How much better is a Broadwell i3 over a haswell for dsktops that is?

[john5220]

And if not 4.4 what about 4GHZ?

doable with stock cooler and my current mainboard? but would it even be worth it to go 4GHZ pentium G over the i3?

 

[crashtech]

I had one G3258 that made it to 4.9 on a Z87 board, and another that would barely do 4.0. So all anyone can say is, "probably." The bright side is that you won't be out a whole lot if you sell your G3220, they are averaging about $42 used.

As far as using the stock copper core cooler, that is a definite yes for any sane overclock, ie up to about 4.6GHz.

 

[john5220]

hmm I see.

What happens when the mainboard can't push it past 4 GHZ?

It BSOD or something?

by looking at the official link of the board

http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_Detail.aspx?DetailID=1501&CategoryID=1&MenuID=172

are you able to tell anything about it and by how much it might be able to withstand? my room is air-conditioned btw. So its always pretty cool.

 

[john5220]

I see it says it supports 84W core i7 CPU

So I guess if I OC the pentium G to 4GHZ that should just about top off at 84W since its a 53W CPU right?

 

[escrow4]

That is a mini-ITX board with no VRM cooling. Push through too many volts and it will literally melt, ECS isn't exactly at the top of the pile when it comes to mobo quality.

For gaming in 2015 I wouldn't drop lower than an i5 at an absolute minimum.

 

[john5220]

ow never mind just realized my board did not support the G3258 with updated bios

http://www.ecs.com.tw/ECSWebSite/Product/Product_Detail.aspx?DetailID=1501&CategoryID=1&MenuID=172

Does not seem to have any support for that chip to begin with, it does however support all core i3 so that could work fine for me I suppose.

 

[john5220]

Just found a wonderful website they actually benchmark battlefield 4 playing multi player 64 player maps. Unlike uneducated anandtech who insists on benchmarking single player BF4 when nobody ever plays SP and the difference between sp and mp is gigantic in CPU performance these guys here know what they are doing. Anyways here it is, seems like the i3 is a wonderful CPU for BF4

Its better than AMD FX 6300 CPU and almost as good as a core i5 so really cannot complain. Very interesting is that it gets better performance on windows 8

 

[john5220]

check this another BF4 multi player benchmark on 64 player servers

the core i3 actually ties with the core i7 haswell so its settled a good core i3 for me LOL goes to show how amazing hyper threading really is wouldah thunk it?

 

[john5220]

The question is how important is the 4MB cache on the 4330 i3?

because all these benchmarks are on the 4330 which happens to be same frequency as the 4150 which is only 3MB cache

but the 4150 is only around $110

 

[tential]

Any chance of broadwell i3 being 10% faster than current i3?

What about its price?

That's not really the focus of intel. I don't know if you've been watching the markets for tech but the focus is on low power draw. Intel's goal isn't to release an i3 that's 10% faster than a current i3 but to instead, release an i3 thats maybe 5% faster, but draws far less power. That's the goal now if you want to be competitive.

Intel already missed the Tablet/Phone wagon years ago by focusing on performance rather than power draw, they won't make the same mistake twice....

A large perf jump hopefully comes with Skylake but I'm skeptical about that even. I think we'll see a small perf jump and a large powerdraw drop but either way I'll be happy. Lower Powerdraw means mobile gaming is more and more feasible, while higher perf just makes me happy in general.

 

[john5220]

I am not buying mobile so how is lower power going to help me? this is a sad state of CPU affairs if you ask me, no competition a monopoly is so pathetic.

Anyways is the extra 1MB of cache in the 4330 i3 makes a big difference in gaming? I would have preferred the cheaper 4150 i3 thats same speed but only 3MB cache

the 4150 only costs about $109 but worried at how the less cache will affect it

 

[4ghz]

You have a H81 board. So even if Intel releases an i3 Broadwell chip it will only work on 9 series boards anyway. As for the extra cache it doesn't really seem to do much.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

 

[john5220]

^ thanks a lot dude

so with this it seems my best bet is the 4150 i3 with the less cache, from all those benchmarks the extra cache don't seem to do much at all

 

[Lepton87]

^ thanks a lot dude

so with this it seems my best bet is the 4150 i3 with the less cache, from all those benchmarks the extra cache don't seem to do much at all

It doesn't because while it is larger it's also slower. Same goes for 8 Cores with 20MB of cache and 12 cores with 30MB of L3, the latter is actually slower in ST performance because its cache is slower and the increase in size doesn't make up for this, same thing with 12 Core die and 45MB 18 core die, the cache gets slower once again. Unfortunately the larger cache also doesn't help the enthusiast platform (5820,5930,5960X) in ST very much aside from a very few limited cases.

 

[tential]

I am not buying mobile so how is lower power going to help me? this is a sad state of CPU affairs if you ask me, no competition a monopoly is so pathetic.

Anyways is the extra 1MB of cache in the 4330 i3 makes a big difference in gaming? I would have preferred the cheaper 4150 i3 thats same speed but only 3MB cache

the 4150 only costs about $109 but worried at how the less cache will affect it

Huh that is the competition? The competition is to get lower power consumption. Yes, lower power consumption doesn't benefit you as much as a desktop user, but the design used to be top bottom (where you make it for the desktop, then make it smaller for mobile) but now the design focus is bottom up where they're designing for the benefit of the mobile platform then scaling up to desktop (just rude basic way of saying it sorry).

The competition is lower power consumption both intel AND amd are fighting for it. Even Nvidia too actually. EVERY company is focusing on lower power consumption, that doesn't mean there isn't competition, it just means that the competition you want isn't what the market is prioritizing.

That'd be like complaining there is no competition with SUVs because none of the SUVs are focusing on putting as many wheels on the car as possible. They all put four wheels on the car why don't they put more!? Companies product what the market demands and the market isn't demanding faster processors but more efficient ones.

 

[Enigmoid]

It doesn't because while it is larger it's also slower. Same goes for 8 Cores with 20MB of cache and 12 cores with 30MB of L3, the latter is actually slower in ST performance because its cache is slower and the increase in size doesn't make up for this, same thing with 12 Core die and 45MB 18 core die, the cache gets slower once again. Unfortunately the larger cache also doesn't help the enthusiast platform (5820,5930,5960X) in ST very much aside from a very few limited cases.

Lets be careful here. Unlike HW-E and HW comparisons the i3 chips do not change the cache configuration, only the amount. Both have the same 4 MB on die.

Cache runs at the same speed but 1 MB is deactivated on certain models.

You are otherwise right though.

 

[Lepton87]

Lets be careful here. Unlike HW-E and HW comparisons the i3 chips do not change the cache configuration, only the amount. Both have the same 4 MB on die.

Cache runs at the same speed but 1 MB is deactivated on certain models.

You are otherwise right though.

Xbitlabs review said it was 16-way associative and because of this, slower. I guess they were wrong.

The larger cache has higher associativity, though. It used to be 12-way but now is 16-way associative, which means that it has become more efficient in terms of data hits but has higher read latencies. So, the positive effect of the larger cache is not obvious.