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
Democrab - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
It's not really representative of most games, everyone knows it's highly CPU limited...Most games are GPU limited as proven by this, yet a lot of people seem unaware of that.Spoelie - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Another choice I was considering for gaming: the i5 3350p.This is the cheapest i5 available on this side of the pond and still Ivy, so it allows the 4 bin overclocking. Since haswell, intel does not allow any overclocking anymore for non-K parts.
In addition, Z77 motherboards are quite a bit cheaper than Z87 for the moment.
So for a 30$+ cheaper than the 4430, you get 3.7/3.6/3.6/3.5ghz Ivy vs 3.2/3.0ghz Haswell.
The platform isn't that upgradeable but with Intel moving to 2-year cadences for desktop upgrades, the performance should stay relevant for at least 4 years...
mrdude - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Amazing article, Ian. Thanks a ton.It's shocking to see how well the dual core Intel parts and the two-module AMD chips fare, even at 1440p with a single GPU. With respect to single-GPU gaming, opting to pull some $ out of the CPU/MB fund in order to buy a better GPU is certainly more advisable.
Those who invested in the X58/1366 platform certainly got their money's worth. Frankly, even buying a secondhand 1366 platform is a good idea if it's cheaper than a new quad-core 1155/1150 + mobo. Going from an SSD running on 3GB/s to 6GB/s really isn't noticeable. I've done this twice on two separate platforms and the only difference I've seen is with respect to bootup speed.
You also have to figure that this graph will change with the newer generation of console ports. I have an inclining that 2/4 threads might stumble a bit with some more demanding titles. We might even see AVX play a more significant role as well
cbrownx88 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
BF4 is gonna bump me from X58 I believe... way more CPU bound than BF3 (1920x1200@4.2ghz)snouter - Wednesday, October 30, 2013 - link
BF4 makes my 4930k work more than I thought it would.BOMBOVA - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
i am reviving my x58 MSI board, with Syba sata 3 controller, and i really notice a difference on my long video editing files. that was my whole point of modding up. Cheers. good discussionchizow - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I really appreciated what this article tried to accomplish, and I think it does shed some light on some aspects of what you were trying to test...but someone at AnandTech couldn't throw you a bone and get you a pair of higher-end GPUs to test? 580s are a bit long in the tooth to garner any meaningful results. Maybe Gigabyte could have kicked a pair of 680s to you?Also, it would have been nice to see some Battlefield 3 results, since it is widely touted as a title that scales extremely well with both CPU (and shows big differences with HT) and GPU, especially in MultiPlayer, and will be especially relevant in the next few months as Battlefield 4 launches.
dusk007 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I find testing for CPU performance is not a strong suit of reviewers. The test has lots of data but it is missing the situations that gamers end up in which do require CPU performance.Starcraft 2. Just run a replay of an 8 player map at 4x-8x speed and most dual core notebooks practically break down.
Total War set unit size to epic and run some huge battle. That is where this games is great but it drains cpu resources like crazy.
Shooters or racing games are examples where the CPU has to do nothing but feed the GPU which is really the least CPU intensive stuff. Mulitplayer adds quite a bit of overhead but it is still not something if you play you need to worry much about your CPU.
When testing CPU performance kick all those shooters to the curve and focus on RTS games with huge unit sizes.
It is the minimum frames at these games that require CPU performance. The situations where it gets annoying that in the biggest battles the CPU cannot keep up. Starcraft 2 on medium runs on almost any GPU but it can bring slower CPU quickly to its limits.
IanCutress - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
COH2 is planned for our next benchmark update to cover the RTS side. I know Rome II is also a possibility, assuming we can get a good benchmark together. As I mentioned, if possible I'd like to batch file it up so I can work on other things rather than moderate a 5 minute benchmark (x4 for repetitions for a single number, x4-8 for GPU configs to complete a CPU analysis, x25+ CPUs for scope).If you have any other suggestions for the 2014 update, please let me know - email address is in the article (or click on my name at the top).
Ian
anubis44 - Saturday, October 5, 2013 - link
"COH2 is planned for our next benchmark update to cover the RTS side."Excellent. This is one of my most-played games. In addition, I wouldn't be surprised if subsequent patches for this game didn't noticeably improve it's multi-threaded performance, so having older results will be nice to have once these patches are released in order to track the improvements.