Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Intel Pentium G3258 On Linux

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,102

    Default Intel Pentium G3258 On Linux

    Phoronix: Intel Pentium G3258 On Linux

    Up for review today on Phoronix is the Pentium G3258, the new processor Intel put out in celebration of their Pentium brand turning 20 years old. This new Pentium G3258 processor costs under $100 USD and comes unlocked for offering quite a bit overclocking potential while this Pentium CPU can be used by current Intel 8 and 9 Series Chipsets. Here's our first benchmarks of the Intel Pentium G3258 using Ubuntu Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20692

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,070

    Default

    For those wondering how this Pentium G3258 stacks up against AMD APUs under Linux, I hope to have those numbers ready in the days to come.
    I would like to see that, but not sure comparabile APU exists , comparabile to both CPU/GPU performance . This sounds like A8-7600, but with Radeon R3 graphics instead of R7 .
    Last edited by dungeon; 07-16-2014 at 03:11 PM.

  3. #3

    Default

    For many tasks in the testing process, the pentium manages to beat the Core i3. Not bad for a CPU 40 cheaper (yes, I'm french). It's just a pity the graphics part is so limited.

    Still a good runner for cheap web-browsing/office/videoplay machine.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    15

    Default

    I've seen some processors in my life, and all of them (intel and amd) reported in the surface a year that is about 2-3 years before the official launch date, like this pentium that reports [20]11.
    What is representing that year stamped on the cpu? It is possible that this pentium was already conceived in 2011?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morpheus View Post
    For many tasks in the testing process, the pentium manages to beat the Core i3. Not bad for a CPU 40 cheaper (yes, I'm french). It's just a pity the graphics part is so limited.

    Still a good runner for cheap web-browsing/office/videoplay machine.
    The pentium beats the i3 when highly overclocked. When you consider the money you waste on a heatsink and power consumption, this isn't really that impressive. If I have a discrete GPU, intel's IGP is pretty much worthless anyway so I personally wouldn't really care about how crappy that is.

    For roughly $20 more, I'd much rather get the i3. The only time I see this CPU being worth anyone's time and money is if they have a highly single-threaded task.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    The pentium beats the i3 when highly overclocked. When you consider the money you waste on a heatsink and power consumption, this isn't really that impressive. If I have a discrete GPU, intel's IGP is pretty much worthless anyway so I personally wouldn't really care about how crappy that is.

    For roughly $20 more, I'd much rather get the i3. The only time I see this CPU being worth anyone's time and money is if they have a highly single-threaded task.
    Not to mention you need a very expensive Z87 or Z97 motherboard to overclock it. If you buy the i3, you can recover the difference by buying a cheaper motherboard. Pretty pointless product.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    You don't need an expensive mobo. It's a good CPU for gamers since they can get excellent single-threaded performance on the cheap and spend their money on a better GPU.

    Looking at newegg, this chip is $70 and the cheapest Haswell i3 (3.4GHz) is $125. That's a little more than a $20 difference...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,283

    Default

    without no major motherboard vendors having ported their tuning/overclocking software from Windows to Linux
    ^I think some thoughts collided there.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post
    For roughly $20 more, I'd much rather get the i3. The only time I see this CPU being worth anyone's time and money is if they have a highly single-threaded task.
    You mean FX-6300.

    None of these low-end chips even get close to my 4.6 ghz 6300 :/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peppercats View Post
    You mean FX-6300.

    None of these low-end chips even get close to my 4.6 ghz 6300 :/
    Lol that too - I own a 6300 myself, at 4.4GHz (with cool'n'quiet on - I'd rather get power savings than the extra 200mhz). I could maybe push it to 4.5 if I upped the voltage a little but I'm satisfied at 4.4.

    I would have to say though, the 6300, even at its stock speed, is far more power consuming.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •