POST A COMMENT

93 Comments

Back to Article

  • mapesdhs - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link


    Thanks for the article! An interesting piece, especially the conclusion which is spot on,
    but it does need a bit of a proof read, eg. "That is benefit afforded by an overclocking
    platform platform...", was particularly painful. ;D

    Ian.
    Reply
  • monstercameron - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    cinebench r15 charts seem incorrect. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Mixed up some of the ST and MT data. Should be fixed now. Reply
  • TheJian - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    So how far do you get on the stock fan? It's good for 95w and this chip is 53w with gpu on, so disabling it using the stock HSF gets you how far? A stock fan built for i7's should get a reasonable overclock with no extra cost (not 4.7ghz obviously). Since this is truly aimed at the poor (who else? people wanting to far around with ocing?), they'll likely be trying it with stock.

    Any data on that, or did I miss that point in the article? I'd like to know what is stable on stock. Nobody seems to cover this.
    Reply
  • techtonic717 - Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - link

    I have overclocked one on an Asus H81M motherboard with the stock heatsink. 4.2ghz runs nice. The motherboard ups the voltage to 1.224v and running OCCT it gets temps of up to 64 degrees Celsius at full load. If I go up to 4.4ghz the motherboard ups the voltage to 1.37v and then the temps are in the high 70's to low 80's. Manually lowering the voltage results in crashing. It is still stable but I think 4.2-4.3ghz on the stock cooler is the best option. Reply
  • Zap - Thursday, July 17, 2014 - link

    This information is much more useful than the typical "stock HSF sucks" comments. Thanks! Reply
  • EagleEye2014 - Tuesday, August 05, 2014 - link

    Hi, could you please provide me the exact motherboard name, i would like to try it at my place and buying a 87 & 97 chip set boards are little costlier to me now, also i have checked the compatible boards for this processor at Intel site and i wasn't able to locate any Asus boards with the 81 chipset, saw a few MSI 81 chipset boards which are not available at my place. Reply
  • smunter6 - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Why would you pair this with dual 770's? Of course it's not going to perform as well as an i3, but what about single GPU setups (I saw the results in the first page, but no minimum frame rates??) I can't imagine anyone spending $700+ on GPU's and then reaching this low for the processor, but for a $400 build with a 270 or a 750 Ti? It's a whole different ball game. Please base your review off of realistic use cases! Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Single GPU data is on the first page when you scroll down. We have data for those four CPUs.
    For direct comparison with other CPUs, our Bench pages use SLI data
    Reply
  • smunter6 - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Average FPS are listed in this chart, but no minimum frame times like those shown for the dual set ups. Especially when the averages are within 1-2% for most games, I would rather see minimum frame times to highlight the CPU differences rather than the GPU bottleneck. Reply
  • jabber - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Indeed but as we are told so often on these comments -

    "Huh I thought this was an enthusiasts site! No one here buys or is interested in this crap!"

    So to keep the kids happy you have to throw stupid levels of kit into the mix to keep them happy. Whereas those of us that have grown older, got kids and more cost concious just think "so what would this do in a real world setup with a $150 GPU for a bit of gaming on the side?"
    Reply
  • HanzNFranzen - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    While reading that part of the article I was under the impression that a 770 was used to ensure that the CPU would be the bottleneck to show the maximum you could get out of it, though I could be wrong. Sorry, but I think the realistic use case was summed up pretty well in the conclusion. There really is no point in buying this processor to pair with a 750ti and try to make a budget gaming system. I say this because you are for sure going to have to buy an after market cooler to run at that high of an over clock, and the fact that I see the Haswell i3 on sale for around $110 on a pretty regular basis, you are talking about a $15 or so difference in price. So realistically, for that little bit of money, why buy a processor that you are running on at the edge of it's life at all times (high heat and voltage) instead of an i3 that can run at stock and be as good and sometimes way better in games? Reply
  • smunter6 - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Due to the low starting TDP of haswell, almost any aftermarket cooler will suffice. Combine that with the CPU+MB combos offered lately for the G3258, and a complete system can be built for much less than an i3 build.

