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

  • extide - Tuesday, July 15, 2014 - link

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

    It's free given there is no price premium with this particular chip.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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!
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now