Choosing a Gaming CPU October 2013: i7-4960X, i5-4670K, Nehalem and Intel Update
by Ian Cutress on October 3, 2013 10:05 AM ESTTo start, we want to thank the many manufacturers who have donated kit for our test beds in order to make this review, along with many others, possible.
Thank you to OCZ for providing us with 1250W Gold Power Supplies.
Thank you to G.Skill for providing us with memory kits.
Thank you to Corsair for providing us with an AX1200i PSU and 16GB 2400C10 memory.
Thank you to ASUS for providing us with the AMD GPUs and some IO Testing kit.
Thank you to ECS for providing us with the NVIDIA GPUs.
Thank you to Corsair for providing us with the Corsair H80i CLC.
Thank you to Rosewill for providing us with the 500W Platinum Power Supply for mITX testing, BlackHawk Ultra, and 1600W Hercules PSU for extreme dual CPU + quad GPU testing, and RK-9100 keyboards.
Also many thanks go to the manufacturers who over the years have provided review samples which contribute to this review. For this Intel update we would particularly like to thank Gigabyte for loaning the Haswell and Nehalem CPUs!
Testing Methodology
In order to keep the testing fair, we set strict rules in place for each of these setups. For every new chipset, the SSD was formatted and a fresh installation of the OS was applied. The chipset drivers for the motherboard were installed, along with NVIDIA drivers then AMD drivers. The games were preinstalled on a second partition, but relinked to ensure they worked properly. The games were then tested as follows:
Metro 2033: Benchmark Mode, two runs of four scenes of Frontline at 1440p, max settings. First run of four is discarded, average of second run is taken (minus outliers).
Dirt3: Benchmark Mode, four runs of the first scene with 8 cars at 1440p, max settings. Average is taken.
Civilization V: One five minute run of the benchmark mode accessible at the command line, at 1440p and max settings. Results produced are total frames in sets of 60 seconds, average taken.
Sleeping Dogs: Using the Adrenaline benchmark software, four scenes at 1440p in Ultra settings. Average is taken.
If the platform was being used for the next CPU (e.g. Maximus V Formula, moving from FX-8150 to FX-8350), no need to reinstall. If the platform is changed for the next test, a full reinstall and setup takes place.
How to Read This Review
Due to the large number of different variables in our review, it is hard to accurately label each data point with all the information about that setup. It also stands to reason that just putting the CPU model is also a bad idea when the same CPU could be in two different motherboards with different GPU lane allocations. There is also the memory aspect to consider, as well as if a motherboard uses MCT at stock. Here is a set of labels correlating to configurations you will see in this review:
CPU[+] [CP] (PCIe version – lane allocation to GPUs [PLX])
e.g. A10-5800K (2 – x16/x16): A10-5800K with two GPUs in PCIe 2.0 mode
- First is the name of the CPU, then an optional + identifier for MCT enabled motherboards.
- CP indicates we are dealing with a Bulldozer derived CPU and using the Core Parking updates.
- Inside the circular brackets is the PCIe version of the lanes we are dealing with, along with the lane allocation to each GPU.
- The final flag is if a PLX chip is involved in lane allocation.
This one of the more complex configurations:
i7-3770K+ (3 – x8/x8/x8/x8 PLX)
Which means an i7-3770K (with MCT) powering four GPUs in PCIe 3.0 via a PLX chip
Common Configuration Points
All the system setups below have the following consistent configurations points:
- A fresh install of Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
- Either an Intel Stock CPU Cooler, a Corsair H80i CLC or Thermalright TRUE Copper
- OCZ 1250W Gold ZX Series PSU or Corsair AX1200i PSU for SP
- Rosewill 1600W Hercules for DP systems
- Up to 4x ASUS AMD HD 7970 GPUs, using Catalyst 13.1
- Up to 2x ECS NVIDIA GTX 580 GPUs, using GeForce WHQL 310.90
- SSD Boot Drives, OCZ Vertex 3 128 GB
- LG GH22NS50 Optical Drives
- Open Test Beds, either a DimasTech V2.5 EasyHard or a CoolerMaster Test Lab
CPU and Motherboard Configurations
Those listed as ‘Part 2’ are new for this update.
