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
HalloweenJack - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
nice article - would like to have seen an AMD AM2 setup for comparison though. Sadly though I don't like the obvious intel slant - with comments like ` noticeable gap` between intel and amd cpu`s , yet its under 1 fps! I challenge you to actually see a 1fps difference without a meter...IanCutress - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
I didn't say gap with the small 1 FPS differencess, I said split. Whenever I said gap, there is a sizeable difference ~10%. For the small FPS difference in Dirt 3 + one GTX 580, I said "Similar to the one 7970 setup, using one GTX 580 has a split between AMD and Intel that is quite noticeable. Despite the split, all the CPUs perform within 1.3 FPS, meaning no big difference.". Please don't misinterpret my results when I cater for your issue word for word. If you have an issue with a *specific* analysis, please let me know.HalloweenJack - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
again I disagree - you use the words , chosen carefully - the implication is obvious. `gap` and `split` implying a considerable distance between the 2. when in reality there is none. at least anandtech has finally started using real world resolutions and not the pointless 800x600 . poor choice in ambiguous words In writing.HalloweenJack - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
I must ask though - why does civ and total war do poorly on AMD? and will you be adding an AM2 rig - say a 9850?JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
I disagree; "gap" and "split", particularly taken in context, are very clear in the text. What's more, for someone that appears to be worried about a single word choice, you're at the same time ignoring most of the other words.Gap: A break or hole in an object or between two objects.
Split: A tear, crack, or fissure in something, esp. down the middle or along the grain.
There's a split between AMD and Intel, but in many cases not a gap.
ThomasS31 - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
Yes. A Core2Quad would be nice to see.Also some midrange video cards, like HD7870 and GTX660/Ti.
ThomasS31 - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
My point is, that if you are on a budget, but has a C2Quad system... you may not need a new CPU for a new mid-range videocard.Though I admint these are very close to A8-A10 performance, so if that is enough, a C2Q as well might be good.
BTW a very good article... do you planning doing the same for GPUs? :)
IanCutress - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
I have got a Q9400 coming in from a family member for the next update to this review :) Putting more cards in the review might multiply it out too much time wise :/ If there is more requests to try more mid-range cards, I might move to that and retest everything, if I can get the cards in. The 7970s/580s were the only ones I really have to hand to test multi-GPU.Ian
beepboy - Wednesday, May 8, 2013 - link
You're right about the cards, a waste of time - unless its more budget oriented.Pjotr - Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - link
Core2Quad, like my Q9450-ish, I'd only like to know if buying a modern 660 or similar will not hamper that card too much. Not very interested in multi-card configs. Great review you did, but I only looked at the single-card table. I think most people try to balance the single CPU vs GPU upgrade cycles.