Pentium G3258 - designed for Arma 3 multiplayer?

[JackScythe]

I'm looking for a specific CPU to play Arma 3 Wasteland, Arma 3 Epoch Mod and Breaking Point Mod. 

 

I was going to built a rig with AMD FX6300, but I have found an interesting comparison, which says, that there is a very cool CPU on the market called Pentium G3258.

 

That CPU is almost as powerful as i5 2400 in some games. It provides fantastic performance in Arma 3 single-player for a good price.

 

Is there anyone, who can confirm, that I can get better FPS in Arma 3 Multiplayer with G3258 than with FX6300?

[jezza39]

I would go the 6300, the extra cores will come up big in games. It can also be over clocked I believe.

 

However most benchmarks put it on par with an i3 (a pentium with HT) for ARMA 3, but I still recommend the 6300 as it will come up trumps in other games.

[loccilucas]

You probably get better results with the g3258 as arma is a very cpu intensive game, also it's almost always better off getting an intel CPU anyway unless you are on a very very tight budget.

Also you don't need loads of cores for games, games prefer fewer powerful fast cores, rather than lots of slow cores.

[Ssoele]

I would go the 6300, the extra cores will come up big in games. It can also be over clocked I believe.

 

However most benchmarks put it on par with an i3 (a pentium with HT) for ARMA 3, but I still recommend the 6300 as it will come up trumps in other games.

 

Games barely take advantage of more cores, you're way better of going with fewer more powerful core then more less powerful ones.

 

 

Go for the G3258, it's an awesome CPU.

[Lord Pantaloons]

Games barely take advantage of more cores, you're way better of going with fewer more powerful core then more less powerful ones.

 

 

Go for the G3258, it's an awesome CPU.

^^Dis

 

Better cores are always better than more cores. Four of those six "cores" on the 6300 will go unused in 95% of games.

[GloriousPain]

/snip

Really? I'd say 6300 for extra cores but the G3258 is an excellent option and probably cheaper but don't look at "some games" for comparison as if you look at the wrong games you'll get entirely wrong results compared to others Eg if a game is programmed to use 1 and only 1 core (like World of Warcraft and plenty of other MMOs are) then a G3258 will preform equivalent or beyond that of say the i7-4790k despite being significantly weaker overall just the programming makes it so... because at that point with identical architecture and to the program same # of cores it comes down to ClockSpeed and Binning... which having less cores means less heat means usually higher OCs on the G3258 (which is the only pentium with an unlocked multiplier) 

But putting that all aside very few games use "too many cores" Most MMOs only use 1 or 2 which makes them easily compatible with slower and older computers which is why they dominate the market pretty easily... RPGs (that aren't MMOs) usually follow suit as MMO counter parts usually using only 2...RTS usually use 4 (sometimes 2 sometimes more)... Simulators vary widely, Easily modded games can commonly use more(eg Some Skyrim Mods or Minecraft mods allow it to use extra cores), FPS games vary from 1-8 and anywhere in between with Crysis3 and Battlefield 4 each using(or rather being able to use) more than 3 (I can't remember the specific of each off the top of my head but its an even number 4 6 or 8...) 

Also note I suggest the 6300 as I hope games of the future will use more cores or multitasking or rendering or non gaming things or games that aren't CS might use more than 2 or Mantle or DX12 using extra cores but either way your not getting a bad CPU

[jezza39]

Games barely take advantage of more cores, you're way better of going with fewer more powerful core then more less powerful ones.

Go for the G3258, it's an awesome CPU.

If it were 4 cores vs 6 then yeah, but this is 2 vs 6. Most games can utilise 4. Plus the 6300 can be overclocked

[The Crazed Child]

It's hard to say.

 

As others have said, Arma is very CPU intensive, and the Pentium will give you the best performance, but then again, the FX 6300 is good if you do other stuff like streaming or web browsing while you game.

[ComradeHX]

I would go the 6300, the extra cores will come up big in games. It can also be over clocked I believe.

 

However most benchmarks put it on par with an i3 (a pentium with HT) for ARMA 3, but I still recommend the 6300 as it will come up trumps in other games.

Ever heard of Starcraft 2, Planetside 2, World of Tanks, WoW, ...etc.

 

 

If it were 4 cores vs 6 then yeah, but this is 2 vs 6. Most games can utilise 4. Plus the 6300 can be overclocked

6300 can be overclocked?

Tell me again how that's an advantage when pentium g3258 runs at 4.8ghz.

 

 

===============

Later, pentium g3258 can be swapped with an i5-4690k...etc.

 

While fx-6300 can be swapped with...nothing much.

[tugadude4]

Ever heard of Starcraft 2, Planetside 2, World of Tanks, WoW, ...etc.

