Surprisingly, an i5-4430 is only about 15% faster than an i3-4370 in MT, but the 4370 is about 22% faster in ST. Call off the quad core police, 2C/4T can be a viable all-round solution for a while more.
They tested at 1280 x 720, graphics quality set to High setting.
If you're happy with 720P on the PC in 2015, just get a console.
The "dual core is dead" lobby needs to realize that maybe only 5% of the population is into graphically demanding gaming on the PC. (Just my personal guess, but I would bet pretty accurate.) In any case, a dual core is more than adequate for the vast majority of users. Heck, the market is even moving down to "quad core" celeron, pentiums, and cat cores, Axxx, whatever they are. (Not sure which is worse Intel's or AMD's naming system to try to slip small cores into the big core lineup.)
I find this more disturbing than people still running dual cores.
I also dont understand the sentiment of those who want to raise the bar artificially for minimum requirements for PC gaming. Why? What does it hurt someone if they have a quad core while someone else can still game adequately on a dual core. Personally, I have a quad i5, but I am adamantly against artificially locking out dual cores or making the game not run on them by lazy programming. I enjoy PC gaming and I would like for as many people as possible to be able to participate in the same hobby.
@crashtech: you are correct that an i3 is a dual core, but I think the "anti dual core" crowd really means a non-hyperthreaded dual core, although they are using the term improperly.
If you spent $50 million on an AAA game how could you possibly run it on quads AND duals? If you target 4 cores (as you should, its not 2005 anymore) why knock the engine and the stuff you pack in to run on a poky G3258? I don't even use quads anymore for gaming, only hexa cores.
Yeah, I am playing a bit fast and loose with the numbers, results obviously vary by game. But I wanted to point out that some quad core aficionados might be underestimating the most recent iteration of HT (especially in dual cores where it is more heavily utilized on average), and perhaps overestimating the potential of the lower-end locked i5, which really isn't all that fast from an ST perspective.I assume that using perfect scaling. Gaming wise even with 4 threads it sounds like the i3 would win then.
though quad cores are now so cheap than even those on very low incomes can upgrade easily.
Cheapest Haswell I5's significantly outperfrom the dual core CPU's.
Even looking at games released 1-2 years ago, such as BF4, utterly cripple dual core CPU's.
Yeah definitely,the I5 is one of those "so cheap anyone get buy one"
Yes of course Haswell I5's significantly outperform the dual core CPU's but they also cost twice the money,and not everyone is willing to spend that kind of money just to play some games.
What is wrong with you? Did you inherit a million dollars from your dead uncle or something, and just like blowing it on random things? Every time I read your posts, I think there is something truly messed up with your head.Fear not, if people modify their GTA5 game client to bypass the dual core lock, the game won't let them play multi-player, since the anti-cheat will detect modified game client files.
Most likely they'll get banned, and have to buy the game again.
Artificially locking out dual cores is a great way of forcing gamers to upgrade to quad core CPU's, and enables quad-cores to become the mainsteam much faster than otherwise possible.
Some people won't like it, those who want to run 800x600 and never upgrade, though quad cores are now so cheap than even those on very low incomes can upgrade easily.
Hopefully this time next year the steam hardware survey will show dual-cores to be almost completely eradicated for gaming.
If only Intel made an unlocked i3...
Yeah, and price it at 180$, very close to an unlocked i5, what a great deal.
http://ark.intel.com/compare/82723,83538
The g3258 is only 8 bucks more then the g3250 why should the unloked I3 be like $60 more?
Different standards I guess. Imo $150 for CPU that will last 4-6 years for most gamers isn't that bad a deal.
For those who would struggle to pay that, then a console would be a better bet.
A dual core in 2015 for pc gaming is hilarious.
Yep... been using quad core since I don't know when... 2007? 2008? Don't have anything to say about dual core users except upgrade. Frankly I expected 6 core parts to be mainstream by now but they are still the higher end pricy stuff.
Im going to throw away my i3 4370 and replace it with a Athlon 5350. Since its a quad core it must be better, right?
Update: picked up nvidia 970 for $230 on craigslist, and Far cry 4 min fps went from 33 (on r270) to about 53, max fps around 80 outdoors, avg around 65. Feels much smoother, so my 4.6 g3258 wasn't the only bottleneck. Can't wait till DX12, hopefully that will free up some CPU as well
Great, now Microcenter needs to be able to ship these combos to us off their online store so we can get them anywhere.
Im going to throw away my i3 4370 and replace it with a Athlon 5350. Since its a quad core it must be better, right?