How would this cpu do?

[TonyDSG]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113359

 

Paired with a GTX760

16gb of ram.

[Heat-Wave]

Terrible... frankly, that CPU isn't meant to be paired with a dedicated GPU, it is meant to have enough onboard GPU resources to work on its own for basic computer tasks.

 

Except that it sucks so much power, over 3 years of ownership you'll pay for the difference between it and a good Intel quad core i5 in power alone.

 

SWTOR is a single threaded game with a single extra thread running background tasks, it really doesn't use more than 2 cores. An Intel Core i3 Haswell chip is faster than anything AMD makes. A Core i5 gives you some headroom and is recommended if you have the money.

 

AMD has its place, SWTOR isn't' one of them.

[pegasussgc]

Technically it would be fine, but I wouldn't recommend it. Swtor, like many MMO's rely heavily on single-threaded performance which an AMD cpu just isn't good enough at right now. I would recommend a Intel Core i5 such as: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116942&cm_re=intel_core_i5-_-19-116-942-_-Product It is a little more expensive but it will be a massive performance improvement. Even a Core i3 would be fine for Swtor, but the i5 will be good for other, more modern games.

[Heat-Wave]

If you want the Intel Quad Core chip:

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00J2LIFBY/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B00J2LIFBY&link_code=as3&tag=httpwwwdrsueh-20&linkId=WARNF6EVV3UVR4NG

 

$199 buys you a very nice chip that will last you for years and years.

 

If you want the Intel Dual Core chip:

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00LV8U0VE/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=B00LV8U0VE&link_code=as3&tag=httpwwwdrsueh-20&linkId=LNZDMVIYEUBRDILV

 

$118 for a good chip that will last you for years, but will become outdated sooner as it doesn't have 4 real CPU cores.

 

---

 

If you want a nice quality motherboard that doesn't cost an arm and a leg:

 

http://www.amazon.com/MSI-Motherboards-Z97-PC-MATE/dp/B00K23BW70/ref=as_sl_pc_qf_sp_asin_til?tag=httpwwwdrsueh-20&linkCode=w00&linkId=V5BNWAPWMUEMIXYE&creativeASIN=B00K23BW70

 

MSI ATX Z97 motherboard, has all the features you're likely to ever want for $90.

[TonyDSG]

^ If I bough those two and paired it with a gtx760 and 16gb of ram I should be getting atleast 40fps in warzones correct? I'm a noob when it comes to computers.

[Heat-Wave]

^ If I bough those two and paired it with a gtx760 and 16gb of ram I should be getting atleast 40fps in warzones correct? I'm a noob when it comes to computers.

 

16GB of RAM is overkill if SWTOR is your most demanding thing...

 

4GB is enough, 8GB is nice to have...

 

As for your question, yes, either CPU and that video card will do just fine, assuming you're running no higher than 1080p resolution. If you were, I'd want one notch higher on the video card personally.

 

Keep in mind there is 40 FPS "average", then there is 40 FPS "min". Even with killer hardware there are spikes up and down at various times, but they become less annoying as the average goes up and the min happens less often.

[Smuglebunny]

So you are a noob on computers but you are building one?

 

Always go Intel with your processors. AMD is about to go out of business, they just had a 180million dollar loss in revenue and hasn't released a NEW chip in like 8 years. Just old rebadges with different clocks. APUs are weak CPU/GPU combos. At one time the cheaper AMD chips were cost effective but now they arent, due to AMD chips costing more to run in power and putting out far more heat, even with the lesser performance.

 

A 2 core i3 intel chip (i3 4330) w/ hyperthreading at 3.5Ghz beats an 8 core AMD 8350 at 4.0Ghz for gaming and single core tasks.

 

Never buy an AMD chip. This isnt fanboy-ism, im a computer tech, I know the numbers and AMD chips have almost no use at this time in history. Other than to build a weak pc that uses lots of power and puts out lots of heat.

 

You want an i3 4330 3.5Ghz

or i3 4360 3.7Ghz

or i3 4370 3.8Ghz

if you are going cheap

or just buy the standard gaming chip the i5 running at, at least 3.4Ghz or more.

