Metro2033

Our first analysis is with the perennial reviewers’ favorite, Metro2033.  It occurs in a lot of reviews for a couple of reasons – it has a very easy to use benchmark GUI that anyone can use, and it is often very GPU limited, at least in single GPU mode.  Metro2033 is a strenuous DX11 benchmark that can challenge most systems that try to run it at any high-end settings.  Developed by 4A Games and released in March 2010, we use the inbuilt DirectX 11 Frontline benchmark to test the hardware at 1440p with full graphical settings.  Results are given as the average frame rate from a second batch of 4 runs, as Metro has a tendency to inflate the scores for the first batch by up to 5%.

One 7970

Metro 2033 - One 7970, 1440p, Max Settings

Almost all our test results fall between 31-35 FPS, which technically means a 10% difference between Nehalem CPUs and the latest Intel and AMD CPUs.

Two 7970s

Metro 2033 - Two 7970s, 1440p, Max Settings

Doubling up to two 7970s and the Nehalems are in the ballpark of the Piledriver CPUs, but for comparison the quad core i5-4670K is similar to the full fat i7-4770K.  Anything quad core and Intel, Sandy Bridge and above, hits 60 FPS average.

Three 7970s

Metro 2033 - Three 7970, 1440p, Max Settings

At three GPUs we have a bit more seperation going on, with the Nehalems losing out due to IPC - only on the NF200 enabled motherboard do we get 70 FPS.  There are no benefits moving to the hex-core Ivy Bridge-E i7-4960X, but the jump from 4670K to 4770K nets five FPS.

One 580

Metro 2033 - One 580, 1440p, Max Settings

Similar to the 7970s, most modern CPUs perform the same.  Beware of single core CPUs however, with the G465 not fairing well.

Two 580s

Metro 2033 - Two 580s, 1440p, Max Settings

Similarly in dual NVIDIA GPU, there is not much difference - ~3 FPS at most unless you deal with dual core CPUs.  Interestingly the results seem to be a little varied within that 41-44 FPS band.

Metro2033 Conclusion

In terms of single GPU, almost all the CPUs we have tested perform the same within a margin.  On dual AMD GPUs we start to see a split, with the older Nehalem CPUs falling under 60 FPS.  On tri-GPU setups the i5-4430 performs close to the Nehalems, and moving from 4670K to 4770K merits a jump from 72.47 FPS to 74-77, depending on lane allocation.

CPU Benchmarks GPU Benchmarks: Dirt 3
Comments Locked

137 Comments

View All Comments

  • CrystalBay - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    "Watch Dogs" coming on PC requires a octo-core or better for Ultra settings.
  • jimhsu - Saturday, February 22, 2014 - link

    Yes to strategy games. Supreme Commander (the original, not the horrible "2" version), 80km maps, 8 players, 2000 unit limit, replay. Stuff like that.

    You could also throw in some sandbox games; TES is a good choice for its many CPU constrained situations, GTA5 possibly, ... (results may vary depending on threading tweaks).
  • romrunning - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    Why is the i3-3225 missing from most of the CPU benchmarks? From the beginning of that webpage, it doesn't appear until "Explicit Finite Difference Grid Solver (2D)".
  • IanCutress - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    It was one of the first CPUs I tested and I only focused on the GPU results at that time - I ran my SystemCompute benchmark just to see what it was like. I have not gone back to retest as of yet, though on the platform refresh I'll make sure to add the numbers.

    Ian
  • crimson117 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    > It is possible to consider the non-IGP versions of the A8-5600K, such as the FX-4xxx variant or the Athlon X4 750K. But as we have not had these chips in to test, it would be unethical to suggest them without having data to back them up. Watch this space, we have processors in the list to test.

    I think you should make this a priority - one could save ~$20 with the 750K, which can make a big difference on a low budget.
  • Kai Robinson - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    Why choose the P965 chipset for an LGA775 motherboard, instead of the P35 or P45 chipsets? And why no mention of the Q9650?
  • DanNeely - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    For something that old testing came down to what Ian and the hardware vendors were able to scavenge up. A 965 and 9400 on the shelf somewhere beat a p45 and 9650 that need bought.
  • cosminmcm - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    No, it doesn't. That processor (low frequency, half the cache) on that motherboard (no pcie 2.0) really doesn't do Core 2 Quad justice. A top model would probably beat (in my opinion it would certainly beat) similarly clocked Phenom 2 processors and be higher on the ladder.
  • beggerking@yahoo.com - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    thats surprising... after all these years, i5-2500k still is a beast of a CPU...
  • dishayu - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link

    "all these" = 2.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now