Sorry but the Skylake pentiums have a worse IGP than the core i3s and the a8 IGPs are much faster than the sub £120 Intel IGPs for any gaming. It's not marginally faster especially if you go for budget motherboards which can't support fast ddr4.
Plus the benchmarks about CPU performance really don't do much in real world use.
I compared an old A6 3670K with my Core i3 2100,Core i5 2400 and Core i7 3770 equivalents and could honestly not tell a difference.
The HEC PSU uses lower cost capacitors.
I can definitely recommend the seasonic 430w ECOI ordered a couple of these for work to replace some failed CWT psu's, really nice units and a very nice price.
HEC esp their low end models, tend to be OK but nothing more than that, They'll do what they are rated at within ATX spec's and not take out components when they fail.
But no more than that, we've got a load of ITX pc's at work in compucase (HEC) cases with HEC flex psu's we've had quite a few die around the 3-4year mark.
At the same time we've got a load of pc's which use FSP flex psu's and they have held up far better.
They are far better than no-brand cheap junk but really no better than OK, greated the high end HEC units (eg the cougar range) are supposed to be very good but over priced.
EDIT: and yes IGP has come on a long way from even the core2 days although AMD still holds the crown
However I don't think that ram is compatible with the i3-6300, unless I'm missing something it can only support ddr3L so it's 1.25-1.35v ram only, also it only supports a max speed of 1600MHz on ddr3L
To be safe I'd look for DDR3 1600mhz @ 1.35v
Last edited by Pob255; 20-11-2015 at 03:38 AM.
[rem IMG]https://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i45/pob_aka_robg/Spork/project_spork.jpg[rem /IMG] [rem IMG]https://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i45/pob_aka_robg/dichotomy/dichotomy_footer_zps1c040519.jpg[rem /IMG]
Pob's new mod, Soviet Pob Propaganda style Laptop.
"Are you suggesting that I can't punch an entire dimension into submission?" - Flying squirrel - The Red Panda Adventures
Sorry photobucket links broken
Bah I had seen nothing about Skylake not supporting 1.5v ram.
Just thought motherboard needed to support ram I'm using.
Orders placed now so I'm gonna be out of pocket to sort it.
If it definitely won't work I might aswell phone Amazon and cancel the ram.
Motherboard I've got doesn't look like it supports DDR4 either so need DDR3L right?
Ah so confusing. Back remembering what I hate about PC building and re confirms my reasoning behind NOT going PC gaming.
Cheers for the reply.
Amazon hasn't shipped so cancelled the ram online so no big problem.
Looking at replacements now. Going to go back down to 8gb from 16gb to stay on budget with DDR3L.
Google shows very few benefit from 16gb anyway unless intensive use.
Personally,I just think you have spent more than you need on the CPU to for a very basic build,and half the benchmarks on sites bare no realworld use.
Do you even realise,things like the iTunes and music converting benchmarks are pointless?? They first rip CDs to WAV and they load it onto an SSD or a RAMDISK and the convert from there . In reality the disc drive is the biggest limitation anyway,which I should know after trying some tests myself.
Plus 1TB is not as much as you think for media and music.
This is why I suggested the A8 7600 - £30 does not seem much,but its enough for you to have had a 3TB drive instead of a 1TB one:
http://www.cclonline.com/product/727...3KUaAmr98P8HAQ
Plus this motherboard supports 8 SATA 3 ports too:
http://www.ebuyer.com/658043-asrock-...a88m-extreme4-
Its also cheaper,than the Intel ones.
Meh,
I decided on Intel out of simplicity from the get go as I had more previous knowledge about their i3/5/7 range versus absolutely no knowledge of AMDs since Athlon 64s a long time ago.
I'm hoping the overspend on the CPU will mean the machine lasts a year extra than it would have without. I've barely looked at any benchmarks and not wanting to take the build too seriously.
Who needs 8 Sata ports lol?
I'll add a 2 or 3tb HDD later on and that should do the build all it needs for as long as it lives.
Needs new monitor / speakers / headphones / keyboard.
Before that i need money :s
No, double check it. Only the G4400 has the worse HD 510. The G4500 and G4520 have the identical HD 530 to the i3-6100 (even down to clockspeed).Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
As for performance, what makes you think they're much faster? Even the Haswell ones weren't that far off and from the few benchmarks I've seen Intel has halved the gap between them:
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/940-...ique-jeux.html
DDR4 for some reason doesn't seem much faster for IGPs than DDR3.
You don't need to spend money, it's very unlikely your memory won't run at 1.35V even if you have to bump it down a speed.
Considering you said it was for media usage and some Indie games,those kind of tasks are not massively CPU intensive last time I checked,so in the end thats I why I suggested a cheaper option,and TBH,I have gone with the cheaper or older,secondhand options for years,and its served me well,LOL.
All,this stuff of spending more on CPUs to last longer is all what sites want to sell,which is one thing if you want to do complex stuff. but for basic stuff we have hit that plateau years ago.
For media use,I find the major limitation that me or any of my mates have is storage capacity if you want to physically store a series or lots of films on the computer.
A relative's PC has an A6 3670K which was a £60 quad core APU from a few years ago,and with an SSD I don't see any difference between that and my Core i7 3770/Xeon E3 1230 V2 with a faster SSD,16GB off DDR3, a faster storage drive and a GTX960 for media usage and web browsing.
That PC is now 3.5 years old and still more than enough for everyday stuff. Heck,I even compared it to a Core i3 2100 and Core i3 3220 running an HD5670 GDDR5 which was faster than it all benchmarks.
Bagnaj97 on here has a slighly newer A10 5800K based rig at home too and it seems speady enough for most everyday usage. Mates, A10 5800K based rig acts as a media,Mumble and Minecraft server in an Elite 120 mini-ITX case.
I don't see even the difference for normal stuff with a mates Xeon E3 1230 V3/Core i7 4770 based rig with an R9 280.
Half the reason why I even have a half decent rig is that I do a lot of photo stuff and play some demanding games.
The tasks you mention are so light,that even a Core2 Quad or Phenom II X4 with an SSD and a recent graphics card will be more than enough 9/10.
I talk from experience of having to build,upgrade or spec many of these types of rigs.
Its probably moot now,but ultimately one of the side effects of tablets,is companies are trying to actually improve how well stuff runs now.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 23-11-2015 at 12:18 AM.
Right,firstly F1 is massively CPU limited - so a Core i5 rather than a Pentium will post better framerates and uses upto 4 threads. Even then the A8 7600 is still faster than a Core i5 6600K in both F1 and BF4,and even in LoL is faster but that does not matter as both are fast enough. My relatives A6 3670K which is nearly 4 years old can run it fine on an IGP!!
W3 is faster on the A8 7600 but the framerates are rubbish so it does not matter anyway.
W3 and BF4 both like quad cores - so don't think all of a sudden the Pentium dual core really is comparable.
Some,other comparisons:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9483/i...-generation/20
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...kylake,14.html
http://www.computershopper.com/compo.../3#review-body
Many of the games thread well too,so I really doubt the Pentium dual core will actually be as good.
Its a common thing Intel does - it makes sure the Core i5 and Core i7 chips are tested with regards to IGP performance and people assume the lower chips will be the same.
In a number of them the Core i3s is slower than the Core i5 and Core i7 IGPs and all those games thread well.
So the Pentium is going to be slower overall.
Edit!!
What I would like for more websites to do is frametime analysis,and minimums.
Second Edit!!
Also,I would not trust Intel drivers as being as good as what AMD or Nvidia can push out. GRID2 is Intel sponsored,even down to some specific AA implementation. None of the Haswell or Skylake Core i5 CPUs are faster in the game!
Intel,without L4 cache,has more memory bandwidth available than the AMD equivalent too.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 23-11-2015 at 12:37 AM.
I never said a G4500 wasn't slower, in fact I specifically stated the A8-7600 was marginally faster graphics-wise.
As for F1 being massively CPU limited, why is the i5 slower than the A8 is that's the case? Those results certainly don't look like it's CPU limited when it's working with integrated graphics. Or the 5675C vs. 6600K results - similar CPU speed but one is 50% faster.
And yet the Anandtech test you links shows the Pentium G3258 posting higher frame rates in every test with a GTX 770 other than shadow of mordor, and the G4500 is 9% faster on clock speed even before you take into account the skylake design improvements.
And as I said above, reducing the graphical power is only going to make the CPU power more irrelevent.
You're looking at the Haswell results? The i3-4330 has it's graphics clocked slightly slower than the 4690, which will account for a 5% lower frame rate.
No disagreement here on either point, although the second does mean there'll be performance improvements in the future if IGP power continues to grow and more people game on them.
No,it won't be "marginally" faster - the A8 7600 is massively faster to the point of being more playable. If the A8 CPUs are faster than a Core i5 in a game which threads well,then it is unlikely a dual core with slower clockspeeds and less cache will be the same speed. The Core i5 with a discrete card is faster than any AMD CPU in the game,and if a Core i5 can't beat or even match an AMD A8 with a worse CPU when using the IGP,then it is fantasy land for the G4500 to be "marginally" slower.
Still 4 threads versus two threads for the Pentium.
Its going to be slower period than the A8 7600 or any of the AMD CPUs period and not marginally in any gaming IGP tests.
You mean where the Core i5 and Core i7 chips are anything from 10% to 30% faster??
So taking that into account,that the Core i7 6700K is generally slower than the A8 7600,that means there will be cases where the A8 7600 will probably be close to 40% or maybe even 50% faster slower than the G4500,which is not marginal.
It will also probably not paint a good picture for the G4500 either.
Yet the Core i3 4330 has the same IGP as the Core i5 4690K and can be massively slower.And yet the Anandtech test you links shows the Pentium G3258 posting higher frame rates in every test with a GTX 770 other than shadow of mordor, and the G4500 is 9% faster on clock speed even before you take into account the skylake design improvements.
Edit!!
Lets look at the Anandtech results again.
In GRID the Core i7 4790K/Core i7 4770K are around 15% faster than the Core i3 4330.
So,looking at the Core i7 6700K results,that would mean a Skylake Core i3 will be yield about 30FPS,which would make the slowest AMD chip around 40% to 50% faster.
The G4500 is probably going to be at best the same speed or slower.
In Shadow of Mordor,the Core i7 4790K/Core i7 4770K is 21% faster than the Core i3 4330(Anandtech must have made a typo in the review),and the slower AMD IGP is 20% faster.
So,looking at the Core i7 6700K results,that would mean a Skylake Core i3 will be yield about 30FPS,which would make the slowest AMD chip around 40% to 50% faster.
The G4500 is probably going to be at best the same speed or slower.
GTAV looks about the same,with the Core i3 being 20% slower than the Core i7,and the Skylake IGP with DDR3 does poorly in this game too.
In Total War,the game is probably CPU limited to some degree on the AMD chips as it does need decent single thread performance too - I expect the G4500 to be somewhat closer,but still a tad slower.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 23-11-2015 at 03:53 PM.
The A8 is only going to be faster than an i5 when the game is GPU limited, and when the game is GPU limited a slower CPU isn't going to have any impact unless it's less good at gaming. Given that Anandtech's tests with the GTX 770 showed the Pentium was better in games than the A8 when the integrated graphics was taken out, why would there be a performance drop?
It's are irrelevant as comparing their clockspeed. It's only performance that matters.
I was talking about the i5 non-k, the i7-k has double the speed increase (1150Mhz to 1250Mhz)
So on clockspeed alone the 4790k is 8.7% faster. I see increases of:
Alien Isolation - 11%
Total War Atilla - 12.6%
GRID - 12.9%
The shadow of mordor result is obviously wrong as there's no reason the 4330 should be behind the 4130T and I'm not quite sure what's happening with GTA V's 23% difference.
So the unaccounted for drop between a quad core with hyper-threading, turbo boost and 8MB cache to a dual core with hyper-threading and 4MB cache in most games is circa 3%
If we take the clockspeed difference between HD 530 implementations and add 3% on to it that gives us 33.22fps. That makes the A10-7700 - which is closest to the A8-7600 GPU-wise - 34.6% faster. Although the A8-7600 may itself be a few percent slower.
And that's appears to be the largest difference between the 6700k and 7700, many are much smaller.
The Core i3 4330 and the Core i7 4770K have the same IGP and not much difference in single threaded CPU performance too.
Core i3 4330
http://ark.intel.com/products/77769/...Cache-3_50-GHz
Core i7 4770Processor Graphics ‡ Intel® HD Graphics 4600
Graphics Base Frequency 350 MHz
Graphics Max Dynamic Frequency 1.15 GHz
Graphics Video Max Memory 1.7 GB
http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/...up-to-3_90-GHz
There is only an 8.6% increase in IGP Turbo for the Core i7 4770,which is not reflected in any of the scores,making the Core i3 suddenly an equal.Processor Graphics ‡ Intel® HD Graphics 4600
Graphics Base Frequency 350 MHz
Graphics Max Dynamic Frequency 1.25 GHz
Graphics Video Max Memory 1.7 GB
Alien:Isolation
i7 4770 is 14% faster.
Total War: Attila
i7 4770 is 19.9% faster.
Grand Theft Auto V
i7 4770 is 23.3% faster.
GRID: Autosport
i7 4770 is 14.5% faster.
Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor
i7 4770 is 26.6% faster(Anandtech made a typo with the Core i3 4130T when its the Core i3 4330).
In every case the Core i7 4770K with the same IGP as the Core i3 4330(HD4600) is significantly faster than the Core i3 4330. If the HD4600 was plonked onto a dual core it would be slower still.
But lets,look at the figures if the same pattern holds for the Core i7 6700 with DDR3 and the A8 CPU,which in this case is the A8 7650K.
Lets see where a Skylake Core i3(NOT a Pentium) would lie.
Game 1: Alien: Isolation
A8 7650K is 14.3% faster.
Take the same scaling from Core i7 4770 to Core i3 4330,that would give a Skylake Core i3 a score of 24.89,making the A8 30% faster.
Game 2: Total War: Attila
A8 7650K is 17.1% faster.
Take the same scaling from Core i7 4770 to Core i3 4330,that would give a Skylake Core i3 a score of 21.5,making the A8 39.5% faster.
Game 3:Grand Theft Auto V
A8 7650K is 38% faster.
Take the same scaling from Core i7 4770 to Core i3 4330,that would give a Skylake Core i3 a score of 29.77,making the A8 67% faster.
Game4:GRID: Autosport
A8 7650K is 32.7% faster.
Take the same scaling from Core i7 4770 to Core i3 4330,that would give a Skylake Core i3 a score of 30.92,making the A8 52% faster.
Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor
A8 7650K is 19.6% faster.
Take the same scaling from Core i7 4770 to Core i3 4330,that would give a Skylake Core i3 a score of 29.36,making the A8 51% faster.
Edit!!
Lets look at the scores if a more expensive DDR4 platform was used.
Game 1,the A8 7650K would 25% faster.
Game 2,the A8 7650K would be 33% faster.
Game 3,the A8 7650K would be 39% faster.
Game 4,the A8 7650K would be 43% faster.
Game 5,the A8 7650K would be 40% faster.
The Core i7 6700K has an IGP clocked at maximum 9.5% higher than the G4500 too,which is close to the difference between the Core i7 4770K and the Core i3 4330.
So you are probably going to see a similar variation in performance too.
The Pentium is not going to faster than a Haswell Core i3. Even then the A8 IGP is not marginally faster. Its much faster.
Second Edit!!
Plus the A8 7600 and A8 7650K have the same IGP clockspeeds and the same number of shaders.
A8 7600
http://products.amd.com/en-us/search...2-R7-Series/62
A8 7650KGraphics Specifications
GRAPHICS MODEL AMD Radeon™ R7 Graphics
DIRECTX VERSION DirectX® 12
GRAPHICS FREQUENCY 720 MHz
GRAPHICS CORE COUNT 384
http://products.amd.com/en-us/search...2-R7-Series/63
Exactly the same IGPs.Graphics Specifications
GRAPHICS MODEL AMD Radeon™ R7 Graphics
DIRECTX VERSION DirectX® 12
GRAPHICS FREQUENCY 720 MHz
GRAPHICS CORE COUNT 384
So we can agree to disagree if you think the G4500 is not much slower than an A8 7600 with regards to the IGP,but looking at what I can see I don't think so,especially with DDR3.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 26-11-2015 at 02:10 AM.
why not get an r7 250x that would be better than a 5450.
Maybe a bit late to the party but don't forget to try flubit, they often beat amazons prices by 5%
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