| Part 1 | A6-3650 + Gigabyte A75-UD4H + 16GB DDR3-1866 8-10-10 |
| Part 1 | A8-3850 + ASRock A75 Extreme6 + 16GB DDR3 1866 8-10-10 |
| Part 1 | A8-5600K + Gigabyte F2A85-UP4 + 16GB DDR3-2133 9-10-10 |
| Part 1 | A10-5800K + Gigabyte F2A85-UP4 + 16GB DDR3-2133 9-10-10 |
| Part 1 | X2-555 BE + ASUS Crosshair V Formula + 16GB DDR3 1600 8-8-8 |
| Part 1 | X4-960T + ASUS Crosshair V Formula + 16GB DDR3-1600 8-8-8 |
| Part 1 | X6-1100T + ASUS Crosshair V Formula + 16GB DDR3-1600 8-8-8 |
| Part 1 | FX-8150 + ASUS Crosshair V Formula + 16GB DDR3-2133 10-12-11 |
| Part 1 | FX-8350 + ASUS Crosshair V Formula + 16GB DDR3-2133 9-11-10 |
| Part 1 | FX-8150 + ASUS Crosshair V Formula + 16GB DDR3-2133 10-12-11 + CP |
| Part 1 | FX-8350 + ASUS Crosshair V Formula + 16GB DDR3-2133 9-11-10 + CP |
| Part 1 | E6400 + MSI i975X Platinum + 4GB DDR2-666 5-6-6 |
| Part 1 | E6700 + ASUS P965 Commando + 4GB DDR2-666 4-5-5 |
| Part 1 | Xeon X5690 + EVGA SR-2 + 6GB DDR3 1333 6-7-7 |
| Part 1 | 2x Xeon X5690 + EVGA SR-2 |
| Part 1 | Celeron G465 + ASUS Maximus V Formula + 16GB DDR3-2133 9-11-11 |
| Part 1 | i5-2500K + ASUS Maximus V Formula + 16GB DDR3-2133 9-11-11 |
| Part 1 | i7-2600K + ASUS Maximus V Formula + 16GB DDR3-2133 9-11-11 |
| Part 1 | i3-3225 + ASUS Maximus V Formula + 16GB DDR3-2400 10-12-12 |
| Part 1 | i7-3770K + Gigabyte Z77X-UP7 + 16GB DDR3-2133 9-11-11 |
| Part 1 | i7-3770K + ASUS Maximus V Formula + 16GB DDR3-2400 9-11-11 |
| Part 1 | i7-3930K + ASUS Rampage IV Extreme + 16GB DDR3-2133 10-12-12 |
| Part 1 | i7-3960X + ASRock X79 Professional + 16GB DDR3-2133 10-12-12 |
| Part 1b | E6400 + ASUS P965 Commando + 4GB DDR2-666 4-5-5 |
| Part 1b | E6550 + ASUS P965 Commando + 4GB DDR2-666 5-6-6 |
| Part 1b | Q9400 + ASUS P965 Commando + 4GB DDR2-666 5-6-6 |
| Part 1b | i7-4770K + Gigabyte Z87X-UD3H + 16GB DDR3-2400 10-12-12 |
| Part 1b | i7-4770K + ASUS Z87-Pro + 16GB DDR3-2400 10-12-12 |
| Part 1b | i7-4770K + MSI Z87A-GD65 Gaming + 16GB DDR3-2400 10-12-12 |
| Part 2 | A6-5200 + ASRock IMB-A180-H + 8GB DDR3-1333 9-9-10 |
| Part 2 | Fusion E-350 + Zotac Fusion-A-E + 8GB DDR3-1066 7-7-7 |
| Part 2 | i7-4770K + MSI Z87 XPower + 16GB DDR3-2400 10-12-12 |
| Part 2 | 4x E5-4650L + SuperMicro + 128GB DDR3 1600 11-11-11 |
| Part 2 | 2x E5-2690 + Gigabyte GA-7PESH1 + 32GB DDR3-1600 11-11-11 |
| Part 2 | Celeron 847 + ECS NM70-I2 + 8GB DDR3-1333 9-9-9 |
| Part 2 | i7-920 + Gigabyte X58-UD9 + 6GB DDR3-1866 7-8-7 |
| Part 2 | i7-950 + Gigabyte X58-UD9 + 6GB DDR3-1866 7-8-7 |
| Part 2 | i7-990X + Gigabyte X58-UD9 + 6GB DDR3-1866 7-8-7 |
| Part 2 | i7-920 + ASRock X58 Extreme3 + 6GB DDR3-1866 7-8-7 |
| Part 2 | i7-950 + ASRock X58 Extreme3 + 6GB DDR3-1866 7-8-7 |
| Part 2 | i7-990X + ASRock X58 Extreme3 + 6GB DDR3-1866 7-8-7 |
| Part 2 | i5-4430 + Gigabyte Z87X-UD3H + DDR3-2400 10-12-12 |
| Part 2 | i7-4670K + Gigabyte Z87X-UD3H + DDR3-2400 10-12-12 |
| Part 2 | Xeon E3-1280 v3 + Gigabyte Z87X-UD3H + DDR3-2400 10-12-12 |
| Part 2 | Xeon E3-1285 v3 + Gigabyte Z87X-UD3H + DDR3-2400 10-12-12 |
| Part 2 | Via L2007 + ECS VX900-I + 8GB DDR3-1066 7-7-7 |
Our first port of call with all our testing is CPU throughput analysis, using our regular motherboard review benchmarks.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
137 Comments
View All Comments
BOMBOVA - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
a low cost raid controller yes, 64kb, 128kb, show the merit of raid 0, at 6 Gbs each, i was doubtful myself, but took the test of the device, for i need better video editing performance, at least it works :) now we have to watch out for the 12Gbs devices coming soon, imo for games, not much notice of improvement to be seen, but in big data transfers, sata 3 improvements, can be had for low costs. gl, trying it out, borrow a card to try, if you can, Cheers.BOMBOVA - Saturday, October 26, 2013 - link
fact is you can set to 32 K blocks, or 64K, 'only" , but is a true Marvel controller chip, in the Syba, and is on the PCI e buss. , Control M, sets the chipset, works rite off, is quick, but, there is a hint, that the lanes are only 5 Gbit second, still is a fine patch upgrade, on low cost 6Gbit second ssd's i am in for 2x120 ssd's and controller for 250,R-Type - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
Results are typical for a variety of games where the resolution is set to 1920 x 1200. Games include Dirt 3, Civilization V, Guild Wars 2, Mechwarrior Living Legends, Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, etc.augiem - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
I'm really kind of shocked to see how well Nehalem stands up still in many benchmarks. If you adjust the i7 920 benchmarks to make up for the difference in frequency between it and the 4770K, it's not half bad. I used the difference between the i7-920 and i7-950 to determine how the benchmark scaled on Nehalem. If it was close enough to linearly (+/- 1%), I considered it. I saw a 6% - 40% performance advantage for Haswell across the CPU tests, which is actually smaller than I expected for an almost 6 year old chip. (Obviously this includes differences in the platforms too.) Striking that even in 6 years the speed hasn't even doubled.I'm still on an i7-920@3.6, so this was very relevant to me. If it were 40% across the board, it might be more compelling, but quite a few were more like 15%, 20%, etc. Now I understand Haswell is going to OC a lot further than this one, so in that way you could get the performance diff up there.
I'm just dumbfounded that this Nehalem has lasted me 4.5 years already and it still doesn't feel slow. On the one hand its great value for the money, but on the other hand its a little disappointing to see performance curve drop off like it has over the past 6 years.
That would be a fun project. Make a graph showing average CPU performance increases over the last 30 years.
Genericuser1234 - Saturday, October 5, 2013 - link
As interesting these chips are for getting maximum performance from the high w parts. Will you do an article about the low TDP parts that are the true masterpieces Intel makes. I live in Denmark and energy cost more and more. My PC is running almost nonstop and I am curious how well these chips perform in a gaming environment. How far behind are they on performance and what kind of power cost on a year based on an average workload / idle time are we talking about you could save. I find the low power chips to be Intel's true stars. Do more with less. Maybe even throw in a power house chip from 2 years ago for comparison. That would be an interesting articleagent_x007 - Saturday, October 5, 2013 - link
Congrats to those who did testing part.Can't wait to see AMD added.
