How bad is an overclocked pentium G3258 at playing games

[Faceman]

I have an i5-4670k and I decided to go into BIOS and turn off two cores, and overclock those two cores to 4.7Ghz.  Paired with it is an EVGA GTX 780 SC @ 1,172Mhz Core, 6,508Mhz Memory and 8GB of G.Skill 2400Mhz RAM.  Full specs in profile.  I wanted to see how bad a Pentium really performs games.

 

     Immediately when I boot into Windows I started getting noticeably worse performance than running with my full i5.  It took longer for programs to open, and the occasional delay.  No stutters or anything, just not nearly as fast as what I'm used to.  I wanted to check to see if my overclock was causing the problem, so I ran Prime95(manual voltage) for 20 minutes with custom settings.  Then CinebenchR15 three times in a row, back to back, to back.  This gives me rock hard stable results with my overclocks.  I passed everything, so for the time being, I am ruling out an unstable overclock.

 

     I tried to play a variety games that I know should be able to run smoothly on a dual core Pentium with such a robust overclock, and other games that should not run smoothly but in all but one of the games I played I was getting stuttering and basically unplayable results.  I didn't record, or monitor GPU load, temperatures, etc.. I was basically just trying to get a feel for how the games actually play and didn't want any monitoring programs to get in the way of anything.  I typically play games with HWiNFO, GPU-Z, MSI Afterburner, and RTSS all running, but for the sake of lowering demand placed on the CPU, I ran as few as possible applications, going so far as to "End Task" on anything not necessary for the computer to function in Task Manager.

 

The games I tested were:

 

BF4 - Single and Multiplayer.  Single player was not bad at all and very playable/enjoyable.  I played the entire part in "South China Sea" where you board the sinking destroyer and then boat travel back to your main boat.  I spent a lot of time on this portion of my test mainly because that is where I am in the campaign and got caught up in it.  Multiplayer was so/so.  I used the built in fps counter and  Rogue Transmission was unplayable at 20-30fps, while Operation Locker was smooth and playable at 40fps+.  Both were 64p Team Deathmatch servers. Ultra settings, 120% Resolution Scale, V-Sync Off.

 

Crysis 3 - Single Player on different maps: "Post Human," "Welcome To The Jungle," and "Gods and Monsters."  Post Human and Gods and Monsters were not as bad as Welcome To The Jungle, but none of it was 45fps+ feeling. This was on Ultra with a few AA and effects turned off, pretty demanding graphically.   I did not try online.

 

Hearthstone - This game runs on a potato, and yet I was still getting brief delays.  Definitely playable, but not as smooth as what I'm accustomed to.  I tried changing graphics between high and low, no noticeable difference.

 

League of Legends - I just did an AI match as to not troll other people. (Nothing worse than someone testing out a new champ first time in a normal match.  Do AI once or twice for god sakes! /rantover)  The game was playable with the occasional lag spike.  Inconsistently happened whether I was lane-ing, in a team fight, or walking back to lane.  Played with maxed out settings.

 

Team Fortress 2 - The game did play, but not at a level I would be comfortable playing day in and day out.  Sometimes it would be butter smooth, other times it would lag.  It would happen randomly, sometimes in a firefight, other times when nothing was going on.  BF4 on Operation Locker played smoother than TF2. Graphics set to max.

 

Bioshock(2007) - This game was playable, but really slow, it was like everything was in slow motion, but fluid... not like a stutter or delay here and there, it was just constantly in "slow-mo" at a really low fps.  It was kind of cool because of art in the game, but not enjoyable to play.  I tried changing from low to high graphics, no improvement.

 

Sid Meier's Civilization V - I jumped into an older save game that was already pretty far along, so that there would be a lot of AI for the computer to do. The game plays, but the time between turns was excruciatingly long.  This game played the best.  Graphics were set to the highest.

