Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

is a haswell g 3420 pentium a decent processor it appears to run ok in my system

Tags:
  • Pentium
  • Processors
  • CPUs
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 22, 2014 3:48:40 PM

how would you rate g3420 haswell pentium for general use..thanks

More about : haswell 3420 pentium decent processor appears run system

a c 110 à CPUs
September 22, 2014 4:07:38 PM

Great option for general use. If you can afford the upgrade, go with a cheap i3, but if it means cutting costs elsewhere, the g3420 is a wonderful choice.

(The above is operating under the assumptions that you aren't doing more than light gaming and do not want to deal with overclocking.)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2014 4:13:53 PM

If it runs ok in your system, then for you it's fine. Overall, it's a bit older, only two cores and two threads and has kind of a low clock but it is Haswell and can be overclocked if more performance is needed. Of course, you would need a better cooler. The stock cooler wouldn't cut it. For general use it's probably still just ok at stock clocks.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2014 4:15:41 PM

Excellent option. If you overclock it, it will perform almost like an i7 in games.

It's a greeaat bang for buck processor.
m
1
l
a c 110 à CPUs
September 22, 2014 4:26:49 PM

Guys... the G3258 is the SKU that can overclock.

Which is why I was saying this was a good option if the OP doesn't want to overclock.

The G3420 can't.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2014 4:27:37 PM

TechCIDLC said:
Excellent option. If you overclock it, it will perform almost like an i7 in games.

It's a greeaat bang for buck processor.


The i7 doesn't perform any better than the better i5's in gaming. So the i7 is irrelevant to this conversation. And Darksable is right, that chip can't be overclocked. I don't know why I was thinking it could. Guess I was just thinking about the G3258.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2014 5:00:47 PM

Is a great budget cpu, you can also look at the celeron G1850 if you want to save around $20 bucks.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2014 5:13:10 PM

So, in reality, the G3258 is the same price as the G3420. If this is not part of a pre-built system, or is something you have not already bought, the G3258 would be a much better option at the same price point. They are both LGA 1150 socket and should pretty much work in the same motherboards. As always, a BIOS update may be necessary for any overclocking of the G3258, but on supported boards that should be no problem.
m
0
l
a c 110 à CPUs
September 22, 2014 5:32:07 PM

darkbreeze said:
So, in reality, the G3258 is the same price as the G3420. If this is not part of a pre-built system, or is something you have not already bought, the G3258 would be a much better option at the same price point. They are both LGA 1150 socket and should pretty much work in the same motherboards. As always, a BIOS update may be necessary for any overclocking of the G3258, but on supported boards that should be no problem.


Correct.... if the OP wants to overclock.

Since it's just for a general use, and from other cues, I'm guessing the OP just wants a computer as cheaply as possible, and doesn't want to attempt overclocking. If the case is otherwise, you're absolutely right, but if not, buy the chip that supports DDR3-1600 natively and not worry about getting a motherboard that can overclock and a cooler.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 22, 2014 6:29:52 PM

DarkSable said:
darkbreeze said:
So, in reality, the G3258 is the same price as the G3420. If this is not part of a pre-built system, or is something you have not already bought, the G3258 would be a much better option at the same price point. They are both LGA 1150 socket and should pretty much work in the same motherboards. As always, a BIOS update may be necessary for any overclocking of the G3258, but on supported boards that should be no problem.


Correct.... if the OP wants to overclock.

Since it's just for a general use, and from other cues, I'm guessing the OP just wants a computer as cheaply as possible, and doesn't want to attempt overclocking. If the case is otherwise, you're absolutely right, but if not, buy the chip that supports DDR3-1600 natively and not worry about getting a motherboard that can overclock and a cooler.


Exactly. But given the choice between having an item with options, or an item without options, for the same price, it would be foolish for anybody, regardless of their actual intentions, to choose the item with no options. That, of course, is just my opinion though. Heh.
m
0
l
a c 902 à CPUs
September 23, 2014 9:18:36 AM

TechCIDLC said:
Excellent option. If you overclock it, it will perform almost like an i7 in games.

It's a greeaat bang for buck processor.


Ummm no it will not. Even overclocked, the G3258 only reaches about i3 performance, on average.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2014 7:36:39 PM

logainofhades said:
TechCIDLC said:
Excellent option. If you overclock it, it will perform almost like an i7 in games.

It's a greeaat bang for buck processor.


Ummm no it will not. Even overclocked, the G3258 only reaches about i3 performance, on average.



Actually, and I hate to not back you up on this one, all things considered if you know what I mean, but in this particular case he's right. In multithreaded situations the G3258 might only be able to keep up with the i3, but in single threaded applications:

When clocked at 4.8GHz, the Pentium G3258 is among the fastest CPUs you can buy in terms of single-threaded performance. Only the overclocked Core i7-4790K outperforms it.

Source- http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-p...

Now, I don't normally take what they say on techreport.com as gospel, or any other site, but there are at least five other comparison tests I looked at that had similar results, so I guess the math don't lie huh?
m
0
l
a c 902 à CPUs
September 24, 2014 7:13:12 AM

The thing is, when you consider all the background stuff a PC does, a pentium is not going to keep up with an i7. In a special benchmark test bed, without anything running in the background, like a normal pc would have, I can see the pentium doing well. In real world, I just don't see that being the case.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 7:34:33 PM

logainofhades said:
The thing is, when you consider all the background stuff a PC does, a pentium is not going to keep up with an i7. In a special benchmark test bed, without anything running in the background, like a normal pc would have, I can see the pentium doing well. In real world, I just don't see that being the case.


That being said, and I'm not trying to contradict you at all, would kind of throw out the argument everybody tries to use about the fact that gaming doesn't generally need or use multiple threads in most cases and on most titles. In consideration of what you've said, which kind of goes along with what I've been saying, and been told I was wrong about, is that even if the game itself only uses a single thread, system processes, scanners, hardware itself and the core kernel, all do use those other threads though.

So even for gaming, despite what 90% of the folks on this and other forums might try to say, having a decent number of cores IS necessary if you want to get the maximum performance from your gaming hardware. Or even just from normal computing and applications since those use additional threads beyond what the system already wants to use as well. But for strictly single core against single core benchmarks, the G3258 does beat all but the very newest i7 CPUs. That's saying something for an old school dual core.
m
0
l
a c 110 à CPUs
September 24, 2014 8:16:33 PM

darkbreeze said:
That being said, and I'm not trying to contradict you at all, would kind of throw out the argument everybody tries to use about the fact that gaming doesn't generally need or use multiple threads in most cases and on most titles. In consideration of what you've said, which kind of goes along with what I've been saying, and been told I was wrong about, is that even if the game itself only uses a single thread, system processes, scanners, hardware itself and the core kernel, all do use those other threads though.

So even for gaming, despite what 90% of the folks on this and other forums might try to say, having a decent number of cores IS necessary if you want to get the maximum performance from your gaming hardware. Or even just from normal computing and applications since those use additional threads beyond what the system already wants to use as well. But for strictly single core against single core benchmarks, the G3258 does beat all but the very newest i7 CPUs. That's saying something for an old school dual core.


Absolutely correct!

I think a lot of us (At least I hope...) would agree with you there. That being said, it still doesn't give any validation to spending $100 more to get an i7 over an i5 like a lot of the folks in your camp argue. There's simply no reason for it when you have four ridiculously fast cores already and the gaming doesn't take advantage of hyperthreading.

The trouble is that all those background processes are just that... background. They don't change between idle and load. They don't really take up much in the way of system resources. Will you notice a difference between a dual-core and a quad-core because of them? Probably so. Do they justify buying an 8-core Xeon? Not even remotely.

(Just as a side note, though, I am incredibly impressed with what my ivy bridge Pentium-based HTPC can achieve when I game on it; Pentiums get work done.)

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 8:56:34 PM

DarkSable said:
I think a lot of us (At least I hope...) would agree with you there. That being said, it still doesn't give any validation to spending $100 more to get an i7 over an i5 like a lot of the folks in your camp argue.


What do you mean MY camp? I'm not a proponent of the i7 for gaming over the i5 or even the G3258. In fact, I'm really more of an AMD guy than anything, or have been through the years.

In my above post I clearly say " The i7 doesn't perform any better than the better i5's in gaming. So the i7 is irrelevant to this conversation. And Darksable is right, that chip can't be overclocked." So I think you've mistaken me for being in the wrong camp.

And why is your user name so similar to mine? It's my darkness! MINE! Heh. I know, I'm stupid.
m
0
l
a c 110 à CPUs
September 24, 2014 9:02:44 PM

darkbreeze said:
What do you mean MY camp? I'm not a proponent of the i7 for gaming over the i5 or even the G3258. In fact, I'm really more of an AMD guy than anything, or have been through the years.

In my above post I clearly say " The i7 doesn't perform any better than the better i5's in gaming. So the i7 is irrelevant to this conversation. And Darksable is right, that chip can't be overclocked." So I think you've mistaken me for being in the wrong camp.

And why is your user name so similar to mine? It's my darkness! MINE! Heh. I know, I'm stupid.


Haha, sorry, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. I'm absolutely with you then, that an i5 or unlocked Pentium are the best options, depending on budget. (I'm going to pretend I didn't read that bit about being an AMD guy. Don't get me wrong, I love AMD, and my first rig was on a Phenom x4, they just aren't particularly tempting options right now.)


And hush, you're cribbing from me, if anything. You just signed up this year! ;p
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2014 9:15:08 PM

Yeah, I know they been relegated to the back of the bus, and for understandable reasons. I'm just waiting and hoping for AMD to get their heads out and release something worthy of being competitive.

And on another note, I've been darkbreeze on all online venues since about 1996 when Comcast first really made internet worth having available here in good old Pueblo, CO. But it's all good, if you can't share the darkness, what good is it right?
m
0
l
!