliner
The ricer may be fast off the line with little weight to drag around. Once you start adding more weight the ricer will reach it's capacity waaaaay before the diesel truck. The diesel truck is designed to haul more load. The diesel truck may not be the quickest off the line but it'll get you from A to B and back with more weight than a ricer can.
When a tricked out (overclocked) ricer is at 100% capacity the diesel truck is chilling at less than 50% chugging along. If you run a ricer at 100% cap all the time, you will notice wear on your parts a lot faster than if at normal use.
Nah if someone is defending a CPUBoss link then the discussion is over.
I mean, all you have to do is read the comments on the same link...
Why would anyone in their right mind spend hard earned money on a brand new PC that will match minimum requirements of the latest titles and titles to come in the future? If you build a PC for minimum requirements you might as well go and buy a console since it will have a shelf life expectancy of 8-10 years as apposed to updating to minimum specs every year or two. PC gamers don't build PCs only to take on one task at a time.
All nice and dandy but 6300/8320 will also last couple of years without a need for 200+$ upgrade down the line.
Buying dulacore now is wasting money. At lest i3 has some fluff to try to compete (but it doesnt). And thats why its more expencive than 6300. But its dual core CPU. Buying pretty much native dual core today is throwing 69$ away and setting yourfself for 200+$ upgrade in near future.
200$ would be MUCH spent on SSD than CPU. SSD would add much more the rig than pontless CPU upgrade.
Buying 6300/8320 and very good GPU IS setting up your rig to last a quite a few years WITHOUT need to touch anything.
And again, by your logic everyone should just forget about i3/i5/i7 because theres g3258. And by your logic upgrading is absolutely out of question. But suggesting picking up i7 (wtf for), g3258 does the trick? But then again, even Phenom II does that particular trick.
I got my 8150 just before the 8350 came out, so ~4 years ago. 5 ?
Its quit some time but i spend only about 1000.-$ for my pc.
I used to buy a little better AM3+ mainboard with 2x1866mHz mem and a Nvidia 560gtx.
For the PSU i also spend some extra bucks, about 160.-$ and there are reasons as well.
SSD is a must, because its the new standart for gaming, its so² mutch faster.
Im using 64bit software whereever i can, starting with the OS.
My Linux on the other side of my dualboot system benefits as great from the multicores as Windows does.
Even if my system comes into the years already, its still super cool for whatever is out there to play.
Would i want a step ahead, i'd go on Intel i7 and a mainboard with light fast ram interconnection.
Wow, that link you posted. OC'ing on a cheap MOBO using the stock heat sink - that's some sound advice right there, no it's not. With that set up in the video you are really rolling the dice with your PC. Hitting limits on the MOBO, fan, and CPU? No thank you, I like my PCs working please.
Just an added note as I saw 6300 in the title etc.
Son has overclocked [email protected] on a y120 fan on standard heatsink
- does not get above 50c top loaded.
Runs everything today thrown at it, even ark funny enough, coupled with a gtx970. No cpu/gpu bound issues at all.
All major new titles that are coded well running at max settings on 1920*1080.
It is a great little cpu for its low cost etc, of course intel is way to go if you can wangle the wonga a bit more or lot more rather lol, but bang for buck you can not go wrong. Was very impressed, if you are one of those must have max fps guys for competitive csgo :P then 400-500 fps unlocked in game is admirable for those that like snappy fast sh*t.
Makes me giggle as well because the stock cooler and a strapped on 120 fan is not hindering the cpu at all, it idles with the amd temp offsets corrected at 26c on standard uk day right now.. Not bad at all. Sod that water lark
The point so much isnt that someone should go with a dual core, its more that an Intel Dual Core at the same price point of an AMD quad core, the Intel 8 out of 10 times ends up being the better option and out preforms the AMD even if it looks like it has lower specs. The point is, Intel is almost always the better option even if it looks like its lower specs.
Nope.
You can say nope all you like, but I have been building PC for over 20 years. I have even had friends challenge me on this when they build their own PC and we built one head to head with the same amount of money. The Intel almost always won even when on paper it looked like to the layman the AMD had higher specs =-)
Ive been buiding PCs for 25 years.
I dont tend to put overpriced pieces of HW in rigs unless someone insits on wasting money.
OTOH you waste other peoples money leisurely based unfounded bias.
