Discrete GPU Gaming

When comparing CPUs to APUs, one strength shown by team Blue in the past is the discrete GPU performance. However even when using dual graphics cards at a 1920x1080p resolution, we seem to have hit a wall where extra CPU performance does not necessarily translate to more frames per second. Our results below show little difference between the Haswell processors, and we need to go down to a 2.0 GHz i7 or a 3.5 GHz i3 CPU to see a significant drop in frame rates. The biggest benefit from overclocking seems to be F1 2013 minimum frame rates.

F1 2013

Discrete SLI, Average FPS, F1 2013

Discrete SLI, Minimum FPS, F1 2013

Bioshock Infinite

Discrete SLI, Average FPS, Bioshock Infinite

Discrete SLI, Minimum FPS, Bioshock Infinite

Tomb Raider

Discrete SLI, Average FPS, Tomb Raider

Discrete SLI, Minimum FPS, Tomb Raider

Sleeping Dogs

Discrete SLI, Average FPS, Sleeping Dogs

Discrete SLI, Minimum FPS, Sleeping Dogs

Company of Heroes 2

Discrete SLI, Average FPS, Company of Heroes 2

Discrete SLI, Minimum FPS, Company of Heroes 2

Battlefield 4

Discrete SLI, Average FPS, Battlefield 4

Discrete SLI, Minimum FPS, Battlefield 4

Gaming and Synthetics on Processor Graphics Conclusions


View All Comments

  • vastac13 - Friday, July 11, 2014 - link

    Just when I'm about to go to bed... Good thing I checked 1 more time :D Happy reading folks! Reply
  • Iketh - Friday, July 11, 2014 - link

    I just hope Intel has another massive breakthrough in performance soon because rendering a 4K mp4 is gonna SUCK

    Don't need AMD for this case, the industry will drive it this time...
  • ddriver - Friday, July 11, 2014 - link

    Looks like desktop CPU performance is hitting a brick wall, the last 4 generations are barely incremental in performance. Could very well be the product of AMD ultimately failing to compete in the high end. I don't complain, this way I don't feel the urge to upgrade my 3770k. Reply
  • Antronman - Thursday, July 17, 2014 - link

    IBM says silicon will end up limiting CPU capability, and are investigating alternatives. Reply
  • jhawkinstx - Tuesday, March 03, 2015 - link

    Yes, when I heard that in the news I went out and invested in companies with alternative tech (Gallium-Arsinide based processors) which did not have the limitations of silicon.......that was in the late 1990s....seems the end of silicon, like peak oil, has been preached for quite some time. For now, I will just wait patiently with my 4 year old Intel boxes. When something more than incremental improvement arrives I will buy. Reply
  • Chaser - Monday, December 29, 2014 - link

    Nor do I with my 2600K. It would be throwing money away. I am a single monitor 2440P higher end gamer that does some office work as well. I have no CPU shortfalls. Reply
  • jhawkinstx - Tuesday, March 03, 2015 - link

    I agree, I have 4-intel 2600K boxes and which run my business jobs at roughly the same rate as the Xeon based box I bought a year earlier, but with the 2600K costing 1/6 the price of the xeon. Current benchmarks show me nothing worth spending the money on. If anything I would add another 2600K box for roughly $200/processor. Reply
  • JlHADJOE - Saturday, March 21, 2015 - link

    On the contrary, CPU performance has been steadily increasing, but Intel has been choosing to spend those IPC gains on lowering the TDP instead of increasing outright performance. Reply
  • wrkingclass_hero - Sunday, July 13, 2014 - link

    It's funny, I'm actually rendering a 4K mp4 right now! My 4.6 GHz 3930k looks like it's going to take a grand total of 21 hours to render it... and it's a 3 minute clip...
    But there are a lot of effects on it (stabilization, layers of videos, etc.) It also doesn't help that it is a two pass.
  • ddriver - Monday, July 14, 2014 - link

    What do you expect, throwing such a workload on a measly single cpu - such tasks are performed by rendering farms with thousands of quad socket machines. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now