Is G3220 good for gaming?

[Enigmoid]

Can you quantify "just as, if not more important?" Because if you mean spending more on the CPU than the GPU, you are not correct.

Yep. Spending more on the CPU pays off. Buying a cheap CPU and a powerful GPU only works if you can hit acceptable framerates in games. Buying a more powerful CPU and weaker GPU allows you to turn down settings.

Case in point the MSI GX 60 (a10-5750m + 8970m).

Acceptable performance in some games, great in others but some games just can't be played.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7111/amds-a105750m-review-part-2-the-msi-gx60-gaming-notebook/4

No matter what settings are used, metro LL is barely playable. Contrast that to the i7 and 675mx which is playable in every game albeit with reduced settings. Many other games can't get over 40 fps.

GPU depreciate very quickly as well, spending money on a i7 920 and a 4850 way back in hindsight was a much better decision than a Q9400 + 4890.

 

[2is]

Can you quantify "just as, if not more important?" Because if you mean spending more on the CPU than the GPU, you are not correct.

I mean, buying an underpowered CPU like the one being discussed in this thread to save money for a better GPU.

 

[crashtech]

Yep. Spending more on the CPU pays off. Buying a cheap CPU and a powerful GPU only works if you can hit acceptable framerates in games. Buying a more powerful CPU and weaker GPU allows you to turn down settings.

Case in point the MSI GX 60 (a10-5750m + 8970m).

Acceptable performance in some games, great in others but some games just can't be played.


No matter what settings are used, metro LL is barely playable. Contrast that to the i7 and 675mx which is playable in every game albeit with reduced settings. Many other games can't get over 40 fps.

GPU depreciate very quickly as well, spending money on a i7 920 and a 4850 way back in hindsight was a much better decision than a Q9400 + 4890.

Can we stipulate desktop PC? Mobile is a different story because of thermal constraints.

Say you have $425 bucks to spend, and you get an i3-4130 with an R9 280x. With the usual upgrade to an i5-4670K, what are you going to get at regular street prices that will beat an R9 280x with $185 left over? Those 2 additional cores are really gonna help that much at the resolutions most of us play at?

 

[Enigmoid]

Can we stipulate desktop PC? Mobile is a different story because of thermal constraints.

Say you have $425 bucks to spend, and you get an i3-4130 with an R9 280x. With the usual upgrade to an i5-4670K, what are you going to get at regular street prices that will beat an R9 280x with $185 left over? Those 2 additional cores are really gonna help that much at the resolutions most of us play at?

I'm just using mobile as an example.

An i5-4670k overclocked is going to last you 5+ years (similar to an i7-920 which OC is about equal to a stock 8230/8350). An i3 with a 280x is not going to even cut it for some games.

You can buy a non K i5 for $185 (i5-4460), about $70 more than the i3 (pcparkpicker).

Using PCpart picker the cheapest R9 280 is $190, the cheapest R9 280X is $255. So for a total $5 more you get an i5 and nearly the same GPU performance.

As far as a balanced build goes i5 + R9 280 + $5 > i3 + R9 280X.

 

[crashtech]

i3 with a 280x is not going to even cut it for some games.

I'd be interested in seeing data to support this, particularly in a case where an i5 + 280 would be playable under the same conditions.

 

[Enigmoid]

I'd be interested in seeing data to support this, particularly in a case where an i5 + 280 would be playable under the same conditions.

Easy, take a CPU intensive game and turn down graphics.

The difference between GPU and CPU limited is that you can always turn down settings for a lack of GPU power (the 280 has sufficient power for 1080p) while CPU limitations can't be changed. You are much more likely to keep 60 fps mins with an i5 vs. an i3.

An i3 has sufficient grunt to pretty much always be playable but definitely cannot keep 60 fps in a lot of title. An i5 is generally 20-40% faster in multithreaded CPU limited titles.

 

[toyota]

Easy, take a CPU intensive game and turn down graphics.

The difference between GPU and CPU limited is that you can always turn down settings for a lack of GPU power (the 280 has sufficient power for 1080p) while CPU limitations can't be changed. You are much more likely to keep 60 fps mins with an i5 vs. an i3.

An i3 has sufficient grunt to pretty much always be playable but definitely cannot keep 60 fps in a lot of title. An i5 is generally 20-40% faster in multithreaded CPU limited titles.

some settings impact the cpu so you can actually change the cpu limitations in many games. GTA 4 craps itself in many areas on max settings with even my cpu. turn shadows off and lower view distance and even a Core 2 duo can play the game fine.

 

[crashtech]

Easy, take a CPU intensive game and turn down graphics.

The difference between GPU and CPU limited is that you can always turn down settings for a lack of GPU power (the 280 has sufficient power for 1080p) while CPU limitations can't be changed. You are much more likely to keep 60 fps mins with an i5 vs. an i3.

An i3 has sufficient grunt to pretty much always be playable but definitely cannot keep 60 fps in a lot of title. An i5 is generally 20-40% faster in multithreaded CPU limited titles.

That's a corner case that only a select group of twitch gamers are interested in, or maybe those who find <60 unplayable under any circumstances. Generally those who build a PC rather than just play on a console are interested in having decent image quality.

I wish Ian Cutress had done his extensive gaming CPU tests at 1080 instead of 1440, then we could have a more fruitful discussion.

It seems that there is a core group here that wants quads at any cost, even if it means playing on the igpu.

 

[2is]

I'd be interested in seeing data to support this, particularly in a case where an i5 + 280 would be playable under the same conditions.

It doesn't have to be the same conditions. It's already been stated several times already. BF4 MP for example. i5 + 280 will perform better look better? Probably not, but preform better, absolutely. Someone with an i3+290 will never be able to get the same performance in a game like BF4 than someone with an i5 + 280. They may be able to maintain a lower performance threshold while cranking up the settings, but at the end of the day, it's still a lower performance threshold.

And no one is suggesting they play on the iGPU. Just because we are not in full agreement with your philosophy is no reason to tread in the realm of ridiculousness. That's usually what people resort to when they have an opinion, but no longer an argument to back it up.

 

[crashtech]

BF4 Multiplayer @ 1080, 4670K + 7870 = 47 fps, i3-4340 + 7970 = 65 fps (Win8):

http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/8/

Granted, the dual core is entering its last gasp now. But I think a lot of people who knock the Haswell i3s haven't tried them. They are a different animal. I recommend them as a gateway to LGA 1150 while still getting a decent GPU in a budget situation.

 

[2is]

BF4 Multiplayer @ 1080, 4670K + 7870 = 47 fps, i3-4340 + 7970 = 65 fps (Win8):

http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/8/

Granted, the dual core is entering its last gasp now. But I think a lot of people who knock the Haswell i3s haven't tried them. They are a different animal.

I'm not sure what your point is here. If it's to say you can crank settings high enough to make a weaker GPU the bottleneck, well yeah, no one is arguing that. I'm seeing minimum's for the i3 being between 10-20fps less than the i5. Not that I fully trust any of those charts on that site anyway since it's showing Win 7 with better performance than Win 8 which is the complete opposite of what just about every single person and review has experienced in this game. Myself included.

I don't think anyone is knocking the i3's, I think some are giving them more credit than they are due.

 

[crashtech]

I don't think anyone is knocking the i3's, I think some are giving them more credit than they are due.

It's knocking them if you are willing to advocate going to a weaker GPU just to avoid an i3, even when I found benchmarks of the game you cite as evidence. But it should be a given that people will harden their positions when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. That's why it's useless to argue on the internet.

 

[crashtech]

Btw, what are you talking about re the graphs, as I skim them I see the Win8 scores consistently ahead of Win7, and the minimums form the examples I cited are 40fps for the i5 + 7870, and 48fps for the i3 + 7970.

Also, don't most people run 1080 these days? It's not really considered a GPU-bound res in general anymore.

 

[eternalone]

I own a G3220 Cpu and will tell you its the best Cpu Ive owned at that price EVER!!! You get two really Fast Haswell cores at under $70 bucks it games like a champ and I play BF4 64 player maps with some stuttering mostly not but I use the AMD Mantle drivers which is a must for anyone with a dual core and its very playable dont be fooled this cpu is an awesome Budget cpu.

 

[toyota]

I own a G3220 Cpu and will tell you its the best Cpu Ive owned at that price EVER!!! You get two really Fast Haswell cores at under $70 bucks it games like a champ and I play BF4 64 player maps with some stuttering mostly not but I use the AMD Mantle drivers which is a must for anyone with a dual core and its very playable dont be fooled this cpu is an awesome Budget cpu.

its a poor choice for modern gaming.

 

[Enigmoid]

BF4 Multiplayer @ 1080, 4670K + 7870 = 47 fps, i3-4340 + 7970 = 65 fps (Win8):

http://www.hardwarepal.com/battlefield-4-benchmark-mp-cpu-gpu-w7-vs-w8-1/8/

Granted, the dual core is entering its last gasp now. But I think a lot of people who knock the Haswell i3s haven't tried them. They are a different animal. I recommend them as a gateway to LGA 1150 while still getting a decent GPU in a budget situation.

Nov 4, before a multitude of patches.

Something more recent?

 

[Revolution]

Thanks for ur comments guys!

When ever I upgrade I upgrade CPU+Mobo+GPU cos after 4-5 years a system become almost totally outdated.
Can anyone explain the truth about heating(no OC with default cooler,room temp near 40C) and power consumption of FX-6300 compare to Intel Core i3-4130 ?

BTW,forget to tell that I also have an old XFX 9600GT(no external power adapter) from my bro.
Will it be any useful for Physx ?
Or this will only waste power.

Adding 9600GT to my next system will be any beneficial ?

 

[crashtech]

Nov 4, before a multitude of patches.

Something more recent?

I'm not all that invested enough in this to do any more digging. To be honest, I think that in a budget situation there is no one right answer. The most recent midrange build in General Hardware includes a 4670K and an R9 280x, some would rather lose the 280x to keep the 4670K, but I think from the results I have seen, keeping a strong GPU makes the most sense for gamers that want image quality and are not obsessed with very high frame rates. Maybe it comes down to individuals researching the games they play and the resolution they want to run, etc., and making a decision from there.

