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

[Guest]

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.

I'm pretty sure Linus(youtube) put it up against the anniversary i7 and it was within 5/10fps the entire time.

With a medium overclock, it will beat your (and my) i5 in KSP, easily, with a high/aggressive overclock, it'll edge out an i7.

With 'stock' overclocking, it's more powerful than only but the best i3's, and those things are really underrated.

[MR4Y]

Put it simpliy.

i7 2600k OCed to 5.6 GHz. Still running strong till this day on people's rigs and capable of running anything.

[cantab]

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.

The Pentium Anniversary Edition is the exact opposite of a neutered chip. It's the non-K i5's and i7's, with their locked multipliers, that are neutered.

Nor is the Pentium AE really a low-end processor in the usual sense. Rather, I see it as targeting the budget-conscious enthusiast: someone interested in overclocking, perhaps interested in gaming (after all a fair few current games don't make full use of a quad-core chip), but unable or unwilling to spend £170 or more on the CPU.

[qromodynmc]

Well this processor is exactly what ksp wants.

[_Aramchek_]

I'm pretty sure Linus(youtube) put it up against the anniversary i7 and it was within 5/10fps the entire time.

With a medium overclock, it will beat your (and my) i5 in KSP, easily, with a high/aggressive overclock, it'll edge out an i7.

With 'stock' overclocking, it's more powerful than only but the best i3's, and those things are really underrated.

Yeah, you know, I have been doing this for quite some time, I highly doubt the claims you make, in fact it looks pretty much just like what I've already said.

At 4.8ghz it hangs with STOCK clocked 4xxx chips, the problem is, any 2500k through 4xxxk i5 chip will ALSO clock to those speeds.

Do the math, if it's at 4.8ghz and edging out a stock clocked (3.2ghz)2500k..a chip known for being able to hit 5ghz+, how well do you think it will compare once you start overclocking that 2500k?

Not very well is the answer.

Also, looking at frame times, which is a better metric of performance..all I have to say is "no thank you".

http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor/3

[PTNLemay]

i7 2600k OCed to 5.6 GHz. Still running strong till this day on people's rigs and capable of running anything.

5.6... do you mean that's where you peaked, or that's what you keep it at constantly? Not to say I don't believe you, but... wouldn't that require you constantly feeding liquid nitrogen into your system?

[Guest]

Yeah, you know, I have been doing this for quite some time, I highly doubt the claims you make, in fact it looks pretty much just like what I've already said.

At 4.8ghz it hangs with STOCK clocked 4xxx chips, the problem is, any 2500k through 4xxxk i5 chip will ALSO clock to those speeds.

Do the math, if it's at 4.8ghz and edging out a stock clocked (3.2ghz)2500k..a chip known for being able to hit 5ghz+, how well do you think it will compare once you start overclocking that 2500k?

Not very well is the answer.

Also, looking at frame times, which is a better metric of performance..all I have to say is "no thank you".

http://techreport.com/review/26735/overclocking-intel-pentium-g3258-anniversary-edition-processor/3

You've been doing what for quite some times, reading synthetic benchmarks? Please.

Say you clock both to 4.7Ghz, what do you expect the frame difference to be, if you've been doing it for so long.

Because of their price difference, we're obviously not looking at most performance, but best performance. The Pentium destroys everything.

[_Aramchek_]

You've been doing what for quite some times, reading synthetic benchmarks? Please.

Say you clock both to 4.7Ghz, what do you expect the frame difference to be, if you've been doing it for so long.

Because of their price difference, we're obviously not looking at most performance, but best performance. The Pentium destroys everything.

Gaming, tweaking and overclocking, planning and executing cost effective builds/upgrades, etc.

It's not the best performance per dollar, as I have previously stated. There are better alternatives, and even paying full retail price for the lowest end unlocked i5, you still end up with a much better cpu that is at fast at it's default, unaltered speed..as that pentium clocked to it's absolute limits.

And that's not accounting for the fat that things will get increasingly mutlithreaded, it's not a good long term upgrade either, you'll need to replace it sooner which costs you just as much or more money over time for less satisfaction.

[MR4Y]

5.6... do you mean that's where you peaked, or that's what you keep it at constantly? Not to say I don't believe you, but... wouldn't that require you constantly feeding liquid nitrogen into your system?

