Question my overclocked intel g3258 vs i5 4690?

Apr 4, 2021
2
0
10
0
Even according to the review pages you posted, it is really going to depend on core utilization as to whether you get better overall performance.

I owned a 4690, and it's still in the house being used by someone else. It's a great CPU and would (in theory) be a superb upgrade for you if you ignore the OC aspect. I understand how this could be a hard choice for you.
I would look at and consider how much multi tasking you are doing, what type of mutithread appllications and games you are playing, and balance that against spending $100 on what is by all measure an obsolete part. Further consider that to actually move all the way to that i7, even that old, you could likely build a new R3/i3 system with near the same if not better performance. 4790K still demand a pretty good price.
 
Apr 4, 2021
2
0
10
0
Even according to the review pages you posted, it is really going to depend on core utilization as to whether you get better overall performance.

I owned a 4690, and it's still in the house being used by someone else. It's a great CPU and would (in theory) be a superb upgrade for you if you ignore the OC aspect. I understand how this could be a hard choice for you.
I would look at and consider how much multi tasking you are doing, what type of mutithread appllications and games you are playing, and balance that against spending $100 on what is by all measure an obsolete part. Further consider that to actually move all the way to that i7, even that old, you could likely build a new R3/i3 system with near the same if not better performance. 4790K still demand a pretty good price.
my current PC is more of an outdated gaming PC but now i want to mix and record music in programs like protools and abelton. it does an OK job now but when i mix a bunch of different tracks and plug ins there are performance issues.
i was thinking about building something from scratch but i thought maybe upgrading the CPU and upgrading to 16 gigs of ram might be a cheaper alternative then replacing my motherboard and getting newer CPUS and ram
 

carocuore

Upstanding
Jan 24, 2021
288
80
270
4
Before going further, userbenchmark isn't a real benchmark, it's a joke.

That said, you simply can't compare both, one's a Pentium with 2C/2T and the other an i5 with 4C/4T, the i5 has double the cache, greater memory bandwidth and a memory controller running faster, the Pentium doesn't comes with boost speeds and whereas both are 64 bit the Pentium isn't compatible with the AVX/AESNI instruction sets that certain programs might require.

If you were to compare the OC'd Pentium with something it'd be with a similar chip running at stock clocks, there you'd be able to see how much single-core performance you gain with the overclock. Comparing it against an i5 is like comparing peppers with oranges and say oranges are better because they're round.

$100 is simply too much for a CPU that's already 7 years old, if I were you, I'd save up something more and build something from scratch with new parts.
 
Before going further, userbenchmark isn't a real benchmark, it's a joke.
To be fair about this statement certain things have to be taken into consideration.

It is a useful tool within it's own llimitations, and offers a lot of information when (for instance) helping troubleshoot and such.

The "joke" aspect isn't the benchmark itself so much as the proven and caught time and time again bias AGAINST AMD. When comparing apples to apples (Intel to Intel) it is a fairly reliable bit of information to be used in conjunction with other benchmark utilities and tests.

By and large it's super easy to get caught up in benchmark and thinking that what is in use a meaningless difference outside a bench, is actually worth your spending dollar.
 
my current PC is more of an outdated gaming PC but now i want to mix and record music in programs like protools and abelton. it does an OK job now but when i mix a bunch of different tracks and plug ins there are performance issues.
i was thinking about building something from scratch but i thought maybe upgrading the CPU and upgrading to 16 gigs of ram might be a cheaper alternative then replacing my motherboard and getting newer CPUS and ram
The i5 would definitely help with the multitracking as it has more cores. Having more ram will also help and I would even push to a 4690k and 32gb of memory if price isn't so much an issue. A whole new system will definitely cost more downtime than these simple upgrades.
 
The i5 would definitely help with the multitracking as it has more cores. Having more ram will also help and I would even push to a 4690k and 32gb of memory if price isn't so much an issue. A whole new system will definitely cost more downtime than these simple upgrades.
I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest finding a 9 yo CPU that still retails at better than 3-400 dollars where in stock, used ones going for not an appreciable amount less used for unknown stress and use for that time frame. Not only that, but the pricing on DDR3 is going far higher than it's worth as well. You can buy DDR4 for less now in many cases. Considering that a $100 i3 10100, a $60 motherboard, and $80 in RAM would perform just the same, or better it just doesn't make sense to discount the time frame in between.

The ONLY way I would purchase a 4790K would be if someone was practically giving it away and I saw it working, personally. It is the only upgrade path for a generation of Intel that was particularly good and still being utilized quite regularly. The demand outweighs the real world performance.
10th gen was the first time I can recall that Intel has actually lowered the resale value on their own product to a desirable price. The i7 makes a lot of sense to purchase now, in relation to traditional pricing schemes.

I don't say this to insinuate that you wouldn't gain performance or (if found at the right price) is a good value proposition, but if you are going to throw that type of money in on an aging system you take quite a chance concerning longevity and relevance.

I am not sure what options your motherboard would allow, but traditionally the Xeon equivalents for the Core i series can be found less expensive as of late simply due to mainstream familiarity with that line. I know that personally I am not comfortable going down that rabbit hole.
 
I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest finding a 9 yo CPU that still retails at better than 3-400 dollars where in stock, used ones going for not an appreciable amount less used for unknown stress and use for that time frame. Not only that, but the pricing on DDR3 is going far higher than it's worth as well. You can buy DDR4 for less now in many cases. Considering that a $100 i3 10100, a $60 motherboard, and $80 in RAM would perform just the same, or better it just doesn't make sense to discount the time frame in between.

