$64 Pentium G4560 is neck and neck against i5-2500K

[cozz]

ComputerBases's performance review on the new Pentium G4560($64USD) shows that it's total performance is neck and neck w/ the i5-2500K($230USD)

 

 

Gaming at 720p and 1080p the Kaby Lakes-based pentium G4560 beats the Pentium G440, FX-6300 and A10-7890K - while just 5% slower than the more expenisve Corey i3-6100 and Core i5-2500K processors.

 

source; TweakTown

 

Benchmark Results; ComputerBase

[VirusStorm]

Expect the price of the i5 to go down dramatically  

[iRileyx]

Not surprising it beats a 4 year old i5 that has an equal base clock speed to be honest.

[8-Bit Ninja]

in games that run fine on 2 cores im not surprised, but given the fact that when far cry primal was released it wouldn't even open a dual core. I would still take the 2500k with 4 cores 

[Majestic]

3 minutes ago, VirusStorm said:

Expect the price of the i5 to go down dramatically  

They just launched the i3-7350K at $168.00 - $179.00, I don't think so...

[Guest Kloaked]

 

I saw Tweaktown in the source.

[alexyy]

But who runs a 2500k stock. 

[Sauron]

Meh, games are expected to not really care about core count. The clock speed is higher for the 6 year newer pentium and the 2500k still wins out consistently, I think THAT's what's impressive here.

• Cinebench R15

  Angaben in Punkten

  • Multi-Core-Test:
    • Intel Core i5-7600K
      666
    • Intel Core i5-6600K
      602
    • Intel Core i5-6500
      550
    • Intel Core i5-2500K
      458
    • AMD FX-6300
      417
    • Intel Pentium G4560
      377
    • Intel Core i3-4330
      350
    • AMD A10-7890K
      336
    • AMD Athlon X4 880K
      327
    • Intel Core i3-6100
      321
    • Intel Pentium G4400
      273
    • Intel Pentium G3440
      246
    • Intel Celeron G3900
      227
    • Intel Celeron G1840
      207
  • Single-Core-Test:
    • Intel Core i5-7600K
      180
    • Intel Core i5-6600K
      165
    • Intel Core i3-6100
      154
    • Intel Core i5-6500
      151
    • Intel Pentium G4560
      148
    • Intel Core i3-4330
      139
    • Intel Pentium G4400
      137
    • Intel Pentium G3440
      128
    • Intel Core i5-2500K
      126
    • Intel Celeron G3900
      113
    • Intel Celeron G1840
      107
    • AMD A10-7890K
      96
    • AMD FX-6300
      95
    • AMD Athlon X4 880K
      95

Just look at the cinebench score, the i5 wins by a large margin despite the lower single core score (which is expected given the older architecture and lower clock speed). Run that i5 at 4.2GHz (a target the vast majority of sandy K chips could achieve no problem) and it will wipe its butt with the pentium.

[EPPHO]

First who can buy new 2500k at full price? No one. Second who will run k chip at stock?

[ARikozuM]

11 minutes ago, VirusStorm said:

Expect the price of the i5 to go down dramatically  

Hahaha! No.

[VirusStorm]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Hahaha! No.

If a pentium outperforms it, it just might go down 

[potoooooooo]

4 minutes ago, VirusStorm said:

If a pentium outperforms it, it just might go down 

The pentium is 1% behind it, at stock. The 2500k is still a lot better raw performance wise

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, VirusStorm said:

If a pentium outperforms it, it just might go down 

I see the price of the i5-2500K going down if people think it will depreciate. 

[Godlygamer23]

22 minutes ago, 8-Bit Ninja said:

in games that run fine on 2 cores im not surprised, but given the fact that when far cry primal was released it wouldn't even open a dual core. I would still take the 2500k with 4 cores 

That was an issue on straight dual cores if I remember correctly. The G4560 has hyper-threading, therefore creating four logical cores total.

[vanished]

Goes to show that progress actually has been made since sandy bridge, despite what people seem to feel  

[Godlygamer23]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Goes to show that progress actually has been made since sandy bridge, despite what people seem to feel  

Not in a way that really matters for many owners of older CPUs. The performance difference between Ivy Bridge and Kaby Lake clock-for-clock is low considering the time span. 

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Not in a way that really matters for many owners of older CPUs. The performance difference between Ivy Bridge and Kaby Lake clock-for-clock is low considering the time span. 

Well, yes I suppose you could look at this two ways - one the one hand, there's been a small enough improvement that these old chips are still perfectly capable.  On the flip side though, we now have i3s (and low end i3s at that) beating what were mid-high end i5s

[Hunter259]

2 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Not in a way that really matters for many owners of older CPUs. The performance difference between Ivy Bridge and Kaby Lake clock-for-clock is low considering the time span. 

I upgraded to a 2600k knowing that the difference between kaby and sandy was minimal (besides the enormous price difference) and at 4.7 it is pretty damn close to identical to a 4770k at 4.4Ghz. As long as you have a well OC'd sandy bridge I really don't see the point in upgrading unless you REALLY want DDR4 and M.2 Slots.

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Hunter259 said:

I upgraded to a 2600k knowing that the difference between kaby and sandy was minimal (besides the enormous price difference) and at 4.7 it is pretty damn close to identical to a 4770k at 4.4Ghz. As long as you have a well OC'd sandy bridge I really don't see the point in upgrading unless you REALLY want DDR4 and M.2 Slots.

Not everyone gets a fantastic overclock though, on any chip, for any number of possible reasons.

 

42 minutes ago, alexyy said:

But who runs a 2500k stock. 

Very unlucky people  

[Hunter259]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Not everyone gets a fantastic overclock though, on any chip, for any number of possible reasons.

I mean't well OC as like 4.2. Not my 4.7 . If you're chip can't push past maybe 4.4-4.5 and you want to run past 100 fps then and only then would I consider an upgrade. I run at 4K so the performance difference is nearing 0.

[PlayStation 2]

This seems super vague.

[MimigaKing]

1 hour ago, frozeNNN said:

First who can buy new 2500k at full price? No one. Second who will run k chip at stock?

 

1 hour ago, alexyy said:

But who runs a 2500k stock. 

In fact, I do run my old 2500k at stock on my work PC. Sorry to prove you wrong. Not that I wouldn't OC it but the MOBO doesn't support OC at all. 

[Misanthrope]

This hyperthreaded pentiums paired with a 1050 or used 470 (although that might be the pentium's upper limit) should be great for a new round of "kill your console" builds.

[AresKrieger]

1 hour ago, Kloaked said:

 

 

I saw Tweaktown in the source.

Yep that makes me care very little about the results, also its not like this really affects anything given how that cpu is 6 years old and was mid tier, of course if they made it match a more modern one everyone would call them out on it.

 

Though I still call BS because Tweaktown is click bait lies 90% of the time

[MageTank]

I like the part where you can visit the german source, edit the graphs to include only the CPU intensive games, and the 2500k starts to win by 11%. I also like the part where they conveniently leave out minimum framerates, the difference in performance that you see the most when comparing a hyperthreaded dual core vs a real quad core. 

 

I've tested many systems, including an overclocked Skylake i3 (4.5ghz DDR4 3200mhz) and an overclocked skylake i5 (4.5ghz DDR4 3200mhz) and believe me, while both can achieve almost identical average FPS, the minimum dips on the i3 is what sets the i5 apart. The same is said once you compare the i5's to the i7's. Let's not pretend this G4560 is automatically a replacement for i3's or i5's, even the several generation old ones, until we actually get all of the information.

 

EDIT: Just checked again, they did include the minimum framerates on page 3. https://www.computerbase.de/2017-01/intel-pentium-g4560-test-kaby-lake/3/#diagramm-the-witcher-3-1080p

 

I would still like to know of their testing methodology, as they seem to have neglected to list the memory speeds used for each processor, something that will undoubtedly skew the results.