My bad. i5 2500K @ 5GHz, not what I wrote before. You can pusht it up at the standard 1.47v. Just add a watercooler and you're ready to go.

[Red Iron Crown]

TechReport is recommending the Pentium AE as the best budget processor in their new system guide, with this gem:

Some people might be surprised to see us leave out AMD's low-end quad-core processors here. The thing is, those CPUs have rather poor single-threaded performance, and our numbers continue to show the importance of single-threaded speed in consumer apps and games. Multithreaded performance does matter, but in day-to-day use, two fast cores will feel noticeably quicker than four slow ones. The same holds true in games, where low single-threaded performance can act as a bottleneck and cause noticeable frame time spikes.

People comparing it to an i5 or i7 k-series are doing apples-to-oranges. The Pentium AE is not in their price class, and the overclocking abilities of the Pentium are likely to be greater than the quad cores unless you disable some of those cores (in which case, why not get the Pentium in the first place?). The big benefit of the Pentium is much cheaper access to an unlocked Haswell core, prior to its release the cheapest unlocked Haswell CPU was the i5 K-series at $250, more than three times the asking price of the Pentium AE with minimal improvement in single threaded performance. Of course, the i5 will stomp the Pentium in heavily threaded applications, but the vast majority of consumer software is not significantly threaded.

So I think for a consumer on a budget, the Pentium AE offers the best value proposition among current processors.

[boxman]

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.

Even though KSP is multithreaded it does currently NOT benefit from more than 2 threads since the only demanding thing is the physics which is stuck to single thread.

The only way that more cores will make a difference with current versions of KSP is if you have something running in background hogging one of the cores like for example video streaming.

But yeah if it does not overclock further then there is only the price point that is the advantage.

[_Aramchek_]

. The Pentium AE is not in their price class, and the overclocking abilities of the Pentium are likely to be greater than the quad cores unless you disable some of those cores .

Not even close to being accurate, 4.5-5ghz is a fairly standard overclock for any recent i5/i7, and since this is similar architecture, albeit neutered, it's going to have more or less the same amount of overclocking overhead.

And again, the hidden costs of the pentium add up to about the same asjust going ahead, buying either a second hand quad core, or even a brand new cheapest you can get i5 over time. It's one of those upgrades that sounds good, until you actually look at what you get vs the associated costs.

So I think for a consumer on a budget, the Pentium AE offers the best value proposition among current processors.

Even though KSP is multithreaded it does currently NOT benefit from more than 2 threads since the only demanding thing is the physics which is stuck to single thread.

The only way that more cores will make a difference with current versions of KSP is if you have something running in background hogging one of the cores like for example video streaming.

But yeah if it does not overclock further then there is only the price point that is the advantage.

I have went from a dual core to a quad core chip, of teh same architecture, similar clock speeds, and the absolute truth is that the game DOES actually benefit from it, I have played KSP on many a cpu..telling people to get a dual core chip for the game is BAD ADVICE, both economically and from a performance perspective.

And even if you do overclock, you can also overclock an i5, which you can get second hand and working good for around $100 and you will get FAAAAAARRR more out of the i5 than the pentium

Seriously, the pentium overclocked as far as it goes, is well under the performance of a stock i5..going by FRAME TIMES, which are far more important than fps..unless you like a stuttery, chuggy mess of a game.

[Red Iron Crown]

I have went from a dual core to a quad core chip, of teh same architecture, similar clock speeds, and the absolute truth is that the game DOES actually benefit from it, I have played KSP on many a cpu..telling people to get a dual core chip for the game is BAD ADVICE, both economically and from a performance perspective.

And even if you do overclock, you can also overclock an i5, which you can get second hand and working good for around $100 and you will get FAAAAAARRR more out of the i5 than the pentium

Seriously, the pentium overclocked as far as it goes, is well under the performance of a stock i5..going by FRAME TIMES, which are far more important than fps..unless you like a stuttery, chuggy mess of a game.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. There is literally nothing in the price class of the Pentium that comes near it in performance. The fastest i5 or i7 will outperform it and well it should since the compared models go for more than 3x the price. If you're building a budget gaming machine (think <$800), a $250 CPU requires too many compromises elsewhere; the Pentium allows you to spend more on the other parts of the computer.

