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.
137 Comments
View All Comments
tim851 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
You know, once you go Quad-GPU, you're spending so much money already that not going with Ivy Bridge-E seems stupid.In the same vein I'd argue that a person buying 2 high end graphics cards should just pay 100 bucks more to get the 4770K and some peace of mind.
Death666Angel - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I'd gladly take a IVB-E, even hex core, but that damned X79 makes me throw up when I just think about spending that much on a platform. :/von Krupp - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
It's not that bad. I picked up an X79 ASRock Extreme6 for $220, which is around what you'll pay for the good Z68/Z77 boards and I still got all of the X79 features.cpupro - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
"I'd gladly take a IVB-E, even hex core, but that damned X79 makes me throw up when I justthink about spending that much on a platform. :/"
And be screwed.
"von Krupp - Thursday, October 03, 2013 - link
It's not that bad. I picked up an X79 ASRock Extreme6 for $220, which is around what you'll pay
for the good Z68/Z77 boards and I still got all of the X79 features."
Tell that to owners of original not so cheap Intel motherboards, DX79SI. They need to buy new motherboard for IVB-E cpu, no UEFI update like other manufacturers.
HisDivineOrder - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Not if they actually bought one when it was more expensive then waited until these long cycles allowed you to go and buy a second one on the cheap (ie., 670 when they were $400, then another when they were $250).althaz - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Except that you might need the two or four graphics cards to get good enough performance, whereas there's often no real performance benefit to more than four cores (for gaming).Take Starcraft 2, a game which can bring any CPU to its knees, the game is run on one core, with AI and some other stuff offloaded to a second core. This is a fairly common way for games to work as it's easier to make them this way.
Jon Tseng - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
<sigh> it was so much easier back in the day when you could just overclock a Q6600 and job done. :-pJlHADJOE - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
You can still do the same thing today with the 3/4930k.Back in the day the Q6600 was basically the 2nd tier HEDT SKU, much like the 4930k is today, perhaps even higher considering the $851 launch price.
rygaroo - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I still run an O.C. Q6600 :) but my GPU just died (8800GTS 512MB). Do you suspect that the lack of fps on Civ V for the Q9400 is due more to the motherboard limitations of PCIE 1.1 or more caused by the shortcomings of an old architecture? I don't want to spend a lot of money on a new high end GPU if my Q6600 would be crippling it... but my mobo has PCIE 2.0 x16 so it's not a real apples to apples comparison w/ the shown Q9400 results.JlHADJOE - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
I tested for that in the FFIV benchmark.Had PrecisionX running and logging stuff in the background while I ran the benchmark. Turned out the biggest FPS drops coincided with the lowest GPU utilization, and that pretty much nailed the fact that my Q6600 @ 3.0 was severely bottlenecking the game.
Tried it again with CPU-Z, and indeed the FPS drops aligned with high CPU usage.