Would an i7 4770k with 2 cores hyper threading disabled perform as same as a Pentium G3258

[JollyGamerHD]

5 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

like i said...there is probably a REASON why they run better in your other videos...not that the simulated pentium behaves any different.

they probably don't run ULTRA settings across the board..(do they actually show the settings in the videos you've linked to him?! cause just droping grass quality and lighting quality to medium will have a tremendous benefit to the CPU in that game) and if you run all medium or high settings...you'd be fine for the most part...ULTRA settings are where the real demanding stuff comes into play...running ULTRA vs HIGH is like a 25% performance penalty...and this would be enough to push that little dual-core under the water like you see in the video...it's running demanding stuff...probably way out of it's league with a GTX 780 like that...and this video seem to have been created to prove just that...that a GPU of that caliber is in a different league for a 60$ intel CPU...even if you can overclock it, even if it's single-threaded performance would match that of the more expensive core i7.

 here you go, the setting are in the description, its fine if you don't trust the guy but this game runs the same on my system with a pentium.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, JollyGamerHD said:

I'll link you the video, and its not just crysis 3. Watch his video and see how badly the other games perform that are in no way cpu intensive and ill link you the crysis 3 footage from another guy.

to my knowledge all i can see in the video is fairly cpu intensive...all those games are at some point...and he picked the right portions of the game to test...probably all on maximum settings...and it's not that bad you can see the CPU could game at 30 or 45FPS if you would tweak the settings a little bit...watchdogs...that's HORRIBLY cpu intensive...dead rising...when 30 zombies are after you like that...very cpu intensive as well...BF4...it looks like there was a lot of players on that server...and this one is the most demanding map (for the same reason as the welcome to the jungle level in Crisys) these is a lot of foliage and even a storm in that map with lightning and wind and stuff,..again very CPU intensive especially on ultra settings.

 

Look,.ig you thing the G3258, a 60$ dual-core CPU would be a good match for a 300 or a 400$ graphics card in modern demanding titles i think your in for a surprise...of course if you temper your expectations and lower the settings and aim for a locked 30FPS experience...it can do that...but to max out the load of an overclocked to 1225mhz GTX 780 in the most demanding games on ultra quality settings...this is another story.

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 minutes ago, JollyGamerHD said:

 here you go, the setting are in the description, its fine if you don't trust the guy but this game runs the same on my system with a pentium.

i see CPU load maxed out...i see drop in the 40FPS range...and i see this for settings:

Settings:
- 1920x1080
- AA None
- Texture Resolution VERY HIGH
- System Spec MEDIUM

 

what do you think would happen if you crank all that up to ULTRA?

go ahead if you have the pentium test it on your machine...crank up the settings...if you don't have the GPU to keep up with it...reduce your screen resolution to 720p...that way you'll see for yourself what the dual core does on that game on maximum settings.

[i_build_nanosuits]

@SteveGrabowski0 had a g3258 paired with a GTX 970 at some point and i remember him saying it was a very bad experience until he upgraded to a xeon E3-1231V3...steve would you mind sharing some of your experience with running that intel dual core with a fairly high-end GPU? when you come to the forum it would be appreciated

[JollyGamerHD]

2 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

to my knowledge all i can see in the video is fairly cpu intensive...all those games are at some point...and he picked the right portions of the game to test...probably all on maximum settings...and it's not that bad you can see the CPU could game at 30 or 45FPS if you would tweak the settings a little bit...watchdogs...that's HORRIBLY cpu intensive...dead rising...when 30 zombies are after you like that...very cpu intensive as well...BF4...it looks like there was a lot of players on that server...and this one is the most demanding map (for the same reason as the welcome to the jungle level in Crisys) these is a lot of foliage and even a storm in that map with lightning and wind and stuff,..again very CPU intensive especially on ultra settings.

 

Look,.ig you thing the G3258, a 60$ dual-core CPU would be a good match for a 300 or a 400$ graphics card in modern demanding titles i think your in for a surprise...of course if you temper your expectations and lower the settings and aim for a locked 30FPS experience...it can do that...but to max out the load of an overclocked to 1225mhz GTX 780 in the most demanding games on ultra quality settings...this is another story.

Just to make sure you understand, i do not think by any means that a pentium is a match for a gtx 780. I dont know where you got that from but i dont. I know he picked the right levels to test. But again most people here don't understand that with an actual pentium people are getting a lot better results and you're really not answering my question. I'll link you to a video from a reputable youtuber (techyescity) where he demonstrates how much of a difference there is in games with a gtx 760. I'll let you see for yourself but in BF4 there is basically no difference in performance between an i5 4670k and the pentium. Now the only major difference there is, is in Skyrim which still provides a more than acceptable experience at 120fps. Most of these games are gpu bound. My worry is the difference in his bencmarks and a person's benchmarks with the actual processor who knows what they're doing.  

 

LINK: 

 

 

[JollyGamerHD]

44 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

the i7 with only 2 cores active and no hyper-threading if clocked at the same clockrate as the pentium would perform ever so slightly better because it has more cache.

turning an i7 to a dual core has no negative impact on it...

Literally everybody is saying this. I KNOW in theory it isnt supposed to perform any worse or any better than the pentium. But in his video, the performance is literally awful and for me and other people on youtube the performance is a lot better with not stuttering or anything of that nature. What i'm trying to find out is what might be causing this as he won't accept that the performance that he is getting is worse than he should be getting with an actual pentium. please read the thread before you say something thats very obvious...

[JollyGamerHD]

17 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i see CPU load maxed out...i see drop in the 40FPS range...and i see this for settings:

Settings:
- 1920x1080
- AA None
- Texture Resolution VERY HIGH
- System Spec MEDIUM

 

what do you think would happen if you crank all that up to ULTRA?

go ahead if you have the pentium test it on your machine...crank up the settings...if you don't have the GPU to keep up with it...reduce your screen resolution to 720p...that way you'll see for yourself what the dual core does on that game on maximum settings.

Are you the guy from youtube, because if you are, then i really don't want to be arguing, your thinking just hurts my brain. If you're not then im sorry but ive been arguing with him for a long time.

[i_build_nanosuits]

10 minutes ago, JollyGamerHD said:

for me and other people on youtube the performance is a lot better with not stuttering or anything of that nature

have you or these ''other people'' on youtube even tried ANY of these games he tested...in the levels and in the situations in which he tested...at the settings HE tested (from the comments i get that he admit that he ran on all MAX settings and picked those games and those levels for a very valid reason..) if these videos you are refering to are all like the one you've linked previously where the guy was running MEDIUM settings and the CPU was still pinned across the board with framedrops in the 40FPS range...on MEDIUM...how can you say for sure that it wouldn't drop to 25FPS and would start stuttering if he would crank it up to ALL ULTRA?!

 

i think it's legit...this guy knew what he was doing...and he executed it perfectly well..for me personally this looks as expected...100%...running modern games on hardcore settings with an high end GPU on a dual-core even though a good intel one...it's bound to run like that...the CPU is a very important part of a gaming machine you know!? single-threaded performance is important and the G3258 has it...but the MULTI-THREADED performance also come into play in those ''above average'' demanding games and his video highlight that fact. end of the story as far as i'm concerned i see nothing wrong with the video.

i'm sorry

[JollyGamerHD]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

have you or these ''other people'' on youtube even tried ANY of these games he tested...in the levels and in the situations in which he tested...at the settings HE tested (from the comments i get that he admit that he ran on all MAX settings and picked those games and those levels for a very valid reason..) if these videos you are refering to are all like the one you've linked previously where the guy was running MEDIUM settings and the CPU was still pinned across the board with framedrops in the 40FPS range...on MEDIUM...how can you say for sure that it wouldn't drop to 25FPS and would start stuttering if he would crank it up to ALL ULTRA?!

 

i think it's legit...this guy know what he was doing...and he executed it perfectly well..for me personally this looks as expected...100%...running modern games on hardcore settings with an high end GPU on a dual-core even though a good intel one...it's bound to run like that...the CPU is a very important part of a gaming machine you know!? single-threaded performance is important and the G3258 has it...but the MULTI-THREADED performance also come into play in those ''above average'' demanding games and his video highlight that fact. end of the story as far as i'm concerned i see nothing wrong with the video.

i'm sorry

Well in that case you're very misguided, in the case of crysis the results may be somewhat accurate but only when the settings are set to the max. However the first benchmark he does on battlefield 4, i you knew anything about it you'd call bullshit. It stutters like mad and has undesirable frame drops, here is a video to prove that it does run better on an actual pentium it assuming he's running it on ultra. 

 

 

[SteveGrabowski0]

I have a G3258 I was running at 4.4 GHz with a GTX 970 for a couple of weeks (newegg took forever to ship my Xeon E3-1231v3 which I ordered a week after my GTX 970) and my results were pretty much in line with the video @i_build_nanosuits made that is shown in the original post of the thread. Even in cpu light games like Tomb Raider 2013 I would get massive oscillations in framerate, like a sine curve oscillating between 40 fps and 100 fps when playing that on ultra. It looked terrible and felt even worse to control. My gpu usage was always bouncing between about 45% and 80% or so. It was really stuttery, just a complete mess to play and by the second level of the game (with all the rain and lightning and all) I had to stop playing and wait for my E3-1231v3 to come in. Skyrim was another game that felt like a complete mess to play with the oscillating framerate. Not a good experience at all, it felt better on my XBox 360. Shadow of Mordor handled the frame drops and gpu usage drops a lot better. The framerate still oscillated a lot, but it felt smoother. Not good by any means, but at least reasonably playable. Still nothing like once I actually got my quadcore which made the game buttery smooth. The only modern game that performed very well was Bioshock Infinite, that shit was rock solid on my G3258 at 1080p ultra even at the 3.2 GHz stock. There were a few frame drops, but they were extremely rare and 99.995% of the time it seemed to go at a locked 60 fps. Now old games like Crysis 1, Modern Warfare 2,3 did great on it. That Pentium is an amazing chip if you play dual core optimized games. For modern games (which are quadcore or occasionally octacore optimized) it's a nightmare. Pentiums weren't gaming chips in 2013, much less 2016.

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, JollyGamerHD said:

Well in that case you're very misguided, in the case of crysis the results may be somewhat accurate but only when the settings are set to the max. However the first benchmark he does on battlefield 4, i you knew anything about it you'd call bullshit. It stutters like mad and has undesirable frame drops, here is a video to prove that it does run better on an actual pentium it assuming he's running it on ultra. 

 

 

if i know BF4?

i played so much battlefield...enough to know that the map you link (Golmuld railway) is the LEAST demanding map of the game and the map he tested on (paracel storm) has heavy parcticle, folliage and grass going on as well as a wind storm and a lightning storm...he also tested on a full server and it's not stuttering that bad all the time he run on the beach up to that building it doesnt...then it stutter a bit when he face an ennemy...it's not that bad...again this was probably on all ULTRA settings, on a server full of players, on the worst heaviest map of the game.

[JollyGamerHD]

20 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

I have a G3258 I was running at 4.4 GHz with a GTX 970 for a couple of weeks (newegg took forever to ship my Xeon E3-1231v3 which I ordered a week after my GTX 970) and my results were pretty much in line with the video @i_build_nanosuits made that is shown in the original post of the thread. Even in cpu light games like Tomb Raider 2013 I would get massive oscillations in framerate, like a sine curve oscillating between 40 fps and 100 fps when playing that on ultra. It looked terrible and felt even worse to control. My gpu usage was always bouncing between about 45% and 80% or so. It was really stuttery, just a complete mess to play and by the second level of the game (with all the rain and lightning and all) I had to stop playing and wait for my E3-1231v3 to come in. Skyrim was another game that felt like a complete mess to play with the oscillating framerate. Not a good experience at all, it felt better on my XBox 360. Shadow of Mordor handled the frame drops and gpu usage drops a lot better. The framerate still oscillated a lot, but it felt smoother. Not good by any means, but at least reasonably playable. Still nothing like once I actually got my quadcore which made the game buttery smooth. The only modern game that performed very well was Bioshock Infinite, that shit was rock solid on my G3258 at 1080p ultra even at the 3.2 GHz stock. There were a few frame drops, but they were extremely rare and 99.995% of the time it seemed to go at a locked 60 fps. Now old games like Crysis 1, Modern Warfare 2,3 did great on it. That Pentium is an amazing chip if you play dual core optimized games. For modern games (which are quadcore or occasionally octacore optimized) it's a nightmare. Pentiums weren't gaming chips in 2013, much less 2016.

@i_build_nanosuits@SteveGrabowski0 I don't know what's happened for you if you just type in to youtube g3258 benchmarks you will see that a very small proportion of games badly on it. I'll show you some videos

 

BF4:

 

Rise of the tomb raider 

 

Tomb raider 2013

 

Skyrim(fps in bottom left)

Now i dont know what you've been doing but according to these dudes your performance is not the way it should be. Although i have heard that some pentiums become unstable and slow over 4ghz. Not for like 99% of the people though

[JollyGamerHD]

24 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

if i know BF4?

i played so much battlefield...enough to know that the map you link (Golmuld railway) is the LEAST demanding map of the game and the map he tested on (paracel storm) has heavy parcticle, folliage and grass going on as well as a wind storm and a lightning storm...he also tested on a full server and it's not stuttering that bad all the time he run on the beach up to that building it doesnt...then it stutter a bit when he face an ennemy...it's not that bad...again this was probably on all ULTRA settings, on a server full of players, on the worst heaviest map of the game.

well im sorry, i can't please everyone, but if that isnt better than what he showed in the video then im literally clueless as to what is.