I do love me some quad core, running a 4770K myself.

 

[Charlie98]

I'm not all that invested enough in this to do any more digging. To be honest, I think that in a budget situation there is no one right answer. The most recent midrange build in General Hardware includes a 4670K and an R9 280x, some would rather lose the 280x to keep the 4670K, but I think from the results I have seen, keeping a strong GPU makes the most sense for gamers that want image quality and are not obsessed with very high frame rates. Maybe it comes down to individuals researching the games they play and the resolution they want to run, etc., and making a decision from there.

That's why I think the $1000 gamer build make so much sense.... pretty much beyond $1K is all gravy and bling, below that and you are going to have to start making sacrifices somewhere... CPU, GPU, storage, memory... and each decision is based on what the end user values most. That's not to say it's not workable, it just means you have to be a bit more selective in your part choices.

 

[2is]

It's knocking them if you are willing to advocate going to a weaker GPU just to avoid an i3, even when I found benchmarks of the game you cite as evidence. But it should be a given that people will harden their positions when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs. That's why it's useless to argue on the internet.

No, it isn't. You showed benchmarks where an i3 has up to 20fps less minimums than an i5. You also showed benchmarks with Windows 7 outperforming Windows 8 in a game where every review and even the developers says the opposite is true. That's before we get into end users and their experiences.

Contrary to how you're attempting to spin the numbers, what you posted is hardly backing you up. If you can't be bothered to dig further, that's perfectly ok, but don't cry foul because not everyone thinks an i3 is perfectly fine. You seem to be under the impression that not agreeing with you means we are "knocking" other products. Some simply don't agree with you. I'll gladly step down in GPU performance to bring my minimums up by 20 fps if my budget didn't accommodate having the best of both.

 

[toyota]

Adding 9600GT to my next system will be any beneficial ?

a 9600gt is too slow for physx

 

[2is]

a 9600gt is too slow for physx

I'll second this... I added a 8800GT which is more powerful than a 9600GT to use as a dedicated PhysX card, along side my GTX 680 and performance dropped while power consumption, noise and heat went up.

 

[crashtech]

No, it isn't. You showed benchmarks where an i3 has up to 20fps less minimums than an i5. You also showed benchmarks with Windows 7 outperforming Windows 8 in a game where every review and even the developers says the opposite is true. That's before we get into end users and their experiences.

Contrary to how you're attempting to spin the numbers, what you posted is hardly backing you up. If you can't be bothered to dig further, that's perfectly ok, but don't cry foul because not everyone thinks an i3 is perfectly fine. You seem to be under the impression that not agreeing with you means we are "knocking" other products. Some simply don't agree with you. I'll gladly step down in GPU performance to bring my minimums up by 20 fps if my budget didn't accommodate having the best of both.

I sense a little hostility here. I don't want to antagonize you further, but I do want to post the images from which I pulled the numbers. Overall, the i3 with either of the two faster GPUs, a 7970 or a 770, defeats the 4670K with either of the two slower cards, a 7870 or a 660. Even the minimums are higher with the i3 scenario. I'm not spinning it, it just is. Cheers!

 

[2is]

I sense a little hostility here. I don't want to antagonize you further, but I do want to post the images from which I pulled the numbers. Overall, the i3 with either of the two faster GPUs, a 7970 or a 770, defeats the 4670K with either of the two slower cards, a 7870 or a 660. Even the minimums are higher with the i3 scenario. I'm not spinning it, it just is. Cheers!

No hostility, just common sense and recognizing the obvious. Those charts are all over the place, and if you're only going to cherry pick the ones that favor an i3, I suspect that you will be selling your 4770k for one, since I see that in one of those charts, it outperforms a haswell i5 and an i7 by a nice margin.

The fact that you're using this reference and treating it as gospel despite this glaring abnormality, in addition to their Win 7 vs 8 testing which is the complete opposite of what everyone else has gotten tells me it's not the rest of us bashing on a product, but you that's sensationalizing it... Either that, or you don't know what you're talking about... I really don't see a 3rd option considering the anomalies I just brought to your attention. If you have an explanation, I'd love to hear it.

 

[AtenRa]

Those charts are all over the place,

No shit, it is MP after all

Also, just use the Win 8 data,

Core i7 4770K + GTX660
min = 44
avg = 53

Core i7 4770K + HD7870
min = 48
avg = 56

Core i3 + HD7970
min = 47
avg = 58

But BF4 MP is one of those Games that they need both high performance CPUs as well as high Performance GPUs. You get better visuals and you can spot enemy easier and quicker if you have 2x MSAA and High/Ultra Image Quality settings.
I dont know how the Core i3 + HD7970 game play will be, havent tried actually, but from the graphs above it seams that it is better than the Core i7 + GTX660 combination.
Also dont forget that for BF4 and every Mantle Game it is way better to invest in higher performance GPU than CPU. So i would easily get the Core i3 + R9 290 for BF4 than Core i7 + GTX660 or HD7870.