-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Gaming CPU, which one? AMD or Intel?
- Thread starter Mountain
- Start date
Entirely dependent on the game.
the only game I know of that wont play "dual core" is fc4, and thats simply because ubisoft disables the game on dual core systems. Most games run great on the 3258.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
for game a quad is the way to go, you will be seeing more games that will use the cores as we go down teh road.
there is a place for teh amd 8 cores, it depends on the software.
openfoam is a good example, it is core dependent and it can't use the hyper threading on teh 4790K so for home use my 8350 is teh king here but due to poor single core performance my 4790K on 4 cores is king in game.
there is a place for teh amd 8 cores, it depends on the software.
openfoam is a good example, it is core dependent and it can't use the hyper threading on teh 4790K so for home use my 8350 is teh king here but due to poor single core performance my 4790K on 4 cores is king in game.
teh! 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/...y-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae/3
Look at the difference there between the i3 3225 (dual core w/HT) versus the 3258...res is low there which exacerbates the difference, but...
Here: http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6...nniversary-cpu-gaming-performance/index6.html
Even at 4.5Ghz, it still falls short in those benchmarks at most resolutions. In most cases, it isn't the difference between playable and not, however you can see a glass ceiling in many titles at many resolutions with it.
Try GTA V on a dual core.. (none listed, but you can see the difference between quad with HT, quad, and dual with HT and can extrapolate it being lower): http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html
That fact that at least one game cannot run with a dual core should plant the seed that a dual core isn't optimal for gaming. If you have to, it is serviceable, certainly, but if you can afford a quad, you should get a quad.
You may want to look up a few benchmarks. In several of them, performance suffers with only a dual core...
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8232/...y-edition-review-the-intel-pentium-g3258-ae/3
Look at the difference there between the i3 3225 (dual core w/HT) versus the 3258...res is low there which exacerbates the difference, but...
Here: http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6...nniversary-cpu-gaming-performance/index6.html
Even at 4.5Ghz, it still falls short in those benchmarks at most resolutions. In most cases, it isn't the difference between playable and not, however you can see a glass ceiling in many titles at many resolutions with it.
Try GTA V on a dual core..
(none listed, but you can see the difference between quad with HT, quad, and dual with HT and can extrapolate it being lower): http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.htmlThat fact that at least one game cannot run with a dual core should plant the seed that a dual core isn't optimal for gaming. If you have to, it is serviceable, certainly, but if you can afford a quad, you should get a quad.
Last edited:
Lol, not saying he should get a 3258. Just saying for a lot of games, its still kickin butt (bf4 and crysis 3 are fantastic examples of that).
http://www.legitreviews.com/wp-cont...ium-g3258-battlefield-4-benchmark-results.jpg
http://techreport.com/r.x/pentium-g3258-oc/c3-fps.gif
http://www.legitreviews.com/wp-cont...ium-g3258-battlefield-4-benchmark-results.jpg
http://techreport.com/r.x/pentium-g3258-oc/c3-fps.gif
And I just said, in at least one title, it doesn't work period. In many titles quads perform better (or dual with HT). In some titles there is little to no difference. I wouldn't get a dual core for gaming, unless it's all I could afford as it leaves performance on the table in some titles.
Edit... from your own link:
In your second link, it shows exactly what I am saying as well. Look at the difference between the 2500K(quad) and the 3258... 15% difference. Look at the 4770K vs 2500K... 7% difference there between 4c/t and 8c/t. Its viable, but leaves a lot of meat on the bone in some cases.
I also had a chance to play BF4 with a 3258 and the experience wasn't as good as with the 4770k. It felt choppy at times as both cores were pegged.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
My 0.2 cents: (0.5 if you are in Canada now )
Intel is king for single core preformance. If your game uses 1 thread, go Intel.
I play Minecraft. I was with Intel, I had a very good mobo and a crappy dog-of-a-chip 3570K. Would not overclock past 4.4 Ghz no matter the voltage.
