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
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.