When discussing overclocking, you ignore the fact that more cores=less overclocking overhead. Look at the extreme overclocking types, they almost always disable all but one core. As for them being neutered, the only things missing are AVX, AES acceleration, Hyperthreading and VT-d; the only one used by any game is AVX and that by only a few.

[_Aramchek_]

When discussing overclocking, you ignore the fact that more cores=less overclocking overhead. Look at the extreme overclocking types, they almost always disable all but one core. As for them being neutered, the only things missing are AVX, AES acceleration, Hyperthreading and VT-d; the only one used by any game is AVX and that by only a few.

You are comparing oranges to firecrackers, "extreme overclocking" has no bearing on this discussion, you can get more or less any sandy/ivy/haswell i5 to do the same speeds this pentium hits, without disabling any cores...and I AM one of those guys, and hang out on tech forums mainly.

To hit 4.8 ghz, like the pentium does you do NOT need to disable any cores, you would not have to do a single thing that you wouldn't have to do to get the pentium to th same/similar speeds.

And yeah, you can go buy a second hand, guaranteed overclocking i5 for about a hunnert dollars yo, with the tiniest bit of looking.

As to the cost, what I'm saying, is that by teh time you buy that chip, and get the things you need to make it teh fastest it can be, including a z97 mb, the price delta to just go out and buy a good chip that you will not be replacing 6 months to a year down the road, is not that much, and after you figure out dual core cpu's are a joke in this day and age..and they ARE, you'll be upgrading again in six months anyway. which will likely cost you more money over time, than just going ahead and getting an i5 and actually being satisfied with the performance.

But seriously, I don't know of a single person that had to disable cores to hit at least 4.5 ghz..and an i5 at 4.6 ghz..would embarrass that pentium so badly, it's children wouldn't show their faces on this forum or any other for years.

That pentium is only a good buy, IF you need to upgrade to an intel platform for cheap, just to get away from amd.

And that's the type of person it's marketed to as well.

Look at the frame times with that cpu, they are TERRIBLE, and what that says to me, is that if that cpu can't keep a gpu fed, it is NOT going to crunch out those physics calcs very well either.

And there is more than that, that the cpu is missing, things that definitely can affect performance.

[PTNLemay]

you can also overclock an i5, which you can get second hand and working good for around $100

I'm going to have to ask for references before I believe that. Even unlocked Sandy Bridge i5s can't be found for less than 150$. And I can't find any unlocked Haswell i5s for anything less than 190$.

[Franklin]

It's been discussed, but if Squad takes advantage of the upcoming Unity 5, they'll be able to multi-thread KSP. So maybe hold off on finding the biggest single-core you can find, cause it'll feel like an unnecessary band-aid when Squad announces multi-core support with the new Unity.

[Red Iron Crown]

And yeah, you can go buy a second hand, guaranteed overclocking i5 for about a hunnert dollars yo, with the tiniest bit of looking.

I would never buy a second hand processor, I have no idea if the chip is functional or will even arrive at all. "Guaranteed overclocking" isn't a thing.

As to the cost, what I'm saying, is that by teh time you buy that chip, and get the things you need to make it teh fastest it can be, including a z97 mb, the price delta to just go out and buy a good chip that you will not be replacing 6 months to a year down the road, is not that much, and after you figure out dual core cpu's are a joke in this day and age..and they ARE, you'll be upgrading again in six months anyway. which will likely cost you more money over time, than just going ahead and getting an i5 and actually being satisfied with the performance.

The Z97 boards are a bit more expensive, by about $20-30 where I live. And you'll probably want a $20 aftermarket cooler like a Hyper 212 for better overclocking. That price delta still puts it below the cheapest i3, let alone an i5 or i7.

Look at the frame times with that cpu, they are TERRIBLE, and what that says to me, is that if that cpu can't keep a gpu fed, it is NOT going to crunch out those physics calcs very well either.

You have an odd definition of "terrible". It performs very slightly slower than processors that cost 3-5x as much. It absolutely stomps anything in its price class.

And there is more than that, that the cpu is missing, things that definitely can affect performance.

Be specific. What game performance enhancing features is it missing?

[DMagic]

I've never heard of anyone disabling cores while overclocking a CPU that they actually plan on using. Maybe for some type of competition, yes, but for something you're actually going to use that seems to be extremely uncommon.

There are probably some circumstances where this CPU would be well suited; maybe you already have a high end MB for some reason, but not a CPU to go with it. It might also have more favorable power usage numbers when overclocking also.

But for the most part, if you are looking for a relatively cheap, high-performance (and possibly short-term) solution, and you're willing to overclock, then you're best bet is to find reputable source for a used 2500k or 3570k. This comes with the added benefit (at least if you trust the seller) of getting an idea beforehand for how well the CPU will actually overclock. Something that you can never be sure of when you're buying new.

[_Aramchek_]

I would never buy a second hand processor, I have no idea if the chip is functional or will even arrive at all. "Guaranteed overclocking" isn't a thing.

It more or less is a thing, there might be slight differences, maybe a hundred mhz +/- but yeah, if you buy a chip from a reputable person, which is actually fairly easy to find as forum communities do not tolerate scammers well, but if you buy "chip x" from "person a" and it hit 4.9ghz for them, you can basically expect to hit similar speeds at similar voltages/etc.

The Z97 boards are a bit more expensive, by about $20-30 where I live. And you'll probably want a $20 aftermarket cooler like a Hyper 212 for better overclocking. That price delta still puts it below the cheapest i3, let alone an i5 or i7.

Over a short, very short period of time, I have never stated otherwise, what I'm saying is that over time this "upgrade" would be more costly, I have not stated that it would be more costly "up front".

I'm saying it has a lot less of a usable service life as an "upgrade" and over time you will replace it much sooner and thus spend more money in the long run.

All the while getting less performance than you could get by just being patient and saving an extra week or two and getting a fully fledged part(aka i5 of whatever flavor).

You have an odd definition of "terrible". It performs very slightly slower than processors that cost 3-5x as much. It absolutely stomps anything in its price class.

It's price class is the absolute low end, so that isn't really much of a feat.

Look at the frame times chart in the article link I posted earlier.

Have you ever played a game, and even though you were getting decent fps it felt kind of off?

Or hitched and chugged every now and then?

Your average fps can look great, but while the average is high one or two of those frames may take twice or three times as long to be displayed. That is how that happens, and when you look at the average frame times for that cpu..they are waaaay slower.

I prefer my crisp response/lack of input lag/etc.

Be specific. What game performance enhancing features is it missing?

Cache/latencies/lack of brute force/cores, etc. The first two are guesses, I haven't really looked hard enough to find the actual specifications for that cpu yet..but they(intel) are cutting corners definitely somewhere.

[Red Iron Crown]

It more or less is a thing, there might be slight differences, maybe a hundred mhz +/- but yeah, if you buy a chip from a reputable person, which is actually fairly easy to find as forum communities do not tolerate scammers well, but if you buy "chip x" from "person a" and it hit 4.9ghz for them, you can basically expect to hit similar speeds at similar voltages/etc.

That is in no way a guarantee. I have no recourse if it doesn't perform as promised.

Over a short, very short period of time, I have never stated otherwise, what I'm saying is that over time this "upgrade" would be more costly, I have not stated that it would be more costly "up front".

I'm saying it has a lot less of a usable service life as an "upgrade" and over time you will replace it much sooner and thus spend more money in the long run.

All the while getting less performance than you could get by just being patient and saving an extra week or two and getting a fully fledged part(aka i5 of whatever flavor).

It gets performance just a little less than the high end for which you are touting longer life. If it has similar performance in the tasks you do, it will last just as long. Increasing the system cost by 20% or more is not an option for those for whom another pay period or two will not cover the difference. You know, people who would be shopping in the budget category anyway.

It's price class is the absolute low end, so that isn't really much of a feat.

That's the point though, it performs significantly better than its price class. That's pretty much the definition of "good value".

Look at the frame times chart in the article link I posted earlier.

Have you ever played a game, and even though you were getting decent fps it felt kind of off?

Or hitched and chugged every now and then?

Your average fps can look great, but while the average is high one or two of those frames may take twice or three times as long to be displayed. That is how that happens, and when you look at the average frame times for that cpu..they are waaaay slower.

I prefer my crisp response/lack of input lag/etc.

I read "Inside the Second" when it came out. The charts you are citing are against the most powerful processors available, processors that cost several times more than the Pentium. That it is even on the same chart as them when it costs what is does is an accomplishment. That it's not an embarrassingly long bar at the bottom is outstanding.

If the higher end is within your budget, there is little doubt you will get a better experience with higher end CPUs. In the lower end, there is a peculiar thing happening though: Spending more than $75 but less than $200 will deliver comparable performance at either end of the range. The Pentium is a performance/price outlier in a very good way. If you're in the market for a $250 or $300 processor, it's probably not best for you, but if you're in the market at much lower it is a great performing bargain.

Cache/latencies/lack of brute force/cores, etc. The first two are guesses, I haven't really looked hard enough to find the actual specifications for that cpu yet..but they(intel) are cutting corners definitely somewhere.

Ah, lack of brute force. I hate when they neuter a processor by turning that off.

[_Aramchek_]

That is in no way a guarantee. I have no recourse if it doesn't perform as promised.

If you buy from a reputable person, yeah, you pretty much do. with all the other same hardware requirements you would need to meet for this cpu too.

It gets performance just a little less than the high end for which you are touting longer life. If it has similar performance in the tasks you do, it will last just as long. Increasing the system cost by 20% or more is not an option for those for whom another pay period or two will not cover the difference. You know, people who would be shopping in the budget category anyway.

It, when clocked to it's limits, gets performance that ranges from middling amongst any i5 at their stock speeds, to much worse when you look at the frame times.

And having done many budget builds, when I had a very limited budget and resources, I do not genuinly think this cpu is all that great value for performance, as I've stated and articulated why.

That's the point though, it performs significantly better than its price class. That's pretty much the definition of "good value".

I've explained why it really isn't, it will cost more in the long run and, if you factor in the associated costs, you only need a little bit more money to get something much better.

My pc could have easily been built for the under 800$ figure you quoted earlier, that's about what I spent actually and that was when ivy bridge was brand new.

I read "Inside the Second" when it came out. The charts you are citing are against the most powerful processors available, processors that cost several times more than the Pentium. That it is even on the same chart as them when it costs what is does is an accomplishment. That it's not an embarrassingly long bar at the bottom is outstanding.

It really isn't, AMD is kind of known for having frame timing problems and weaker ipc and every amd cpu is ahead of that pentium. Making them actually better for gaming imo. I'd take a smooth 60 fps vs a choppy 70.

If the higher end is within your budget, there is little doubt you will get a better experience with higher end CPUs.

The point is, the "higher end" is reachable by pretty much anyone who could build a pc based around that cpu.

In the lower end, there is a peculiar thing happening though: Spending more than $75 but less than $200 will deliver comparable performance at either end of the range. The Pentium is a performance/price outlier in a very good way. If you're in the market for a $250 or $300 processor, it's probably not best for you, but if you're in the market at much lower it is a great performing bargain.

If you're in the market around 100 you can get a 2500k. Which is as "high end" as anything you will be able to buy +/- 10-15% per mhz.

Ah, lack of brute force. I hate when they neuter a processor by turning that off.

Clearly that isn't a statement of fact.

[Red Iron Crown]

_Aramchek_, you really should read the text between the graphs of the source you cite:

Techreport wrote:

What's intriguing is how the overclocked Pentium manages this feat. Crysis 3 clearly takes advantage of four or more hardware threads when they're available; look at how poorly the Pentium fares at stock speeds compared to the Athlon X4 and friends. Still, the G3258 more than makes up the deficit at 4.8GHz, thanks to good, old-fashioned per-core performance. Suddenly, it's in the mix with much higher-end CPUs.

Now, check out what happens when we look closely at the hiccups, those frames of animation where the game runs slowest on each system.

Per-thread performance matters tremendously in avoiding the slowdowns that interrupt smooth gaming. The Pentium G3258 at 4.8GHz looks pretty good at our 99th percentile cutoff, but it gets even stronger during the last, most difficult 1% of frames rendered. There, it outperforms the stock-clocked Core i5-2500K and i7-4770K, and it handily outdoes any AMD CPU you can buy.

And that is for a game that can really use multiple cores, the advantage of higher single core performance is even greater in a single thread constrained game like KSP. And look at those frame time graphs again, there are only two instances of the overclocked Pentium losing to an AMD and that is by a small margin to a far more expensive processor. In most of the others, the Pentium beats not only all the AMD but finishes mid-pack among the more expensive Intels.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Red Iron Crown