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
Harry Lloyd - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I am sorry to say that, but I never expected to see a completely useless test at AnandTech. 99% of singleplayer games are fine with a Core i3, 99.9% of all games are fine with a stock Core i5, but there is that 0.1 % that is not, and it is mostly multiplayer.Go look at the BF4 beta tests, where even a Haswell i7 is a bottleneck. Even BF3 muliplayer performs better with a modern i5 than with a 1156/1366 CPU.
And with next-gen games right around the corner, the situation might change drastically with more and more games needing a very fast quad core CPU.
Dribble - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Agree. What's the point of running time demos (need less cpu grunt) on single player games (need less cpu grunt) at very high res/settings (gpu bound max fps) with no min fps (so weak cpu bottlenecks hidden).Makes those with weak cpu's feel better and leads to lots of "surprising my AMD processor is good enough" comments, but it actually for many people it's not.
just4U - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Personally I'd say that's a load of BS. I work with a lot of different setups, and unless your an enthusiast the average gamer really can't tell the difference. Their coming off of older setups already so unless your cutting a ton of corners you can easily go the AMD route for a good majority of them.glugglug - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I don't understand the recommendation for "at least quad core" for Civilization V.Having looked at task manager during the game, it quickly becomes apparent that the game is effectively entirely single threaded. It doesn't even have a separate thread for video rendering vs. AI, or if it does, they completely block each other. Setting the CPU affinity to keep the game on a single core makes absolutely no difference in that game.
JPForums - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I've got to say, I'm impressed with the common sense approach, both to the setup of a benchmark of this size, and some of the conclusions I'm reading.
I'm interested to see how many AMD processor's end up above the "good enough to not bottleneck the GPU setup" line. I wonder if they will be cost effective vs and Intel setup.
A future experiment of interest to me is whether or not more budget oriented chipsets significantly hinder performance. I guess the question that's on my mind is "Is there any situation in which a faster processor on a board with lesser capabilities would be outperformed by a (somewhat) slower processor on a board with greater capabilities?" Or put a different way, "How much processing power is it logical to sacrifice in pursuit of a better platform (I.E. more PCIe lanes for multiGPU setups)?"
KaarlisK - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Could you please test a Haswell Pentium? In comparison to the i3, it has only slight lower frequency, but no HT, and is way cheaper.ShieTar - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I second this request. From the limited amount of tests I could find so far it seems that saving money on the CPU and investing it into the GPU is the way to go for most games. That seems to include even seemingly unbalanced combinations like a Pentium and a GTX 780 beating a Quad-Core and a GTX 770.Flunk - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I was quite surprised to see the Sandy Bridge chips hanging in there. There doesn't seem to be much need to upgrade if you have a i5-2500K or i7-2600k, especially if you factor in how easy they are to overclock for 4.5Ghz and sometimes beyond.just4U - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Wasn't much of a bump for ivyB or Haswell really.. Put all three on a table ("STOCK") /w similar hardware and I'd lay money on 99.9% not being able to tell the difference. CPU's have been going sideways in performance rather than upwards. (My opinion..) for sometime now.What's interesting is Socket1366 cpu's are finally beginning to show some age..
A5 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Performance hasn't been increasing (as much) because of the focus on power consumption in laptops. That and AMD's utterly noncompetitive products at the high end.I could 100% tell you which system was which if I had a Kill-A-Watt, though.