I now have an FX 6300 with a known good mobo. It's currently at 4.7 Ghz with room to go to 5 Ghz once my custom water loop is installed.
Point being, what the 3570K can do at 4.4 Ghz takes my FX 6300 5Ghz+ to get the same result.
That's because Minecraft is a single threaded game.
Now if your games can use more than 1 core, I would say go AMD FX CPU and overclock like mad.
FX has actual cores, they are not "hyperthreaded" like Intel so for multitasking and (I assume) games that use more than 1 core the FX will serve better than Intel.
Intel gives you better single core preformance.
AMD gives you lots of real cores. (plus easy to overclock)
If I had to build a new rig right now strictly for gaming I'd build an AMD rig. I absolutely love overclocking AMD better than Intel and personally, I'm okay with a few less FPS.
)Intel is king for single core preformance. If your game uses 1 thread, go Intel.
I play Minecraft. I was with Intel, I had a very good mobo and a crappy dog-of-a-chip 3570K. Would not overclock past 4.4 Ghz no matter the voltage.
I now have an FX 6300 with a known good mobo. It's currently at 4.7 Ghz with room to go to 5 Ghz once my custom water loop is installed.
Point being, what the 3570K can do at 4.4 Ghz takes my FX 6300 5Ghz+ to get the same result.
That's because Minecraft is a single threaded game.
Now if your games can use more than 1 core, I would say go AMD FX CPU and overclock like mad.
FX has actual cores, they are not "hyperthreaded" like Intel so for multitasking and (I assume) games that use more than 1 core the FX will serve better than Intel.
Intel gives you better single core preformance.
AMD gives you lots of real cores. (plus easy to overclock)
If I had to build a new rig right now strictly for gaming I'd build an AMD rig. I absolutely love overclocking AMD better than Intel and personally, I'm okay with a few less FPS.
Last edited:
And I just said, in at least one title, it doesn't work period. In many titles quads perform better (or dual with HT). In some titles there is little to no difference. I wouldn't get a dual core for gaming, unless it's all I could afford as it leaves performance on the table in some titles.
Edit... from your own link:
In your second link, it shows exactly what I am saying as well. Look at the difference between the 2500K(quad) and the 3258... 15% difference. Look at the 4770K vs 2500K... 7% difference there between 4c/t and 8c/t. Its viable, but leaves a lot of meat on the bone in some cases.
I also had a chance to play BF4 with a 3258 and the experience wasn't as good as with the 4770k. It felt choppy at times as both cores were pegged.
Cmon man, Im only discussing a 60$ dual core cpu isn't "useless". It's extremely limited, but for the budget miser, is a totally appropriate option pending the games he's playing. 90% of the gaming world is playing diablo 3 (dual threaded), starcraft 2 (dual threaded to my knowledge), LoL/Dota (single threaded), and Counter Strike (dual threaded) Mine craft (single/dual threaded). For those games its VERY ok. Best performance? No lol. Im saying in good chunk of what most gamers play, the 3258 is sufficient AND leaves them room to upgrade to an i5 down the road. Thats ALL im saying, NOT suggesting OP get a 3258.
the only game I know thats "quad or better" locked is FC4, and you can mod around that. Choppy game, b ut playable performance with settings minimized.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
pretty sure dragon age inquisition is quad or better only as well.
Guys please stop hittin me on the g3258. My point is for most casual gamers that dont need the latest and greatest, its a viable option. Was just a tandem to ED's post. The OP is debating an i5 vs a 9590, CLEARLY the pentium isn't in the mix here, was just making a point its still a "viable option" for others that may be reading this thread.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2000
My 0.2 cents: (0.5 if you are in Canada now
FX has actual cores, they are not "hyperthreaded" like Intel so for multitasking and (I assume) games that use more than 1 core the FX will serve better than Intel.
Not exactly, it has 3 modules each with two integer cores and a shared FPU. So while you do have 6 integer cores, there are only 3 FPUs.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2013
