- Joined
- May 14, 2015
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Some folks are reporting a 3.8 Ghz wall on G3258!
- Thread starter RJARRRPCGP
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
Heh, it happens.
My morning, wake up -> coffee -> forums.
I'm much more intelligent in that order LOL.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2001
I could imagine that many are from lack of knowledge on how to oc a chip. but would bet that many just wont do much over 3.8. The one I have will run at 4.0 but isnt stable at that speed. for gaming it has to be at 3.8 to keep the bluescreens away
If it's not running above 4GHz then something isn't right with the chip itself. I bet you can even make RMA for that. As I said some time ago I had a chance to test 15 ( or more ) G3258 and all of them could make at least 4.4GHz on air at about 1.35V. Most could make some more and best chips could run at about 4.7 ~1.35V. I was checking these chips since release everytime someone was ordering one for work ( this K version was cheaper than a regular locked pentiums at similar clock ) so were new and old batches. Last one has 2 months or something and so far is the best.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2002
woomack you should specify you were likely on minimum Single stage right?
btw bart sometimes you crack me up man.
magellan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
I would still be interested in knowing how it benches. I seem to remember Intel saying
at one point they were planning on pushing the Netburst Pentium architecture out to 5 GHz or so.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
umm, you do know that netburst is P4, this is a completely different arch. dont get caught up in the names of the models, this is so far removed from Netburst arch it isnt funny. current arch has more in common with socket 370 Pentuim 3's then netburst in anyway.
i dunno, he did say netburst, you got any old P4's laying around that do 5+ghz to bench?
in the end, at the time of core 2, with a clock speed of 2.4ghz stock. it would take a stock clock of 4ghz on P4(aka netburst) to have the same performance as core 2. basically all current cpus have been derived from P3's. with different layouts to cores/l1/l2 and execution units/FPU's, core 2 then became first gen i's with IMC and large L3 caches with a big reduction in L2.
magellan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
I read an early roadmap for the Pentium Netburst architecture in which Intel wanted to get much faster clock speeds out of them (as in >> 4 GHz).
I'd still be interested in benchmarks of this "Pentium" g3258 @ 5.8 GHz. vs. 6 or 8 core CPU's at their nominal frequencies.
I'd still be interested in benchmarks of this "Pentium" g3258 @ 5.8 GHz. vs. 6 or 8 core CPU's at their nominal frequencies.
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
There's this site, it's called HWBot, it lists benchmarks for all kinds of hardware. Go there and compare.
5.8Ghz G3258 -http://hwbot.org/submission/2612084_gumanoid_cinebench___r15_pentium_g3258_444_cb
3.8Ghz (200Mhz UNDERclocked) 4790K - http://hwbot.org/submission/2757624_walhalla_cinebench___r15_core_i7_4790k_671_cb
3.6 GHz (100MHz overclock) 5930K - http://hwbot.org/submission/2882650_brf42_cinebench___r15_core_i7_5930k_1075_cb
That story will remain the same against any benchmark that can use all the threads of the CPU you want to put it against. That CPU would have to be in the 6.6GHz+ range to beat the 4790K slightly underclocked... 6.2GHz its not there...
3.8Ghz (200Mhz UNDERclocked) 4790K - http://hwbot.org/submission/2757624_walhalla_cinebench___r15_core_i7_4790k_671_cb
3.6 GHz (100MHz overclock) 5930K - http://hwbot.org/submission/2882650_brf42_cinebench___r15_core_i7_5930k_1075_cb
That story will remain the same against any benchmark that can use all the threads of the CPU you want to put it against. That CPU would have to be in the 6.6GHz+ range to beat the 4790K slightly underclocked... 6.2GHz its not there...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2002
intel planned for it to max out for stock at 4ghz but later when they were working with it. they found the amount of heat and power needed it was not feasible to do for stock consumer or server markets. multi threaded apps will always favor 4 cores at even say 3ghz vs a dual core even at 5.8ghz. even more so when you factor in they that most if not all quads have HT. i still think the G3258 when oc'd is still a good choice for a gamer on a very limited budget, that wants to stick to intel.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
Maybe this is the reason many are getting poor overclocks with the G3258 of late. According to this http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1041761574 Microsoft (at Intel's request) issued a patch for Windows 7/8/8.1 that limits the overclock possible on a G3258. It states that this code has been hardwired into Windows 10. I ran across this because I was unable to complete the install of Windows 10 on a client's machine that had an overclocked G3258 CPU installed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2012
- Location
- New York, USA
I'm surprised nobody said anything, but not all (or even most) quad core CPUs have HT. Only two current CPU families have it: the Core i3 and Core i7. The Core i3 family are all dual cores, and the Core i7 family is quad and up. The Core i5 family (the most popular gaming CPU family right now) are all quad core CPUs with no HT.
Well, its around half of them, no? Clearly not all of them with the i5 line which doesn't, period. But the i7 (non mobile) line are all quads with HT, right?
That is interesting though because when I overclocked one, with LN2 under W7, I hit 6Ghz. I am pretty sure that OS was fully patched... in fact, I am running it now on a 4790K... I will have to fire that system up and check to see if I have that KB (KB3064209) mentioned in that thread.
That's just... wow... putting a glass ceiling on an unlocked CPU??
That is interesting though because when I overclocked one, with LN2 under W7, I hit 6Ghz. I am pretty sure that OS was fully patched... in fact, I am running it now on a 4790K... I will have to fire that system up and check to see if I have that KB (KB3064209) mentioned in that thread.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2008
ED, did you follow the link dealing with ASRock's workaround? Apparently, ASRock built a workaround for this OC limiting patch issue with something they put into the bios of their Z87/Z97 boards and here's the impressive part, the ASRock tech who responded to the postings in that forum stated they would build a custom bios for their customers using other chipsets on ASRock boards. Now that's customer service! So by chance if you are running the G3258 on an ASRock Z board you won't have this problem anyway.
