Choosing a Gaming CPU October 2013: i7-4960X, i5-4670K, Nehalem and Intel Update
by Ian Cutress on October 3, 2013 10:05 AM ESTSleeping Dogs
Sleeping Dogs is a strenuous game with a pretty hardcore benchmark that scales well with additional GPU power when SSAO is enabled. The team at Adrenaline.com.br is 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
With one AMD GPU, Sleeping Dogs is similar across the board.
Two 7970s
On dual AMD GPUs, there seems to be a little kink with those running x16+x4 lane allocations, although this is a minor difference.
Three 7970s
Between an i7-920 and an i5-4430 we get a 7 FPS difference, almost 10%, showing the change over CPU generations. In fact at this level anything above that i7-920 gives 70 FPS+, but the hex-core Ivy-E takes top spot at ~81 FPS.
One 580
0.4 FPS between Core2Duo and Haswell. For one NVIDIA GPU, CPU does not seem to matter(!)
Two 580s
Similarly with dual NVIDIA GPUs, with less than ~3% between top and bottom results.
Sleeping Dogs Conclusion
While the NVIDIA results did not change much between different CPUs, any modern processor seems to hit the high notes when it comes to multi-GPU Sleeping Dogs.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
137 Comments
View All Comments
konondrum - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Thank you for doing this, it's quite informative. I just have one suggestion, perhaps you could get a Lynnfield CPU into these benchmarks. I've been happily using my i5-750 for about 4 years now, but I'm unsure if the performance would be closer to a i7-920 or Q9400. I'm thinking it may be getting close to time to upgrade, but I've still never come across a game or app that seems to choke it.teiglin - Saturday, October 5, 2013 - link
+1 to Lynnfield. My i5-750 is still running great at a gentle ~3.5GHz, and I haven't really felt the burn in games, but I also am not running multi-GPU. Still I'd love to see how well it stacks up to the competition.cbrownx88 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
BF3/4 pleeeease.BF4 beta seems very CPU-bound on an i7920 at 4.2ghz at 1920x1200... very different story than BF3 (where I currently didn't feel the need to update)
pandemonium - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
I love articles like this! Excellent stuff, thanks!I'm still confused why you guys don't have an i5-3570k in your line-up. Of all of the processors, that's probably the most crucial to have, being it's performance for the price and popularity for builds. These tests give me little to go on without that processor, as important as it is for the general builder!
pandemonium - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
Also, CPU benchmarks for gaming aren't as necessary with single player games. A necessary contrast for CPU comparison will be for MMOs or multiplayer FPS runs. Obviously it's more difficult to get accurate baseline results for such instances, but a large amount of runs should at least minimize any variables between each testing instance and give a broader definition for how well each processor will perform.If you guys could get on the latest MMOs and test out these rigs, that'd be where I see charts for CPU comparison really come into play for gaming.
Nirvanaosc - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
Final Fantasy XIV has a benchmark, but I don't know if it fits on their needs. Maybe worth check it although I'm not sure if that represents real world gameplay.BOMBOVA - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
Guys and Gals:, i have started using Video editing software, Coral, and Photo software ACD17, and need the best out of my i7 960, so, i have spent considerable time fitting with a new SYBA x4 SATA 3 controller, "50" bucks, and a better CPU cooler, double fan, big aluminum / copper beast. out come it works, SSD's are working like they should in Raid 0, / with 2.5 hdd backup, using hot swap. and i went back to the literature " stories " of over clocking, and settled on a 4.2 overclock. Letting you all know it words really, really good. i am almost ashamed of myself, " being techie " that it took me so long to get practical. . i am now resigned to waiting for DDR 4, and PCIe 3.x for future considerations. good article/ thanksBOMBOVA - Saturday, October 26, 2013 - link
update, i really parked the beast cpu 960 at 3.8x Mhz, 4.2 is too HOT, the fan rate is NOISy, and it is unstable, as i am wondering if my hard drive crashes are Malware, or just unstable, NONE of that at 3.8x, i will adjust my PCIe rate up from 133 MHz, say towards 137 or even 140 if stable, on all add in cards. it only works to your least stable card, i have settled on a Marvel, hdd controller card, for cheap , cost effective, bottom line, i like this article, and after 3 days of work, i am on to doing work with my computer. thanks all. Cheers Thomas Gx yvr.ca Vancouver CanadaRanger101 - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
Every time an article of this sort is written, the conclusion is the same: In the vast majority of cases, due to GPU bottlenecks the differences between Cpus are so minute that no-one would ever notice the performance difference in game. Yawn.Ranger101 - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
Every time an article of this sort is written, the conclusion is the same. In the vast majority of cases, due to GPU bottlenecks, the performance differences between CPUs are so minimal that no-one would notice the difference in game. Yawn.