• 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

JamesM said:
Interesting how the G3258 is only a few FPS off dual core with HT and proper quad core CPUs in BF4.

Still think it's a stonker of a chip IMO, especially for the price.
Click to expand...

SP though,and we have not seen any MP benchmarks with latencies and minimum framerates. However,look at the very old X4 750K which has been under £60 for yonks - I am surprised it can even keep up considering it has no L3 cache at all. On a number of US forums they have been talking it about it for a while(kind of ignored it TBF) - IIRC it was released in 2012.

PS:

It seems Thief does stutter quite badly with the Pentium,which kind of replicates what the forum review I posted earlier says.

Edit!!

Seems a good CPU for a budget WoW rig though.
 
Last edited:
Can't help but think those 2 cores will eventually struggle once fully multi-threaded games from the consoles start to dominate.

Such a shame they didn't give it Hyper-threading, even if it meant charging £70 or £80...they would still clean up with it in the budget sector.
 
Cooper said:
Can't help but think those 2 cores will eventually struggle once fully multi-threaded games from the consoles start to dominate.

Such a shame they didn't give it Hyper-threading, even if it meant charging £79...they would still clean up with it in the budget sector.
Click to expand...

Look at the frame latencies though. In most of the games tested the Core i3 is registering better frame latencies - even the Athlon II X4 750K is competitive in many cases,and that was released in 2012 and has no L3 cache even!

Howver,it does look quite decent in WoW though.
 
Last edited:
Cooper said:
Can't help but think those 2 cores will eventually struggle once fully multi-threaded games from the consoles start to dominate.

Such a shame they didn't give it Hyper-threading, even if it meant charging £70 or £80...they would still clean up with it in the budget sector.
Click to expand...

Given the cost of the CPU currently and how long it will take for the games to actually reach a point where multi-threading is the norm, then I would still take this CPU over many in the mean time. Can't wait to find an excuse to buy one!
 
stulid said:
Someone can buy a Z97 and that £50 Pentium, cane the rear end off it and overclock it to within an inch of its life, then chuck it in the bin when Broadwell comes out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Pentium K is a great way to gain an entry level Haswell system for very little money. Then has a great upgrade path if wanted / needed later on.

Not much to complain out with this chip. At around £50 it's a complete bargain.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
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! :p

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.
Click to expand...

Its not a bad chip for its money as a toy, but the performance in later games like Crysis3 and Watch Dogs is really bad.

50 FPS @ 4.7Ghz vs 71 for the FX-8350 at stock in Crysis 3, in Watch Dogs 23 FPS vs 40 for the FX-83## and 44 for the i5, again the Pentium is overclocked to 4.7Ghz.

Its not a CPU for gaming, even the £50 Athlon 750K beats it.

BPn2te7.png
Ha2lxjX.png
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
Its not a CPU for gaming, even the £50 Athlon 750K beats it.
Click to expand...

Depends what type of gaming....emulators which mainly need only 2 super fast cores would be perfect with this chip.

You could build an awesome little MAME/PCSX2/Dolphin box with it and stick next to the [email protected] it would have identical performance to the more expensive Quad core Intel's and totally spank any 4 or 8 core AMD chip out there.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Look at the frame latencies though. In most of the games tested the Core i3 is registering better frame latencies - even the Athlon II X4 750K is competitive in many cases,and that was released in 2012 and has no L3 cache even!
Click to expand...
The problem with the Athlon II X4 750K is that it is on a deadend platform which people would have nowhere to go for (worthwhile) future upgrade. It is a budget platform, and will not be able to compete with 1150 or even AM3+...

But I agree...it's probably worth spending the extra for an i3, even if it is with plan for upgrade in the future...but for someone that's on an absolute tight budget and just looking to get their foot through the door, the Pentium-K is still quite good for the money.
 
Last edited:
Cooper said:
Depends what type of gaming....emulators which mainly need only 2 super fast cores would be perfect with this chip.

You could build an awesome little MAME/PCSX2/Dolphin box with it and stick next to the [email protected] it would have identical performance to the more expensive Quad core Intel's and totally spank any 4 or 8 core AMD chip out there.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the Athlon would be the better chip.

