Choosing a Gaming CPU: Single + Multi-GPU at 1440p, April 2013
by Ian Cutress on May 8, 2013 10:00 AM ESTSleeping Dogs
While not necessarily a game on everybody’s lips, Sleeping Dogs is a strenuous game with a pretty hardcore benchmark that scales well with additional GPU power. The team over at Adrenaline.com.br are supreme for making an easy to use benchmark GUI, allowing a numpty like me to charge ahead with a set of four 1440p runs with maximum graphical settings.
One 7970
Sleeping Dogs seems to tax the CPU so little that the only CPU that falls behind by the smallest of margins is an E6400 (and the G465 which would not run the benchmark). Intel visually takes all the top spots, but AMD is all in the mix with less than 0.5 FPS splitting an X2-555 BE and an i7-3770K.
Two 7970s
A split starts to develop between Intel and AMD again, although you would be hard pressed to choose between the CPUs as everything above an i3-3225 scores 50-56 FPS. The X2-555 BE unfortunately drops off, suggesting that Sleeping Dogs is a fan of the cores and this little CPU is a lacking.
Three 7970s
At three GPUs the gap is there, with the best Intel processors over 10% ahead of the best AMD. Neither PCIe lane allocation or memory seems to be playing a part, just a case of threads then single thread performance.
Four 7970s
Despite our Beast machine having double the threads, an i7-3960X in PCIe 3.0 mode takes top spot.
It is worth noting the scaling in Sleeping Dogs. The i7-3960X moved from 28.2 -> 56.23 -> 80.85 -> 101.15 FPS, achieving +71% increase of a single card moving from 3 to 4. This speaks of a well written game more than anything.
One 580
There is almost nothing to separate every CPU when using a single GTX 580.
Two 580s
Same thing with two GTX 580s – even an X2-555 BE is within 1 FPS (3%) of an i7-3960X.
Sleeping Dogs Conclusion
Due to the successful scaling and GPU limited nature of Sleeping Dogs, almost any CPU you throw at it will get the same result. When you move into three GPUs or more territory, it seems that having the single thread CPU speed of an Intel processor gets a few more FPS at the end of the day.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
242 Comments
View All Comments
Achaios - Friday, May 10, 2013 - link
@Ian Cutress: Hello Ian, please get a hold on a Quad Core Intel Core 2 CPU (q9540, q9550, q9650, qx9650, qx9770) and include it in your testing. I don't know where you get that "many people are still on Core 2 Duos" maybe you have seen some sort of market research? I still use a QX 9650 for gaming (WoW and SW:TOR-MMO's) and I am very happy with its performance. It would be nice to see how the high-end Core 2 CPUs measure up against modern CPUs.Andy_1 - Friday, May 10, 2013 - link
What a great Article, As I am in the process of making my mind up what to buy in the next two months this answers so many of my questions. Thank you! My main unanswered question some how seemed to get missed OR did I not read correctly??QThe results on the games show the 2 CPU config as scoring zero! is that because the wouldn't run the software on the rig or what?
ajlueke - Friday, May 10, 2013 - link
Great article. For those of us still gaming at 1080p with single GPU set ups, it is nice to know that it doesn't really matter if I spend a little less on the CPU and divert those funds toward a higher end GPU.Gamer4Life63 - Friday, May 10, 2013 - link
First, well done piece with lots of great info. Now then I would love to see this same kind of look done at 1080 resolutions with a mid range card like a 7870 or 7850. Would also love to see some other games added to the mix like a modern MMO or Skyrim that is a bit harder on the CPU.SurrenderMonkey - Friday, May 10, 2013 - link
Yes, Intel has great engineers not to forget the business gurus. Intel did a great job on Larrabee, choose(?) not to be in the Nextgen consoles and it will be jam tomorrow in the tablet and smartphone market. In April Intel reported a downturn of 25% in profits which it attributed to a decline on the PC market. As Anandtech has just shown the GPU is where the money is at, the CPU is a passenger and time to replace is extending. Intel makes good processors but it is also a one trick pony who has failed to move with the times.MarcVenice - Friday, May 10, 2013 - link
You thought of some many things to consider, yet when you say: We know what's missing, you forgot so many things. I didn't read all the comments so excuse me if someone already mentioned it. But what's missing is several games. Crysis 3 for example, or Far Cry 3.You mentioned that 1440p is a niche (it's 2560x1440 btw, 1440p isn't technically a resolution). So why didn't you test at 1920x1080, not only are games more prone to being cpu-limited, but games like Crysis 3 or Far Cry 3 are actually more demanding then games like DiRT 3.
Reason I mention this, is that I've found there to be a rather big difference between a X4 970 and a 3960X in those games, at ultra settings in Crysis 3 and FC3, with a GTX 660, 670 and 680. I know Anandtech doesn't report minimum's, but if you take the time to do as many runs as you did, you can scientifically establish that the minimum fps is also greatly affected by slower cpu's.
Reason I respond after not having done so in years, is that I found your suggestion to pare a 5600K with a high-end gpu to be disputable, and that's me being mild. Especially since you more or less went and said that 'other' websites or testing didn't do their testing properly.
OwnedKThxBye - Monday, May 13, 2013 - link
I agree 100% MarcVenice.The recommendation also doesn't take into consideration the upgrade path of the PC. If you were to follow this suggestion, the probability of having to do a full CPU and motherboard upgrade instead of just the GPU when you next need to upgrade is going to be significantly higher. Most people don't want to do a full system upgrade after 2-3 years because they are CPU limited on the new title they want to play. I say spend the extra $100-$150 on a better CPU and potentially make the PC last another two years.
lesherm - Friday, May 10, 2013 - link
Ian, this is real research and journalism. This kind of in-depth reporting on hardware is exactly what keeps me coming back to anandtech, year after year. Your efforts are appreciated!TheQweaker - Saturday, May 11, 2013 - link
I agree with this.-- The Qweaker.
Animebando - Friday, May 10, 2013 - link
I would love to see this kind of write-up that covers surround/eyefinity resolutions. I've been fairly impressed with how my 7950 handles games across three monitors, and I've been an nVidia fan for years.