Caporegime
it needs hyperthreading to be a great chip
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel Haswell Refresh Processors Codenamed Devil’s Canyon – Launching in Mid 2014 With Unlocked Desi
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
In almost all those examples you posted the FX-4300 was as fast as the 8350 (because almost all those games are single threaded). It's a great chip but you have to consider the use cases carefully (it would struggle in a game like BF4 for example).
However it does demonstrate the lunacy of game optimisation these days. That Pentium ends up faster than a core i7 in SC2 and FS:X because the extra cores reduce the OC headroom of the high end chips. It's completely mad when you think about it.
However it does demonstrate the lunacy of game optimisation these days. That Pentium ends up faster than a core i7 in SC2 and FS:X because the extra cores reduce the OC headroom of the high end chips. It's completely mad when you think about it.
They have already shown it doesn't struggle with BF4, it puts out the same fps as the 4770K..
It does struggle with Watch Dogs, but unsure whether this is the chip or Watch Dogs being a bit broken..
This is £50... £50...
Within the context of the price, it is amazing lol.
Not much to be negative and pessimistic about, I'm sure this won't stop people trying though lol.
£50...
Soldato
The thing is most games still favour better IPC than more cores so this could be the bargain of the century at the moment.
A £50 CPU that beats the i7 in certain games when overclocked? If you play those games then why choose anything else?
A £50 CPU that beats the i7 in certain games when overclocked? If you play those games then why choose anything else?
The BF4 test was a single player run, this is what a Multiplayer run looks like. For almost everyone that's why you buy a Battlefield game.
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt..._GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg
It's great but it's practically the first 2 core chip that has been seriously considered for years and we've not yet got a complete performance picture. My hunch is it'll work out great in most cases though, but the thief test shows that Mantle seems to like cores just as much as it likes clock speed so you'd have to consider that too.
http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt..._GPU-Action-Battlefield_4-test-bf4_proz_2.jpg
It's great but it's practically the first 2 core chip that has been seriously considered for years and we've not yet got a complete performance picture. My hunch is it'll work out great in most cases though, but the thief test shows that Mantle seems to like cores just as much as it likes clock speed so you'd have to consider that too.
Caporegime
There were two sets of Crysis 3 results in that review:
http://i.imgur.com/Zi9ifda.png
There was Watch Dogs too:
http://i.imgur.com/b9V9YKg.png
There are no minimums or no frame times either.
You saw that with the Thief results,minimums were the main issue.
So whether the results favour one CPU or another,we need frametimes and minimums.
Plus a lot of these reviews don't really say how hot the CPU gets when overclocked,which is another consideration here.
Edit!!
Plus PCLabs were using a high end motherboard and cooler combination,which means they are probably hitting the higher end of the overclock bracket too.
Second Edit!!
Regarding BF4 MP.
Only a few sites have done 64 player conquest maps like Sweclockers.
Many sites(like when PCLabs did their BF4 MP test) used 32 player domination maps.
The conquest maps seem to favour CPUs with stronger multi-threaded performance.
Plus with no minimums or frametimes in the review its not telling the entire picture.
Its more a £55 to £60 CPU!
Yes,for WoT and games like that it would be awesome as I said a few times.
But the problem is when it is conflated to mean almost any game.
BIG difference.
We saw this with the E8400 and Q6600 arguments,back then.
People have been saying faster cores for years,but I garner most of you would take a locked Core i7 3770 over a 6GHZ Pentium dual core if given the choice.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
The pentium will be a decent little chip, for the very budget gamer who only wants to play older single threaded games, you wouldn't see me using one other than for a bit of fun (ordered one + a 4790k)
(ordered one + a 4790k)
Caporegime
The pentium will be a decent little chip, for the very budget gamer who only wants to play older single threaded games, you wouldn't see me using one other than for a bit of fun
I agree TBH,I could see myself actually recommending it for WoT and the like.
I would pick one up myself to have a play,but I think I will just put the money towards something else in my PC.
Last edited:
I wonder how it would cope with planetside 2?
Caporegime
That would be quite an interesting test actually.
Before the major updates,it was actually pushing two threads mostly.
However,after the updates all the cores on my Xeon E3 seem to have quite high usage.
Sadly not a single site has bothered after the updates to test the game!!
it'd probably cope pretty well with PS2 if overclocked. The big problem I had with it last time I played was with bizarre performance degradation where the game would get slower until it was unplayable after a few hours. I believe that got fixed though.
Um.. Way to miss the point. The only reason this chip is being mentioned is that it costs only £50..
If it was a simple choice and money was not a consideration than you would get the higher spec product.. Kind like of saying if given the choice you pick a Titan Black over a GTX 750 Ti.. Kind of obvious, when you take cost out of the equation.. Somehow that was lost on you? You took the one thing that made the chip have appeal (It's performance VS it's price) and then said if you had a choice between this a much higher end CPU you wouldn't choose it..
Back into reality where money is a consideration for casual PC users / budget gamers and the Pentium K is only £50, uses a modern chipset that could support future CPU for a budget gamer it's ideal for that type of setup. An entry level into a decent platform.
Stop trying to find reasons to be negative and pessimistic. It's not good to think this way
Caporegime
There was a very large set of updates which added improved multi-threading,and there might be some more. This is because SOE is releasing PS2 for the PS4,and they have had to do this to make sure the game can run well on it.
The slowing down bit is probably since PS2 had a tendency eat RAM. I noticed that when after a long sessions,the game would start slowing down and then eventually crash(a few mates had the same issue I gather) as it was hitting my RAM limit.