 

My setup/No lag high framerates everywhere like 40+ always or more server lag 35-65ms, high graphics with shadow and AA

gigabyte mobo

i3 4330 @ 3.5ghz not overclockable using stock cooler

16GB ram 4x4

240 GB intel 335 series SSD

650w rosewill Hive PSU

Sapphire/AMD 7870 2GB OC to 1050, memclock to 1250

Windows 7 64-bit Professional

No lag no issues. Cost me 595$ to buy all parts on black friday 2013, assembled dec 2013, running no probs since

Edited May 13, 2015 by Smuglebunny

[Halinalle]

16GB of RAM is overkill if SWTOR is your most demanding thing...

 

4GB is enough, 8GB is nice to have...

 

I have 16GB but I'm currently using around 3,5GB of it just by web browsing and listening to music from Spotify.

http://i.imgur.com/UHgofsM.png

Now, pay attention to part I've marked with red. I have 9,5GB cached, that's my most used programs, currently not running, that are there ready to be launched instantly. And only 3,4GB actually free (only part I hate).

 

You know Gimp? It can take up to 10 seconds to load all modules even from SSD. Now, imagine most of it in memory: 1,5 seconds.

 

I used to think like you few years ago but now... I'm never going back to 4GB (just like I'm never going to use TN panel monitor ever again, but that's offtopic. ).

Edited May 13, 2015 by Halinalle

[Master-Nala]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113359

 

Paired with a GTX760

16gb of ram.

 

I use the AMD 8350fx paired with that same graphics card and run everything at max settings and don't fall below 55fps. It's a little more than the chip you suggest, but like others said, it's not really intended to be used with a dedicated GPU anyway.

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284&cm_re=8350_fx-_-19-113-284-_-Product

 

Note, I don't quarrel with the advice to get an Intel chip. I have other PCs that use it. I'm just pointing out that this chip works if you want an AMD solution.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Master-Nala

[Sindorin]

Terrible... frankly, that CPU isn't meant to be paired with a dedicated GPU, it is meant to have enough onboard GPU resources to work on its own for basic computer tasks.

 

Except that it sucks so much power, over 3 years of ownership you'll pay for the difference between it and a good Intel quad core i5 in power alone.

 

SWTOR is a single threaded game with a single extra thread running background tasks, it really doesn't use more than 2 cores. An Intel Core i3 Haswell chip is faster than anything AMD makes. A Core i5 gives you some headroom and is recommended if you have the money.

 

AMD has its place, SWTOR isn't' one of them.

 

 

Why waste your money on even an i5? I've got a Intel Core 2 Quad, OC'd. Never had any issues, max graphics.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

So you are a noob on computers but you are building one?

 

. AMD is about to go out of business, they just had a 180million dollar loss in revenue and hasn't released a NEW chip in like 8 years. Just old rebadges with different clocks. APUs are weak CPU/GPU combos. At one time the cheaper AMD chips were cost effective but now they arent, due to AMD chips costing more to run in power and putting out far more heat, even with the lesser performance.

 

 

Whilst I would agree with most things where AMD vs Intel are concerned in terms of CPUs I wouldn't go as far as to sell it as the doom for AMD ... they have more than enough ability to be competitive, they just need to get smarter about they operate and stop diversifying themselves so much across the board when they aren't really winning any single market.

 

I guess to me an exception would be the GPU's where in my opinion I've preferred AMD for the past 5 years ro so and always found them more bang for my buck over nvidia. Only really this year/latel ast year have I noticed a slight edge to nvidia in terms of bang for the buck but I don't see this holding personally.

 

What I don't get on that basis is why nvidia are so bloody popular, must come down to marketing in that area I guess where as Intel vs AMD is pure performance and really can't be argued.

 

Maybe intel need to really give up all the heavy investment on the server side of things etc. and focus back more on gaming ( cpu/gpu ) and looking toward the mobile market.

 

As I read recently about Moore's law possibly coming to an end ( heh not much of a law ) and things beginning to stagnate in terms of processing power moving forward ( unless they can find new replacement for silicon ) one would think that there will be little market for server side processing power as end user processing power truly starts to easily keep up.

 

Time will tell but calling it the death of AMD is a bit of a leap.

[Elracor]

What I don't get on that basis is why nvidia are so bloody popular, must come down to marketing in that area I guess where as Intel vs AMD is pure performance and really can't be argued.

 

For some it is drivers. Many current Nvidia users left AMD (or rather ATi) because of driver issues and never looked back. Even if current drivers don't have issues, many of these players won't forgive them until Nvidia messes up really badly.

 

For others it's the heat/power. AMD's products often use more power and run hotter+louder, especially compared to the current GTX 9x0 GPUs. For example, R7 270 is well, 5-15% faster than GTX 750 Ti at about same price but comes with a 150w TDP vs the 60w TDP of the Nvidia card.

 

There's the concept of wanting the newest stuff and disregarding pretty much everything else, and Nvidia got the newest series at the moment.

Lastly there's the IMO ridiculous "You have to go full AMD or Intel+Nvidia, Intel+AMD and AMD+Nvidia works badly" rule of thumb I've seen a few places...

 

Time will tell but calling it the death of AMD is a bit of a leap.

 

Indeed. It's still far in the future, but their coming Zen 16nm chip may end up as a contender in 2016 for gamers. It's rumoured Zen will be using Simultaneous MultiThreading like Intel CPUs and unlike the current AMD cpus as they use Clustered MultiThreading. This should increase per-core performance, which is where AMD lacks behind at the moment.

Edited May 14, 2015 by MFollin

[Heat-Wave]

Why waste your money on even an i5? I've got a Intel Core 2 Quad, OC'd. Never had any issues, max graphics.

 

Actually, a Core 2 chip overclocked is actually faster than almost anything AMD makes, even today, in a single threaded game like SWTOR...

 

The i3/i5 chips are faster, but depending on what you're doing in the game, it won't matter.

 

It is worth noting that we each have our own tolerance for performance, so what is acceptable to you may not be to someone else.

[Heat-Wave]

I have 16GB but I'm currently using around 3,5GB of it just by web browsing and listening to music from Spotify.

http://i.imgur.com/UHgofsM.png

Now, pay attention to part I've marked with red. I have 9,5GB cached, that's my most used programs, currently not running, that are there ready to be launched instantly. And only 3,4GB actually free (only part I hate).

 

You know Gimp? It can take up to 10 seconds to load all modules even from SSD. Now, imagine most of it in memory: 1,5 seconds.

 

I used to think like you few years ago but now... I'm never going back to 4GB (just like I'm never going to use TN panel monitor ever again, but that's offtopic. ).

 

2 things...

 

1. Windows tends to use more memory the more you have, so that 3.5GB wouldn't be that much on a 4GB machine.

 

2. From your post, you're not a normal user. Windows 7/8 64-bit needs about 1GB to do basic stuff in, SWTOR uses about 2.5GB of memory max between its two processes, give or take.

 

4GB is enough, if you're running a clean Windows install without 20 things running in the background and just playing SWTOR.

 

---

 

Keep in mind, I have 32 GB in my machine and as I type this with SWTOR running along with some background processes and Google Chrome open, I'm using 9.42GB of RAM, 21,902 is cached, with 1,174 free.

 

The single biggest item there is SWTOR, at 1.386,496K. Backblaze is the next at 810,876k, and it goes downhill from there. 126 active processes are running using 29% of my total memory.

 

But I'm not a typical user which is why I don't suggest 32GB to anyone. My next machine will have 64GB for sure and frankly I could use 128GB, but I actually use it, but it isn't typical.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

For some it is drivers. Many current Nvidia users left AMD (or rather ATi) because of driver issues and never looked back. Even if current drivers don't have issues, many of these players won't forgive them until Nvidia messes up really badly.

 

For others it's the heat/power. AMD's products often use more power and run hotter+louder, especially compared to the current GTX 9x0 GPUs. For example, R7 270 is well, 5-15% faster than GTX 750 Ti at about same price but comes with a 150w TDP vs the 60w TDP of the Nvidia card.

 

There's the concept of wanting the newest stuff and disregarding pretty much everything else, and Nvidia got the newest series at the moment.

Lastly there's the IMO ridiculous "You have to go full AMD or Intel+Nvidia, Intel+AMD and AMD+Nvidia works badly" rule of thumb I've seen a few places...

 

 

 

Indeed. It's still far in the future, but their coming Zen 16nm chip may end up as a contender in 2016 for gamers. It's rumoured Zen will be using Simultaneous MultiThreading like Intel CPUs and unlike the current AMD cpus as they use Clustered MultiThreading. This should increase per-core performance, which is where AMD lacks behind at the moment.

 

I do recall there being driver issues in the past and those were mostly from what I had read about prior to switching to ATI myself ( which was more of a 'give it a go' attitude after reading positive reviews ) as opposed to anything I experienced myself. These days things seem pretty stable and hassle free in that regard ( again doesn't really explain why NVidia are making such large recent gains ).

 

I guess I can see the noise vs heat issue being a thing for some but you would think at enthusiast/high end gaming you would really want the best bang for the buck ( well for me anyway ) though I guess extra power consumption is a consideration of that buck. I've got one of the loudest cards around and with headphones and gaming ... not an issue, for me at least.

 

NVidia you would think took a big PR hit over the storm in the teacup which was the 970 spec reporting but with nothing really new coming from AMD since then in terms of hardware I guess time will tell if this does have an effect or not. I do know a lot of people were swearing off NVidia because of it though I do think this quite the over reaction.

 

I was looking at those Zen CPU's before and they should be interesting though as with anything I'll wait to see them released and putting out some benchmarks before making any upgrade decisions.

I would ideally be looking to upgrade next year too from an i5 4690k so it will beetween skylake and Zen for me ... just depends how long AMD muck around putting out Zen to compete with Skylake.

[Elracor]

I do recall there being driver issues in the past and those were mostly from what I had read about prior to switching to ATI myself ( which was more of a 'give it a go' attitude after reading positive reviews ) as opposed to anything I experienced myself. These days things seem pretty stable and hassle free in that regard ( again doesn't really explain why NVidia are making such large recent gains ).

 

It sort of does, because some of those particular players will still recommend Nvidia on the basis that AMD drivers are crap, even if they haven't used AMD drivers for years and frankly got no clue.

 

I guess I can see the noise vs heat issue being a thing for some but you would think at enthusiast/high end gaming you would really want the best bang for the buck ( well for me anyway ) though I guess extra power consumption is a consideration of that buck. I've got one of the loudest cards around and with headphones and gaming ... not an issue, for me at least.

 

Yeh, but in the end that's up to each user. If you like to make small builds (perhaps even ITX), there's quite an advantage to low-TDP hardware (e.g. cheaper cooling and PSU). Other factors like gf/wife can also play into this consideration in regards to noise.

 

NVidia you would think took a big PR hit over the storm in the teacup which was the 970 spec reporting but with nothing really new coming from AMD since then in terms of hardware I guess time will tell if this does have an effect or not. I do know a lot of people were swearing off NVidia because of it though I do think this quite the over reaction.

 

I think it depends on where you look. In bigger communities like /r/buildapc , there has been countless builds the last months picking AMD almost solely because of the Nvidia PR. Of course some don't really care about it, but there's been many who do. Additionally, the "PR hit" will always seem bigger on the internet when you got factions like AMD/Nvidia fanboys there to blow it all out of proportion.

 

I was looking at those Zen CPU's before and they should be interesting though as with anything I'll wait to see them released and putting out some benchmarks before making any upgrade decisions.

I would ideally be looking to upgrade next year too from an i5 4690k so it will beetween skylake and Zen for me ... just depends how long AMD muck around putting out Zen to compete with Skylake.

 

Yeh, unless Zen hurries up chances are Zen will be competing with the 10nm Cannonlake rather than the 14nm Skylake.

Edited May 14, 2015 by MFollin

[Zoom_VI]

Just to throw this in here. Overclocking a CPU does little to nothing for your framerate, and general gaming performance.

[Holocron]

Just to throw this in here. Overclocking a CPU does little to nothing for your framerate, and general gaming performance.

 

Simply not accurate. It depends on the engine/programming used. Here an example of how the Hero Engine relies on gpu AND cpu.

 

A lot of info about the FPS issues and the related CPU impacts - Hero Engine

 

Small excerpt from their site:

 

"CPU Side: All FPS boils down to two main aspects, the CPU and the video card (GPU). HeroBlade runs on the CPU side of the equation. It sets up graphical data and feeds it to the video card. It also runs scripts, animations and a few other things."

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Simply not accurate. It depends on the engine/programming used. Here an example of how the Hero Engine relies on gpu AND cpu.

