Is G3220 good for gaming?

[Enigmoid]

I sense a little hostility here. I don't want to antagonize you further, but I do want to post the images from which I pulled the numbers. Overall, the i3 with either of the two faster GPUs, a 7970 or a 770, defeats the 4670K with either of the two slower cards, a 7870 or a 660. Even the minimums are higher with the i3 scenario. I'm not spinning it, it just is. Cheers!

Those are still benchmarks before a huge number of patches. The 6300 outperforms the 8350 in a lot of the tests (everything on the first chart). Thus no conclusions can be drawn with the current data.

Also not that the cost difference isn't between a 660/7870 or 7970 ghz, $70 is about the difference between a R9 280 and an R9 280X. Fairly small. CPU from i3 to locked i5.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I really think these arguments of sacrificing gpu performance to get a better cpu can become like the old question of how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.

My approach would be to pick the gpu that I want. Then the question becomes, considering the system costs from probably 600 dollars to 1000+, does it make sense to try to save 50 or 60 dollars by moving down from an i5 to an i3. In the vast majority of cases I would argue that it doesnt. I dont mean to offend anyone on a strictly limited budget, but for most that are building a gaming PC, it would seem prudent to save a bit longer or cut some other expense somewhere and move up to the i5. The Haswell i3 has amazing performance for a dual core, but the pricing is somewhat high IMO, making the move to an i5 easier to justify.

 

[monkeydelmagico]

. The Haswell i3 has amazing performance for a dual core, but the pricing is somewhat high IMO, making the move to an i5 easier to justify.

+1. After having done the budget route for a decade I firmly believe its cheaper in the long run to buy an i5. You will not have to upgrade CPU/mobo as often.

 

[crashtech]

Just a note about those charts, they were one of the first ones I came across. I don't treat anything on the internet as gospel, except perhaps my very own ever so precious opinion.

Anyone who thinks it's better to spend as much or more on the CPU as the GPU in a gaming machine is free to do so. Also it's fine to act as if the CPU is soldered onto the board and won't ever be replaced. I just happen to think both actions are... less than optimal.

Anyway, this is pretty much a dead horse, and I'd rather concede than make enemies.

By choosing an i5 over an i3, you really can't go wrong. The extra cores will probably come in handy for some users, and better too many than not enough, right? If you are going to get one, don't bother with a low end one. Save more money and get one with a decent clock rate, or better yet a "K." At that point you probably can act like it is soldered on. The 4670, 4670K, 4690, 4690K are the ones people should look for a gaming machine, imo.

So, no, a G3220 is not good for gaming.

 

[2is]

Anyone who thinks it's better to spend as much or more on the CPU as the GPU in a gaming machine is free to do so. Also it's fine to act as if the CPU is soldered onto the board and won't ever be replaced. I just happen to think both actions are... less than optimal.

No one said spend more on a CPU than a GPU. This was already explained at least once before when you made this same claim.

As far as upgrading the CPU later, it's far less optimal than upgrading the GPU later. CPU form factors change very quickly so you're limited in options at a later date or limited to buying a used CPU at a potentially inflated price because the sellers know the only other option is a completely new system. Makes far more sense to get a powerful CPU to start with and not be limited on your GPU choice down the road vs one that is verging on the edge of unacceptable which even you've acknowledged.

Granted, the dual core is entering its last gasp now.

Not really sure why you're pushing a processor that is on it's last gasp in a game that's already approaching 1 year in age

 

[crashtech]

I see you like to argue as much or more than I do. Thanks to your kind and gentle persuasion, I've seen the light. Dual cores suck! I would never buy one for a gaming machine. I was wrong for ever suggesting one. Anyone without enough money for an i5 system should get a console, and maybe a better job.

 

[2is]

Just because we are not in full agreement with your philosophy is no reason to tread in the realm of ridiculousness. That's usually what people resort to when they have an opinion, but no longer an argument to back it up.

But yes, I'm glad you've seen the light.