[JollyGamerHD]

25 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

if i know BF4?

i played so much battlefield...enough to know that the map you link (Golmuld railway) is the LEAST demanding map of the game and the map he tested on (paracel storm) has heavy parcticle, folliage and grass going on as well as a wind storm and a lightning storm...he also tested on a full server and it's not stuttering that bad all the time he run on the beach up to that building it doesnt...then it stutter a bit when he face an ennemy...it's not that bad...again this was probably on all ULTRA settings, on a server full of players, on the worst heaviest map of the game.

And i didn't mean knowing battlefield 4 but how the game should run on that setup.

[SteveGrabowski0]

5 minutes ago, JollyGamerHD said:

@i_build_nanosuits@SteveGrabowski0 I don't know what's happened for you if you just type in to youtube g3258 benchmarks you will see that a very small proportion of games badly on it. I'll show you some videos

 

BF4:

snip

 

Rise of the tomb raider 

snip

 

Tomb raider 2013

snip

 

Skyrim(fps in bottom left)

snip

 

Now i dont know what you've been doing but according to these dudes your performance is not the way it should be. Although i have heard that some pentiums become unstable and slow over 4ghz. Not for like 99% of the people though

 

That Skyrim video looks awful, lots of drops into the 30 and 40s. It's pretty much my experience with Skyrim using the G3258. As for Tomb Raider 2013, yeah the canned benchmark ran great on my G3258 too, but the actual gameplay when the cpu was being stressed was horrible. I never played BF4 on it and ROTR wasn't out when I was running my Pentium so I can't comment on those two games.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, JollyGamerHD said:

well im sorry, i can't please everyone, but if that isnt better than what he showed in the video then im literally clueless as to what is.

 

Just now, JollyGamerHD said:

And i didn't mean knowing battlefield 4 but how the game should run on that setup.

like i said...everytime you link a video...i don't know if you've noticed...but there is no settings menu shown...you assume it's on ultra settings or whatever...believe it or not cranking the settings up like he did in the video will bring that dual core to it's knees fiarly quickly...it's not as if it would have a tremendous amount of processing headroom left or anything...

As for BF4 and how it should run...if you trow it at a 64 player conquest server on the most demanding map (paracel storm in this case) at all ultra settings i do not think your gaming experience will be exceptionaly great with a pentium dual-core.
About you stop watching other people's videos and test it for yourself?

Like i said...just lower your screen resolution so that your GPU won't hold you back no more...crank the settings all the way and try some of these demanding games he tested...see what happen? honestly at this point i just think your in denial son...you paid what 60$ for that CPU? 70$ maybe? it's not the end of the world if it's not the world's greatest CPU ever considering it's very low pricepoint...

[JollyGamerHD]

Just now, SteveGrabowski0 said:

 

That Skyrim video looks awful, lots of drops into the 30 and 40s. It's pretty much my experience with Skyrim with the G3258. As for Tomb Raider 2013, yeah the canned benchmark ran great on my G3258 too, but the actual gameplay when the cpu was being stressed was horrible. I never played BF4 on it and ROTR wasn't out when I was running my Pentium so I can't comment on those two games.

There are a couple of drops in skyrim to the 40s because maybe, its a more demanding area??? And as for tombraider i don't believe you.

Heres another one to feast your eyes on, there are some minor drops to the high 20s because of the area and because its on ultimate settings but its nothing like the experience you described.

 

[i_build_nanosuits]

7 minutes ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

 

That Skyrim video looks awful, lots of drops into the 30 and 40s. It's pretty much my experience with Skyrim with the G3258. As for Tomb Raider 2013, yeah the canned benchmark ran great on my G3258 too, but the actual gameplay when the cpu was being stressed was horrible. I never played BF4 on it and ROTR wasn't out when I was running my Pentium so I can't comment on those two games.

indeed watching lara from a few feet...on a clif...camera rotating a few feet from her...and running around in a more open portion of the game filled with ennemies and trees and grass and fire and explosions and what not is 2 completely diferent scenario for a dual-core CPU i would imagine

 

Also...tomb raider wasn't selected in the original video...maybe it was not considered to be intensive enough to be featured or something?

