Pentium-AE Is A Processor We Want, But Not The Processor We Need

Testing the Pentium G3258 has been fun. There was a well of nostalgia in me that was particularly excited to get the processor in and get a chance to play with the overclocking potential. Even though this does not seem to be a fully-fledged member of the Devil’s Canyon cohort, Intel should receive kudos for providing the ‘cheap and cheerful’ unit which might instill a new wave of overclocking enthusiasts.

While the performance at stock is nothing to shout about, the feel of the processor in its overclocked mode was fast – even faster than the top tier processors. That is benefit afforded by an overclocking platform - web browsing and any other simple operation that needs a single thread will be as quick as you can get it. The downside occurs if anything CPU-limited or multi-threaded attempts to push its workload through the system. If the software can take advantage of hyperthreading very easily, then no matter how high the Pentium-AE is overclocked, the i3 will win every time.  As we move into the future, software is becoming more adept at using these extra threads.

Intel had several choices when it came to providing a cheaper overclocking processor. It had to come with appropriate branding (20+ years of Pentium), but also not be instantly recognizable (Pentium G3258 sounds generic) and it must not interfere with their high end product lines when going for full-out performance. Unfortunately, those last two points are just some of the reasons that a gaming enthusiast might want a nicely performing system on the cheap and why the Intel Pentium-AE is not the right processor to do it with.

To start, Intel missed a trick by not calling it a K processor, but if you want a processor to not take much of the spotlight, it gets a generic name. The specifications of the processor at stock leave cause for concern. Intel could have chosen a DDR3-1600 model for unlocking, but it chose the DDR3-1333 model instead. While one could postulate that this would offer more dies to sell (by being a lower classification, more dies would fit into this bracket overall), I doubt that Intel is stretching to fill die quotas at this low end of the spectrum. The other concern comes back to the fact that Intel wanted to leave a big enough gap between the Pentium-AE and the i5/i7-K processors, so fitting the CPU with a low amount of L3 cache and DDR3 support would help in this context.

Certain games get a boost with the Pentium-AE overclocked, such as F1 2013 and Company of Heroes 2, but the overclocking is more important when it comes to multiple GPU scenarios. The downside of that conclusion is that an i3 is better at multiple GPU scenarios right off the bat, and for single GPU gaming the trend is towards games that can use the threads. This is a big discrepancy between when we used to overclock older CPU and today – the games today can use multiple cores. Having a lack of cores can really damage frame rates in some titles, especially when the amount of GPUs starts to rise. Unfortunately the only way to get more cores is to buy a better processor, or buy one that unlocks cores. The former reason in the last sentence is what helps Intel in the long run from the Pentium-AE cannibalizing i5 and i7 sales.

This review ends not so much on a conclusion, but more of a request. But given what we have seen thus far when discussing the place of the G3258 with everything else, it might be a fruitless request, but I would like to try.

Please Intel, create an i3 overclocking processor.

An i3-K Would Complete the Set

If the overclocking community is to grow, there needs to be some positive encouragement, rather than an ecosystem where a user can buy an overclocked Pentium-AE gaming machine and it is beaten by an extra $45 which might have been spent on a good cooler enabling the overclock. Having the extra power of the i3 might, in time, encourage users to expand their remit and purchase the i5/i7 and overclock it further, with a potential route to the enthusiast X-series processors over time. The dual core Pentiums are limiting the potential of discrete graphics now that gaming can take advantage of processor cores. As long as an i7-K and i5-K processors are released at the same time, an overclockable i3-K would give you the trifecta of K processors that becomes instantly marketable, along with growing and creating communities around them.

Discrete GPU Gaming
Comments Locked

96 Comments

View All Comments

  • smunter6 - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    And don't forget about Micro Center which has been offering the G3258 for $60 since it came out.
  • HanzNFranzen - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    The i3 4130 is on Newegg at the moment for $112.00 (3.4ghz instead of 3.5ghz of the 4330)
  • Computer Bottleneck - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    The i3-4130 is not just 100 Mhz slower than i3-4330. It is also missing 1MB of cache. (See my comments elsewhere after this article on why that might be important. I posted an Anandtech forum link with some test results to back up my concerns)
  • HangFire - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    The E2160 was Core 2 architecture, but it wasn't a "Core 2 Duo E2160". It was Pentium-branded with no Level 3 cache and a very small Level 2 cache.

    I had the E2180 and overclocked the snot out of it for over a year until I ponied up the bucks for a quad core. It could play any game of the time on "High" competently except for some micro-stutters. I attribute that to the lack of a big CPU L2/L3 cache, not to mention the old-style FSB memory interface.
  • Rankor - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    "...taking a low cost part, such as the Celeron 300A, and adjusting one or two settings to make it run as fast as a Pentium III 450 MHz."

    Celery 300A's were based off the Mendocino Pentium II, not the Pentium III Coppermines.
  • drexnx - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    the 450mhz p!!! the 300A competed against weren't coppermines though, they were Katmai cores ;)
  • drexnx - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    and that half-speed off-die L2 cache was a big detriment to the Katmai as well, since the 300A was full speed on-die
  • Hruodgar - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Also I could get mine to 504 MHZ :)
  • extide - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    Original 300A had only 128K though, where as the Coppermines had 256K. Some of the later Celerons had no L2, though.
  • Concillian - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    stock speed i3 beats a massively OC'ed dual core. The multi core scaling era really is here. i3 is cheaper if you consider the whole system (non-OC mobo easily offsets the CPU cost, no need for a massive cooler on a stock clock, etc..) and performs better in almost every scenario...

    This leads me to one conclusion. Intel is banking on people making a dumb decision and buying this just because it's OCable.

    As the article says, an i3-K CPU would be ideal. However, Intel is too smart to release one. They know it will eat into the margins that it's enjoyed by positioning it's offerings so people feel compelled to buy an i5-K or i7-K .

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now