Intel G3258 or FX 8350

[jjgaminguk]

Both are a poor choice for gaming.

If you have the money for an FX 8350; go for the i5 4440.

If that's too much: i3 4160.

 

FX 8350 is just bad and Pentium bottlenecks the R9 270 and better

Agreed, the 8350 has poor single thread performance and is not ideal, on the other hand its good at multithreaded applications, video rendering etc.

[minibois]

Agreed, the 8350 has poor single thread performance and is not ideal, on the other hand its good at multithreaded applications, video rendering etc.

yep, but games are very much not multi threaded, which is why the FX 8320 is not a good CPU for gaming.

[Shakaza]

It seems that everything needed to be said has been. Good.

[Nena Trinity]

If you found a FX at that price then GRAB IT!

 

If its same price as other FX in the US get i5.

[MichaelTechTalk]

You cant compare these, they are for way different PC uses... and comparing these would be like comparing an apple to an orange.

Wanting to compare these just shows a lack of funds... /wait until you have more money, get an i5 for Gaming, and an i5 for Gaming/Rendering

FX are useless in pretty much every situation except 100% full load 24/7 ALL the time (which in gaming, is not a thing EVER)

AMD's FX and Intel i3's will be the ultimate budget CPU's with DirectX 12 games when the API can address the AMDs cores and Intel's hyperthreads/cores efficiently. Its all about what the games "needs" from the CPU and DirectX 11 does not utilize more than 2-Cores semi-efficiently and what other cores/thread it uses outside of those 2-Cores is not worth the extra $ to dish on a i5/i7 as if it going to give you justifiable gains. Gaming application do not need nearly as much CPU resources as one would expect as long as the cores/threads are being addressed, and utilized properly. 

[MichaelTechTalk]

Yep, I'm asking. After some great information given to me from a thread about how bad amd is, I'm wondering how these two compare. Anyone that has owned either of these two cpus for an opinion? I would be willing to buy the 4160 or 4130 if the g3258 is not good enough to at least play the latest titles at fair settings (1080p medium graphics) without bottlenecking a GPU.

The i3 is your best bet because when DirectX 12 games are developed and released, the new API will be able to utilize the hyper-threads efficiently as if its was a quad-cores. Compared to the i5/i7, the i3 already renders great results and its only a 20fps difference (on very little games) you have to deal with which is only for a short while until DX12 games are released. DX11 games can not utilize more than 2-Cores efficiently and very little of extra cores/threads anyways so an i5 and i7 is not worth the extra $ when you can put it towards a faster/stronger GPU. 

[othertomperson]

Haha, thx for the compliment.

Yes turning HT off would probably improve the performance in gaming. However on other applications, or running lots of applications at zhe same time, HT can improve the performance ~20%.

But if you only use the i7-4790k for gaming, why did you bougth this CPU?

As I guess you don't reboot to turn HT on after gaming. So you will loose over all performance.

Just leave it on, a lot of very smart engineers have optimized this feature for years. There is a benefit...

 

That can happen with physical cores, never mind hyperthreading. I remember a few years ago there were tonnes of problems of Windows handling single core applications really badly on dual core CPUs, forcing them to run on multiple cores more often than not resulting in crashes and in best case scenario resulting in much reduced performance over a single core CPU.

[Alurit]

It is not one of the best budget CPU's. All the Pentiums the reviewers got were sooo binned, meaning they overclocked a lot better than the ones which regular consumers would get.

 

The Pentium is a dual core, which now bottlenecks a lot of GPU's because games run just so much better in 4 Threads. This causes the Pentium to bottleneck a lot.

 

Well let me just provide some actual proof after my claims:

 

I would include a Far Cry 4 benchmark, but that doesn't run on dual cores. What a shame.

These benchmarks are all benchmarks with the GTX 980, because you mentioned it wouldn't bottleneck a GTX 970 and an overclocked GTX 970 gets fairly close to the GTX 980.

 

I hope I have opened your eyes a little bit and you will look up benchmarks first before calling people "an idiot" and saying they are "a stranger around Linus Tech Tips"

and this doesn't even include the stutter some pentium users report since it won't show on average fps.

as for OP, I can just repeat what the majority says: the i5 is optimal, if it's too expensive then the i3, unless you get the fx for cheaper

[blueballs]

g3258 so you can upgrade the next time you receive some unknown money's

[0ld_Chicken]

Haha, thx for the compliment.

But if you only use the i7-4790k for gaming, why did you bougth this CPU?

As I guess you don't reboot to turn HT on after gaming. So you will loose over all performance.

Just leave it on, a lot of very smart engineers have optimized this feature for years. There is a benefit...

-snip-

 

I bought it because I didn't properly do my research and had not gotten in to forums.  I'm still pretty new to all things pc and when I was doing my first (and current) full build I didn't want to have to upgrade cpu's for a while so I kinda went all out.  I wish I had saved the money and gotten an i5 (have known for a while now) but I'm still perfectly happy with it.  I make enough money anyways. 