Caporegime
Um.. Way to miss the point. The only reason this chip is being mentioned is that it costs only £50..
If it was a simple choice and money was not a consideration than you would get the higher spec product.. Kind like of saying if given the choice you pick a Titan Black over a GTX 750 Ti.. Kind of obvious.. Somehow that was lost on you? You took the one thing that made the chip have appeal (A cheap unlocked CPU) and then said if you had a choice between this a much higher end CPU you wouldn't choose it..
Back into reality where money is a consideration for casual PC users / budget gamers and the Pentium K is only £50, uses a modern chipset that could support future CPU for a budget gamer it's ideal for that type of setup. An entry level into a decent platform.
Stop trying to find reasons to be negative and pessimistic. It's not good to think this way
The problem is you forget the Core i3 and FX6300 are not massively more expensive either and show better overall performance at stock in certain games than even an overclocked Pentium. Yet no minimums are shown or frametimes on top of that,which is another consideration that is important. Overclocking is a lottery too,and one of the reviews had the chip at nearly 90C,which would indicate perhaps a better cooler might help at some point which raise costs.
You need to stop finding reasons to be negative about CPUs which are only slightly more expensive than the Pentium dual core and perform better in a number of games. I know you get very excited about the locked Pentiums from prior experience,so perhaps I forgot that.
PS:
Wasn't the same arguments made about the E7300/E8400 against the Q6600 by some even when it the latter hit £110?
Or the slightly cheaper G6950 against the Core i3 530 and AMD equivalents?? Didn't the G6950 overclock past 4GHZ too??
We saw where all of that went,and that has all been brushed conveniently beneath the mat now!
Maybe it was before your time!
Like I said I would probably have a play around with this chip myself,but I think I am better served by updates to my current rig.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
Um.. Way to miss the point. The only reason this chip is being mentioned is that it costs only £50..
If it was a simple choice and money was not a consideration than you would get the higher spec product.. Kind like of saying if given the choice you pick a Titan Black over a GTX 750 Ti.. Kind of obvious, when you take cost out of the equation.. Somehow that was lost on you? You took the one thing that made the chip have appeal (It's performance VS it's price) and then said if you had a choice between this a much higher end CPU you wouldn't choose it..
Back into reality where money is a consideration for casual PC users / budget gamers and the Pentium K is only £50, uses a modern chipset that could support future CPU for a budget gamer it's ideal for that type of setup. An entry level into a decent platform.
Stop trying to find reasons to be negative and pessimistic. It's not good to think this way
Its a good chip (potentially) if you're really, really budget restricted, that being every single penny counts, it will perform well on older *very* lightly threaded games/applications. You wont need an expensive Z97 board either, what is a bonus (though admittedly, there goes your entry level into a decent platform argument
)@Cat, it's different now with the i3s, considering they don't overclock. This pentium has a chance to catch up whereas the older ones didn't
This will be the first Intel budget overclockable chip in a while.
Caporegime
Its a good chip (potentially) if you're really, really budget restricted, that being every single penny counts, it will perform well on older *very* lightly threaded games/applications. You wont need an expensive Z97 board either, what is a bonus (though admittedly, there goes your entry level into a decent platform argument
@Cat, it's different now with the i3s, considering they don't overclock. This pentium has a chance to catch up whereas the older ones didn't
Maybe,but like I said I want to see some more testing with minimums and frame times too. Even the large overclock did not help in Watch Dogs and Thief looks the same way(even parts of Crysis for example). The thing is the FX6300 and Core i3 4000 series have dipped a low as nearly £70 at times including postage. Games are going to continue that trend - look at PS2 for example. It went from a game which really used only two threads,to one that does tax at least 4 threads,due to the PS4 version being launched this year.
Even with WoT someone on a forum said they are actually trying to improve MT in the game. What timeframe this will happen is another question OFC.
Remember that game is a poster child for a lightly threaded game. Yet there is a XBox360 version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Tanks:_Xbox_360_Edition
The old and new consoles don't have good single threaded performance,so it does indicate there are changes under the hood happening.
The Pentium does has its strengths,but the issue in people maybe getting over enamoured about the Pentium whether locked or overclocked,is that they are ignoring its weaknesses. Remember that the E8400 was in the same boat as the Q6600:
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_e8400_3.0ghz/
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_2_q6600_2.4ghz/
HWBOT states that the E8400 on average could hit 20% higher overclocks,had better IPC and better extension support and was easier and cheaper to cool. Yet the Q6600 did last longer overall.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 6,586
I got my 4130 for £50, wouldn't pay much more than that
I know what you're saying, and for the most part i agree. In some situations the Pentium will beat an i3, others it wont (others being where the extra threads will overcome the clock speed deficit)
If you want, when the 4790k comes out, and its not too much of an arse ache to swap chips, i'll test the Pentium, 4790k and i3 in a plethora of games and see how much better/worse they are compared to the best you can get for the Z97. I know aload of review sites will also do this test, but you can't beat user reviews for non bias....well, reviews
Caporegime
I got my 4130 for £50, wouldn't pay much more than that
I know what you're saying, and for the most part i agree. In some situations the Pentium will beat an i3, others it wont (others being where the extra threads will overcome the clock speed deficit)
If you want, when the 4790k comes out, and its not too much of an arse ache to swap chips, i'll test the Pentium, 4790k and i3 in a plethora of games and see how much better/worse they are compared to the best you can get for the Z97. I know aload of review sites will also do this test, but you can't beat user reviews for non bias....well, reviews
That would be cool.
PS:
I kind of edited my last post after you answered. Definitely need to write of all my post before editing them after posting.Sorry!!