Pentium Anniversary Edition (4.7 GHz dual core for 75$). How well would this run KSP?

[PTNLemay]

So in case you hadn't heard Intel came out with an interesting new CPU lately. It uses the latest 22 nm architecture, but it keeps things relatively simple and no-nonsense otherwise. What you get is a non-complicated but solid chip that can be overclocked quite well. I've heard people can get up to 4.7 on air and supposedly even higher using liquid cooling.

http://www.pcgamer.com/review/intel-pentium-anniversary-edition-g3258-review/

http://www.techpowerup.com/202711/pentium-20th-anniversary-edition-g3258-reaches-6861-7-mhz-on-msi-motherboard.html

Why I bring this up here is because KSP is limited by it's lack of multi-thread support (from what I understand at least), and this chip is ideally suited for situations like that. Where you want to beef up a small number of threads instead of trying to get 8 of them running simultaneously. So... has anyone here tested it? Can anyone confirm that this chip does infact run KSP like a beast. Or if I'm totally wrong could you explain why single-thread optimized chips like this wouldn't help in playing the game.

[Stealth2668]

Sounds good in theory but most games these days can use 4 or more threads. I wouldn't go with a dual core just for one game. You can get an i5 and OC it to almost the same speed. However, if you're looking for a dual core specifically or are on a tight budget, that chip sounds great.

[PTNLemay]

Right, I wouldn't get rid of my i5 Ivy Bridge just to help me play KSP. But... it is an interesting thing to think about. On air I can't get my chip much higher than 4.3. I wonder just how much benefits the game would see if I ran something with Haswell architecture overclocked to 4.7.

[cantab]

I'm interested in it myself. The performance will be a touch unusual; in some cases, such as KSP, it'll rival chips three plus times the price, while in others it'll be more run-of-the-mill. For a new build, like I'm planning, it seems like a good budget choice, and I may opt for it rather than pay the extra for an OC-able i5. Of course you do run the risk of getting a lemon that doesn't overclock well.

[Stealth2668]

FYI, lemons are great for OC'ing. Better than oranges at least.

[Red Iron Crown]

I've been watching the benchmarks on this chip, it seems like an incredible single-thread performer in its price class if you're willing to overclock. Even a "lemon" chip should get near 4GHz.

The only caveats are it works best with a more expensive overclockable chipset like the Z97, and it won't perform as competitively in KSP if the physics ever go multithreaded.

[_Aramchek_]

KSP uses more than two threads, I wouldn't think it would be worth it tbh..maybe if you're upgrading from an older amd setup it would be a good buy..but meh..I would think it's too much of a tradeoff for this game and even moreso for other games

I mean sure, if your test the overclocked pentium against a stock i5/i7..it looks ok...but you can also easily get most i5/i7's to 4.5-5ghz too. I know which I'd rather have.

.

[PTNLemay]

KSP uses more than two threads.

It does? I thought that was the main reason why KSP couldn't handle huge constructions. How even with crazy 4 or 6 or 8 core CPUs, after 1000 parts or so it can't spread the load across multiple threads properly and it stutters just as much as if you had a dual-core.

I heard the same about SketchUp, after a certain number of polygons it just stutters, regardless of how many cores you have.

[LaytheAerospace]

I've heard people can get up to 4.7 on air and supposedly even higher using liquid cooling.

Liquid cooling a budget chip doesn't make a ton of sense. You'll spend much more on your cooling than on your CPU. You're better off spending that extra money on a better CPU. Also, keep in mind that clock speed is just one factor in performance. Budget chips skimp in other areas, too. A G3258 at 4.7 GHz is not likely to have the same single threaded performance as a 4570k at 4.7 GHz.

As far as cooling is concerned, you can actually get a lot of overclocking out of cheap fans. I'm using the Hyper 212 Plus with a pair of Cougar fans swapped in. Here's what I was able to do. All these overclocks were stable, and were benchmarked using SuperPi.

Here's my best 2500k with all four cores active.

And here's what I got after turning off two of the cores.

Still, that's Sandy Bridge. Anybody can break 5.0 GHz with a 2500k. Ivy Bridge made things a lot harder. So here's my best 3770k. Probably could have gotten past 5.0 GHz if I'd gone with the 3570k, but I wanted hyperthreading. Big mistake, get the *570k if you want to overclock.

I don't own a Haswell chip, but you can get an idea for what they can do by looking at HWBot's rankings. As you can see, 5.0 GHz on air is definitely doable. Doesn't look much harder than Ivy Bridge.

So, my recommendation is to get a *570k chip from Intel, whatever is newest, and overclock that. You'll spend more, but you get just as much, if not more, single threaded performance. Plus you keep all the cores, which while most games still don't make good use of more than one core, having more cores reduces competition for cycles, resulting in fewer context switches and less stuttering from high CPU load.

