Pentium G3258 Anniversary Edition, is it obsolete?

[DragonBorn1511]

Intel released their Pentium G3258 Overclocking capable Dual Core CPU a few years ago.

The question is, in 2018, for modern gaming titles, is it obsolete?

Overclocking to 4-4.5Ghz how does it handle new games? Does it even start up due to its limitation of dual cores?

Cheers,

DragonBorn1511

 

[panathas]

For newer games yes it's obsolete since they need more than 2-cores in order to not heavily bottleneck the GPU. For older games not so much but then again you need to overclock it a lot but even then you may experience instances with big fps drops and stuttering. Good luck.

 

[jacobweaver800]

Intel released their Pentium G3258 Overclocking capable Dual Core CPU a few years ago.

The question is, in 2018, for modern gaming titles, is it obsolete?

Overclocking to 4-4.5Ghz how does it handle new games? Does it even start up due to its limitation of dual cores?

Cheers,

DragonBorn1511

For most any new game it will be a huge issue. With 2 cores and 2 threads the thing will move slowly through Windows 10 by itself, and throwing in a discrete GPU and trying to game won't be much faster. Most modern games need between 4-6 cores and a decent GPU to run well, in fact some games won't even open if it detects less than 4 threads/logical processors.

 

[k1114]

Even back then it was minimum, that's why it's a pentium. It could only push a gpu that was just enough to be called gaming capable. Now it's not enough. It's one of the reason I tend to urge people to buy better stuff. For a pc gamer, it lasts longer and saves money in the long run. Of course budget is an issue but when it's applicable I suggest it.

2 cores does not move slowly through windows 10. My core 2 duo zips through 10 as fast as xp.

 

[jacobweaver800]

Even back then it was minimum, that's why it's a pentium. It could only push a gpu that was just enough to be called gaming capable. Now it's not enough. It's one of the reason I tend to urge people to buy better stuff. For a pc gamer, it lasts longer and saves money in the long run. Of course budget is an issue but when it's applicable I suggest it.

2 cores does not move slowly through windows 10. My core 2 duo zips through 10 as fast as xp.

My Core I3 3220 is laughably slow compared to my AMD A8-5500 which is Bulldozer based, just as bad as FX, in Windows 10 after a new installation, that's being compared to a year old installation of Windows 10.

Even so that doesn't mean it won't become unbearably slow in Windows after that fresh new installation becomes crowded with apps and games and maybe a virus or two, things like those are why 6 and 8 core CPU's were a big push by AMD and Intel for gamers since a quad core is fine with a fresh install of Windows for gaming, a 6 or 8 core CPU at the same speed based on the same architecture would be faster I guarantee after a few years and some viruses and running background programs like Twitch(for streaming) and Discord.

 

[k1114]

Sounds like an individual pc issue. The i3 is better all around than the a8 and my 2ghz c2d is significantly worse performance yet runs just as well as it did over 10 years ago on an older os. It's been through vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10. The only one that was bad was vista. We're not talking about multi tasking; streaming, discord and gaming. The comment specifically states "through windows by itself." Although that pc does play wot and it still does that just fine with background apps, other web games and streaming (other vids not the game), with no fps hit.

My 2500k still maxes games with no frame dips. Amd pushed more cores because that's all they could do vs the intel ipc advantage and it didn't help as it was too soon for games. Now that software caught up, intel is playing the core number game too but for most of it, it's marketing. The mainstream gamer is still running a 4 core and games devs aren't dumb enough to lose money on the majority and make 6+ cores the requirement just yet.

 

[jacobweaver800]

Sounds like an individual pc issue. The i3 is better all around than the a8 and my 2ghz c2d is significantly worse performance yet runs just as well as it did over 10 years ago on an older os. It's been through vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and 10. The only one that was bad was vista. We're not talking about multi tasking; streaming, discord and gaming. The comment specifically states "through windows by itself." Although that pc does play wot and it still does that just fine with background apps, other web games and streaming (other vids not the game), with no fps hit.

My 2500k still maxes games with no frame dips. Amd pushed more cores because that's all they could do vs the intel ipc advantage and it didn't help as it was too soon for games. Now that software caught up, intel is playing the core number game too but for most of it, it's marketing. The mainstream gamer is still running a 4 core and games devs aren't dumb enough to lose money on the majority and make 6+ cores the requirement just yet.

I was referring to Ryzen when talking about 6 and 8 core CPU's from AMD, I left FX out of that equation for a reason.

And it could be a system specific issue, but I almost always notice a difference between a dual core and a quad core in Windows 10, I can usually tell the quad core from the dual core when browsing around in Windows, even on clean installations.

More about the higher core count CPU's, the mainstream gamer is using a quad core, and games and game engines are getting to the point where they can use 3-4 cores, in this case having an extra 2 or 4 cores allows programs and apps like Twitch or Discord to use the cores that the game isn't being used to have a minimal hit on game FPS.

 

[DragonBorn1511]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

My suspicions have been confirmed, it's definitely an obsolete processor, especially with the emergence of the G4560 so cheap as a baby i3.

Intel really pulled off a great marketing stunt with the G3258 when it came out, every review from the time praised it, however my argument is, even in 2014 upon release, it was already obsolete, when games such as Far Cry 4 required 4 threads to even start up. Gotta hand it to Intel, regardless of them making top end CPUs such as their i5/i7's, their budget performers such as the G4560, or obsolete marketing junk such as the G3258, they know how to make money.

I happen to have a 1150 board laying about, which is why I asked. I guess i'll look for a better CPU, only issue is 1150 CPUs are quite expensive compared to their 2nd and even 3rd gen 1155 counterparts.

 

[Supernova1138]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

My suspicions have been confirmed, it's definitely an obsolete processor, especially with the emergence of the G4560 so cheap as a baby i3.

Intel really pulled off a great marketing stunt with the G3258 when it came out, every review from the time praised it, however my argument is, even in 2014 upon release, it was already obsolete, when games such as Far Cry 4 required 4 threads to even start up. Gotta hand it to Intel, regardless of them making top end CPUs such as their i5/i7's, their budget performers such as the G4560, or obsolete marketing junk such as the G3258, they know how to make money.

I happen to have a 1150 board laying about, which is why I asked. I guess i'll look for a better CPU, only issue is 1150 CPUs are quite expensive compared to their 2nd and even 3rd gen 1155 counterparts.

To be fair, Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age Inquisition were really the first two games to come out that would refuse to run on a 2 core/2 thread CPU, and those didn't launch until about 5 months after the G3258 did. The G3258 came out during a transitional period in gaming where the PS4 and Xbox One had just come out and a lot of games released at the time were still being built around the older Xbox 360 and PS3 hardware with the next gen versions mostly offering better visuals and smoother performance, so you could get by on 2 cores and 2 threads at the time. That changed as games designed more around the newer consoles started to launch in late 2014 onward that could leverage more cores.

In any case, at the time of launch the G3258 was adequate as an entry level gaming CPU, but with new console hardware out, it probably wouldn't have a lengthy service life and probably should have been looked at more as a cheap chip to get your foot in the door on the LGA 1150 platform, and in retrospect perhaps reviews should have made it a bit clearer that an upgrade to an i5 or i7 would likely be needed within a year or two if you wanted to keep playing the latest AAA titles.

 

[DragonBorn1511]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

My suspicions have been confirmed, it's definitely an obsolete processor, especially with the emergence of the G4560 so cheap as a baby i3.

Intel really pulled off a great marketing stunt with the G3258 when it came out, every review from the time praised it, however my argument is, even in 2014 upon release, it was already obsolete, when games such as Far Cry 4 required 4 threads to even start up. Gotta hand it to Intel, regardless of them making top end CPUs such as their i5/i7's, their budget performers such as the G4560, or obsolete marketing junk such as the G3258, they know how to make money.

I happen to have a 1150 board laying about, which is why I asked. I guess i'll look for a better CPU, only issue is 1150 CPUs are quite expensive compared to their 2nd and even 3rd gen 1155 counterparts.

To be fair, Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age Inquisition were really the first two games to come out that would refuse to run on a 2 core/2 thread CPU, and those didn't launch until about 5 months after the G3258 did. The G3258 came out during a transitional period in gaming where the PS4 and Xbox One had just come out and a lot of games released at the time were still being built around the older Xbox 360 and PS3 hardware with the next gen versions mostly offering better visuals and smoother performance, so you could get by on 2 cores and 2 threads at the time. That changed as games designed more around the newer consoles started to launch in late 2014 onward that could leverage more cores.

In any case, at the time of launch the G3258 was adequate as an entry level gaming CPU, but with new console hardware out, it probably wouldn't have a lengthy service life and probably should have been looked at more as a cheap chip to get your foot in the door on the LGA 1150 platform, and in retrospect perhaps reviews should have made it a bit clearer that an upgrade to an i5 or i7 would likely be needed within a year or two if you wanted to keep playing the latest AAA titles.

