[SoloCamo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hawker-gb

Dual-cores should be sent to history where they belong.

I'd take a Haswell (let alone kabylake) dual core over an FX-9590 any day of the week for emulating games or playing older titles. They have their place.

The low power consumption and simple cooling to obtain that level of single core performance is not possible on most cpu's. Thinking 4.5+ ghz g3258's here.

 

[cmpxchg8b]

This thing has the highest single thread performance per dollar than anything else on the market. I might get one when it's available, mostly playing WoW and it's not well threaded.

 

[delboy67]

Quote:

Originally Posted by budgetgamer120

The proof is the reason we don't have dual cores lol.

Isn't this a site all about performance? Dual cores shouldn't even be posted here.

We shouldn't advise someone to build a PC around a bottleneck.

Actually the site for people who want to spend less on the like of this i3, then use time and knowledge to get the performance of a more expensive chip, not even necessarily to use it. If the site was just for people with ultra high end hardware there would about 30 regular posters. I think this i3 would be a very interesting toy.

 

[SoloCamo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpxchg8b

This thing has the highest single thread performance per dollar than anything else on the market. I might get one when it's available, mostly playing WoW and it's not well threaded.

This would be a great processor at $100 for specific uses. Hopefully Ryzen will have Intel put out more realistic pricing on the low end.

 

[Carniflex]

That looks interesting. Only dual core but it does have 4 threads. Might be good for dwarf fortress.

 

[cmpxchg8b]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoloCamo

This would be a great processor at $100 for specific uses. Hopefully Ryzen will have Intel put out more realistic pricing on the low end.

Hopefully, even though so far AMD has been emphasizing Ryzen's multithreaded performance.

 

[budgetgamer120]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sepiashimmer

Why so much elitism? What if someone's budget only allows a dual core? Or their need only requires a dual core or less?

Buy a Quad core cheaper, a last gen i5.

Sorry, but recommending a dual core to anyone is terrible.

We need to make all these dual core pile up in stores and Intel's factories. That is how we will get better products.

Dual core in 2017? really?

 

[sepiashimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by budgetgamer120

Buy a Quad core cheaper, a last gen i5.

Sorry, but recommending a dual core to anyone is terrible.

We need to make all these dual core pile up in stores and Intel's factories. That is how we will get better products.

Dual core in 2017? really?

Last gen i5s are not cheaper than current gen, they cost 1-2% less than latest gen.

As long as companies make dual cores there will be a market for them, especially in developing countries, where people want the cheapest computer possible.

 

[budgetgamer120]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sepiashimmer

Last gen i5s are not cheaper than current gen, they cost 1-2% less than latest gen.

As long as companies make dual cores there will be a market for them, especially in developing countries, where people want the cheapest computer possible.

They are way better buy than an i3.

In developing countries I would imagine AMD quad cores and APUs dominates.

 

[czin125]

If only they sold these i3s with 20MB L3 and stock clocks at 5.1ghz core and uncore.

 

[sepiashimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by czin125

If only they sold these i3s with 20MB L3 and stock clocks at 5.1ghz core and uncore.

Would it's performance been as good as i7?

 

[CriticalOne]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GamerusMaximus

It takes a lack of compute to claim that having browsers, VPNs, or AV open takes up CPU time when they are not doing anything.

For everybody saying that dual cores cant keep up...where is the proof? I didn't see it in my machines, and reviews never seem to see it either. you can have 100 different browser tabs open, and it isnt going to bring down a dual core chip, because they are not doing anything.

Its elitism and/or people projecting their wishful thinking.

The reality is that 2C/4T is going to remain a strong value proposition for the majority of consumers for a long time. Zen is releasing soon, but even if it sells in record numbers, its effects wont show up for a few years; the CPU market and computers as a whole is a slow moving market with many people holding on to their PCs for up to a decade.

Look at this thread already. How many people did you think saw the title, didn't look at the benchmarks, and went to the comments typing "lol dual core" or "its 2017"? Better yet, people are coming up with unrealistic or unreasonable use case scenarios where the i3 fails just to have a "gotcha" moment. Of course the i3 will bog down when doing many heavy tasks; so would any ~$140 processor.

When i3s are getting 90% of the performance of more expensive quad core processors while only having around 50-60% of the cost, then I don't really understand how people can't see the value of these processors. For budget gamers who will at maximum have a RX 480, the extra 10 fps the GTX 1080 gains with going with a i5 (from around 100 to 110FPS) won't make a difference at all in a much less CPU limited rig and a 60Hz monitor.

People have been saying that dual cores are dead and its the era of hexa cores or more CPUs ever since 2010 when the Phenom II X6 processors released. After that, it was wait for consoles. After that, it was wait for DX12. After that, it s now "wait for real DX12". People keep moving the goalposts and altering their predictions each and every time they eventually get proven wrong.

 

[sepiashimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CriticalOne

People have been saying that dual cores are dead and its the era of hexa cores or more CPUs ever since 2010 when the Phenom II X6 processors released. After that, it was wait for consoles. After that, it was wait for DX12. After that, it s now "wait for real DX12". People keep moving the goalposts and altering their predictions each and every time they eventually get proven wrong.

I'm not moving goal posts, we really have a handful of DX 12 games and they already struggle on dual cores. And i3s are not vanilla dual cores, they have hyper threading and process 4 threads, so it's wrong to treat them as dual cores.

 

[CriticalOne]

I would very much like to see a DX12 or Vulkan or Mantle game that struggles to perform well with an i3 6100.

 

[sepiashimmer]

i3s are not plain dual cores.

 

[Darkpriest667]

I think the greater point that's being missed here is that dual core (even i3s) processors should not be 180 dollars, It's 2017 and quad cores should be in the 150 range. This is what a 10 year monopoly gets you. Stagnation in the market.

 

[SoloCamo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CriticalOne

Of course the i3 will bog down when doing many heavy tasks; so would any ~$140 processor.

So what about the 8 core FX-8300 that cost $115.00?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113399&cm_re=fx-8300-_-19-113-399-_-Product

Even the 4ghz 8350 is $150...

You can even get the 9590 for less than $200 at this point if you wanted something that will definitely not bog down under multiple tasks.

Paying $150 let alone more for an I3 is nuts.

Unlocked i5's should be in the $150 range

 

[CriticalOne]

The FX 8300 has a major single threaded weakness in which many games will run much, much slower than the i3. The FX 8300 can run many heavy things at once without slowing down by much, but its not like it was particularly fast to begin with.

This $150 i3 offers poor value but the i3 6100 only costs $100 or so and offers much of the performance of this i3 for less. If $100 is still too much for a dual core, then look out for hyperthreaded Pentium Kaby Lake processors which will only miss instructions that are never used for gaming.

 

[sepiashimmer]

$100 in USA! Not in other countries, where the price increases by 30-40%.

 

[SoloCamo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CriticalOne

The FX 8300 has a major single threaded weakness in which many games will run much, much slower than the i3. The FX 8300 can run many heavy things at once without slowing down by much, but its not like it was particularly fast to begin with.

This $150 i3 offers poor value but the i3 6100 only costs $100 or so and offers much of the performance of this i3 for less. If $100 is still too much for a dual core, then look out for hyperthreaded Pentium Kaby Lake processors which will only miss instructions that are never used for gaming.

Thanks, had no idea these were a thing...
Quote:

3.7GHz Pentium G4620 costs $86 to $93, has Hyper-Threading and HD 630 graphics.

Sold. This is a good value compared to any i3. Sure, a 4ghz+ i3 w/ more cache will be faster but for the games these cpu's will excel in the pentium at 3.7ghz and near enough half the price is by far the better bang for the buck.