 

ArcheAge - I didn't do any high level fighting, raiding, or PvPing.  I just ran around doing the daily quests and some farming taking the time to occasionally blast down a mob to see if it impacted performance.  It took a long time for player decorations to appear, but other than that it was playable.  The game has a built in fps counter and was showing a consistent 50-60fps, but keep in mind I wasn't doing PvP or raiding which is an integral part of this game.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

So after this testing, I'm not sure what to conclude because my results were all over the place.  Some of these games should definitely be playable on a Pentium and they weren't.  While other games are supposed to not be great results, but they were.  This really leads me to believe that disabling cores is not an acceptable way to measure performance of a lesser processor.  Maybe I should try turning down my RAM speed to 1600Mhz, I'm just thinking about this now as I type this.  I dunno... I would like to hear from actual Pentium users rather than a nerfed down more powerful chip because it really didn't work for me, at least the way I expected it to.

 

In Linus' most recent video about the baby monitor he says a gaming review of the Pentium G3258 will be released soon, and I am very interested in those results.  I hope he runs a variety of different types of games, at different graphics settings and processor speeds.

 

Of course there is a time and place for this chip, and that is mostly as a placeholder or stop gap until an i5 or i7 can be purchased, but I cannot conclude that its performance is as bad as what the OP is claiming because there are tons of results from actual Pentium Anniversary owners saying that they are getting amazing results, and others claiming that they aren't getting good results.  A true mixed bag.  Its hard to conclude one way or the other, especially when there are videos of people playing on overclocked Pentiums in BF4 Multiplayer, 64p Conquest with GTX760s using a capture card getting a constant 40-60fps with high settings.  There must be some variable that is unaccounted for that we haven't been able to pinpoint yet.

[Faceman]

I guess just please tell me the pentum G3258 can beat a console and I will be happy,,,,,,;[

Its not conclusive one way or another.  My gut reaction is if paired with a good GPU like a 750Ti($100) or R9 270($100) it will handily beat a console.  I say wait for Linus' Pentium gaming benchmark video to decide one way or another.

[79wjd]

@Faceman 

 

I'd be try to run some of those tests at 4.2ghz and 1600mhz on the ram and see what the results come back as; it sounds like something is amiss, I mean League and TF2 can literally run on a potato (and neither of them can utilize more than two cores afaik) -- so something strange definitely seems to be going on. 

[Faceman]

@Faceman 

 

I'd be try to run some of those tests at 4.2ghz and 1600mhz on the ram and see what the results come back as; it sounds like something is amiss, I mean League and TF2 can literally run on a potato (and neither of them can utilize more than two cores afaik) 

Yea, I might have been overzealous in my overclock because I have such an awesome chip, but I figured, the higher the OC, the better the performance.  Same goes for RAM.

 

I'm all done with the testing for now, I just spent a few hours doing that and actually want to play some games now.  At a later date I will definitely try again with a more conservative OC and with my RAM at 1600Mhz.

[79wjd]

Yea, I might have been overzealous in my overclock because I have such an awesome chip, but I figured, the higher the OC, the better the performance.  Same goes for RAM.

 

I'm all done with the testing for now, I just spent a few hours doing that and actually want to play some games now.  At a later date I will definitely try again with a more conservative OC and with my RAM at 1600Mhz.

 

Well, ram overclocking doesn't do much other than cause cpu instability, and I've definitely seen a few cases where a higher (and barely stable) overclock actually causes stuttering to occur. 

 

I know some people have trouble with windows installs when switching CPUs around, so is it possible that windows installs differently on a quad core system than a dual core system? 

[Faceman]

 

Well, ram overclocking doesn't do much other than cause cpu instability, and I've definitely seen a few cases where a higher (and barely stable) overclock actually causes stuttering to occur. 

 

I know some people have trouble with windows installs when switching CPUs around, so is it possible that windows installs differently on a quad core system than a dual core system? 

