For our discrete GPU benchmarks, we have split them up into the different GPU configurations we have tested. We have access to both MSI GTX 770 Lightning GPUs and ASUS reference HD 7970s, for SLI and Crossfire respectively. These tests are all run at 1080p and maximum settings, reporting the average and minimum frame rates.

dGPU Benchmarks: 1x MSI GTX770 Lightning

F1 2013

F1 2013: 1080p Max, 1x GTX 770

F1 2013: 1080p Max, 1x GTX 770

Using the i3 brings the frame rate down below 120 FPS average, with the minimum FPS up to 20% lower than the i5.

Bioshock Infinite

Bioshock Infinite: 1080p Max, 1x GTX 770

Bioshock Infinite: 1080p Max, 1x GTX 770

With Bioshock on single NVIDIA, it would seem that CPU power matters more in the minimum FPS values.

Tomb Raider

Tomb Raider: 1080p Max, 1x GTX 770

Tomb Raider: 1080p Max, 1x GTX 770

Tomb Raider is infamously CPU-agnostic, showing all CPUs hovering around or below 50 FPS average.

Sleeping Dogs

Sleeping Dogs: 1080p Max, 1x GTX 770

Sleeping Dogs: 1080p Max, 1x GTX 770

Similarly with Sleeping Dogs, it does not take much CPU power to hit peak FPS.

Company of Heroes 2

Company Of Heroes 2: 1080p Max, 1x GTX 770

Company Of Heroes 2: 1080p Max, 1x GTX 770

COH2 takes a strain on most graphics cards, but both average and minimum FPS are roughly the same for all three refresh CPUs.

Battlefield 4

Battlefield 4: 1080p Max, 1x GTX 770

Battlefield 4: 1080p Max, 1x GTX 770

IGP Benchmarks: Synthetic dGPU Benchmarks: 2x MSI GTX770 Lightning


View All Comments

  • MrSpadge - Monday, May 12, 2014 - link

    Am I the only one to notice that especially in the first benchmarks the 4790 often outperforms the 4770K by ~6%, sometimes even by 11% (e.g. the very first benchmark)? Veryfiying an expected lack of improvement is nice, but not even commenting on such discrepancies seems.. not like usual Anandtech quality. If I were you I'd repeat those benchmarks and - if verified - would try to find the reason for the 4790 (sometimes) performing significantly better than expected. Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Saturday, May 24, 2014 - link

    Yes, that's weird: the improvement is greater than the clock bump. Reply
  • RickyBaby - Monday, May 12, 2014 - link

    So, would like to thank Ian on another job well done. A thankless job no doubt, as per the discussions this was a purely marketing driven release and offered essentially nothing of value. I did have one question though. And as background, I, like it appears most here are running and older, home built rigs like I am. Rigs built several generations ago which compete very well with today's rigs.

    I am an over-clocker from way back and like to squeeze out a little extra performance ... just to know that I haven't been cheated, lol. JK. Anyway, I'm thinking of buying a i3 and overclocking it what little I can or even go for an i5 - K chip. So, what overclocking options are available any more. ANY ???

    The multi-core enhancement question for K processors was not answered in this article. Does it work on the 97 chipset with the new haswell's or not ??? And the does the limited bclk overclocking work ? Again, i3 (locked) and 97 chipset, does it work or not ? I'm sure that I'm not the only to realize that a 3.7 i3 with a bclk of 108 would be a cool 4.0 ghz. And that my friends is locked at 4.0. 1 cpu, 2 cpus, and even 3 and 4 via ht and all at 4.0 ghz. Since i5s and i7s throttle down depending on # CPUs being utilized ... up until more than 4, it seems that an i3 would kick ass. And here is where most could agree. Do I do ANYTHING that requires more than 4 cpus, 100% clocked at 4 ghz for large stretches of time ? NO. I. DO. NOT. And the difference in cache between an i3 (4mb) and an i7 (6mb) is again pretty much meaningless. Anyone know the diff in hit rates? 96% vs 97% ? So and even slightly overclocked i3 would make for an enticing $ proposition.

    But this all gets ignored. Ian, care to address the overclocking situation in a follow up article ? And no, I'm not referring to Devils Canyon or the unlocked Pent; which is core limited (2, no HT) and cache limited. But for people who buy an non-K haswell. What options do they have and does it make a real difference ? I do wonder what intel would think if an i3 overclocked just a little bit would out perform every stock i5 and i7 though. Probably not a happy camper.
  • Antronman - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    K series is core unlocked. Overclock it or underclock it to any clock rate you want.