    For example, I just built a system with a G3258 + Gigabyte B85 (yes it does support overclocking) aftermarket cooler, PSU, AMD 7850, 8 GB memory, for ~$240.
    Reply
  • HanzNFranzen - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    okay, soo... minus out $75 for the processor, minus out $25 for the cpu cooler (you aren't going to run 4.7ghz everyday on something less than like a Hyper 212) =$100... now add in $110 for the i3 that's on Newegg as we speak and buy your same exact parts... $10 difference (ok plus what, like $15 for you combo discount?) so for $25 you have you same build with an i3 instead and its a much better overall performer, not overclocked to it's teeth, not running high voltage all day long. Man, you seem to really want this Pentium to be amazing and a great value... but... it's not. Reply
  • HanzNFranzen - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    ok sorry, $112.00 for the i3...not $110.00. Reply
  • Computer Bottleneck - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    1.) Realize $112.50 for the 3MB cache Core i3-4130 on Newegg is due to the coupon code (which expires today, 7/14). Regular Newegg price for i3-4130 is $125

    2.) Realize Ian tested G3258 against a $140 4MB cache Core i3-4330.

    For some results of G3258 against a 3MB cache Haswell Core i3, see this Anandtech forum post--> http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=3652889...
    Reply
  • Computer Bottleneck - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    Based on those results I linked of 4.7 GHz Pentium G3258 vs. Core i3-4150, I think a good future comparison would be 4.5 Ghz Pentium G3258 vs. Core i3-4130.

    (4.5 GHz Pentium G3258 should be easily achievable as a budget package using a H81 non-Z overclock board and the stock HSF)
    Reply
  • Computer Bottleneck - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    It would be nice to see a review with Pentium G3258 and a smaller GPU (say the R7 260X which is currently starting at $85 AR at Newegg). This tested at lower detail setting and resolution.

    Basically a budget build geared towards the budget gamer.

    Then maybe compare to i3-4130 and R7 260X, Athlon x4 750K/760K and R7 260X,etc
    Reply
  • Computer Bottleneck - Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - link

    Here are some reasons I posted in the Anandtech forum on why I would like to see some additional testing of Pentium G3258 with a smaller GPU:

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=3653251...
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Sunday, July 27, 2014 - link

    They're not saying you would or should pair this CPU with dual GTX770's. But: if the CPU performance doesn't matter (or can't beat the i3) even for such strong GPUs, it won't matter with slower ones either. Reply
  • yhselp - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    It would be interesting to see how a hypothetical i3-K would perform. Perhaps it's possible to test with an i7-K at around 4.5 GHz and two cores disabled?

    Also, it'd be interesting to see benchmarks with the type of games mentioned in the beginning of the review (and a low-mid range GPU) - DOTA 2, League of Legends, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, popular MMORPGs, Minecraft, etc.
    Reply
  • HanzNFranzen - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Yes, I agree totally. I think that the i3-K would the modern day version of the old Celerons because of the fact it is 4 threads. Ian did a great job in this article to show that we are past the point of '2 threads is enough' and a maxed out dual core isn't giving you the same extra free performance like over clocking did in the old days (because of todays low end of 4 thread processors). But as far as gaming is concerned, we have been to that point of '4 threads is enough' as seen by the i5 being the sweet spot for gaming for a couple years now. So a highly overclocked i3-K does fit into that scenario nicely. Perhaps Intel already knows this, and perhaps it fits a little TOO nicely that it would cut too far into i5 sales, and this is the reason they have not made one? So instead they chose to put out the Pentium-AE fully knowing it wouldn't cut into their i3 sales because the performance isn't there.

    Also, I second the request for a hypothetical i3-K test that yhselp proposed!
    Reply
  • yhselp - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Indeed, but remember that we're talking about a specific set of games that aren't very demanding to begin with; in my mind, this Pentium-K or even a hypothetical i3-K would never be enough for proper high image quality gaming with the latest games, however, it might be very well-suited for DOTA/LoL/CS, etc. The source engine, especially with Valve games, is terribly single-threaded so I wouldn't be surprised if an OC'd G3258 actually pulls ahead of stock i3 under certain circumstances with these games. Unfortunately, that's one set of benchmarks we didn't get. Reply
  • eanazag - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    The problem with using the i-7's and down clocking to simulate lower tier processors is that the L3 cache is still there at 8MB, where those lower tier processors are severely castrated in that department. You can get the memory simulated and thread counts can kind of be controlled. Reply
  • Samus - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Just makes no sense. Overclocking is generally targeted at gamers and data crunchers. The Pentium AE does neither because it has no hyper threading and no AES. Even at 5GHz this thing couldn't touch a stock i3 in gaming or data crunching. The salt on the wound is the i3 can be had for $40 more, and you can SAVE $40 opting for a non-overclocking motherboard chipset.

    So basically for the same price, you can get an i3 platform with superior performance. This thing is literally just for "fun" but once reality sets in and you consider the facts, fun turns to regret.

    I feel as if this chip is simply a delivery platform for high-end Intel chipsets to people who would otherwise get an H-series.

    If you want a real overclocking platform, just spend the extra $100 and get an i5-4690k. If you want a quality gaming CPU or need modern multithreaded performance (and practically all apps/games are multithreaded now, BF4 practically requires quadcore) get an i3 for $40 more and save $40 on the fancy motherboard, breaking even compared to a Pentium AE.
    Reply
  • formulav8 - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Typical Intel gimmicks and some its seems think they are doing us a favor or whatever.

    I was actually quite interested with and tinkering with a Pentium K until it was clear Intel makes you by a stinking Z board. Yeah Intel, a real Pentium celebration, for you.
    Reply
  • Computer Bottleneck - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    You don't need a Z board to overclock Pentium G3258.

    Also Intel supplies a beefy 95 watt cooler with Pentium G3258.....so no need buy aftermarket HSF unless a person is trying to squeeze out the last 200 Mhz of the overclock.
    Reply
  • Samus - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Since only Z boards are firmware-ready for the G3258, unless you have a first-gen Haswell lying around along with a 80-series "new stepping" H81 or better, your stuck with a Z97 or "compatible" H97 (again, read firmware update required.)

    All the launch boards/combo's for G3258 aren't Z97-chipsets by mistake. It is essentially required at this point. It will change as time goes on, but that doesn't change the fact you are better off with an i3+H81 for the SAME PRICE as a G3258+Z97. The G3258 is such a weak multithreaded performer (having two physical cores with no hyper-threading) that if you are looking to spend that little on some fun, you're actually just better off with an AMD platform.

    And the cooler is still shit. Nobody has had their G3258 run for 24 hours at STOCK speed without throttling. STOCK. How do you think 1" of tiny fins and a 1200RPM fan is going to dissipate 50w of heat? Notebook heatpipes are more effective and they only need to dissipate 15-35w of heat.

    Anybody who actually buys this platform is misinformed. The writing is on the wall. No reviewers can morally recommend this chip unless you just like the "fun" of overclocking. Beyond that, its a bad investment. An i3 platform with a more basic chipset will be faster for the same price, or less.
    Reply
  • Computer Bottleneck - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Why don't you like the stock 3258 cooler? It is the same cooler that cools a Haswell i7 quad core, yet the 3258 even when OC consumes only a modest amount of extra power (see system power consumption chart on page 1 of this review). Reply
  • Zap - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    "And the cooler is still shit. Nobody has had their G3258 run for 24 hours at STOCK speed without throttling. STOCK."

    I see plenty of reports in the forums of people using the STOCK cooler that came with the G3258 to hit 4.5GHz running 100% load in the 60-70°C temperature range, without being super noisy either. These are first-hand reports from those who have actually tried it.

    Here is one such thread:
    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=23910...

    Also, cheap non-Z motherboards can overclock this CPU:
    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=23899...
    (Thanks Computer Bottleneck for the links)

    But you go believe what you want, and if you have proof please post links. Potentially there is a huge conspiracy with a bunch of people posting that the stock cooler works fine when it really doesn't. I do not discount that possibility, however unlikely.
    Reply
  • Computer Bottleneck - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    FWIW, On my stock cooler 4.6 Ghz open-air Prime 95 stability test (in-place large FFTs, maximum power consumption) and Battlefield 3 64 player I used Speed fan 4.49 to monitor temps. However, I did notice MSI Afterburner v3.0.1 and HWiNFO64 v4.40 were recording temps 10 to 15 C higher than Speedfan 4.49.

    With that mentioned, I did not notice any throttling during my 4.6 Ghz stock cooler (open air environment) Prime 95 stability test. Nor did I see this during BF3 64 player gameplay.
    Reply
  • tuxRoller - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    It supports ecc ram. Reply
  • Hardball - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    What type of cooling was used/is recommended in order to get a G3258 to 4.5GHz+? If you need high end air or AIO water ($80-120), it kind of runs counter to the idea of building the cheap, high performing system. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    If you cheap on everything, then it won't ever be high performing. I used a Corsair H80i for these numbers during a nice warm British summer. The best place to start for overclocking would be a cooler with at least four copper heatpipes and a decent fan, then go from there. Reply
  • smunter6 - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Can you run power draw numbers for this system? Starting TDP for the Pentium is 53 W, I don't think it would run much above 100-150 W overclocked. Stock Intel cooler is rated for 95W, and even your cheapest aftermarket cooler should be good for much more than that. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    System power draw numbers are in the overclocking chart, first page. You probably scrolled past them in order to comment :D

    With my inefficient setup, it registered 93W at peak load at stock, moving up to 131W overclocked to 4.7 GHz.
    Reply
  • smunter6 - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    My bad...should have re-read. Performing some terrible math here, but if we assume 53W at stock speeds, then that's 40 W system overhead. At 131W at 4.7 GHz, approx. 93W for the CPU. On the edge for Intel's cooler, but definitely doesn't require anything that fancy to cool. An AMD A10 is around 100W TDP. And if you're willing to drop a point or two to 4.5 or 4.6 GHz, the power draw is even less. Reply
  • Samus - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    The stock cooler is rated at 95w for how long? Because my experience, even going back to the i7-920, is the stock cooler can't keep a chip running at default frequency/voltage for more than a few hours at full load without throttling. Those coolers were supposedly rated at 130w, just like the CPU. But as the surface area heats up across every mm of fins and the ambient case temp jumps just a few degrees, the performance dips.

    Top-down coolers are a 20th century thing.
    Reply
  • smunter6 - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    the i7-920 is a 130W TDP part. The Pentium is 53W, and even when at max overclock, the total system power draw is only 131W. Totally different ball game. Reply
  • extide - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    Are you kidding me? ALL stock intel CPU fans will allow the cpu they come with to run at 100% load 24/7 without throttling. If you are having problems making that happen, you are doing something wrong. Reply
  • extide - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    EDIT: I am talking about stock speeds, of course. Reply
  • plonk420 - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    could you guys do some more games (and try the Celeron G1820 or G1840--the cheapest Haswell Intels on The Egg)? don't have a lot of cash at the moment and am curious about the cheapest of cheap livingroom gaming boxes i could build... Reply
  • Marburg U - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Ian, there is no such thing as "free performance" when the cpu is designed and sold as an overclockable cpu. Reply
  • MikeMurphy - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    It's free given there is no price premium with this particular chip. Reply
  • ervinshiznit - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Ian, you are mistaken. The core i5 and i7 K editions have AVX and AES support. Look it up on Intel's ARK processor feature filter. They do not have TSX support, in contrast to their non K counterparts. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    That's what I meant :) Having the new DC CPUs support VT-d and TSX and writing about those in the last week had my mind at a slant. Reply
  • kaelynthedove78 - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Warning: rant ahead.