[JollyGamerHD]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

indeed watching lara from a few feet...on a clif...camera rotating a few feet from her...and running around in a more open portion of the game filled with ennemies and trees and grass and fire and explosions and what not is 2 completely diferent scenario for a dual-core CPU i would imagine

 

Also...tomb raider wasn't selected in the original video...maybe it was not considered to be intensive enough to be featured or something?

i was showing it to someone else who was claiming to have had an awful experience 

[i_build_nanosuits]

Just now, JollyGamerHD said:

i was showing it to someone else who was claiming to have had an awful experience 

the canned benchmark is meant to test GPU performance...there is nothing in that that would stress the CPU in any way...it's not representative of actual in-game in-action gameplay. that's all.

[JollyGamerHD]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

 

like i said...everytime you link a video...i don't know if you've noticed...but there is no settings menu shown...you assume it's on ultra settings or whatever...believe it or not cranking the settings up like he did in the video will bring that dual core to it's knees fiarly quickly...it's not as if it would have a tremendous amount of processing headroom left or anything...

As for BF4 and how it should run...if you trow it at a 64 player conquest server on the most demanding map (paracel storm in this case) at all ultra settings i do not think your gaming experience will be exceptionaly great with a pentium dual-core.
About you stop watching other people's videos and test it for yourself?

Like i said...just lower your screen resolution so that your GPU won't hold you back no more...crank the settings all the way and try some of these demanding games he tested...see what happen? honestly at this point i just think your in denial son...you paid what 60$ for that CPU? 70$ maybe? it's not the end of the world if it's not the world's greatest CPU ever considering it's very low pricepoint...

You're just trying to prove to me that the pentium isnt the best processor in the world. Guess what, I KNOW. I'm just trying to prove to people that when you actually run games its possible and nowhere near as bad as what that dude is showing in his video. And i'll give you another bf4 bit of footage in a sec. 

[JollyGamerHD]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

the canned benchmark is meant to test GPU performance...there is nothing in that that would stress the CPU in any way...it's not representative of actual in-game in-action gameplay. that's all.

Oh yeah i know, i mean you could in fact take out the cpu, and run the benchmark like that, sorry that just slipped past me.

[i_build_nanosuits]

4 minutes ago, JollyGamerHD said:

You're just trying to prove to me that the pentium isnt the best processor in the world. Guess what, I KNOW. I'm just trying to prove to people that when you actually run games its possible and nowhere near as bad as what that dude is showing in his video. And i'll give you another bf4 bit of footage in a sec. 

i don't care FOOTAGE...STOP IT...go ahead and test it FOR YOURSELF...pick any one game seen in the video, crank the settings...lower the screen resolution...drop to a populated area with lots of shit happenning and see what happen?

Are you scared of what you might discover or what?

You can scavenge youtube for videos where it ''seem'' to perform ''alright'' all day long...or you can give it a go and test it for yourself.

[SteveGrabowski0]

8 minutes ago, JollyGamerHD said:

There are a couple of drops in skyrim to the 40s because maybe, its a more demanding area??? And as for tombraider i don't believe you.

Heres another one to feast your eyes on, there are some minor drops to the high 20s because of the area and because its on ultimate settings but its nothing like the experience you described.

 

I'm agreeing with you, that Skyrim video captures what playing on the G3258 was like for me. Lots of frame drops due to the cpu, it's certainly not the gpu having any trouble. And your Tomb Raider video doesn't really do anything to contradict what I said. They're running a GTX 960 and its usage looked like it was between 70-80% a lot of the time. I ran it with a GTX 970 which is about 60% stronger than a 960 and my gpu usage was between 40-85%. I also never played that level on my Pentium, the first two levels were too frustrating to complete with all the frame drops and I would just rather push it to the side and wait for my quadcore to come in versus dropping settings with a $350 video card to get 60 fps.

[JollyGamerHD]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

i don't care FOOTAGE...STOP IT...go ahead and test it FOR YOURSELF...pick any one game seen in the video, crank the settings...lower the screen resolution...drop to a populated area with lots of shit happenning and see what happen?

Are you scared of what you might discover or what?

You can scavenge youtube for videos where it ''seem'' to perform ''alright'' all day long...or you can give it a go and test it for yourself.

i'll do a test tomorrow and link you the videos