To make a long story short, I built an Athlon 860k system a while ago, but now I regret not going for a Pentium G3258 build instead. I went for the 860k specifically because it was an affordable unlocked quadcore CPU targeted at the gaming/overclocking market, but I can't seem to keep this thing stable unless I run it at 3.7GHz stock speed. I ran it at 4GHz for a while which worked fine aside from the odd crash, but I didn't realize how unstable my system was until I installed Satellite Reign. It works fine now, but I'm kind of bummed that I shelled out for an "overclocking" CPU that couldn't be overclocked worth a crap.
Anyway, if I decide to switch to an LGA 1150 motherboard and a Pentium G3258 CPU, what do I have to lose? Are there any recent games that absolutely require more than two cores to run? Will the Pentium's stronger single-threaded performance and overclockability, along with its lower TDP make up for having less cores than the Athlon? I know that one of the biggest advantages of switching to the LGA1150 platform is that I'd eventually be able to upgrade to an i5, but obviously I'll have to save up some money to do this first. Hell, I'd probably be running an i5 right now if I didn't go Athlon in the first place.
TL;DR should I swap my Athlon 860k for a Pentium G3258, or not?
>buying AMD processors
anon the pentium is the best bang for your buck chip availiable and should run your games fine, as long as you have the graphics card to back it up.
Games rarely take advantage of multi-core processors not to mention most games are almost exclusively hard on the GPU not the CPU, unless you play games with a lot of realtime physics/particles like flight simulators or similar.
The intel is a mean little overclocker too, amd processors are total shit atm
Why do you say that?
It just so happens that Source engine games such as CS: GO and TF2 tend to be heavier on the CPU than the GPU, and I've also been thinking of getting back into PS2 and Gamecube emulation, both of which rely heavily on raw single-thread performance. My GPU could still use an upgrade though, as I'm running a 1GB R7 250X GHz Edition, which is just a glorified HD 7770. Truth be told, I'm tempted to swap it for a GTX 750Ti since AMD support on Linux is shit, and Nvidia is what most games are optimized for anyway.
But anyway, where do you think I could find a list of games that absolutely require more than two cores to run? My google fu is quite weak right now, as I'm seeing all these dumb results about people asking about games that need more than four cores. Pfft, as if any developer would alienate thousands upon thousands of potential customers by demanding a hexcore CPU as a minimum requirement. I could see some games requiring a quadcore to run though, since they're not uncommon nowadays.
That's sort of the idea. I'm kind of stuck where I'm at with my Socket FM2+ board, which I am fairly certain Zen won't even support, so if I'm going to have to swap my motherboard I may as well go Intel, grab a Pentium, and save up for an i5.
>absolutely require more than two cores to run
Turing Completeness states that a single core can emulate two cores, thus you'll never see "n-cores" as a minimum requirement. If you open Task Manager, you'll see your computer is already emulating nearly a hundred cores.
Doesn't mean a six-threaded game won't go faster on six cores; expect most games to be eight-threaded with four floating-point threads, because that's what the consoles are.
Eh, save up first and get the i5 when you afford it. No reason to chuck money on a stopgap chip you'll keychain before summer.
AMD's proprietary drivers aren't as terribad as they used to be, but I take their OSS drivers over those any day in the week. The OSS drivers are a moving target though, you should have Linux 4.2 and Mesa 11.1 by now.
Yeah, I did a little more research and it turns out nearly all the games that the g3258 has trouble running are Ubisoft titles, the only one I could possibly care about being Farcry 4. Of course, that game will run fine on a G3258 as long as you patch it, so it leads me to suspect that Ubisoft intentionally tried to prevent it from running on low-end PCs in order to encourage console sales.
I'd kinda like to have a G3258 just to mess around with, but you're right, it's not absolutely essential that I get one at this moment. My 860k is working fine at stock clocks, and I pretty much only play older titles and indie games most of the time anyway. I guess I'll just have to accept that I'll never find another chip that could overclock the way my old Wolfdale Pentium E6300 did. I kinda wore out my old Asus P5B doing it, but boy could that motherfucker OC like crazy. For some reason, once I got my Core2Duo E8500 from a friend, I found it couldn't OC nearly as well probably because it had three times the cache of the E6300. Overclocking modern chips just isn't the same because you don't get the same discernible speed difference you used to be able to get by tweaking the FSB directly, and if you screwed up and went too far, you'd know within hours or even minutes of running a stress test on Prime95. I'm a loner who gets by on autismbux, so for a while overclocking gave me a way to lengthen my e-peen.
Yeah, I noticed a while back when I was still using a Core2 and a Radeon HD 5770 that my Linux gaming performance was much better than it was when I tried it with older AMD cards in other systems. It still got BTFO by Windows in that area, but at least I was able to run TF2 and Goat Simulator playably. I've been meaning to screw around with Linux again, but my partition setup isn't really conducive to it since I short stroked my OS/apps partition.