Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Pentium G4600: A Surprising 3.6GHz Kabylake CPU For $90

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by dungeon View Post

    Where do you see Excavator there? Athlon X4 845 is only one CPU for Desktop PC with Excavator core And that one is 25% faster on singlethread than original Bulldozer per clock
    Excavator vs Kabylake Pentium: 65% single thread and 100% hyper thread.

    Excavator vs Hyperthread Pentium: 65% single thread and 80% multi thread.

    AMD multi thread vs single thread = 1.5x uplift.

    Intel multi thread vs single thread = 1.25x uplift.
    Last edited by artivision; 31 January 2017, 04:48 PM.

    Comment


    • #22
      I looked at an 860k or 880k or FX-6300 instead of the G4600. Once you consider motherboard, the AMD parts are a better deal. But think of upgrades - in two or three years, I can swap the G4600 for a used Kaby Lake i7 for $200 or a used Kaby Lake i5 for $100. After the two years with the AMD, to boost CPU performance I would need a new motherboard and processor, and DDR4.

      That said, the G4600 was for my kid's computer. My own PC is six years old. I'm planning on getting an AMD Zen upgrade this summer unless AMD botches terribly on price or performance.

      Comment


      • #23
        If anyone upgrades not out of necessity right now..and doesn't wait for Ryzen you might as well open up your mouth and pull the trigger.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by grndzro View Post
          If anyone upgrades not out of necessity right now..and doesn't wait for Ryzen you might as well open up your mouth and pull the trigger.
          Ryzen setups will be more expensive to made anyway... so these still make sense if amount of money is the problem

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by JS987 View Post
            HD 630 is good enough for non-gaming PC. Games are waste of time anyway.
            Missed to say there that this is good way to say nothing , as you can just change model number and said this 10 years ago but also 10 years from now or at any other year in between and it would again like now have no meaning
            Last edited by dungeon; 31 January 2017, 09:09 PM.

            Comment


            • #26
              The Xeon E3-1235L v5 (which is just over a year old) took a beating from a $90 Pentium chip 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by dungeon View Post

                Ryzen setups will be more expensive to made anyway... so these still make sense if amount of money is the problem
                If money is a problem then dont upgrade, unless its a gfx card. CPU performance has increased so little and it wont make a difference for most applications.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by dungeon View Post

                  Ryzen setups will be more expensive to made anyway... so these still make sense if amount of money is the problem
                  Rumor has it that AMD will be releasing an actual quad core which is about equivalent to an i5 in the $150 price range though which sounds worth it.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by dungeon View Post

                    Missed to say there that this is good way to say nothing , as you can just change model number and said this 10 years ago but also 10 years from now or at any other year in between and it would again like now have no meaning
                    True ... Funnily enough this time 10 years ago I was just about coming to the end of the honeymoon period with my fresh and shiny HP ultraportable, with its similarly overachieving Pentium-M, early example of Speedstep, and OK-for-desktop-use i915 graphics... It could do SOME 3D gaming so long as you were realistic about what something able to drop its whole-system TDP to 7 watts (amazing at the time...) could achieve at peak... but really most of the time it was more usefully a thoroughbred 2D machine.

                    And there's not really that much more a modern system has to do on that front even with the fanciest of "traditional" desktop UIs. Running an internal 2.5K panel plus a pair of 4K monitors over Displayport would be beyond it (the limit was 1080p external and XGA internal, but still at 32bit and 75+ hz refresh if you wanted it / your screen could support it), so there'd need to be a slight speed and memory boost just to fling sufficient pixels around, but that's about all.

                    Moved on to a later iteration of the same family in 2013 and apart from the OS and rez upgrade, being able to play full HD material more easiliy and run games that were actually kind of contemporary (...at the time; Burnout Paradise and such) thanks to it now having an i5 under the hood, and there being much less waiting around thanks to the SSD, the overall experience is much the same now as it was in '06... which is something I don't think could otherwise be said of typical computing experiences across any 10 or even 7 year gap before that.

                    (yes, it really did survive in active service that long - what killed it was a combination of its second battery finally dying at about the same time as the keyboard falling to bits, as well as Youtube and iPlayer moving to presumably driver-incompatible HTML5 players cutting the maximum quality to a fan-screaming 360p instead of a lazy 480 wide or 720 narrow; and in fact I now keep it running on permanent AC as a remote-desktop or bluetooth 'board controlled video capture and DIY SAN now, given how it can idle down to even lower consumption when the screen and disc turn off completely... just ban it from external internet access at the router level and the fact of it being on XP isn't much of an issue. Similarly there's a bunch of '08 vintage Core 2's at work - including the one I'm writing this on! - with 965 and Q35/45 chipsets that, with the cheapo SSD upgrades we've given them, would be more or less indistinguishable from the i5's that have been gradually replacing them if you enclosed them sufficiently to disguise their cases and set the BIOSes all to have completely silent POST... Which definitely can't be said about the computers they replaced, or that have been kicked out in-between to make way for interim models, which were desperately out of their depth both computationally and in terms of graphics power... Little wonder Intel don't really bother offering graphics as a separate thing any more and just build it into the processors, for the base-level stuff there's really no point in either developing it further, or anyone paying for it)

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by nomadewolf View Post
                      It's basically the new i3... or rather the i2...
                      I might have said the i1, but then you have the question of what the Celeron and Atom would become under such a scheme.
                      Given how the older pre-"G" series Pentiums (for example, the literal "Dual Core" models) were definitely lacking in the horses department versus their immediate replacements - which might not have been super stunning, but could at least compete on a level field with prior-gen Core 2 Duos and Quads instead of being hammered into the dirt by them - this showing probably warrants a quiet upgrade.

                      Thus we have Atom as i-Zero, Celeron as i1, Pentium as i2, then the familiar i3/5/7 ... maybe there's space to stretch things so that the upper i3s become 4s, 5s branch into 6s, and 7s into 8s? (Xeons could be i9 and maybe even 10, then). Or, what with the rather close similarity between i3 and Pentium anyway, the lower examples of each class could be dropped a number instead (and the Atom can be considered a "junior" Celeron, instead of the Celeron being a junior Pentium?). Or you spread both ways from 5, and so down from 3 and 1, up from 7 and 9. The possibilities are manifold.
                      (or indeed the Pentium/i2 could be the centre of a 1-2-3 family, under a midrange 4-5-6, and then something blurring the lines between the current top end desktop processors and the Xeons could be the bedrock of the 7-8-9... with Atom either being Zero, or just out on its own due to its use in pocketable devices despite still being a "proper" x86 / i64 CPU... and, hmm, what if anything might come in at the top end to take the "10" slot?)

                      And in any case, by rights, the Pentium should have become the i5 in the first place, shouldn't it... That would make the most sense given it's history. Centre of the range. Lower grades below it (i3 for Celeron, i1 for Atom), and the more performant ones above it (this timeline's i5 becoming the alternative i7, and our Xeon the i9, with the lower and upper desktop chips slotting in at 6 and 8 maybe, or just being upper/lower outliers within the 5-7-9 groupings).

                      They're trying to draw mental parallels in the customers' minds with BMW, though, aren't they ... and their core model lines are of course the 3, 5 and 7 series... whilst they do make others (particularly the 1, 4 and 6), they're either not really as aspirational, or are kind of weirdo and niche. Plus, of course, the "X" and "M" variants... though they mean something different and indeed pretty much opposite in processor land vs the cars!

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X