 

[jacktesterson]

Just a note about those charts, they were one of the first ones I came across. I don't treat anything on the internet as gospel, except perhaps my very own ever so precious opinion.

Anyone who thinks it's better to spend as much or more on the CPU as the GPU in a gaming machine is free to do so. Also it's fine to act as if the CPU is soldered onto the board and won't ever be replaced. I just happen to think both actions are... less than optimal.

Anyway, this is pretty much a dead horse, and I'd rather concede than make enemies.

By choosing an i5 over an i3, you really can't go wrong. The extra cores will probably come in handy for some users, and better too many than not enough, right? If you are going to get one, don't bother with a low end one. Save more money and get one with a decent clock rate, or better yet a "K." At that point you probably can act like it is soldered on. The 4670, 4670K, 4690, 4690K are the ones people should look for a gaming machine, imo.

So, no, a G3220 is not good for gaming.

I think you could include a 4570 in there too. Going to a 4670 over 4570 in gaming will be hardly any difference.

 

[crashtech]

But yes, I'm glad you've seen the light.

Excellent, it's not my intent for anyone here to be less than glad on my account.

I could take exception to the implication that the point I was trying to make was solely based on opinion, but why disturb the collective contentment that comes from everyone working toward the same goal, a quad-core in every box!

 

[AtenRa]

As far as upgrading the CPU later, it's far less optimal than upgrading the GPU later. CPU form factors change very quickly so you're limited in options at a later date or limited to buying a used CPU at a potentially inflated price because the sellers know the only other option is a completely new system. Makes far more sense to get a powerful CPU to start with and not be limited on your GPU choice down the road vs one that is verging on the edge of unacceptable which even you've acknowledged.

Newegg,

Core i7 2600K = $340

You could have started your SB Core i3 PC 3 years ago and now you could Upgrade to a new 2600K for the same price it was 3 years ago.

But im sure that most 1155 mobos can even use IB with only a bios update.

Core i7 3770K new at the egg = $330


You can find new CPUs after 2-3 years to buy for upgrading your system without paying more than they already were selling in the first place.
Things become ugly after 4-4+ years of the original product release. So i always recommend to people that are thinking of upgrading the CPU to do it before 3 years of the original Socket release.

You could also find used CPUs at lower prices with one more year+ guaranty. There are used Ivy CPUs (BOX) that still have more than 12 months of guaranty left.

 

[2is]

Newegg,

Core i7 2600K = $340

You could have started your SB Core i3 PC 3 years ago and now you could Upgrade to a new 2600K for the same price it was 3 years ago.

Which is exactly why it's a bad idea. No one wants to pay full price for a 3 year old processor and a newer IB would be roughly the same in terms of price AND performance. On the flip side, spending $330 on a GPU now will get you something WAY more powerful than what was available 3 years ago.


If you're on a budget and need to make sacrifices, it's far more beneficial to invest in a CPU you won't need to upgrade for a long time vs one that's just barely getting by.

 

[crashtech]

I still have some work to do.

 

[2is]

Upgradable CPU's isn't a bad thing. No one said that but you. But when given the choice, upgrading the GPU down the line is not only more economical, but you'll get a larger benefit from it. Compare 3 year old CPU performance to current ones vs GPU. It's really not that hard to figure out. You just have to... think. I'm not making it up. Go see for yourself instead of going full retard with your arguments.

 

[AtenRa]

Which is exactly why it's a bad idea. No one wants to pay full price for a 3 year old processor and a newer IB would be roughly the same in terms of price AND performance. On the flip side, spending $330 on a GPU now will get you something WAY more powerful than what was available 3 years ago.


If you're on a budget and need to make sacrifices, it's far more beneficial to invest in a CPU you won't need to upgrade for a long time vs one that's just barely getting by.

Sandybridge Core i3 three years ago with a GTX580 was a formidable and very powerful combo. Today with a Core i5/7 you can still game at 1080p using the GTX-580 even in latest games like WatchDogs and BF4 MP.

So for three years you would have much better graphics than if you would spend more for your CPU. And now you could upgrade your CPU to a Core i7 Sandy/Ivy that will last you 2-3 more years easily. Later you can even upgrade your GPU when 20nm middle-End GPUs release that will have almost the same performance of today's GTX780.

Also, by having a lesser GPU you would need to upgrade your GPU earlier than the guy who spend more for his GTX580 three years ago. I know people with SB Core i5s and GTX560 1GB that needed a GPU upgrade 2 years after they bought their systems. On the same time people with GTX580 still today are able to play all current games at high image quality settings. Of course you can still play Watchdogs with a GTX560 but i really dont know how much you have to sacrifice on the IQ.

 

[2is]

Sandybridge Core i3 three years ago with a GTX580 was a formidable and very powerful combo. Today with a Core i5/7 you can still game at 1080p using the GTX-580 even in latest games like WatchDogs and BF4 MP.

So for three years you would have much better graphics than if you would spend more for your CPU. And now you could upgrade your CPU to a Core i7 Sandy/Ivy that will last you 2-3 more years easily. Later you can even upgrade your GPU when 20nm middle-End GPUs release that will have almost the same performance of today's GTX780.

Also, by having a lesser GPU you would need to upgrade your GPU earlier than the guy who spend more for his GTX580 three years ago. I know people with SB Core i5s and GTX560 1GB that needed a GPU upgrade 2 years after they bought their systems. On the same time people with GTX580 still today are able to play all current games at high image quality settings. Of course you can still play Watchdogs with a GTX560 but i really dont know how much you have to sacrifice on the IQ.

Except we're talking about an i3 today which has already been shown to be just barely adequate. The person advocating the i3 even admitted to it himself, yet still recommends it. I'm not sure how that makes sense to him, but somehow he's justified it, probably because it was the opinion he started out with and pride gets in the way sometimes.

There's a big difference between gaming demands from 3 years ago vs today. Much bigger than the performance enhancements the i3 has received. Add to that no overclocking and it's a no brainer really.

This same argument happened 7 years ago with Core 2 Quad vs Core 2 Duo. End result is C2D users upgraded as soon as BFBC2 came out due to crap performance.

 

[SPBHM]

Sandybridge Core i3 three years ago with a GTX580 was a formidable and very powerful combo. Today with a Core i5/7 you can still game at 1080p using the GTX-580 even in latest games like WatchDogs and BF4 MP.

So for three years you would have much better graphics than if you would spend more for your CPU. And now you could upgrade your CPU to a Core i7 Sandy/Ivy that will last you 2-3 more years easily. Later you can even upgrade your GPU when 20nm middle-End GPUs release that will have almost the same performance of today's GTX780.

Also, by having a lesser GPU you would need to upgrade your GPU earlier than the guy who spend more for his GTX580 three years ago. I know people with SB Core i5s and GTX560 1GB that needed a GPU upgrade 2 years after they bought their systems. On the same time people with GTX580 still today are able to play all current games at high image quality settings. Of course you can still play Watchdogs with a GTX560 but i really dont know how much you have to sacrifice on the IQ.

2500K was like $100 over the i3, and it still is a great gaming CPU,


the GTX 580 was great, but it was originally like a $500 card and now it's slower than sub $200 cards, saving $100 from the 580 and going with an i5 and a card like a 570 would have been a lot better IMO... CPU was faster in games from 2011 like BF3, and it lasted longer as good gaming CPU, the 580 was better than a 570, but I think both are not ideal right now and always delivered a close enough experience?

 

[2is]

It's really not that hard to figure out. You just have to... think. I'm not making it up.

2500K was like $100 over the i3, and it still is a great gaming CPU,


the GTX 580 was great, but it was originally like a $500 card and now it's slower than sub $200 cards, saving $100 from the 580 and going with an i5 and a card like a 570 would have been a lot better IMO... CPU was faster in games from 2011 like BF3, and it lasted longer as good gaming CPU, the 580 was better than a 570, but I think both are not ideal right now and always delivered a close enough experience?

^^^Exactly^^^ what I'm getting at. Thank you for putting quantifiable figures on this rather simple concept.

 

[AtenRa]

The paradigm was to illustrate that both the Core i5 2500K + GTX560 and Core i3 + GTX580 would need an upgrade. One will need a GPU upgrade and the other a CPU upgrade.
So if we had those two systems today and we would like to upgrade them spending the same money what we would have ??

The Core i3 system can be updated to a new Core i5 3570K for $230.
For the same price the Core i5 can upgrade its GPU to a new GTX660 or R9 270X.

So at the end they will have the same performance (GTX580 almost the same as GTX660/270X) but the Core i3 + GTX580 had better graphics from the start.

It all depending upon the individual user what and he wants, some will sacrifice GPU performance in the start, others want better graphics and will sacrifice CPU performance. Going one root or the other you sacrifice something, at the end you will pay almost the same to have the same performance.

 

[SPBHM]

2500K + GTX 560 in 2011 around $450
i3 2100 + GTX 580 in 2011 around $620


so it looks like it isn't even a fair comparison,

but the 2500K + GTX 560 would deliver a better experience in my opinion in games like BF3 MP64 already back in 2011, so it's better framerate from start at the cost of some IQ!?

right now the 2500K is adequate for gaming, the SB i3 is bellow acceptable for some games,

following your example the 2500K 560 buyer would have an extra 170 to use for an upgrade, you said the i5 is like $200 right now? it looks like he could have 2500K + R9 290 for around the same as the other would have a 3570 + 580!?

that's a huge difference for newer games, I think the advantage from the 290 over the 580 now is clearer and more important than the 580 vs 560 was, games are becoming more complex, and the difference can be bigger than just more AA for example,

 

[AtenRa]

As i said, the paradigm i made is not based on actual prices but to show why someone will opt for better graphics in the first place.

But if you would like me to use actual prices then we could have the two systems bellow,

Core i3 2100 + HD6970 2GB or GTX-570

vs

Core i5 2500K + GTX560 1GB (non Ti) or HD6870

Both HD6790 2GB or GTX-570 can still be used for modern games at adequate Image Quality settings and frame rate.
With the GTX-560 1GB you would have to sacrifice Image Quality settings right from the start. And one,two years later you would have to upgrade the GPU because it would really hold you down in a lot of games.

As i have said before, going one root or the other you sacrifice something and you will need to spend money again to upgrade later on.

As you can see from the graph bellow, the GTX570 is capable of producing more than 30fps at Very High Quality Image settings even in Watch Dogs. You could tinker a little bit with the settings and have very high Image Quality at higher fps.
On the other hand, with the GTX560 you would have to lower image quality substantially in order to even get 30fps.
Some users will be fine with lower image quality, others will not. As i have said, it is all about the individual user, its needs and priorities.
So at the end, unless you spend more from the start, you will have to upgrade something sooner or later. There is not a single route to take when you are budget constrained, it highly depends upon your needs and sacrifices you are willing to take.

 

[SPBHM]

GTX 570 will have to use the minimum quality textures(medium), which really kills the game visual quality, just like the 560

1.2GB with high textures will probably cause a lot of stutters and other problems


also the i3 is really crappy in this game, trust me on that, I have one, I have to run with LOD on low and still is really far from ideal

the i3 would also sacrifice framerate and smoothness from start in some games, and would absolutely need an upgrade right now.
the 570 would be in need of an upgrade as much as the 560 imo.

also i3 + 570 vs i5 + 560 Ti is more realistic considering the price difference at the time,

and the sacrifice on IQ from the 560 to a 570 was not to significant on most older games

 

[AtenRa]

Lets say that you build a Core i5 2500K + GTX560 in Q1 2011.
In two years (Q1 2013) you would like to upgrade your GPU. At the time the GTX660ti would cost you $300+ and have performance close to GTX-580.