EDIT: thanks for the info too man, always helpful

[Stefan1024]

I bought it because I didn't properly do my research and had not gotten in to forums.  I'm still pretty new to all things pc and when I was doing my first (and current) full build I didn't want to have to upgrade cpu's for a while so I kinda went all out.  I wish I had saved the money and gotten an i5 (have known for a while now) but I'm still perfectly happy with it.  I make enough money anyways. 

EDIT: thanks for the info too man, always helpful

You are wellcome.

 

The i7-4790k isn't a bad chip. It may not be optimized for gaming, but it can handle almost everything you ever will thow at it. And yes, you don't have to upgrade for a loooong time.

[Sam Z Man]

"Both are poor choices for gaming." The pentium is one of the best budget CPU's out there and deals way above its weight class. You must be a stranger around Linus Tech Tips because he's talked so much about the pentium. He's done MULTIPLE benchmarks with the G3258 and compared it to other CPU's including the 5960X. Not only that, he used a GTX 970 with the pentium as well, which didn't bottleneck it at all.

You want to see what happens when you get a pentium and 970 together to play GTA, SO MUCH GLITCH.

(go to the 3:30 mark)

 

And thats with the Pentium @4.2ghz

[SkilledRebuilds]

You want to see what happens when you get a pentium and 970 together to play GTA, SO MUCH GLITCH.

(go to the 3:30 mark)

 

 

And thats with the Pentium @4.2ghz

Not even 100% GPU usage....... anywhere

That Stutter.... lol.

[cragger89]

4160 is excellent if you ONLY need 2 cores. I had to upgrade to the 4460 to get the best out of my 780Ti (fairly obvious.)

[Prysin]

i5 takes it by a mile, expected  :lol:

a mile is hyperbole

Its winning by a few feet. Its sort of like 290X vs 980. In some cases, it is a landslide. But outside of those cases, its not too horrible of a contrast.

Is the i5 better. Yes, in general.

But is the FX 8350 that bad? No. It gives you reasonable performance, albeit it is not a reasonable price to performance option.

[ZetZet]

a mile is hyperbole

Its winning by a few feet. Its sort of like 290X vs 980. In some cases, it is a landslide. But outside of those cases, its not too horrible of a contrast.

Is the i5 better. Yes, in general.

But is the FX 8350 that bad? No. It gives you reasonable performance, albeit it is not a reasonable price to performance option.

in some games fx8350 is hard to compare though. for example in gta V or arma the performance difference is like 30%.

i5 is rock solid in all games and that's what I value personally.

[Prysin]

in some games fx8350 is hard to compare though. for example in gta V or arma the performance difference is like 30%.

i5 is rock solid in all games and that's what I value personally.

well, i went from a FX 8320 OCd to 4,52 GHz over to i7 4790k. I shouldnt really say much about FX, cuz i fled the sinkin ship. BUT, i can tell that it does provide admirably more stable FPS then most benchmarks make it seem.

Take Witcher 3 for example. Albeit it heavily bottlenecked my 295x2, it did let me play at around 33 FPS and it was rock solid at around those levels. Should you aim to play at 30 FPS, no. But it is what i consider the lowest possible acceptible FPS.

Bear in mind, i play at 3440x1440 resolution, so this poor CPU had to deal with more stuff in general (especially since physics get dumped onto the CPU without Nvidia card)...

Now, with the 4790k, i didnt bother to OC it even, its at stock settings and i play at 65-78 FPS with ultra settings, no hairworks, AA, blur or motion blur.... Soo... even when playing Nvidia titles, AMD can pull through even at really high resolutions....

However going from OCd FX to i7, i went from a system load of 297w to 219w at idle (i got a lot of HDDs, a 280mm AIO, and lots of noctua fans.... so the power draw isnt all 295x2 if thats what you're thinking)

EDIT:

I didnt have any settings below ultra with teh FX. I will note that the FX seemed to be more happy (taking less of a hit) when i turned hairworks to max then Intel does... i cannot explain it, but i dropped only 8 FPS with my FX when turning on hairworks in Novigrad. Intel on the other hand derps down 22 FPS, maybe even 28 FPS in some densly populated areas... Perhaps the FX had more headroom with the game then the i7 does (since i7 is a quad core and not actually 8 integer schedulers, or cores as AMD calls them... in essence, the FX series is 2 nerds trying to use one tiny casio calculator... thats how AMD "modules" work... )

[i_build_nanosuits]

FX 8320 OCd to 4,52 GHz

Take Witcher 3 for example. Albeit it heavily bottlenecked my 295x2, it did let me play at around 33 FPS and it was rock solid at around those levels.

WoW!

[Prysin]

WoW!

I know. I was surprised it even let me get above 4 FPS....