 

 

6300 can be overclocked?

Tell me again how that's an advantage when pentium g3258 runs at 4.8ghz.

 

 

===============

Later, pentium g3258 can be swapped with an i5-4690k...etc.

 

While fx-6300 can be swapped with...nothing much.

oh hmm just the 8350 which does the same as an 3770k

[Rubenis]

Arma needs fewer, but faster cores. Pentium with OC will be great for that. And since most games can use up to 2 cores, that does not mean, that games like Battlefield, that CAN use more cores will not run on Pentium. And as above mentioned later you can swap out Pentium for up to i7, but no big upgrade for FX.

 

 

oh hmm just the 8350 which does the same as an 3770k

It does, but quite a lot slower. FX is gret for really tight budget, but sorry, Intel is way faster 95% of the time. Even i5 (4 core) usually beats FX 8350 (8 core) processor. And for me the efficency is deal breaker.

[brokencross]

Arma needs fewer, but faster cores. Pentium with OC will be great for that. And since most games can use up to 2 cores, that does not mean, that games like Battlefield, that CAN use more cores will not run on Pentium. And as above mentioned later you can swap out Pentium for up to i7, but no big upgrade for FX.

 

 

It does, but quite a lot slower. FX is gret for really tight budget, but sorry, Intel is way faster 95% of the time. Even i5 (4 core) usually beats FX 8350 (8 core) processor. And for me the efficency is deal breaker.

Just to add

 

A 4690k completely obliterates the 8350 performance-wise per core. But eh, everybody knows that.

[tugadude4]

Just to add

 

A 4690k completely obliterates the 8350 performance-wise per core. But eh, everybody knows that.

you dont deserve to be on this comunity if you use that website to get your information

[tugadude4]

Arma needs fewer, but faster cores. Pentium with OC will be great for that. And since most games can use up to 2 cores, that does not mean, that games like Battlefield, that CAN use more cores will not run on Pentium. And as above mentioned later you can swap out Pentium for up to i7, but no big upgrade for FX.

 

 

It does, but quite a lot slower. FX is gret for really tight budget, but sorry, Intel is way faster 95% of the time. Even i5 (4 core) usually beats FX 8350 (8 core) processor. And for me the efficency is deal breaker.

dont even, you must be new to these kind of things, and by no means im saying intel is shit and amd is better, im just stating that for 150euros (8350) gets you the same performance of the 3770k(300euros) and dont come will some manbo jambo bullshit like that, without reliable sources , oh and btw, by reliable sources i dont mean cpuboss and passmark 

[brokencross]

you dont deserve to be on this comunity if you use that website to get your information

I could even be getting information out of my own ass. Intels will always outperform AMDs in a single core performance basis.

[ohJey]

I could even be getting information out of my own ass. Intels will always outperform AMDs in a single core performance basis.

and it did if you look at the chart

[brokencross]

and it did if you look at the chart

That was my point entirely.

[tugadude4]

I could even be getting information out of my own ass. Intels will always outperform AMDs in a single core performance basis.

tipical fanboy dont even start, and i already said it several times that intel has indeed better performance per core, but, that still doenst explain why should i pay 150euros more for 5%more performance

[ComradeHX]

oh hmm just the 8350 which does the same as an 3770k

Don't lie.

 

tipical fanboy dont even start, and i already said it several times that intel has indeed better performance per core, but, that still doenst explain why should i pay 150euros more for 5%more performance

 

You don't have to; it's $50 more for 3570k.

[tugadude4]

I could even be getting information out of my own ass. Intels will always outperform AMDs in a single core performance basis.

then keep getting your info there seems to make very smart

[brokencross]

tipical fanboy dont even start, and i already said it several times that intel has indeed better performance per core, but, that still doenst explain why should i pay 150euros more for 5%more performance

Not even a fanboy. I was just stating facts.

And I wasn't even talking on a performance for buck basis. But then again, you get what you pay for.

AMDs aren't bad, not even close. It just so happens that Intels are better, even if they are considerably more expensive.

[ohJey]

That was my point entirely.

it has 4 modules / 8 cores instead of just 4 cores

I don't hate either company, but there's no problem with saving money

it also depends what else you do with your computer

[brokencross]

it has 4 modules / 8 cores instead of just 4 cores

I don't hate either company, but there's no problem with saving money

it also depends what else you do with your computer

Still manages to have more computing power with only 4 cores. If we stick by that chart in particular.

[ComradeHX]

then keep getting your info there seems to make very smart

By the way, Tek Syndicate is not a reliable source of benchmark.

[ohJey]

By the way, Tek Syndicate is not a reliable source of benchmark.