g4400 vs fx-4300 (for gaming)

[Blackhole890]

which one is better? and why? since amd has quad core and pentium has dual, the answer is pretty ovbius but still wanna confirm which one is better for this gaming gen

[Guest]

No. You don't compare cpu based on number of cores

[Imglidinhere]

Currently games will prefer more weaker cores as opposed to fewer higher IPC cores, given that most games will use a quad core.

 

THAT BEING SAID, the FX chip HERE is better than the Pentium. However... if you compared an 8-core FX chip to an i7, the i7 will win.

[divided_throwaway]

g4400. fx 4300 will run GTA V at only ~40 FPS; you could expect a bit better performance from the Pentium.

[Mr.Meerkat]

If you're only considering pure gaming performance then the FX4300 easily but if you consider the future upgrade path then the G4400 is better as it's on an socket where i3s, i5s and i7s are available  (and you already have DDR4)

What budget do you have? I'll quickly whisk something up for you if you want me to  

 

double edit: Never mind, the pentium is LGA 1151

 

[Hunter7263]

The g4400 will perform better but a lot of games wont even boot if you dont have a quad core (or at least a hyperthreaded dual core).

[Imakuni]

2 minutes ago, Blackhole890 said:

which one is better? and why? since amd has quad core and pentium has dual, the answer is pretty ovbius but still wanna confirm which one is better for this gaming gen

The pentium. The much superior single thread performance more than makes up for it when compared to a pseudo-quad core like the 4300. DDR4 also helps a lot. Not to mention that you can actually upgrade the Pentium to an i5 / i7, quite possibly even a Kaby Lake variant, whereas the 4300 has no upgrade path.

 

As much as I'd wish to recommend AMD, they rarely ever worth it nowadays.

[Mr.Meerkat]

1 minute ago, Imakuni said:

The pentium. The much superior single thread performance more than makes up for it when compared to a pseudo-quad core like the 4300. DDR4 also helps a lot. Not to mention that you can actually upgrade the Pentium to an i5 / i7, quite possibly even a Kaby Lake variant, whereas the 4300 has no upgrade path.

 

As much as I'd wish to recommend AMD, they rarely ever worth it nowadays.

But...but...it's still 4 cores/threads while the pentium only has 2...meaning some games will run rubbishly on it and some won't even run on it at all  (plus when all 4 cores are utilised, it's around 15-30% faster...)

[Matu20]

Pentium should be better. I wouldnt suggest investing into any AMD CPU right now. Zen is just around the corner.

[Imakuni]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

But...but...it's still 4 cores/threads while the pentium only has 2...meaning some games will run rubbishly on it and some won't even run on it at all  (plus when all 4 cores are utilised, it's around 15-30% faster...)

Frankly, the Fx 4300 is not a TRUE quad core. It would be more accurate to call it a CPU with 4 threads and 2 cores with some doubled hardware per core. For instance, it only has 2 FPU, so if your game asks for a floating point calculation, it is going to be a dual core CPU in that moment, not a quad core.

[Imglidinhere]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

But...but...it's still 4 cores/threads while the pentium only has 2...meaning some games will run rubbishly on it and some won't even run on it at all  (plus when all 4 cores are utilised, it's around 15-30% faster...)

Yes it is only a dual core CPU. The point is that it's a MUCH newer socket, meaning you aren't limited by technology that's nearly 5 years old! You can upgrade the pentium to a better CPU down the road and stay relevant.

[Mr.Meerkat]

Just now, Imakuni said:

Frankly, the Fx 4300 is not a TRUE quad core. It would be more accurate to call it a CPU with 4 threads and 2 cores with some doubled hardware per core. For instance, it only has 2 FPU, so if your game asks for a floating point calculation, it is going to be a dual core CPU in that moment, not a quad core.

Well at the same time, it technically is a quad core as there are 4 "real" cores (but they are in 2 modules with 2 cores per modules with L3 cache and L2-I think and other stuff shared with the other core in the same module). 

 

One more thing I wanted to note, the clock speeds are 3.8-4GHz vs 3.3GHz which is a 500-700MHz difference (which is a 15-20% increase in clock speed) which is something you know  (although it doesn't negate the 40%~ better IPC completely )

[Mr.Meerkat]

4 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

Yes it is only a dual core CPU. The point is that it's a MUCH newer socket, meaning you aren't limited by technology that's nearly 5 years old! You can upgrade the pentium to a better CPU down the road and stay relevant.

That's true but is OP willing to not be able to play some specific games or have them run like trash? It's kinda down to the OP on what he should choose as there are pros and cons to both CPUs  

[WoodenMarker]

Unless you know that the games you're playing are going to be limited to two or less cores, the 4300 would be better.

The optimal situation otherwise would probably be to work with the budget better and get an i3.

[Imglidinhere]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

That's true but is OP willing to not be able to play some specific games or have them run like trash? It's kinda down to the OP on what he should choose as there are pros and cons to both CPUs  

Uh... what games are you referring to? Because Cities Skylines runs like utter crap on any FX CPU and don't start talking about Far Cry 4... that game is NOT worth the money and no other game suffers from that issue. Besides, you aren't going to pay top dollar for extra games when you're budgeting out for your PC...  That's stupid.

 

"I plan on building a $400 gaming PC and spending another $600 on 10 games."

[Mr.Meerkat]

6 minutes ago, Imglidinhere said:

Uh... what games are you referring to? Because Cities Skylines runs like utter crap on any FX CPU and don't start talking about Far Cry 4... that game is NOT worth the money and no other game suffers from that issue. Besides, you aren't going to pay top dollar for extra games when you're budgeting out for your PC...  That's stupid.

 

"I plan on building a $400 gaming PC and spending another $600 on 10 games."

Well...you don't know what games OP is gonna play do you? Obviously best scenario is getting an i3 but I doubt it with his budget  (

 

On a side note: Who the fuck told you far cry 4 is $60? It's $40 which is still...Oh wait...the US is getting fucked by the pricing of FC4? What? UK and EU prices are cheaper? Da fuqqqqqqqqq?

[Imglidinhere]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

Well...you don't know what games OP is gonna play do you? Obviously best scenario is getting an i3 but I doubt it with his budget  (

 

On a side note: Who the fuck told you far cry 4 is $60? It's $40 which is still...Oh wait...the US is getting fucked by the pricing of FC4? What? UK and EU prices are cheaper? Da fuqqqqqqqqq?

You're missing the point. The point IS that you're not going to be playing games like Far Cry 4 on a budget PC and if you ARE, then you need to invest a little more into what platform you're going to be using rather than spending that on the games.

[Mr.Meerkat]

Just now, Imglidinhere said:

You're missing the point. The point IS that you're not going to be playing games like Far Cry 4 on a budget PC and if you ARE, then you need to invest a little more into what platform you're going to be using rather than spending that on the games.

And that's just ignorant...you're telling me I can't play GTA 5 on my i7 4500U and 840m? (it's not really low end laptop wise but compared to desk top hardware, it's weak). Not everyone has the money to spend on a mid/high end machine (and you're forgetting G2A and kinguin exists where games are even cheaper).

I played games like Flatout 2 and need for speed:MW 2005 and CSGO and TF2 ect. ect. fine on a 2008 lappy with a core 2 duo and g105m (this has 8 cuda cores...it's an actual potato) back in 2008-2014 so you don't have to have the highest end machine to play triple As.

[Imglidinhere]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

And that's just ignorant...you're telling me I can't play GTA 5 on my i7 4500U and 840m? (it's not really low end laptop wise but compared to desk top hardware, it's weak). Not everyone has the money to spend on a mid/high end machine (and you're forgetting G2A and kinguin exists where games are even cheaper).

I played games like Flatout 2 and need for speed:MW 2005 and CSGO and TF2 ect. ect. fine on a 2008 lappy with a core 2 duo and g105m (this has 8 cuda cores...it's an actual potato) back in 2008-2014 so you don't have to have the highest end machine to play triple As.