[Red Iron Crown]

KSP is multithreaded, but the single physics thread so dominates the other threads in CPU requirements that its performance scales much like a single threaded application.

Of course an i5 or i7 will perform similarly at similar clocks in single threads and significantly better at heavily threaded tasks, but the cheapest i5 is more than twice as expensive ($74 vs $195 where I live); that's money that can go toward a better GPU or an SSD. If you're building a mid- to high-end system the i5 can fit in the budget better, but at the low-end the unlocked Pentium is an incredible value.

[kujuman]

It does? I thought that was the main reason why KSP couldn't handle huge constructions. How even with crazy 4 or 6 or 8 core CPUs, after 1000 parts or so it can't spread the load across multiple threads properly and it stutters just as much as if you had a dual-core.

I heard the same about SketchUp, after a certain number of polygons it just stutters, regardless of how many cores you have.

Yes, it does. At the very least, sound is a separate thread. I would not be totally shocked if the contracts checking system or the like can get its own thread. The bottleneck now is the physics integrator. It is a single thread right now is will be for the foreseeable future due to what are understood to be limits in Unity/developer time.

edit

actually, now that I think about it, I bet most mods are being run in that same thread (apparently parts of Mechjeb can run asynchronously). Someone who knows what they're doing might be able to write a guide for multithreading KSP addons.

Edited July 13, 2014 by kujuman

[_Aramchek_]

It does? I thought that was the main reason why KSP couldn't handle huge constructions. How even with crazy 4 or 6 or 8 core CPUs, after 1000 parts or so it can't spread the load across multiple threads properly and it stutters just as much as if you had a dual-core.

I heard the same about SketchUp, after a certain number of polygons it just stutters, regardless of how many cores you have.

The physics engine runs on one thread, the game itself does use multiple cores/threads.

I had an 8 core amd chip and it switched between and used every available core, the physics engine while only running on one core and being the biggest bottleneck, isn't all there is to the game though.

As "LaytheAerospace" points out, there is more to a cpu than just the clockspeed, cache amounts and latencies may be different, etc and this can have profound impacts on performance...and that's just one aspect where it's possible they have likely cut some corners with this chip.

If you want a big boost, look for a sandy bridge or vy bridge i5 chip, clock it to the gills and you will have the best possible chip for the game at the moment.

Again, I only think the chip is an "incredible value" if you're wanting to jump to intel from amd, otherwise it doesn't make much sense, you could spend a little bit more, and pick up a guaranteed good overclocking chip second hand or something..that's what I'd do instead.

Edited July 13, 2014 by _Aramchek_

[DMagic]

I'm guessing that at default clock speeds this will probably run about the same as any other desktop i3. The real value here is that this is overclockable, something that's not normally possible with Intel's low end chips (which is really sad...). So I'm sure that if you can get a good overclock this will do better than the higher end i5s at stock speeds.

The problem is that if you want to get a good overclock you'll probably have to spend a lot on higher end components (mostly the motherboard) and cooling, and you might just be better off getting an i5 and calling it a day. The quad-core chips will almost certainly be better for most other games, and hopefully KSP if they ever update the PhysX engine.

[Stealth2668]

KSP is multithreaded, but the single physics thread so dominates the other threads in CPU requirements that its performance scales much like a single threaded application.

Of course an i5 or i7 will perform similarly at similar clocks in single threads and significantly better at heavily threaded tasks, but the cheapest i5 is more than twice as expensive ($74 vs $195 where I live); that's money that can go toward a better GPU or an SSD. If you're building a mid- to high-end system the i5 can fit in the budget better, but at the low-end the unlocked Pentium is an incredible value.

Putting extra money into a GPU by holding back on the CPU wouldn't make sense since the GPU will just get bottlenecked. If you're gonna spend money on any component, it would be your PSU then your CPU. If you're going for a lower end build, you'd also get a lower end GPU, but you're not gonna be able to run a great GPU off a $75 CPU.

[Red Iron Crown]

Putting extra money into a GPU by holding back on the CPU wouldn't make sense since the GPU will just get bottlenecked. If you're gonna spend money on any component, it would be your PSU then your CPU. If you're going for a lower end build, you'd also get a lower end GPU, but you're not gonna be able to run a great GPU off a $75 CPU.

That's just it, though; when overclocked this $75 CPU performs about as well as one that costs 3x as much for lightly threaded apps (which most games are). Well enough to keep a mid-range GPU fed.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Removed superfluous article.

[Bean]

For the price, the CPU is about the best thing you can use for a basic gaming PC, particularly for KSP. You will need to overclock it though. Still for $200ish (CPU/Mobo/HSF) you can't do better, and you can always drop in an unlocked i5 down the track to boost your performance.

I'm about to do a build with this CPU for a friend.

[John FX]

Just so you know for future planning, the latest Unity has multi-threaded phys-x which means spending money for KSp on fewer cores may not work out so well in the long run.

It used to be that, as KSP was 32 bit, a few 32 bit cores would run the same as many 64 bit cores but now KSP will be 64 bit one of those balances has gone and if Unity with multi threaded phys-x becomes a thing then multiple cores will have an advantage over less cores...

[Linear]

It's a fantastic CPU, will easily cope with the best games for another couple years with overclocking. When it isn't as great anymore, it has a fantastic upgrade path to an i5 or an i7.

[boxman]

KSP uses more than two threads, I wouldn't think it would be worth it tbh..maybe if you're upgrading from an older amd setup it would be a good buy..but meh..I would think it's too much of a tradeoff for this game and even moreso for other games

I mean sure, if your test the overclocked pentium against a stock i5/i7..it looks ok...but you can also easily get most i5/i7's to 4.5-5ghz too. I know which I'd rather have.

.

You seem to forget the possibility that this chip will overclock better than any other chip. And even though KSP uses more than one thread it will have no effects in KSP since physics only uses one.

[Linear]

You seem to forget the possibility that this chip will overclock better than any other chip. And even though KSP uses more than one thread it will have no effects in KSP since physics only uses one.

And the fact it's significantly cheaper.

[Cdr_Zeta]

Hi,

Ya know I read about the faster single/dual cores; in fact my stream monitor computer is runnin XP at the moment; I never gave it a thought to try the game on it since either this game or Minecraft blew up my quad core power supply an all. I now since monitor temps like a hawk.

I will give mine a try someday soon here; I wouldnt be surprised if it ran cooler but then again...

Cmdr Zeta

[Stealth2668]

That's just it, though; when overclocked this $75 CPU performs about as well as one that costs 3x as much for lightly threaded apps (which most games are). Well enough to keep a mid-range GPU fed.

When overclocked ya, but that's assuming you can achieve 4.7Ghz. Even then it only applies to lightly threaded games. If you want to play BF4 then you have to get the highest OC possible on that chip to have a chance at a smooth experience. Too much banks on getting a high OC to make it a good chip. Like I said before though, if you're on a budget then it's good or if you're not into gaming, but there's a reason why those quads and 8 core cpu's are more expensive and mainstream; because dual cores is outdated and have to be pushed to the limits to rival quad cores at stock speeds. This leave no headroom for the future when quads are pretty much the minimum requirement.

[_Aramchek_]

You seem to forget the possibility that this chip will overclock better than any other chip. And even though KSP uses more than one thread it will have no effects in KSP since physics only uses one.

Except that it doesn't clock better than any other chip, as I already said it's an average clocking intel chip, it clocks about teh same as anything else they make..but it is neutered down to two cores..

And, the game IS multithreaded, and while the physics thread is the biggest bottleneck, that does not mean that if you buy a dual core chip, that other areas of the game can't also become bottlenecks if you don't have the cpu power to keep the rest of the game flowing along.

And it's cheaper, because it's aimed at the low end market..there is a reason for that..you get what you pay for.

[Linear]

When overclocked ya, but that's assuming you can achieve 4.7Ghz. Even then it only applies to lightly threaded games. If you want to play BF4 then you have to get the highest OC possible on that chip to have a chance at a smooth experience. Too much banks on getting a high OC to make it a good chip. Like I said before though, if you're on a budget then it's good or if you're not into gaming, but there's a reason why those quads and 8 core cpu's are more expensive and mainstream; because dual cores is outdated and have to be pushed to the limits to rival quad cores at stock speeds. This leave no headroom for the future when quads are pretty much the minimum requirement.

Rubbish, it gets framerate extremely similar to high end i7's on 4.7, so a lower clock would easily equal an i5. And this is bf4-centred.

[_Aramchek_]

Rubbish, it gets framerate extremely similar to high end i7's on 4.7, so a lower clock would easily equal an i5. And this is bf4-centred.

Oh, at 4.7 ghz it's as good as a stock i7..color me unimpressed, because an i7, or better yet an i5, will also easily hit 4.7ghz..and I doubt, highly doubt, that the pentium will actually hold it's own in a genuine gaming performance.

Why don't one of you people that think it's such a great chip buy one, clock it to 4.7ghz and we'll have a little test about just how good it really is?

Or maybe I will..$75 is nothing and I have an older pc to replace anyway..I'm betting, hands down, my i5, under any real world scenario, is going to have a fair bit more "grunt" than a neutered, low end chip that basically only exists to edge amd out of the low end market.