Better to buy high end video card to pair with Pentium G3258 or lower end card and upgrade CPU to an i5?

HomerThompson · Sep 30, 2014

I currently have a Pentium G3258 CPU with a Gigabyte H81M-DS2V board and 4 GB GSkill Value RAM DDR3 1600. I want to budget about $500 to upgrade this to a gaming rig. It would be retarded to stick a GTX 970 with this setup, correct? Even if I can get this CPU over 4GHz? (haven't tried overclocking it yet since I'm not gaming on it) Would I get more consistent gaming performance with a lower end card like an R7 265 and an upgrade of my CPU to an i5 Haswell? Let me get my fixed costs out of the way for the upgrade first before going into the rest:

1. Power Supply: I definitely need a new power supply bad, as I'm using an Antec 380W PSU I bought in 2008. My video card is laughably weak (GeForce 8400GS), but that's because I got that card to have hardware acceleration so I could watch HD videos on my computer and I have done most of my gaming on consoles. Now PC looks like the way to go since you're not getting incredible value out of buying the console hardware like you did last generation.

I'm looking at an EVGA 600W Bronze certified that delivers 49 amps on the 12V rail. I don't want to cheap out on power and buy some crap Rosewill that only has a one year warranty. This EVGA has a 3 year and should be fine if I want to use a GTX 970 now or some time in the future. Seems like a good deal for $65 shipped.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817438014

2. Hard Drive: Would you believe I'm using a 500 GB 7200RPM Seagate with only 8MB cache as my system drive right now? I imagine this would be a huge bottleneck in a sandbox like Skyrim that's constantly having to load lots of textures in realtime, so I'd be a moron not to spend $60 shipped. Plus the Seagate is old and who knows how long it has left? Still, it has been great for me running Linux since 2006, and Windows 7 feels snappy on it.

I hate buying OEM drives online, but this has a two year warranty and all I'll have on it is the system and games, so no huge deal if it dies and I have to RMA.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822236339

3. RAM: I only have 4GB of DDR3 1600, so adding another 4GB of the same RAM at $38 shipped is a no-brainer.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231634

So that puts my fixed cost at $163. From here I have two options:

Option 1. Upgrade to a real gaming CPU, namely an i5 Haswell. This will limit my video card budget hugely, but with 4 cores and 8 threads this should be a relevant gaming CPU for a good while, correct?

CPU: i5 4590 3.3 GHz at $200 shipped
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116991

VIDEO: MSI R7 265 + 2 AMD Silver Games at $159 shipped, or $153 if I skip the games (I'd rather pay the $6 and get them though)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127790

TOTAL: $516 shipped
I can live with going over budget by $16.

Option 2. Stick with the G3258 and buy a GTX 970. This will run like crap with a G3258, correct?
VIDEO: EVGA GTX 970 at $330 shipped
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487065

TOTAL: $493 shipped

I'm guessing Option 1 is way better, since it seems like a nice CPU might hold its future gaming value better than a nice GPU. Then maybe upgrade to a now cheaper GTX 970 in a year without feeling too bad about replacing a $150 video card. Part of me hates the thought of tossing aside my G3258, but since I bought it as a $70 CPU/MB combo with a motherboard that sells for $55, I guess I could look at it as paying $15 to rent a CPU for 3-4 months that makes my system run so much nicer than the AMD Athlon x2 4000+ I have been running in it since 2006.

I'm kind of tempted to hold out for Black Friday sales though. Do you ever get really nice deals on Core i5's then?

unknownofprob · Sep 30, 2014

The G3258 will bottleneck the GTX 970 pretty bad, and not what I would call a good option. It would only be considered good if you were to upgrade the CPU sooner or later.

If no plans of upgrading go for option one, though I would consider saving up and pairing the i5 with a GTX 970 also. In the long run you would have wished you got the better card, and also have that better i5 CPU.

That EVGA PSU is sufficient, and good enough

HDD is fine, but I tend to like to recommend going for a small 120GB SSD by samsung (EVO series is a good choice) to load things ultra fast, also for a reasonable cost.

MeteorsRaining · Oct 1, 2014

Firstly, PSU upgrade is fine, you wouldn't upgrade from a HDD to another HDD, if you're looking for speedy boots and accessing, all the 7.2k RPM HDDs are more or less the same, SSD makes the difference here. 8MB cache is immaterial, there's no real need for cache or holding up data when the transfer rates are good enough. But yes, if your drive is 2.5", it'll be tad slow than the normal 3.5".

For memory, do not get another 4GB, it'll most likely not work out. Sticks aren't fond of working with non-pairs, always get RAM is pairs. Also, 4GB is ok, unless you're running like 5 Apps and games at the same time, the difference is not much, better upgrading it to a new pair of 2X4GB sticks when pocket allows.

Firstly, yes i5 is a true gaming CPU but it does not have 8 threads, it's not HyperThreaded. But that doesn't make much of a difference, quad core is more than fine for any game.

Secondly, yep Pentium+970 is not a good combo, it'll bottleneck on any latest title, not to the point that it's unplayable, but if you're thinking of BF4 ultra multiplayer with 970, then that's not happening. i5+GPU is a lot more balanced combo.

Now, you can upgrade the GPU from time to time, but it is not so for the CPU, atleast not for an average user, GPUs are more like plug and play, but CPU upgrade involves a lot more. So once you're with an i5, even with a weaker card than 970, you'll never look back CPU wise, which's good.

And given that you can upgrade the GPU in a couple years, i5+265 makes more sense

HomerThompson · Oct 1, 2014

Thanks unknownofprob. I don't care much about boot times (remember, I have been a console player for years lol!), so I'm going to hold off on SSDs until they start getting cheap enough to compete with mechanical drives. Seems like way too much a cost right now just to boot into Windows faster, but then again I used to run Slackware Linux whose bootscripts made booting take 3-4 minutes even on very nice hardware (otherwise the distro was blazingly fast though).

I'm not going to buy a GTX 970 that soon, but maybe in a year get it or perhaps its successor. But for the next 365 days I'm going to hold out at spending $500 plus or minus $40 on the upgrade.

HomerThompson · Oct 1, 2014

Hmmm MeteorsRaining.... I'm surprised the 8MB cache wouldn't affect gaming too much. For the RAM I'd be buying a second stick of the exact same model of RAM I currently have in my first DIMM. That would still be a problem?

Shoot, only i7 has the two threads per core?

MeteorsRaining · Oct 1, 2014

HomerThompson :

It's more or less a gamble, some people can get their systems up and running even with differently timed sticks, but many can't do even with the exactly same models. You can take out 10 sticks from the same line out of factory and test, and find out only 4 of 'em works with other sticks. It differs from system to system, but when 4GB can take the load pretty fine, and assuming ~5 FPS less won't matter as much, why to take the risk?

Also, the current ones are loosely timed, its better to keep the RAM as it is, and upgrade it altogether to 2X4GB, IMO.

And yes, only i7 and Xeons have HTs (i3 has it too, but its not as good as i5, a true quad core).

unknownofprob · Oct 1, 2014

"4 cores and 8 threads " Didn't spot that, great eye MeteorsRaining. It has a 6MB Cache.

depends on the i7, majority is yes, though Ivy bridge-E, Sandy Bridge-E and Haswell-E differ, with the exception of the 3930k, 4930k which are hex cores with 2 threads per core. Others have 15MB Cache for 6 cores (5930k, 5820k, 4960X, 3960X) ,10MB for 4 cores (3820k, 4820k), 20MB for 8 cores (5960X).

Campu0999 · Oct 1, 2014

I would say option 1
You may be better with a slightly worse cpu like a Core i5-4430 and then you may be able to spend a bit more on a graphics card. Im not sure how much the following combo would cost but shouldnt be too far from what you suggested
This cpu doesn't have hyperthreading I believe so you would need to decide if it matters much, keep in mind that games dont really use hyperthreading

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=19-116-895&FM=1

If your budget allows then the r9 270 is just that extra bit better over the r7 265

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125491

Or the cheaper version is this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121802R

Also when you can afford it, may be a good idea to get a decent cpu cooler
Cheers

iamlegend · Oct 1, 2014

I will suggest option 2. Although G3258 will bottleneck the GTX 970 but you can still play most demanding games with good FPS. I saw benchmark where the rig is G3258 with GTX 780 playing Assassin`s creed IV with impressive FPS.

The G3258 will surely bottleneck if you game in higher resolution like 1440p or 4k. For 1080p yes you will have a bottleneck but it does not mean you cannot play the most demanding games smoothly.

HomerThompson · Oct 1, 2014

It's kind of nice that CPUs have staying power now that Moore's Law has been long since dead for individual cores. I still remember being hyped off my 200 MHz AMD K6 build in mid 97 and by early 2000 CPUs had broken the 1 GHz barrier. And then the 3 GHz barrier by 2002 lol.

MeteorsRaining · Oct 1, 2014

HomerThompson :

Yep, the CPUs are getting stronger but from a different viewpoint, efficiency, the TDP is going down while the performance goes higher, though not as much, 5-10% we can say.

HomerThompson · Oct 2, 2014

Starting to think I might be a sucker to replace this G3258. Tonights the first time I have messed with over clocking it, and I have to say I'm encouraged so far. On 1.1V vcore I'm currently running 4.2GHz. Running Prime95 for 20 minutes so far at 4.2GHz my max temps have been 74C on core 0 and 69C on Core 1 with stock cooling in a case with really bad airflow in an area with an ambient temperature of 82F. I saw some great benchmarks running this thing at 4.2GHz paired with a GTX 760, including BF4 Ultra 1920x1080, and my CPU seems like it can handle 4.2 GHz. Avg temps so far in Prime95 on 4.2GHz, 1.1V vcore are 70C and 66C

HomerThompson · Oct 2, 2014

Not too shabby to get 4.3 GHz on stock cooling at 1.14V vcore.