In Q1 2011 I would build a Core i3 2100 + HD6970 2GB
In two years(Q1 2013) i would upgrade to Core i5 3570K spending $230.

You would spend more for the GTX660ti to have 10-20% higher performance than HD6970 2GB today. But both systems could upgrade to 20nm GPUs next year.

So tell me, who spend more ??? both spend the same total and both will have the same performance next year when they will upgrade to 20nm GPUs.

 

[SPBHM]

why not bring the 7950, 7870 and so on... and... 6950.
7950 was very affordable last year, and with some OC it clearly beats the 580 as far as I know, specially now in games like Watch Dogs and 2x the vram.

2500K + 6950 2GB would be something like $30 more than i3 2100 + 6970.
and right now you would need to upgrade the VGA the same as the 6970, while you would not need a new CPU as much as the other case, that's a poor way of saving money.

the 2500K was an amazing deal in 2011, it makes buying any other CPU at the time look like a not so great choice.
I think it's not to different to the current i5s vs the rest, once you go for a VGA higher than 750 ti or perhaps 270 level...

the 580 was a $500 card, combining with a $100 CPU makes very little sense when the 570 was like $150+ less for close enough performance... I doubt anyone would do that... 580 + PII X4 or i3...

saving money on the CPU (i3 to i5, I'm not talking about the other more expensive CPUs), is probably more costly on the long run, VGA prices are higher and tend to go down quicker, and performance changes at a faster pace.

 

[AtenRa]

why not bring the 7950, 7870 and so on... and... 6950.
7950 was very affordable last year, and with some OC it clearly beats the 580 as far as I know, specially now in games like Watch Dogs and 2x the vram.

2500K + 6950 2GB would be something like $30 more than i3 2100 + 6970.
and right now you would need to upgrade the VGA the same as the 6970, while you would not need a new CPU as much as the other case, that's a poor way of saving money.

the 2500K was an amazing deal in 2011, it makes buying any other CPU at the time look like a not so great choice.
I think it's not to different to the current i5s vs the rest, once you go for a VGA higher than 750 ti or perhaps 270 level...

the 580 was a $500 card, combining with a $100 CPU makes very little sense when the 570 was like $150+ less for close enough performance... I doubt anyone would do that... 580 + PII X4 or i3...

saving money on the CPU (i3 to i5, I'm not talking about the other more expensive CPUs), is probably more costly on the long run, VGA prices are higher and tend to go down quicker, and performance changes at a faster pace.

6950 vs 6970 and 570 vs 580 only had 10-15% performance difference and more than 30-40% price difference. So nobody would buy the GTX580 with a Core i3.

But you could get the HD6950 2GB and upgrade the bios to make it a fully operational HD6970 2GB and pair it with a Core i3 back in 2011.

That would cost you the same money to have a Core i5 2500K + GTX560.

But as i have said it is all about sacrifices and priorities, i would never go with a Core i5 4570K + R7 260 today. I would easily chose a Core i3 4130 + R9 280.

 

[SPBHM]

6950 vs 6970 and 570 vs 580 only had 10-15% performance difference and more than 30-40% price difference. So nobody would buy the GTX580 with a Core i3.

But you could get the HD6950 2GB and upgrade the bios to make it a fully operational HD6970 2GB and pair it with a Core i3 back in 2011.

That would cost you the same money to have a Core i5 2500K + GTX560.

But as i have said it is all about sacrifices and priorities, i would never go with a Core i5 4570K + R7 260 today. I would easily chose a Core i3 4130 + R9 280.

yes, which shows your i3 + 580 examples as unrealistic, still 6950 + i3 would be the same money as i5 + 560, I would choose i5 + 560 with no doubt... both the 6950 and the i3 are in need of an upgrade, the 560 was never far slower than the 6950 and the sb i5 is still good enough, and was clearly faster for some games from 2011-2012.

current cheapest i3 to i5 is $65

I could easily justify i5 + R9 270x over i3 + 280 for the same money, also I think current games are already better on 270x + i5.