Too bad Pentium XE 955/965 (ie. Presler B1/C1 @ 3,46/3,73GHz) didn't "cut it" for this comparson :(
Hyper Threading and "Last of Netburst" legacy could be interesting in comparison with low end, fully-intergated setups, like VIA Nano or AMD Fusion.
+ There is also a possibility that todays multithreaded programs would better utilize the 4 threads of this kind of CPU, maybe to the point of matching Core 2 Duo's...
Either way, to sum it up in two words : GREAT WORK.
khanov - Saturday, October 5, 2013 - link
A good article, and nice to see an update now that new CPU's are out.Wouldn't it be nice if you could have all the benefits of X79 for multi GPU configurations, but without the added cost over Z87? Well actually you can, if you take in to account the quad-core LGA2011 CPUs.
The i7-4820K is no more expensive than the i7-4770K, and motherboard costs are very similar too. So people seriously considering 3 or 4 GPUs might be very interested in this option, to gain the benefits of extra PCIe lane allocation without the extra cost of a hex core CPU.
Ian, would you please consider adding i7-3820 and/or i7-4820K to the next update? It would be nice to see how well, or how badly, they fare against the competition.
MarcHFR - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
Hi all,Sorry but i don't understand this review. What's the point of recommanding different CPU on the only basis of single/dual/tri/quad GPU ?
First, the GPU power is not related to the number of GPU only, with 2x660 you get lower performance than 1x780, but if i read the conclusion for 2x660 you recommand FX-8350 but A8-5600K for 1x780 ?
Second, for example with only a 7970 with a small CPU or a big CPU you get exactly the same performance on Sleeping Dogs 2560*1440 max settings. But what kind of player will keep a setting that offer 28 fps on such a carde ? None ! They will lower the graphic settings related to the GPU only to a point that they will get a higher framerate, like the 80 fps you get with three card.
Whatever the number/power of the GPU, as soon as it's not a lower-end card, the CPU needed to get playable framerate is the same with a GTX 660 or 2xGTX 780 as soon as you don't use graphics settings related to the GPU that lower the framerate that can be sustained by the GPU under the framerate that can be sustained by the CPU.
You can recommand different CPU to get more than 40/60/80/120 fps in some games (but good luck since integrated benchmark are generally not using the most CPU bound scene), but recommand different CPU for single/dual/tri/quad GPU seems a non-sense for me.
Majesticii - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
Damn. How can you call this a CPU comparisson with data like this. The games are run at such extreme values that in no way they represent the impact of a CPU. Sleeping dogs is just 4 graphs with 28fps, how can any respected researcher show this data without severe shame. To add insult to injury, the vast majority seems to think this is how CPU tests are done and call it a nice review. Literally my heart sank as i read through these comments. Noone (except a few ignored), not even the reviewers has a clue what they're on about. This way of CPU-reviewing in games needs to stop. This isn't just uninformative, it's worse; It's completely misleading. Test games at 800x600 low settings, and pay no mind to those people calling for "real-world benchmarks". Stay true to what's real, instead of appealing to the community.3Ball - Monday, October 7, 2013 - link
Forgive me if this is pointed out in the article and I have missed it, but it is worth pointing out. Battlefield 4 will use up to 8 cores/threads. My i7-860 @ 4.0ghz with hyperthreading is outperforming a friends Ivy bridge (3570k) at 4.4ghz without hyperthreading, so much so that my frames are better using a GTX680 against his GTX780.This could be the product of the "beta", but I do believe it is a sign of things to come. The new consoles are most likely going to influence multithreaded performance greatly considering the lower sinlge thread performance present in the systems.
I have been planning on rebuilding with haswell early next year and was planning on getting a 4670k, but have now changed that decision to going with a 4770k due to this experience. Just my two cents. Cheers!