Had no idea I'd get it this far on so little voltage on a warm day with lousy cooling in my case (a 120mm exhaust fan and an 80mm intake), and my board can still push the vcore up to 1.2V. With reasonable cooling (never worried about it using this as only a Linux box before) maybe I can get this up to 4.5 GHz, as I don't really want to up the voltage and clock right now and have Core #0 hit 80 Celsius in stress testing.

This video is making me think I can hold off on the i5 for a while considering the results he's getting on a 4.2 GHz overclock on this CPU in Crysis 3, Skyrim, and BF4 at 1920x1080 Ultra using a GTX 760 video card.
[video="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L1irtUW1V8"][/video]

Then I saw this one where they got smooth 30 FPS gamplay on Crysis 3 High 2xSMAA using this CPU @ 4.5 GHz with a $135 GTX 750 Ti, by turning on V-Sync at 30 FPS.
[video="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4H_PtJS6c"][/video]

unknownofprob · Oct 3, 2014

Never use youtube as a reliable source, ever. Not saying that the above videos are wrong either.

iamlegend · Oct 3, 2014

Well as long as it is Linustechtips or Jay2cents I guess it is legit.

MeteorsRaining · Oct 3, 2014

A GTX 970 is much more powerful than 760. The Pentium is a beastly OCer no doubt, but its better comparable to i3 or FX 6 or Athlon in terms of gaming, and anything over GTX 760 or R9 280 would result in Bottleneck in CPU intensive games. As said earlier, it won't be unplayable, it'll still give you good FPS, but if you want to use all the potential out of 970, you'd need a quad core.

That said, yep you'd get 30+ FPS in all major titles, thanks to a great GPU, but the same GPU paired with i5 will yield you 60+ FPS on maxed settings (except Crysis, it hammers the GPU). Not saying 970 just won't work with a Pentium, it just doesn't make to get 30 FPS with 760 and 35-40 FPS with 970, with a pentium.

If you're to get the same performance as in the videos, you need the exact same rig, even 2 similar systems with exactly same CPU and GPU may have varied results.

So, if you're fine with 30 FPS, even a 760 would do, for 5-10 FPS more, 970 would do, but is it worth it?

HomerThompson · Oct 3, 2014

unknownofprob :

I agree that youtube isn't a great source, but those videos corroborate what the articles on Tom's Hardware were saying. It's nice to see similar results to the Tom's Hardware article using a cheaper video card than a Titan.

HomerThompson · Oct 3, 2014

MeteorsRaining :

I guess I wasn't expecting to hit 4.3 GHz without touching 80 Celsius in stress tests. Those benchmarks tells me I can probably play this year's titles pretty well on this CPU. I think I will take your advice and skip out on the 970 and go with an R9 280 or R9 270x and then revisit going to an i5 next year as games start becoming more CPU bound. That allows me to drop my upgrade to $360, so I can add $100 to get a much nicer case with good airflow and still come in under budget. Too bad the death of Moore's law ensures those i5's won't really be much cheaper in a year though.

MeteorsRaining · Oct 3, 2014

Fair enough, i5 might excite you next year, hopefully

HomerThompson · Oct 9, 2014

I think I can go i5 4590 + R9 280 and stay reasonably in budget once Mail-in rebates are factored in. What games do you guys think will run better with

(1) Core i5 4590 @ 3.7GHz Turbo + R9 280
vs
(2) G3258@4.3GHz Turbo + GTX 970?

It doesn't seem like 1920 x 1080 at 60 FPS at Ultra is achievable for a lot of games under configuration (1), but with configuration (2) I'm likely to have stutter due to the dual core dual thread Pentium G even if the average FPS looks good? With configuration (1) stuttering isn't a concern with games currently out?

And I can't upgrade to R9 280x and stay in budget. Conversely, saving $20 to go to R9 270x instead of R9 280 probably isn't worth it, right?

iamlegend · Oct 9, 2014

i would go to the 2nd. cpu upgrade is cheaper than gpu upgrade in the future.

HomerThompson · Oct 10, 2014

I decided on a 4-core, 8 thread Xeon with a low end GPU (probably GTX 750 Ti) after seeing a video where Crysis 3 bottlenecked an i5-4690k stock in combination with a GTX 780 Ti, whereas the 8-thread i7-4790k had no such stutter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6LUufXCPDM

Seems like going with the Xeon (an i7 minus the IGP and $55 cheaper) should allow me to not get CPU bottlenecked with a GTX 970 or better when I would look to upgrade the video next year while still giving very playable smooth framerates for any current title. No 60 FPS now, but I don't want to buy i5 and be bottlenecked by the most demanding games next year when I go high end on the GPU.

Better to buy high end video card to pair with Pentium G3258 or lower end card and upgrade CPU to an i5?

Reputable

Illustrious

Champion

Reputable

Reputable

Champion

Illustrious

Honorable

Admirable

Reputable

Champion

Reputable

Reputable

Illustrious

Admirable

Champion

Reputable

Reputable

Champion

Reputable

Admirable

Reputable

Share this page