The ONLY way I would purchase a 4790K would be if someone was practically giving it away and I saw it working, personally. It is the only upgrade path for a generation of Intel that was particularly good and still being utilized quite regularly. The demand outweighs the real world performance.
10th gen was the first time I can recall that Intel has actually lowered the resale value on their own product to a desirable price. The i7 makes a lot of sense to purchase now, in relation to traditional pricing schemes.

I don't say this to insinuate that you wouldn't gain performance or (if found at the right price) is a good value proposition, but if you are going to throw that type of money in on an aging system you take quite a chance concerning longevity and relevance.

I am not sure what options your motherboard would allow, but traditionally the Xeon equivalents for the Core i series can be found less expensive as of late simply due to mainstream familiarity with that line. I know that personally I am not comfortable going down that rabbit hole.
I think it's disingenuous to recommend something just because it's newer. Your i3-10100 is going to cost more, require a new motherboard, new ram, downtime to install everything and get the quirks out-and for what--10% more performance that a mild OC on the 4790k will easily match?
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i3-10100-vs-Intel-i7-4790K/3717vs2275

Cpus are notably probably the most durable component in a computer, usually lasting well after all other components have failed. The 4790k is no exception.

Considering that a 4790k and 32gb of ram will just bolt in less than an hour (if even that long), the time saved with this upgrade versus swapping the whole cpu, mb, and ram is usually worth more than the cost of the materials to anyone who's busy.

No one is asking YOU to buy anything, so that's great that you won't buy a 4790k--more upgrades for the rest of us.

I'm not focusing on the performance, but the TCO to get that performance. I spend nearly 12hrs end-to-end when I completely upgrade a system, and that type of downtime is not something a lot of people can tolerate. And if they're inexperienced with massive upgrades like this, there's an additional cost of paying someone else to do it and again more down time. The value of the time is not factored in when simply looking at parts.

There is no xeon equivalent to the 4790k--I checked everything before I got one to upgrade one of my Dells. Generally you are right that there are and depending on the bios support using one is trivial, but not in this case.
 
I apologize if I seemed dismissive or insulting. I get the feeling from aspect of your response that this is the case.

I agree with many of your points and it is something to consider as you deal with trying to stretch performance out of older equipment balanced with getting new stuff. If we are going to focus specifically on the OP question at hand, I think there is a lot of value and further usage to be had out of going with the $100 i5 and perhaps some (hopefully) inexpensive RAM.
Once again though, considering Intels traditional pricing structure the i7 4790K is an expensive chip to procure and is basically matched in performance to the 10th gen i3. I mean, it makes sense, it's 6 generations newer and all.

We can further consider that in addition to the 9yo CPU, the OP is utilizing a motherboard of roughly that same age which has been used for OC. I think the mere 2 core aspect probably negates that to some degree, but the components on which motherboards alone are made don't age like fine wine there. Not only is it around 9 years old, but then you are going to throw a CPU with FAR more power delivery requirement of those old VRM.

It could work out to be the genius upgrade, and it could be that you have a dead PC with parts you can't return or warranty.....

.02
 
I apologize if I seemed dismissive or insulting. I get the feeling from aspect of your response that this is the case.

I agree with many of your points and it is something to consider as you deal with trying to stretch performance out of older equipment balanced with getting new stuff. If we are going to focus specifically on the OP question at hand, I think there is a lot of value and further usage to be had out of going with the $100 i5 and perhaps some (hopefully) inexpensive RAM.
Once again though, considering Intels traditional pricing structure the i7 4790K is an expensive chip to procure and is basically matched in performance to the 10th gen i3. I mean, it makes sense, it's 6 generations newer and all.

We can further consider that in addition to the 9yo CPU, the OP is utilizing a motherboard of roughly that same age which has been used for OC. I think the mere 2 core aspect probably negates that to some degree, but the components on which motherboards alone are made don't age like fine wine there. Not only is it around 9 years old, but then you are going to throw a CPU with FAR more power delivery requirement of those old VRM.

It could work out to be the genius upgrade, and it could be that you have a dead PC with parts you can't return or warranty.....

.02
Sorry I took your post the wrong way and thank you for clarifying your points. :)

That is the challenge, isn't it? When trying to scrape by on what is existing, you do run into limits on how far you can upgrade as well as cost considerations. But the biggest one I have always found is time. I could have gotten an newer Dell 30xx SFF system for more and swapped the hard drive and hoped everything worked well, but even that would have had a time investment. Swapping to the 4790k took 30 minutes including testing via the Dell diagnostics and then I buttoned it back up and got back to work. If you look at system upgrades as investments in time savings, then saving time computing only to spend time on setting up the computer starts to get into areas where you can easily negate your roi.

That is a very good point, especially with an OC and with a 4790k. The 4790k definitely isn't like any other chip out there as I can usually just set the fan 100% and be done with an upgrade, but even with a 100% fan, it would still heatsoak and throttle. Only after I got the 'high performance' hsf and shroud ($8 used--love the cheap dell parts!) did it have enough cooling. Stressing an older platform like this could render it dead as you mentioned--and then you have to get another motherboard, so at that point you've basically spent the same and replaced the same when you could have gotten something with upgrade potential.

Solid points all around that I hope the OP was able to consider.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS