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

  • stephenbrooks - Saturday, May 24, 2014 - link

    I guess in the event that desktops die, I could attach my two 23" screens, keyboard and mouse to a laptop dock instead, because that's more futuristic or something. Reply
  • mikato - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - link

    "the limiting factor is the technology between the keyboard and the monitor: the user"

    Uhh, the user isn't between the keyboard and monitor. The user is on the end of a branch, past the keyboard. Maybe in the future... :)
  • jayshank7 - Thursday, May 15, 2014 - link

    I bought 4770K 2 months back so won't be getting anything before 2016 to be honest.. i may build broadwell based i5 system but my main 4770K based rig would be here with 3 x 280X Toxic for those years.. Reply
  • HardwareDufus - Sunday, May 18, 2014 - link

    Looking forward to a Broadwell based I7-5790K with IrisPro (HD5200+) Reply
  • Krysto - Wednesday, May 21, 2014 - link

    The only reason there's even a "Haswell Refresh" is because Intel blew it with Broadwell, and got delayed by a whole 6 months. In 2015 they will have most of their process advantage, and will be only 6 months ahead of TSMC, once it gets FinFET at 16nm, compared to IVB/Haswell/Silvermont where it had a generation/node and a half advantage. Reply
  • Be Careful - Friday, May 30, 2014 - link

    Hey technology nuts I would like you to read this:
  • deruberhanyok - Monday, June 2, 2014 - link

    I might be late to the party, but, on page 9, the bioshock infinite benchmark charts - is the second one mislabeled? The minimum frame rates? It seems to be. Reply
  • duttasanjiv - Thursday, November 13, 2014 - link

    Thx for the much elaborate review.
    I was looking for the Pure CPU performance of i5 4590 in Video encoding, and it unfortunately did not reveal much of the testing procedure. Kindly let us know-
    1) What was the Handbrake source(UHD or DVD) & target (Full HD /half HD) frame size ?
    2) What was the encoding speed settings (medium? slow?)
    3) What was the CRF/ CQF used?

    Most imnportantly (for me atleast :-) ) was a comparison in visible quality difference with pure CPU vs Haswell refresh applied. I heard that there is minor quality compromise with Haswell? Did they improve it with Haswell refresh??
  • GGuess - Saturday, December 6, 2014 - link

    There should be a line of discussion of why haven't CPU speeds increased in the past 5years in a significant way. My 5yr old Intel I7 is a 4 core at 3GHz. The ones discussed here are only 6 or 8 cores and run stock in the mid-3 to 4GHz range. So over 5yrs, the CPU capability has not grown 2 to 3times faster, and that only applies to applications that can use the extra cores and hyper-threading. The usual rule we work to is that people won't even notice a 50% speed increase. It has to be 2 to 3 times before it is noticed. Previously, a 3year refresh of a computer resulted in a 5 to 10x computer speed increase.

    With the current barely noticeable 2x, why bother with the trouble of an upgrade? No wonder Intel's and AMD's sales figures are failing to grow.
  • johnny_boy - Friday, February 27, 2015 - link

    Why are all the AMD chips APUs? Why not throw at least one top-end FX processor into the mix, like the very common FX-8350 which costs about as much as a 4360. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now