That doesn't automatically make you right
There are certainly times when an AMD system will outperform the same priced Intel system. Once you get to the i7 AMD cannot compete except in very specific cases.
Sorry but no, I put in AMD in people PC when it matters but my point still stands. 8 out of 10 times, Intel is the better option. Also for the life of the PC and upgrade paths, Intel still gives the best options.
I very rarely agree with Malabooga, but in this case he is right. There is no earthly reason to get a dual core I3. The minimal performance gain that you might get in a few games (and I mean a few FPS) is outweighed by the ability to multitask and the performance gained in programs and games that are able to utilize the extra cores.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
There are no games that use multi core (4-6-8) as it stands. Software is just not using it =-) Now if you are talking about someone who is really multi tasking. My question is why are you spending so little on your PC. If its just a gaming rig and you running one game at a time. Again, 8 out of 10 times, its Intel as the best path and the BEST path for later upgrades.
There are lots of games that use 4 cores, with some using up to 8. Some games now require 4 cores to run properly. With even slightly older ones, 4-6 cores are well used. Take Crysis 3:
http://i.imgur.com/0nIkCAb.jpg
Beacause AMD ensured that you can spend so little and can still do it.
CPU upgrade is pointless, by the time you will HAVE to upgrade your FX all your "Intel upgrade paths" will be dead and you will have to get new CPU/mobo/RAM anyway.
Guess what, CPU will matter even less in near future than now. And now it only matters IF you have TOP GPU, dont play at very high res AND upgrade your GPU to new TOP regularly.
Its quite funny, but you ARE the layman you mentioned.
I guess you need to do some research before your next build. Things have changed in the last twenty years. There are lots of games and programs that use more than two cores.
James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?
Number of eggs on Newegg is how I prefer to rate my hardware purchases as well.
*edit*
If you want to use the G3258 with the reasoning that you can upgrade to a Core iX later on, then you don't want to pair it with the cheapest H87 or H97 motherboard you can find, you'd want a Z97 - and that's going to be considerably more expensive. You don't ~have~ to, but if your the guy that drops a i7 4790 into an H87 motherboard because you couldn't afford a Z97, you need to take a look at what your priorities are in the first place.
And if you want to use a G3258, you want an aftermarket heat sink to overclock. That's not terribly expensive, but a decent entry-level one that I would trust would be about $30.
The heat sink that comes with anything stock isn't good by any means, but it's good enough to run at stock clocks. I wouldn't trust them to overclock at all though.
So while a G3528 is capable, when overclocked, of being a decent gaming platform - by the time you get the heatsink you've totally erased any savings margin. And if you want to use the "upgrade path" logic, you've more than lost any savings by getting a motherboard that's worthwhile of upgrading in later on.
That also goes for AMD - a 6300 (or 83x0) isn't bad stock, but it can be overclocked pretty far as well. But if you are planning on doing that for any sort of reliable gains, you don't want to skimp on the heatsink, motherboard, or power supply - and that's going to cost something.
You obviously have not been following what I've been posting about Intel Dual-Core CPUs on this thread. I've stated numerous times that the Dual-cores are great for gaming if you are only going to build a PC for the sole purpose of gaming. Though if you are going to do that you might as well use your money on a getting a console system since it will have a shelf life of 8-10 years. I have posted links from REPUTABLE hardware reviewers (PCPer), not some Joe Shmoe with a video camera telling people to get a bunch of cheap products to overclock to kingdom come and hope it doesn't blow up.
I've tried to use a simple analogy as to why a six-core CPU is more beneficial than a dual-core CPU in hopes that you would understand the reasoning behind getting an FX 6300 over an Intel dual-core. I will say it again, if you are not going to multi task with a PC you might as well buy a console since it will last longer.
If you are going off of eggs from the Newegg site the FX 6300 has a rating of five (reviewed by over 1100 people) eggs. By your logic, not only is the FX 6300 a great part, it's an outstanding part. Just because you love Intel parts and they are really good parts, there's no denying that, does not mean you should come in here when the OP is asking about AMD FX 6300 and FX 8350 and say, "you should just get an Intel dual-core just because it's an Intel and to prove how great it is, here's a link to a video of a guy holding a firecracker with a closed fist".
In case you missed it, here's the link I've posted earlier in the thread. It includes an i3 so don't get your panties in a bunch because the title says quad core gaming roundup.
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Systems/Quad-Core-Gaming-Roundup-How-Much-CPU-Do-You-Really-Need