 

It's 2400Mhz with XMP enabled, so yea, technically anything over 1600MHz is overclocked, but 2400Mhz is what the RAM comes advertised as.  Higher RAM frequencies is supposed to cause instability, but I never experienced it when the i5 is fully utilized.  Maybe the instability is realized when running in cut down to dual core mode and that is where the inconsistencies lie.  I will have to run my tests again with XMP disabled and a lower OC of 4.2-4.5Ghz on the CPU.

 

I didn't reinstall Windows or anything?  Not sure how this applies to me?  Or maybe you're saying Windows just reacts differently on a quad compared to a dual core?

[79wjd]

It's 2400Mhz with XMP enabled, so yea, technically anything over 1600MHz is overclocked, but 2400Mhz is what the RAM comes advertised as.  Higher RAM frequencies is supposed to cause instability, but I never experienced it when the i5 is fully utilized.  Maybe the instability is realized when running in cut down, dual core mode?

 

I didn't reinstall Windows or anything?  Not sure how this applies to me?  Or maybe you're saying Windows just reacts differently on a quad compared to a dual core?

Well, memory instability is weird, my 4690k won't overclock for shit if I run my ram at its rated 2400mhz XMP profile. I could see it being possible that maybe somehow a quad core cpu is able to deal with the ram as the memory controller is on the chip and utilizing all four cores gives it the extra bit it needs to handle higher speed memory. 

 

What I was saying is that I know some people have had issues with their windows install when changing CPUs, and either need to modify some files or reinstall. Maybe its possible that windows actually installs differently depending on the hardware it's being installed on; therefore changing to lesser hardware could cause negative side effects. 

[Faceman]

What I was saying is that I know some people have had issues with their windows install when changing CPUs, and either need to modify some files or reinstall. Maybe its possible that windows actually installs differently depending on the hardware it's being installed on; therefore changing to lesser hardware could cause negative side effects. 

Ahhh!  Ok understood, yea that makes a lot of sense. 

 

I will try again at a lower 1600Mhz.  It kind of makes sense all of a sudden, because looking at the youtube videos of the guy who is getting excellent results in BF4 multiplayer with a Pentium and GTX760 is only using 1333Mhz RAM!  Maybe the RAM speed has a lot more to do with it than we think.  Buuuut in Linus' G3258 + i7-4790k review, they use their standardized test bench which uses 2133Mhz RAM if I'm not mistaken(test bench specs aren't listed in this particular video) and they are getting i7-4790k results in games like Bioshock and Far Cry with their OC'd Pentium.

 

Also, the OP is saying that running a chopped down i7 to dual core was causing CoD;AW to crash, but here is a video of someone playing it with a Pentium OC'd to 4.4Ghz and a 7850.  This is single player, but the guy is able to play the game, as opposed to the OP claiming it crashes on his system.

[79wjd]

they are getting i7-4790k results in games like Bioshock and Far Cry with their OC'd Pentium.

 

Also, the OP is saying that running a chopped down i7 to dual core was causing CoD;AW to crash, but here is a video of someone playing it with a Pentium OC'd to 4.4Ghz and a 7850.  This is single player, but the guy is able to play the game, as opposed to the OP claiming it crashes on his system.

Are they though? Maybe they didn't notice (or pay attention or comment on) the stuttering, as the average framerates are very similar. I just rewatched it and noticed that Luke did point out that the biggest difference of the g3258 (overclocked vs not) was higher minimum framerates, so he did allude to some stuttering (as far as Im concerned).

 

Yeah, something definitely seems to be amiss here... 

[i_build_nanosuits]

snip

snip!

Wow! Faceman i'm glad you took the time to test it out for yourself...i apreciate that.

i know it can be hard to understand why it performs that bad and all over the place in games with some micro-stutter all over the place...the first thing i did was running cinebench and performance test to compare my results and make sure the CPU i had in hands was performing directly in line with a factory pentium g3258...check, it defenetly does, not a penny more not a penny less...it's an haswell dual-core cpu at 4.5ghz what do you expect: exactly that.