It's not ignorant when you're discussing either purchasing a CPU that's either on a CURRENT GENERATION platorm or a 4-year old platform. There is ZERO reason to buy an FX-4300 for any reason. Hell, you'd get better performance buying an i3-6100 and playing on the integrated HD 520. I know, I just watched someone playing Heroes of the Storm on High settings at 30 FPS with that very setup.  So as far as gaming is concerned, while the original question was "Which is better?" and the answer being direct as can be: "The FX-4300 is better." It doesn't mean that you should EVER purchase a 4-year old platform that's about to be outdated by that same manufacturer in 5 months. 

[Mr.Meerkat]

Just now, Imglidinhere said:

It's not ignorant when you're discussing either purchasing a CPU that's either on a CURRENT GENERATION platorm or a 4-year old platform. There is ZERO reason to buy an FX-4300 for any reason. Hell, you'd get better performance buying an i3-6100 and playing on the integrated HD 520. I know, I just watched someone playing Heroes of the Storm on High settings at 30 FPS with that very setup.  So as far as gaming is concerned, while the original question was "Which is better?" and the answer being direct as can be: "The FX-4300 is better." It doesn't mean that you should EVER purchase a 4-year old platform that's about to be outdated by that same manufacturer in 5 months. 

So am I allowed to recommend the new athlon x4 bristol ridge CPU on the AM4 socket? There's a bigger upgrade path for it than the Pentium has...

 

On a side note: what are you on about with the i3 bit? Pair the FX with something half decent like a 460X and well there's no way a HD520 will keep up

[Imglidinhere]

Just now, Mr.Meerkat said:

So am I allowed to recommend the new athlon x4 bristol ridge CPU on the AM4 socket? There's a bigger upgrade path for it than the Pentium has...

 

On a side note: what are you on about with the i3 bit? Pair the FX with something half decent like a 460X and well there's no way a HD520 will keep up

True, but dude, the FX chipset is so old, it doesn't even support PCI-E 3.0 speeds. They're ALL at 2.0 speeds. Look it up. USB 3.1 doesn't exist on those chipsets either. Also, if X build is from someone decent, like myself, then they aren't buying every part right now all at once. You piecemeal it together over the course of a month or two.

[Mr.Meerkat]

Just now, Imglidinhere said:

True, but dude, the FX chipset is so old, it doesn't even support PCI-E 3.0 speeds. They're ALL at 2.0 speeds. Look it up. USB 3.1 doesn't exist on those chipsets either. Also, if X build is from someone decent, like myself, then they aren't buying every part right now all at once. You piecemeal it together over the course of a month or two.

The only problem is not everyone has a income (like teens) who just want to build a cheap but capable PC so they can play with their friends  

 

USB3.1 doesn't exist on the x1x0 (aka the z170/h110/b150 ect.) platform so that's a stupid thing to bring up . Well 2.0 isn't limiting any GPUs plus there's more lanes than what intel consumer CPUs/chipsets have (hence why you're able to do 4 way SLI with a 8350 but not a 6700k, just an example ).

[Imglidinhere]

17 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

The only problem is not everyone has a income (like teens) who just want to build a cheap but capable PC so they can play with their friends  

 

USB3.1 doesn't exist on the x1x0 (aka the z170/h110/b150 ect.) platform so that's a stupid thing to bring up . Well 2.0 isn't limiting any GPUs plus there's more lanes than what intel consumer CPUs/chipsets have (hence why you're able to do 4 way SLI with a 8350 but not a 6700k, just an example ).

Teens generally don't care enough to build a state of the art PC for pennies on the dollar. The HD 520 is capable enough for any E-sports title and handles games on medium settings well enough. Most everyday people don't need a GPU, even most budget gamers do FINE without a dedicated GPU. Hence why an i3 would be infinitely better.

[TheRandomness]

1 hour ago, Imglidinhere said:

Currently games will prefer more weaker cores as opposed to fewer higher IPC cores, given that most games will use a quad core.

 

THAT BEING SAID, the FX chip HERE is better than the Pentium. However... if you compared an 8-core FX chip to an i7, the i7 will win.

Depends on the game. Games that still only need less than 2 threads will run faster on the pentium. Also, discord pls.

[SteveGrabowski0]

4 minutes ago, TheRandomness said:

Games that still only need less than 2 threads will run faster on the pentium.

Which games are those? About the only thing I can think of are emulators.