The problem with this CPU is it subjective in what you can use it for, those two slides illustrate that, the FPS its produces in Watch Dogs are unplayable even at 4.7Ghz and you have to run it at that speed to get half decent FPS in Crysis 3, put Crysis 3 in MP and it will be just as bad as Watch Dogs

Its no good just saying "its a great Gaming CPU, its better than this that CPU" it very much isn't

Yes it will play World of Tanks just fine, but for new releases and AAA titles that make use of multithreaded performance its useless.

CAT is right, there are better low cost CPU's available that will give you decent performance everywhere.
 
Last edited:
Marine-RX179 said:
The problem with the Athlon II X4 750K is that it is on a deadend platform which people would have nowhere to go for (worthwhile) future upgrade. It is a budget platform, and will not be able to compete with 1150 or even AM3+...

But I agree...it's probably worth spending the extra for an i3, even if it is with plan for upgrade in the future...but for someone that's on an absolute tight budget and just looking to get their foot through the door, the Pentium-K is still quite good for the money.
Click to expand...

Heck,no I wasn't saying run out and get an X4 750K,more the case,it has been out since 2012,and was generally under £60 too for yonks now and it is pretty old,and still holds up well considering its age and price,and the frametimes in some of the newer titles were better too. It had much more fanfare as a budget CPU on US forums though(kind of forgotten here) and supposedly Tom's example had a bit of a subpar overclock too.

If that old Athlon II X4 can give a fight(it even lacks L3 cache),then think what the Haswell Core i3 or even a FX6300 will do in the next 18 months??

The Pentium does have a use for certain titles no doubt even with a bigger budget,but IMHO it does not make a Haswell Core i3 or FX6300 redundant quite yet.
 
Last edited:
You can tell it's a good little chip by the way the forums AMD fanboys are rallying to try and make a case for why it's not very good.

You could buy one of these Pentium's and a R7 250X for the price of AMD's top of the line APU and you'd get better performance in 90% of cases when overclocked, but lets focus on a few little negatives instead, blow them all out of proportion and recommend people buy the much more expensive i3 instead... that way AMD is still competitive...
 
Excellent news if true:

https://translate.google.com/transl...com&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.hardware.fr/news

Intel did block the previous attempt with microcode updates,although one forum member(pastymuncher) did find an existing H series motherboard did work(and another chap had no luck with it though).

I assume Asus have found another workaround which would be awesome,although they do mention the following too:

ASUS does not guarantee that Intel new Pentium processor and Core K Series ('Haswell' and 'Haswell Refresh') processors will be overclockable on ASUS H97, H87, B85 and H81 Series motherboards in the event that Intel issues software and firmware updates that result in function changes.
Click to expand...

Maybe if motherboard companies keep doing this,it will force Intel to stop doing all these silly blocks!!
 
mmj_uk said:
You can tell it's a good little chip by the way the forums AMD fanboys are rallying to try and make a case for why it's not very good.

You could buy one of these Pentium's and a R7 250X for the price of AMD's top of the line APU and you'd get better performance in 90% of cases when overclocked, but lets focus on a few little negatives instead, blow them all out of proportion and recommend people buy the much more expensive i3 instead... that way AMD is still competitive...
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with AMD, i don't understand this animosity, CAT is happy to run both Intel and AMD, as am i, i have no brand preference, as i'm sure CAT does i run whatever works best for me, what name is printed on the box is as irrelevant as it should be.

CAT is running an Intel CPU right now, So he's an AMD fanboy just because he doesn't toe the line of bashing AMD at every available opportunity?

You wouldn't recommend this CPU for people playing games where it struggles to get to 20 FPS at stock and 30 FPS @ 4.7Ghz would you?
You don't want people to go wasting their money on something thats no good to them, do you?

So why fly off the handle in a hyperbole rant about AMD and who you perceive as their fanboys for pointing out an important fact.

Pot-Kettle-Black.
 
Its still an improvement, it was probably expecting too much for regular 5Ghz overclocks on air.

Future CPU's will probably overclock progressively worse to be honest, unless you have a golden chip the margins you can squeeze out of them will be less and less, no doubt we will see the same situation on 14nm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom