I am a little late to the game here guys, but I have a Celeron G530 which I was using on an MSI H61MA-E35 motherboard. The reason for this was because my P8Z68-V LX had just bit the dust and I wanted to see if it could handle any recent games.
I paired it with a GTX 670, and was able to play Battlefield 3 at nearly the same FPS as my i5-2500K @ 1920x1080, Ultra settings w/ 4xAA. There was no stuttering, and there was no issues whatsoever with framerates. It remained well above an acceptable framerate (30-40+ FPS).
People saying that you "need" 4 cores for gaming, and that "the Celeron is not capable of full HD gaming" really need to get a grip. "Celeron" does not mean underpowered - it's Intel's classification for their budget-series processors. In this case, it is MUCH more than capable of doing everything that this guy's user needs it to.
An Athlon II X4's single-threaded performance, and overall performance, are much lower than the G530's and the G1610's performance. The lower power consumption and the better instruction sets means that it will only pull ahead as time goes on with applications taking advantage of SSE4 instructions, and better processor design. Once again, in this case, the G1610 is a superior option.
Apologies for thread resurrection, I felt this information will be useful for people in the future.
I paired it with a GTX 670, and was able to play Battlefield 3 at nearly the same FPS as my i5-2500K @ 1920x1080, Ultra settings w/ 4xAA. There was no stuttering, and there was no issues whatsoever with framerates. It remained well above an acceptable framerate (30-40+ FPS).
People saying that you "need" 4 cores for gaming, and that "the Celeron is not capable of full HD gaming" really need to get a grip. "Celeron" does not mean underpowered - it's Intel's classification for their budget-series processors. In this case, it is MUCH more than capable of doing everything that this guy's user needs it to.
An Athlon II X4's single-threaded performance, and overall performance, are much lower than the G530's and the G1610's performance. The lower power consumption and the better instruction sets means that it will only pull ahead as time goes on with applications taking advantage of SSE4 instructions, and better processor design. Once again, in this case, the G1610 is a superior option.
Apologies for thread resurrection, I felt this information will be useful for people in the future.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram