- 47 months ago
Here's a review from techspot which shows that the G3 is generally better than the X4 860k. "Focusing on the overclocked 4.4GHz results we found that on average the Pentium G3258 was 15% faster than the Athlon X4 860K when paired with the Radeon R9 285 and 14% faster with the GeForce GTX 960."
Here's the G3 v. X4 750k review from tomshardware. On a GTX Titan X, G3 > X4 750k.
Here are my concerns:
(1) According to the reviews, the G3 outperforms the X4; however, toms used a GTX Titan, and techspot used a GTX 960 and R9 285. So, differences in performance will be more exaggerated for toms' review. More importantly, people on a budget would be buying a $80-120 GPU. The difference in FPS across CPUs is generally negligible with lower-end GPUs, so the AMD v Intel decision doesn't matter for the short-run. Nevertheless, Intel is generally better for the long-run. [Agreed?]
(2) Techspot reports average FPS, and toms' reports average and minimum FPS. On tom's review, the G3 has a higher minimum FPS than the X4 750k (on average), but they're using a GTX Titan. For GPUs in the $80-180 price range, does the difference in minimum FPS drop to near-zero? Regardless, does the 860k have a similar minimum FPS to the G3 on higher-end GPUs?
(3) It seems that the G3 has better average and minimum FPS than the X4. However, the methodology from both reviews isn't clear. Are they running minimal background processes? How does the CPUs' performance compare in more realistic scenarios? Would the results hold when the situation shifts to multiplayer, playing music, running an internet browser, and so on?
From various forums and comments, I see G3 owners complaining about stuttering, so I'm skeptical about how well the reviews' results extrapolate to the real world. Furthermore, G3 builds do not sell well--at all--on eBay, so perhaps the G3 owners are right. If so, then isn't the X4 a better buy?