CPU - Hyperthread or not?

[d1vine]

Hello.I have a question:
I am building a cheap PC,that looks like:
AsRock h97 PRO4
4gb ram Patriot
Sirtec Bronze 500w
Tesseract BF
Now the question:
Should I get i3 4150 with this MOBO or g3258 with an Asus H97 Mobo?I heard that games doesn't know hyper-thread,so I should get the g3258?Or just AsRock Mobo with g3220 and keep money for november?To note is that in November I'll upgrade to Broadwell Cpu and new Nvidia 8xx series,that's who I chose h97.Will oc-ing 3258 will give me more FPS?
Thanks for your time.

 

[DubbleClick]

Firstly, I was NOT the one that made an outrageous claim about the i3 performing "80%" better than the 8350.

I have not been claiming that in any of my posts.

Dude, look up at the thread. You clearly stated it. SMH

Wait, aren't you the one going over semantics here?

Quoting myself I can find:

"An i3 4340 is cheaper than an 8350 and performs better in about 80% of todays tasks."

 

[TheLastof Me]

FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz
Crossfire r9-270x (1150/1500)
120 GB Samsung SSD
2x4GB Cosair Vengeance 1866MHz
2TB Seagate HDD

This illustrates my point pretty well. Let's assume for a second you actually owned both processors to test next to each other (it sounds like you don't, making this impossible). If you tried to conduct such a test, the R9 270X you'd have to use in both test beds is going to limit performance in the titles you're testing long before either the FX-8350 or i3 does and you'd get results that were basically equal. In most titles you'd need a faster GPU in order to give the processors enough headroom to expose the differences between them.

One possible take-away from that is that at some point ($150 or so) the processor doesn't make a huge difference in many mainstream gaming rigs. But its still beneficial to know how and when it starts to matter, because we're talking about getting the most for our money here in the worst-case scenarios. Another take-away from that is that i3's is almost universally cheaper than an FX-8350.

Since most of us cannot own every possible combination of hardware out there, and keep that hardware updated yearly/monthly/weekly, we really couldn't be educated buyers if we didn't rely somewhat on reputable review sites.

A single 270x only limited me when it came to anti-aliasing. I was gaming at 60+fps with Ultra/high settings before the second 270x. Two 270x is about the same performance of a 290x. There will be a noticeable difference in gaming depending on your CPU when Crossfiring two cards on the higher end.

Regarding this point, I have read reviews where the r7-250 performed exactly the same (avg fps) with a i7-3770k, A10 and i3. In the case of a low end card like that, the CPU does not matter. However, two r9-270x are high end cards, and the CPU will make a difference.

And relying "somewhat" is the key! LOL I read reviews also. I also have seen inconsistencies, difference performance from what I had on similar hardware and just flat out bias, specious reporting.

 

[TheLastof Me]

Firstly, I was NOT the one that made an outrageous claim about the i3 performing "80%" better than the 8350.

I have not been claiming that in any of my posts.

Dude, look up at the thread. You clearly stated it. SMH

Wait, aren't you the one going over semantics here?

Quoting myself I can find:

"An i3 4340 is cheaper than an 8350 and performs better in about 80% of todays tasks."

That statement is how this all got started. You making a claim about the performance of two CPUs. I then asked for firsthand experience (empirical, personal or otherwise), then you provided me with a link to benchmarks.

 

[TheLastof Me]

Not only is the i3 cheaper, it also offers an upgrade path to lets say an i7 which beats even heavily overclocked 8350's in absolutely everything.[/quotemsg]

It beats it in "absolutely everything"? It is outrageous remarks like this that begs the question, "how do you know this based upon firsthand experience"?.....

 

[TheLastof Me]

We have gotten way off topic. My apologies to the OP.

 

[DubbleClick]

Firstly, I was NOT the one that made an outrageous claim about the i3 performing "80%" better than the 8350.

I have not been claiming that in any of my posts.

Dude, look up at the thread. You clearly stated it. SMH

Wait, aren't you the one going over semantics here?

Quoting myself I can find:

"An i3 4340 is cheaper than an 8350 and performs better in about 80% of todays tasks."

That statement is how this all got started. You making a claim about the performance of two CPUs. I then asked for firsthand experience (empirical, personal or otherwise), then you provided me with a link to benchmarks.

Nice attempt of changing the topic. I never said the i3 would perform 80% better than the 8350, which would be a ridiculous claim.

As for the i7 beating the 8350 in everything, there's not only evidience by absolutely all benchmarks in the net I could find, but also my comparing my own benchmark scores to 8350 ones. And mine isn't even overclocked yet at all, therefore running at 4.2ghz at 4 cores instead of 4.6-4.8ghz a normal chip is capable of.

 

[JOOK-D]

Outdated thread. None of this arguing will help OP in the end.

 

[DubbleClick]

Outdated thread. None of this arguing will help OP in the end.

True. My advice stay same, though. I'd gather the cheap pentium with a z97 board, overclock the hell out of it to be on i3 level and upgrade to i5/i7 later on.

 

[oxiide]

FX-8350 @ 4.5GHz
Crossfire r9-270x (1150/1500)
120 GB Samsung SSD
2x4GB Cosair Vengeance 1866MHz
2TB Seagate HDD

This illustrates my point pretty well. Let's assume for a second you actually owned both processors to test next to each other (it sounds like you don't, making this impossible). If you tried to conduct such a test, the R9 270X you'd have to use in both test beds is going to limit performance in the titles you're testing long before either the FX-8350 or i3 does and you'd get results that were basically equal. In most titles you'd need a faster GPU in order to give the processors enough headroom to expose the differences between them.

One possible take-away from that is that at some point ($150 or so) the processor doesn't make a huge difference in many mainstream gaming rigs. But its still beneficial to know how and when it starts to matter, because we're talking about getting the most for our money here in the worst-case scenarios. Another take-away from that is that i3's is almost universally cheaper than an FX-8350.

Since most of us cannot own every possible combination of hardware out there, and keep that hardware updated yearly/monthly/weekly, we really couldn't be educated buyers if we didn't rely somewhat on reputable review sites.

A single 270x only limited me when it came to anti-aliasing. I was gaming at 60+fps with Ultra/high settings before the second 270x. Two 270x is about the same performance of a 290x. There will be a noticeable difference in gaming depending on your CPU when Crossfiring two cards on the higher end.

Regarding this point, I have read reviews where the r7-250 performed exactly the same (avg fps) with a i7-3770k, A10 and i3. In the case of a low end card like that, the CPU does not matter. However, two r9-270x are high end cards, and the CPU will make a difference.

And relying "somewhat" is the key! LOL I read reviews also. I also have seen inconsistencies, difference performance from what I had on similar hardware and just flat out bias, specious reporting.

I apologize, I didn't intend to continue this but I noticed that I overlooked that you said they were two R9 270X's in Crossfire and I figured I should fess up to that. Yes, you're right, that's a fairly high-end graphics setup. But you still can't objectively compare two processors that you don't own unless you trust a benchmark somewhere, and you can't be sure what's limiting your performance if you can't swap out hardware to test what difference it makes.