    It is 2014Q3 and still, no reason to upgrade from Sandy Bidge 2600K @ 4.8Ghz, $30 air tower cooler setup to anything Intel has to offer. Load temperature is <80C after 24 hours of non-stop Linpack.

    I feel so sad, Ivy Bridge was a downgrade for me, Haswell was an even hotter downgrade and now Devil's Canyon can't reach 4.8GHz even with water cooling. $500 for same performance but hotter than ever? How do these products get raving reviews?!

    I need single-thread performance so more slow cores won't help me. Three and half years waiting and still nothing. AMD, VIA, anybody, please come and kick Intel in the behind so I could finally get >10% performance increase after four generations!
    Reply
  • DanNeely - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Unless we find a successor material for Silicon, at this point I don't think it's going to happen. We appear to've hit an effective clock speed wall; and making the cores/caches themselves bigger is deep into diminishing returns. Reply
  • Casecutter - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Thanks for this. I came away with the same deduction after reading other various articles, but those weren't as clear-cut or upfront with the findings. While nice price to start for a CPU, I think after investing in an acceptable OC'n mobo and good cooler, why? An i3 with any regular mobo and stock cooler offers better gaming, and if that's what it about Pentium AE isn't the best route. For the average entry level builds, it best to not give a kid or novice the impression that hitting 4.7Ghz isn’t for the faint of heart.

    I would’ve like to have seen and FX-6300 as that has been my go-to chip for budget Gaming builds, at $100 along with ASRock 970 Extreme3 R2.0 bundled for around $160 from MicroCenter you can’t bet against it. With most any $20-30 aftermarket cooler, I’ll get a 4.5-4.7Ghz and call it good. For Gaming most every title plays better verses the i3 (say perhaps Arkham City or Shogun 2), while heading into i5 territory.
    Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    I'm retesting some AM3 CPUs right now and have an FX-6350 being tested at this very moment. Check anandtech.com/bench in the next few days and I'll upload my results. Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Here is the FX-6350: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1281 Reply
  • Computer Bottleneck - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Non-Z motherboards capable of 4.5 Ghz with stock cooler start at $60 (and probably go cheaper than that.)

    So a Z board for overclocking Pentium G3258 is not necessary.
    Reply
  • shortstuff - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    What were the other components used during the test? I thought the test system components would be listed in the article. Reply
  • hojnikb - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Is pentium line using the same die as i3 ?
    Also, is intel planning on making more of these unlocked pentiums in the future (broadwell) or was this a one time dela ?
    Reply
  • extide - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    Yes, they are the same exact dies, pretty much. If Intel did it anything like they did with ivy Bridge, then basically there are 4-6* dies for the consumer Haswell chips. These dies are used in all lines from Celeron, to Pentium and i3/5/7, desktop AND mobile chips.

    2c/3MB/GT1
    2c/4MB/GT2
    4c/6MB/GT1
    4c/8MB/GT2

    *The R-series CPU's use 1 or 2 additional different dies. I know there is a 4c version, which has 6 or 8MB of L3, and GT3, and there may also be a 2c version as well, but I am not sure.
    Reply
  • extide - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    EDIT: For chips like the Celerons with 2MB of L3, they disable some of the L3 cache. Sometimes a SKU will use a 'higher'/bigger die than you would expect, with some parts disabled. It just depends on what Intel feels like doing/has more of at the time/etc. Reply
  • KAlmquist - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    For an allegedly "unlocked version," the G3258 certainly has a lot of stuff locked.
    - Half of the GPU execution units (10 out of 20) are locked.
    - One MB of cache is locked.
    - The AVX instructions are locked.
    - The AES instructions are locked.
    - The transaction instructions (TSX-NI) are locked.
    - I/O virtualization (VT-d) is locked.
    - Hyperthreading is locked.
    I'm sure that there is more stuff that I've missed. I'd guess that Intel has made somewhere around one third of the circuitry on the chip unusable.
    Reply
  • MikeMurphy - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Nobody would be buying the more expensive i5 and i7 k-series CPUs if these weren't sufficiently impaired.

    It's a good CPU for someone who was going to buy a Pentium anyways. It shouldn't be changing much in terms of purchasing decisions otherwise.
    Reply
  • OrphanageExplosion - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    My guess is that we won't see an overclocked i3 because with 4.5GHz, hyper threading and a bit more cache, suddenly there's little need to buy a non-K i5 any more in a majority of use-case scenarios. Reply
  • SolarAxix - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Very good article.

    I actually bough a Pentium G3258 along with an MSI Z97 PC Mate for $99 plus tax at Microcenter.

    I didn't expect anything magical from this purchase. It was easy to justify since I was getting the processor and the motherboard for less than the sale price of the motherboard which sells for $109.99.

    I can see this being a great machine to surf the web and to do some Steam In-Home Streaming. Even OC to 4.5/4.6, it doesn't use much in electricity when it idles plus I got to upgrade my current low-end system with this new system. It has USB 3 and SATA 3 ports and a newer audio codec. Overall for me, it was a no-brainer. If it was more than $100, then I am not sure if I would made the jump or not.

    If you are lucky enough to be close to a Microcenter, then this is a great deal for a low-end spare PC to play with.
    ( http://www.microcenter.com/site/brands/G3258Bundle... )
    Reply
  • SolarAxix - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    On a side note, I will probably be buying another one (or I should say my parents will be getting another one since it's one per household) to upgrade my parents' PC. They've had an i3 530 for about 4 years. It's starting to a bit "slow" for them when they browse some of the newer websites. For $100 plus tax at Microcenter, this would be a nice upgrade for them. It should burn a bit less power, it has a better iGPU, and comes with USB 3. Since they have an external USB 3 HD and flash drives, it will certainly be a benefit to them since they do copy GBs of data back and forth and always ask me if there's a way to make it faster.

    Since I'm the one that's taking care of their PC remotely, I don't have an issue with OC a bit and keeping an eye on it.

    The bottom line is that for their use-case, I think it's a great step up for a low price.
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    Since the Nehalem architecture still allows for bckl overclocking, I would try that first. When I had my i3-530 HTPC I ran it at 4.6GHz stable with a cheap tower heatsink (15€). Reply
  • mapesdhs - Friday, July 25, 2014 - link


    Indeed, though that old i3 is Clarkdale btw, not Nehalem. But yes, I have an i3 550 @ 4.7;
    on a better board it'd probably do 5+.

    Ian.
    Reply
  • Computer Bottleneck - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Thanks for the review.

    I am just disappointed you didn't test with a 3MB Core i3 (like the $125 i3-4130 or the $130 i3-4150). These are also the processors commonly found in Pre-built PCs which the Pentium G3258 will likely be compared against.

    .
    Reply
  • revanchrist - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Lower end i3 (41XX) has 3MB L3 cache while higher end i3 (43XX) has 4MB L3 cache. Fix that in your 1st table. Reply
  • JackTheBear - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    People keep mentioning the Celeron 300A. This is nothing like a Celeron 300A. Overclocked, the 300A was nearly indistinguishable from the top of the line processor, the PII-450. You overclock this chip and it's still a low end piece of (equipment). When you can overclock a Celeron and have it match an i7, then you can compare it to the Celeron 300A. Reply
  • Death666Angel - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    They keep mentioning it, but I have not seen anyone state that they are the same or comparable in their respective fields. Reply
  • Zan Lynx - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    The 300A was crap on anything that needed cache. It worked great for Quake. That was about it. Reply
  • Computer Bottleneck - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Also the price difference in the United States (going by Newegg, Amazon, and Tiger direct prices) is a good deal more than the $45 you mentioned in your article:

    Pentium G3258:
    $75 at Newegg
    $69 at Amazon
    $75 at Tiger Direct

    Core i3-4330:
    $140 at Newegg
    $137 at Amazon
    $140 at Tiger Direct

    Using the two Amazon prices for comparison, the price spread between Core i3-4330 and Pentium G3258 is $70. (Comparing Newegg and Tiger Direct prices, the gap only narrows to $65)
    Reply
  • Computer Bottleneck - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Correction, the price difference is $68 using Amazon prices. Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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) Reply
  • 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) Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • drexnx - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

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

    Also I could get mine to 504 MHZ :) Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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 .
    Reply
  • Computer Bottleneck - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    Regarding cooling at slightly slower OC Pentium G3258 speeds, please read this Anandtech thread:

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=23910...

    Also for Non-Z overclocking Pentium G3258, please see this thread:

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=23899...
    Reply
  • xrror - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    You will never see an i3-K from Intel because that would actually be popular/useful enough for the "average buyer" to seriously consider one.

    OR IF Intel did release one, it would be (over)priced to be so close to an i5 that you wouldn't bother with the "risk" of clocking one.

    I would absolutely love to be proven wrong mind you, but yea. Pentium-AE is so crippled it's painfully cynical.
    Reply
  • boozed - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    "Aside from the awkward/inaccurate scaling on the slide shown"

    I call it either deliberately misleading or absolutely ridiculous. They should know better.
    Reply
  • Spoelie - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    So all benchmarks were run at 1333 memory speed? Was it not possible to reach a higher speed?

    It seems that at least for some benchmarks, it would've made quite the difference. Anyone bothering to overclock this one will want to overclock the memory as well.
    Reply
  • Torpe - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    Hello Ian. Do you have any Quick Sync data on this CPU? I'm looking at upgrading from my E8400@3.6, which does everything I need well except compress Blu-Ray in a timely manner. Thank you. Reply
  • jamescox - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

    I don't think I would recommend one of these to anyone for a low-end gaming machine. With DX12 being able to take better advantage of multiple threads, the low-end for gaming probably should be 4 threads. With xbox one and ps4 both using a low single thread performance, 8 thread cpu, I would expect to see a lot more optimization aimed at 4 to 8 threads. I doubt these low-end chips have sufficient caches and other resources to effectively support multi-threading. I wonder if turning on vector extensions would use too much cache also. The vector extensions should be getting less use anyway, since almost anything that could make good use of the vector extensions would run faster on a gpu. Reply
  • Laststop311 - Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - link

    too many bottlenecks, the i5-4670k is still the gold standard for gaming performance and value. Reply
  • Casecutter - Wednesday, July 16, 2014 - link

    Oh very nice thanks! Reply
  • Mayuyu - Thursday, July 17, 2014 - link

    I must be really unlucky. My G3258 isn't even stable at 3.7 Ghz at 1.2V. The best I can do is 3.6Ghz at 1.1V. Reply
  • C.C. - Sunday, July 27, 2014 - link

    You are doing something wrong, or that is a defective chip. I would RMA it (if that doesn't bother your moral code like it does some people). Reply
  • jqwest303 - Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - link

    I got G3258 and MSI B85M gaming motherboard at Newegg for $99 free shipping, Then got coolermaster t4 for $15 after rebate, updated bios,got chip oc'd to 4.9 at 1.4 but temps got to 80-82 under full load with prime95 so I lowered to 1.23 volts and 4.6 ghz temps under load stable at 65 and 30 at idle...not bad for a $99 motherboard cpu combo Reply
  • tandlion13 - Wednesday, August 20, 2014 - link

    Good to know that an overclocked Pentium can match an i3 in most tasks. I'm going to build this one and that will be a nice new PC for my mom :) Thanks for a good review. Reply
  • LatexJimmy - Wednesday, August 27, 2014 - link

    I got this in a combo cpu+mobo for $80 and an evo 212 cooler for $25 which puts me below the cost of the i3 (currently around $130) and it runs very well. Alot of the comments seem to be "Well if you just spent 40,80,100 dollars more you'd be better off. But why stop there? Don't be cheap! Spend a couple grand that you have lying around and laugh at the poor budget gamers with families and bills. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now