    Non-K is core locked, you can only use turbo boost which is a very small increase in clock.
  • RickyBaby - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Sorry but you didn't answer the question. Can anyone ? Or is this some sort of no-no answer that everyone is supposed to give to satisfy the GIANT in the room. That GIANT of course being Intel.

    So why the confusion? Here is why, Toms just did a roundup of some of the new mobos and addresses overclocking. On that section (page 23 I believe) there are 3 charts. The middle chart gives the maximum base clocks for each of the motherboards on each of the 3 strap settings. The Gigabyte mobo reached a bclock of 114 with the strap set to 100. Which is the default and is unchangeable on non-k chips. You cannot change the strap but I do believe that you can change the clock. Would that not be a 14% overclock. If not, why not. The comment on the the Tom's page again seems to imply but not out and out claim you could overclock ANY locked CPU by 14% using that board. Here is exactly what he said:

    "the Z79X Gaming 5 reached the highest base clock frequency when using the 100 MHz strap. That’s the only ratio available on multiplier-locked processors, so this might be important to anyone running the new Core i7-4790"

    Why would that be important ? Because the 4790 is not a K and is therefore locked. But you could still overclock it by 14% .. which is how I read that.

    And Tom's again muddies the waters. In that same article in review of the ASUS board on the 3rd page it talks about bios settings for overclocking and the use of the XMP setting. Again a quote:

    "Unless you're using a K-series CPU, overclocking is limited to a handful of 100 MHz speed bins over stock. So, we reverted to our Core i7-4770K to test it."

    So does XMP, multi-core enhancement still exist and still work for NON-K cpus ? Apparently it does. With the latest chipset (97) and latest chips (4th gen) too.

    Sorry but I wish someone would just come out and say it. If your board supports BCLK increases then you can overclock to that amount. Not that is not a lot; most boards i've seen are 5%-7%. And if your chips supports Turbo then XMP/Mult Core Ehancement is alive and well too. So take an i5, increase bck by 10% and lock your Max Turbo using XMP and you'd have a decent overclock of 15%-20% under a heavy load.

    I'm just waiting for someone (like Ian) to confirm/deny that the above is true.
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Ricky, your concern is very valid! When Haswell launched I had hoped to get i7 4770R with Crystalwell L4 cache and to be able to set all cores to 3.9 GHz (max single core turbo), unlimited power consumption and a BCLK of 102.5 - 107.5 MHz for 4.0 - 4.2 GHz. This could run at very energy efficient ~1.00 V and would outperform pretty much every other quad core if the L4 works well (>10% performance per clock) and otherwise still be decent. Without any heat problems (power consumption would probably be below a stock 4770).

    BUT there were reports of multi core enhancement not working for non-K models. Which renders such a plan useless, before I even get to the point that you can not buy 4770R soldered onto a regular mainboard (just those notebook-expensive mini boxes).
  • JokerProductions - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Still the same horrible 1150 socket, but now with a 2% performance gain. Yay! Still waiting on X99 and my 8 core. Reply
  • eanazag - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    Finally some bench love. I see the scores are in the bench. I'd like to see some updates to what AMD is still selling as far as the bench apps tested. Like comparing the FX 8350 with the new Haswells gets rough with limited apps that line up. Reply
  • The|Hunter - Tuesday, May 13, 2014 - link

    btw Intel confirmed Broadwell and Z87 compatibility back in September 2013;

    One intel ceo/rep said: "Broadwell is going to enable 2 types of devices, One you can plug the chips directly into existing systems (z87) and Second we will have brand new systems with broad new range of fanless designs.."

    *z87 and devil canyon needed IMEI uefi firmware update..
  • jjjag - Wednesday, May 14, 2014 - link

    Desktops ARE dying. Stop saying they are not. Desktop silicon is exactly the same as mobile silicon, and has been for several generations. The number of SKUs that are sold into desktop has been rapidly declining, driven by the declining number of desktop computers that are offered by people like Dell and HP, which of course is driven by demand.

    HEDT, a.k.a. "Extreme", is different silicon than mobil/desktop since the 2nd gen. Core parts. These are server parts that are de-featured and re-badged as desktop. The volumes are too small and declining to justify these for much longer.

    To answer another's question: you will not see a desktop with Iris Pro until Broadwell. Unless you count that little Gigabyte box that uses the Haswell Iris Pro.

    To respond to another. Intel is not sabotaging anything. To believe that is ignorant. It's all driven by demand. Once demand drops below a certain level, it does not make business sense to sell a particular part.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now