Yes I totally see where you're coming from it did come out a few months earlier, but here in the UK an i3 4xxx was just £20-30 more. yes you can overclock the G3258 on a H81 board and standard cooler (same setup as an i3) but today, the i3 4xxx is still capable with a suitable GPU, the G3258 is completely obsolete.

Buying a true dual Core CPU without HT in an year beyond 2012 was always asking for trouble really.

The reviews really annoy me, because the chip was never cracked up to be what it was.

if you wanted to overclock for the fun of it, the 860K Athlon with an aftermarket cooler or an FX series was always the better option. per core they may not be anywhere near close, but to a point the Fx 4300 for example can still run the latest games (maybe not to the standards of the average PC Gamer but to console gamers it'll be fine) whereas, the G3258 won't even open most.

To me it was just the perfect example of Intel being in the right place ,at the right time with the correct offering for the market. and don't get me wrong, as all good businesses should do ,they profited from it, but I still think it's a stupid processor.

Now don't get me wrong, this all just relates to gaming, a standard dual Core CPU may be fine for other tasks.

 

[panathas]

If I'm not mistaken this was never marketed as a gaming CPU. It was an anniversary edition CPU and it's sole purpose in the market was cheap overclocking. Thus Intel allowed overclocking with cheaper motherboards and since it was a dual core (cheap) CPU it meant that it's overclocking headroom was huge. It was meant to honour the older Pentiums (I-III) and their overclocking history. It really was a CPU for those who wanted to experiment with overclocking without risking too much money. Unfortunately it came to the market in a period where dual core models were already inadequate for AAA games. On top of that almost all reviews recommended heavy overclocking in order to compete with a core i3 in gaming. So that didn't sound too good for the longevity of this CPU and its real use case was pretty limited even then. Now it's obviously obsolete.

You best bet is to find a used i5 Haswell. Don't spend too much since it doesn't worth it. You can find much better deals with newer CPUs. They have more cores and since they based in more modern architectures, they are faster and they have better motherboards. Having said all that they only downside is the DDR4 RAM prices which are pretty high right now. So if you currently have more than 8GB DDR3 RAM and you want at least the same amount in DDR4, then your only viable option is an older used Haswell model. Good luck.

 

[DragonBorn1511]

If I'm not mistaken this was never marketed as a gaming CPU. It was an anniversary edition CPU and it's sole purpose in the market was cheap overclocking. Thus Intel allowed overclocking with cheaper motherboards and since it was a dual core (cheap) CPU it meant that it's overclocking headroom was huge. It was meant to honour the older Pentiums (I-III) and their overclocking history. It really was a CPU for those who wanted to experiment with overclocking without risking too much money. Unfortunately it came to the market in a period where dual core models were already inadequate for AAA games. On top of that almost all reviews recommended heavy overclocking in order to compete with a core i3 in gaming. So that didn't sound too good for the longevity of this CPU and its real use case was pretty limited even then. Now it's obviously obsolete.

You best bet is to find a used i5 Haswell. Don't spend too much since it doesn't worth it. You can find much better deals with newer CPUs. They have more cores and since they based in more modern architectures, they are faster and they have better motherboards. Having said all that they only downside is the DDR4 RAM prices which are pretty high right now. So if you currently have more than 8GB DDR3 RAM and you want at least the same amount in DDR4, then your only viable option is an older used Haswell model. Good luck.

I guess you're right, Intel didn't market is a gaming CPU, but every review out there, showed it as one. I find Haswell to be such a huge rip off second hand. an i5 2400/3470 can be had for £20-25, the cheapest Haswell i5 is £60. With 1150 boards costing more than 1155, i'd argue the price difference really isn't worth it, especially when, if you're buying second hand ,it's likely you're on a strict budget.

 

[k1114]

I think you missed part of the conclusions of the articles. It showed it could game, not that it was the recommended cpu for gaming. The i5 has always had that spot since 1st gen let alone 4th. Some may have said budget gamers but who wants a new gaming pc that only meets minimum specs for games? Only those that can't afford better. If it costs as much as an office cpu, it's still an office cpu.

Quad cores have been mainstream prices since core 2 quad. We've been stuck on quad cores for a very long time. There hasn't been any reason to have a dual core unless you just want new and can't afford better. Back during haswell's time, you could at least get nehalem quad core or a phenom x4 for a lower price, better performance and oc capable if you considered used.