 

A lot of info about the FPS issues and the related CPU impacts - Hero Engine

 

Small excerpt from their site:

 

"CPU Side: All FPS boils down to two main aspects, the CPU and the video card (GPU). HeroBlade runs on the CPU side of the equation. It sets up graphical data and feeds it to the video card. It also runs scripts, animations and a few other things."

 

Agree. Overclocking can have quite a significant impact upon performance. It all comes down to where one is bottlenecked. If it's on pure raw CPU processing power ( especially on single thread games ) then you will see improvements from overclocking.

 

Often you won't notice it in more modern games because it will be your GPU that bottlenecks but then you can overclock that too and it will usually give a reasonable performance boost ( I find 5FPS+ to be reasonable personally ).

[MeNaCe-NZ]

Yeh, unless Zen hurries up chances are Zen will be competing with the 10nm Cannonlake rather than the 14nm Skylake.

 

Not entirely sure about the competitive aspect of that since the Cannonlake would only really be a Tick to Skylake thus shrinking the die and offering lesser power consumption whilst not really offering any significant extra power/features per se ( purely an assumption on my behalf at this stage ).

 

Just like with broadwell which I think will mostly be ignored ( Had a quick look at my usual computer retailer here and can't see any desktop broadwell chips so assuming it's more or less going to be completely skipped over with skylake desktop launch this year ) by end user gamers.

 

Still in saying all that if they do take too long with Zen and it comes out around the time of cannonlake and people have to choose between the 2 in terms of an upgrade of MB due to new socket type you can be fairly certain they are going to stay the intel path for the 10nm especially if skylake/zen are of comparable performance.

 

Price can also be king but I don't see AMD being able to truly undercut Intel on a price per performance factor but stranger things have happened. ( I recall looking at those first Titan's vs I think it was 295x2 for price for performance and NVidia got dominated there for the short time they were top of the line cards ).

[WaffleQwop]

If he wants the best bang for his dollar, he needs the Pentium G3258.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G3258-BX80646G3258/dp/B00KPRWAZQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429919141&sr=8-1&keywords=g3258

 

For $70, you are getting an Overclockable pentium. It's comparable to an i7 when OC'd to 4.2 and coupled with a good GPU. Even without OC'ing, it's in the top 30 (I believe) in singlethreaded performance. If he wants to play anything other than SWTOR, the i3 is an option, but if the majority of his gaming is to be on SWTOR, the Pentium is the way to go.

 

The only downside is that is has 2 threads, so it won't play SOME new titles at all (Far Cry 4). If that doesn't scare you, then you should get this CPU. I ordered mine yesterday, going to pair it with a 750Ti.

 

This is like the ultimate budget CPU. It'll run GTA V 30FPS high settings with a 750Ti (found a video!)

 

 

This thing is going to be fun.

[Elracor]

Not entirely sure about the competitive aspect of that since the Cannonlake would only really be a Tick to Skylake thus shrinking the die and offering lesser power consumption whilst not really offering any significant extra power/features per se ( purely an assumption on my behalf at this stage ).

 

Well it can go both ways. Ivy Bridge was a Tick to Sandy Bridge but was still a solid line of Core CPUs (e.g. i5 3570k and it 3770k). Lower power consumption sometimes leads to higher OC potential, again depending on the design.

 

Just like with broadwell which I think will mostly be ignored ( Had a quick look at my usual computer retailer here and can't see any desktop broadwell chips so assuming it's more or less going to be completely skipped over with skylake desktop launch this year ) by end user gamers..

 

That's mainly because Intel has not released any Broadwell CPUs for desktop/gamers. It's only recently they announced any kind of Broadwell CPUs for Desktop: http://wccftech.com/intel-broadwell-cpus-i5-5675c-i7-5775c-oem-listed/ , and even those are low power versions rather than actual upgrades of the current 4690k and 4790k.

 

Still in saying all that if they do take too long with Zen and it comes out around the time of cannonlake and people have to choose between the 2 in terms of an upgrade of MB due to new socket type you can be fairly certain they are going to stay the intel path for the 10nm especially if skylake/zen are of comparable performance.

 

Price can also be king but I don't see AMD being able to truly undercut Intel on a price per performance factor but stranger things have happened. ( I recall looking at those first Titan's vs I think it was 295x2 for price for performance and NVidia got dominated there for the short time they were top of the line cards ).

 

It definitely won't be easy for AMD, and AMD will probably have to go the cheap route regardless. I'll be really surprised if they somehow manage to beat Intel on performance on the top units. The other factor will possibly be motherboard prices, AMD entusiast boards are IMO too expensive and drags down AMDs competitive edge.

[Elracor]

If he wants the best bang for his dollar, he needs the Pentium G3258.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G3258-BX80646G3258/dp/B00KPRWAZQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429919141&sr=8-1&keywords=g3258

 

For $70, you are getting an Overclockable pentium. It's comparable to an i7 when OC'd to 4.2 and coupled with a good GPU. Even without OC'ing, it's in the top 30 (I believe) in singlethreaded performance. If he wants to play anything other than SWTOR, the i3 is an option, but if the majority of his gaming is to be on SWTOR, the Pentium is the way to go.

 

The only downside is that is has 2 threads, so it won't play SOME new titles at all (Far Cry 4). If that doesn't scare you, then you should get this CPU. I ordered mine yesterday, going to pair it with a 750Ti.

 

This is like the ultimate budget CPU. It'll run GTA V 30FPS high settings with a 750Ti (found a video!)

 

This thing is going to be fun.

 

I would only go for the G3258 if you desperately can't pay more for something better. Even as SWTOR can only really use 2 cores, having additional cores (or at least Hyperthreading) for Windows + other apps is really useful IMO, especially if you're like me and like to watch Youtube/Netflix/Twitch/etc while playing.

 

That said, if you're on a low budget and don't mind overclocking, the G3258 is really solid.

[Heat-Wave]

If he wants the best bang for his dollar, he needs the Pentium G3258.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G3258-BX80646G3258/dp/B00KPRWAZQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1429919141&sr=8-1&keywords=g3258

 

For $70, you are getting an Overclockable pentium. It's comparable to an i7 when OC'd to 4.2 and coupled with a good GPU. Even without OC'ing, it's in the top 30 (I believe) in singlethreaded performance. If he wants to play anything other than SWTOR, the i3 is an option, but if the majority of his gaming is to be on SWTOR, the Pentium is the way to go.

 

The only downside is that is has 2 threads, so it won't play SOME new titles at all (Far Cry 4). If that doesn't scare you, then you should get this CPU. I ordered mine yesterday, going to pair it with a 750Ti.

 

This is like the ultimate budget CPU. It'll run GTA V 30FPS high settings with a 750Ti (found a video!)

 

This thing is going to be fun.

 

While that CPU is indeed impressive for the price... Two points are worth noting...

 

1. It was massively overclocked from 3.2 GHz to 4.4 GHz. That is not a minor bump, it is a 25% jump. Some samples of that CPU will do it, some won't.

 

2. It is rather thin on L2 cache, which likely doesn't matter for many games, but it will show up in some.

 

---

 

Finally, it was running GTA V, a game that is pretty, but actually not that demanding. It runs on consoles, which are quite low end hardware.

 

SWTOR needs a decent GPU, but for 1080p, nothing crazy. What SWTOR really needs is a LOT of CPU. The dual core Pentium provides that, to a point...

 

However, what are you really saving? $50 over an i3 that comes with hyperthreading that does help in various situations? $130 over an i5 that has a proper 4 cores and a lot more L2 cache?

 

Fair enough, that much be a lot of money... but consider the total cost of your gaming rig... Between video card, case, power supply, SSD (you ARE running off one, right?), what percentage are you saving?

 

At stock settings, the i5 is about 50% faster in CPU intensive games compared to the Pentium G3258. Over the course of 3 years of owning it, the difference isn't that much.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-g3258-b81-cheap-overclocking,3888.html

 

If you want to do it, that is how to save money, so by all means... and it'll crush anything AMD makes when it comes to SWTOR...

 

Yes, the overclocked Pentium G3258 often gets close to the i5 in many of the more CPU intensive benchmarks (Grid 2, ARMA III), but that is comparing a major overclock to a stock chip. Overclock that i5 and it pulls right back ahead. Either compare stock to stock, or overclocked to overclocked, it is dishonest to compare such a huge overclock to a stock chip.