AMD 4300 vs G3258

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
I

IamTimTech

Admirable
Oct 13, 2014
1,685
0
6,160
Hello everyone. I'm building a low end gaming PC on a budget for a customer who I am trying to ween off of console gaming. I simply want to know which of the two listed CPU's you would lean towards. The Intel Pentium G3258 or the AMD FX 4300 Quad Core?

The way I see it: Overclocking shouldn't be an arguing point as both will overclock well and a new PC gamer isn't going to dive right into overclocking. One point some may argue is the upgrade path for the Intel and AMD options. I understand that moving into the future the 1150 Z97 socket/chipset offers a huge amount of headroom. AMD has however made it clear they have not abandoned the AM3+ socket and it will be receiving more products. Forward mobility to me is kind of a tie in this regard as I am sure that by the time he really wants to upgrade DDR4 will be economically viable anyway.

Really I just want to compare performance to performance. I want to get him the most bang for his buck in this instance. Also keep in mind that no, my budget does not permit me to move up to an i3 or 6300, these are the only two processor options.
 
They perform pretty much the same in gaming, but i'd discard overclocking, go for a cheaper motherboard and better cpu instead, that will be better for a new pc owner.
 
Well, you've used up all my talking points... lol.
But I would still favor the G3258. I haven't heard about AMD extending the life of the AM3+ socket platform. If you have a recent link, please pass it on.
Is there a great cost difference between the 2 platforms when the system is built?
 
Hidden option C: Athlon X4 860K.

Lately it's been priced below the FX-4300, and is a stronger CPU for gaming. I'd have the 860K before either the G3258 or the FX-4300. It's a nice compromise CPU that offers combined execution performance exceeding the i3, and similar to the fx-6300 but wrapped up into an ideal 4 threaded CPU for less $$. In gaming it should perform about the same an i5-2400 or i5-3330.
 


I will need to check pricing again, but I prefer only to use gigabyte and asus boards and according to the last time I checked PCPartpicker the z97 options are cheaper than h97. If you mean to build on an older chipset I will give it consideration.


I attended ASI's 2014 virtual expo and asked them personally what their intentions where for the AM3+ socket. They intend to stay on the DDR3 platform for sometime and while their focus is on APU's we can expect to see a few more products for the AM3+ socket


I actually have an FM2 motherboard on hand and will take that into consideration.
 


They're pretty much the same, but the 860/760 k is cheaper, that makes it a better deal, but there is no upgrade path though.
 
I agree they are very close the key differences being:

A. 860k 3.7ghz - FX 4300 3.8Ghz (no discernible difference)
B. The 860K has no level 3 cahce
C. The FX operates on a 32nm lithography and the 860k operates on a 28nm lithography

Right this minute they are only $4 apart. To me the Upgrade path of the AM3+ socket is well worth the extra $4.
 
The important distinction is that the 860K is a Steamroller architecture CPU, while he FX-4300 is PileDriver. The 860K is 10-30% faster than the FX-4300 depending on workload.
 
Well mdocod, thanks to you I started off with 2 processors to contemplate and now I have 3 😛

I think I am going to stick with the AM3+ or 1150(97) socket because they have the most headroom for improvement at this time. Honestly I think given the upcoming 5th Gen Intel processors I will most likely opt for the G3258. Especially given that it will free up $18 I can put elsewhere in the system. What I learned via txt over the course of this evening is that he does not particularly care for PVP game play making the G3258 perfect since he will not have to be connecting to many servers.
 
The 3258 has no competition in my mind due to the fact of the upgrade path. You can get the 3258 which performs great for the price and wont bottleneck any graphics card that someone would buy at this level. The x4 860k and the fx 4300 dont have a real upgrade path other than adding more weaker cores that games wont utilize.
 
A CPU bottleneck or performance problem can arise regardless of what GPU is selected. This premise that buying into a low end GPU somehow solves CPU bottlenecks and performance problems is fundamentally and massively flawed, yet the drums of that flawed idea about the relationship between a CPU and GPU have been beating and echoing to every corner of the internet for years.

If a particular CPU runs a particular game poorly, there is no way to fix that by pairing it with the "right" GPU. In other-words, the premise that the G3258 won't bottleneck low end GPUs is wrong. An i5-4690 can bottleneck a low end GPU given the right circumstances so there is no way to be able to claim that a Pentium won't bottleneck a particular GPU without very specific conditions given (resolution, game, game conditions, etc).

Furthermore, almost all games scale into at least 3 threads these days, which is why almost all games run as well on an i3 as they do on a heavily overclocked Pentium. In games that produce high saturation workloads on 2+ threads (lots!), and spawn additional threads for other tasks, the high FPS results seen in benchmarks of the Pentium can't be directly compared to other quad threaded CPUs like the i3 or 860k because the frame pacing is often far worse as the scheduler is forced to juggle those threads on 2 cores, which generates variances in frame delivery and timing that reduces the effective/perceived smoothness for a given FPS.

40FPS with good frame pacing looks better than 60FPS with bad frame pacing and stuttering any day. But most bench-marking results just show FPS, and nothing about the quality of how that FPS was delivered. AMD has the same problem with their "dual graphics" solutions on the FM2 and FM2+ platforms. Sure we can get double the FPS throwing an R7 250 on an FM2+ board in GPU bound conditions, but the frame pacing is so bad that the improvement in FPS isn't really worth it.

On a final note, CPU upgrades are rare. Most people use a system as it was originally configured well past the point that a CPU upgrade is even worth consideration. Upgrade paths should be viewed as barbed hooks dangling for the less informed buyer.
 


Man I agreed strongly with your statement except that part. For those building on a budget, a "placeholder" CPU is a not uncommon at all. When I build a new rig for my own needs (about once every 6 years), I prioritize my build as follows. First I decide what case I want. It's majorly personal preference with a little of what I think I will use it for most sprinkled on top. Then I make sure I get a PSU that is about 20% stronger than I need. So if I think I will need 650w when I've finished my upgrade path, then I usually go for a 800 or 850 watts. This to me is just a better safe than sorry mentality and will let me use my PSU for as long as it's ticking. After I have bought those two components I select what socket and chipset I want and chose a quality motherboard that I think has just as many features as I will realistically utilize along my upgrade path. Then I chose my Storage and Video Card, and the CPU will fall in last based on what is left of my initial budget. I often find myself buying a second CPU and using the first one for a low end/HTPC build for myself or a family member.

I realize however that building a computer for myself, and building a computer for a customer will be two different animals because many users are just that users, and not builders and tweakers. I also realize build method is personal preference as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom