Dirt 3

Dirt 3 is a rallying video game and the third in the Dirt series of the Colin McRae Rally series, developed and published by Codemasters.  Dirt 3 also falls under the list of ‘games with a handy benchmark mode’.  In previous testing, Dirt 3 has always seemed to love cores, memory, GPUs, PCIe lane bandwidth, everything.  The small issue with Dirt 3 is that depending on the benchmark mode tested, the benchmark launcher is not indicative of game play per se, citing numbers higher than actually observed.  Despite this, the benchmark mode also includes an element of uncertainty, by actually driving a race, rather than a predetermined sequence of events such as Metro 2033.  This in essence should make the benchmark more variable, but we take repeated in order to smooth this out.  Using the benchmark mode, Dirt 3 is run at 1440p with Ultra graphical settings.  Results are reported as the average frame rate across four runs.

One 7970

Dirt 3 - One 7970, 1440p, Max Settings

Similar to Metro, pure dual core CPUs seem best avoided when pushing a high resolution with a single GPU.  The Haswell CPUs seem to be near the top due to their IPC advantage.

Two 7970s

Dirt 3 - Two 7970s, 1440p, Max Settings

When running dual AMD GPUs only the top AMD chips seem to click on to the tail of Intel, with the hex-core CPUs taking top spots.  Again there's no real change moving from 4670K to 4770K, and even the Nehalem CPUs keep up within 4% of the top spots

Three 7970s

Dirt 3 - Three 7970, 1440p, Max Settings

At three GPUs the 4670K seems to provide the equivalent grunt to the 4770K, though more cores and more lanes seems to be the order of the day.  Moving from a hybrid CPU/PCH x8/x8 + x4 lane allocation to a pure CPU allocation (x8/x4/x4) merits a 30 FPS rise in itself.  The Nehalem CPUs, without NF200 support, seem to be on the back foot performing worse than Piledriver.

One 580

Dirt 3 - One 580, 1440p, Max Settings

On the NVIDIA side, one GPU performs similarly across the board in our test.

Two 580s

Dirt 3 - Two 580s, 1440p, Max Settings

When it comes to dual NVIDIA GPUs, ideally the latest AMD architecture and anything above a dual core Intel Sandy Bridge processor is enough to hit 100 FPS.

Dirt3 Conclusion

Our big variations occured on the AMD GPU side where it was clear that above two GPUs that perhaps moving from Nehalem might bring a boost to frame rates.  The 4670K is still on par with the 4770K in our testing, and the i5-4430 seemed to be on a similar line most of the way but was down a peg on tri-GPU.

GPU Benchmarks: Metro2033 GPU Benchmarks: Civilization V
Comments Locked

137 Comments

View All Comments

  • A5 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    To finish that thought, I do wish Intel still had some mainstream (aka cheaper) 130W CPUs on their normal platform.
  • just4U - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    Yep.. you should also be able to tell the difference simply by measuring heat.. The SandyB's tend to run a little cooler than the IvyB although they must have done something in Haswell since it does run cooler in normal operation.. but heats up rather quickly under load just like the IvyB. But on the surface their all fairly comparable I think anyway.
  • brucek2 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    My main system is still rocking an i7-920. These charts help explain rationally what my brain must have somehow known subconsciously: that there's not yet much reason to upgrade. (I'm discounting the +50% gains on the CPU benchmarks, because my i7-920 is overclocked, making the gains much less. And I'm rarely CPU bound for long.)

    I would like a 6GB/sec SATA controller some day. My poor SSDs must be very frustrated with their host.
  • Senti - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    I'm in a similar boat: using i7-930 @4GHz. Seriously, who runs those wonderful Nehalem CPUs on default clocks when they easily overclock 1.5x? And with this overclock advantage of the newer CPUs is really underwhelming: far less than i7-920 line here shows.

    As for SSD, I use PCI-E based one and it's probably still faster or at least on par with newest SATA ones.
  • A5 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    My 920 refused to go over 3 GHz after I updated the BIOS one day. Before that I still only got 3.5 or so.

    My 4770K is a crappy overclocker, too. Maybe it's just me :-p
  • cbrownx88 - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link

    A5 - was your 920 a C0 stepping? Mine is a D0, which at the time of purchase I remember going way out of my way to check the stepping before pulling the trigger
  • BOMBOVA - Saturday, October 26, 2013 - link

    i put in a value pcie 6 Gbs, Syba controller card, only capable of 32k or 64k blocks, but is value at less than fifty bucks. works well,
  • ninjaquick - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    Isn't Win7 old? Benchmarks like these should be run on the latest Windows, at least IMHO.
  • brucek2 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    Hasn't Win8 been rejected by large numbers of desktop enthusiasts & gamers? Its adoption rate on older platforms like many included here is pitiful.

    Fortunately my sense from other articles is that its not likely to have made a significant difference either way?
  • DanNeely - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link

    The Steam HW survey has W8 at 16.4% vs 66.8% for W7.

    I suspect W7 is being used in order to keep results directly comparable to historic results.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now