Now, anything that run in the background related to system will have a small hit on the cpu, that's where the iregular micro-pauses comes from, as you've mentionned the thing is slow at just loading and performing some windows 8 processes and services...so when you launch games on it the performance are all over the place cause the cpu is always pinned at 100% while gaming. The CPU can queue tasks and execute them one after the other very very fast when it's overclocked like that, but it's just not as good as a CPU that can process 4 or 8 instruction sets at once...

Also, that being said...the games that i've tested in my video where much worst, they are CPU intensive multi-threaded games so imagine what the experience may be on a game like dead rising 3 and watchdogs...the cpu struggle with much less already.

Also to those who ask and talk about this the performance was exactly the same with just as much stuttering and slow downs wheter i'm recoring footage or not...only the GPU load is a little higher overall and it cost about 3 to 4 FPS.

Also, the OP is saying that running a chopped down i7 to dual core was causing CoD;AW to crash, but here is a video of someone playing it with a Pentium OC'd to 4.4Ghz and a 7850. This is single player, but the guy is able to play the game, as opposed to the OP claiming it crashes on his system.

there's a work around available online but my bet is that the game must run atrocious just look at my CPU load here, this is [email protected]<script type="text/javascript"> /* */ </script>

I guess just please tell me the pentum G3258 can beat a console and I will be happy,,,,,,;[

For the most part, yes it can.

The games i have tested are amongst the most demanding games available at the moment ok, and i've ran them on ultra settings...if you pair the pentium with a lower end GPU (R9 270, GTX 660...something along those lines) then it's very likely that you'll be able to play your games on medium details at 45FPS giving you a better experience overall than a console would...yes.

BUT, iMHO if you play a lot of MMO's and RTS with such a system the pentium is a good choice.

If you are more interested in more modern online games and console ports: FX-4300, FX-6300, Athlon 860K are all better choices in that case.

This of course is if you plan to use the CPU as a keeper and not upgrade for a while cause the intel offers a MUCH better upgrade path of course.

But in any case it's worth saving a little more to afford a core i3 and a cheap H81 motherboard to cut down on cost.

[Totally-A-Hero]

I would only recommend a pentium if they cant afford a i5 and need a PC that bad.... Otherwise i would recommend a i5-4440 minimum for gaming and a 8320 or cheap xeon for multi-threaded use. I almost bought a low end cpu (8320) and im glad i didnt, bottom line is if you wanna game, don't buy this. Throw this in you G-Ma's PC that is practically all its good for (key word practically is does OK in some games)

[Dabombinable]

I have recommended the Pentium before as a stop gap, but i also mentioned the CPU could provide enough performance in today's games, i don't know many people who actually play Crysis 3.

Here's a tip, a core 2 duo e8500 @ 4.2GHz can play Crysis 3 brilliantly. I used it as one of the tests for my OC rig, which also has pcie gen1, and 1080p ultra settings was just fine.

 

I would only recommend a pentium if they cant afford a i5 and need a PC that bad.... Otherwise i would recommend a i5-4440 minimum for gaming and a 8320 or cheap xeon for multi-threaded use. I almost bought a low end cpu (8320) and im glad i didnt, bottom line is if you wanna game, don't buy this. Throw this in you G-Ma's PC that is practically all its good for (key word practically is does OK in some games)

 i5 4440 are perfect for gaming, my main rig uses one.

[Mush Brain]

2500k 5.0-5.2ghz test.

 

2 cores

 

 

 

 

4cores

 

[FruitBasketSilex]

I am in favor of this thread closing down for good.

[Dabombinable]

Its only bad at playing games designed to run on more than 2 cores. And actually running the Intel burn test helps as its a good way to test a processors computing power, which translates to in-game performance (I use the high setting).