Choosing a Gaming CPU October 2013: i7-4960X, i5-4670K, Nehalem and Intel Update
by Ian Cutress on October 3, 2013 10:05 AM ESTMetro2033
Our first analysis is with the perennial reviewers’ favorite, Metro2033. It occurs in a lot of reviews for a couple of reasons – it has a very easy to use benchmark GUI that anyone can use, and it is often very GPU limited, at least in single GPU mode. Metro2033 is a strenuous DX11 benchmark that can challenge most systems that try to run it at any high-end settings. Developed by 4A Games and released in March 2010, we use the inbuilt DirectX 11 Frontline benchmark to test the hardware at 1440p with full graphical settings. Results are given as the average frame rate from a second batch of 4 runs, as Metro has a tendency to inflate the scores for the first batch by up to 5%.
One 7970
Almost all our test results fall between 31-35 FPS, which technically means a 10% difference between Nehalem CPUs and the latest Intel and AMD CPUs.
Two 7970s
Doubling up to two 7970s and the Nehalems are in the ballpark of the Piledriver CPUs, but for comparison the quad core i5-4670K is similar to the full fat i7-4770K. Anything quad core and Intel, Sandy Bridge and above, hits 60 FPS average.
Three 7970s
At three GPUs we have a bit more seperation going on, with the Nehalems losing out due to IPC - only on the NF200 enabled motherboard do we get 70 FPS. There are no benefits moving to the hex-core Ivy Bridge-E i7-4960X, but the jump from 4670K to 4770K nets five FPS.
One 580
Similar to the 7970s, most modern CPUs perform the same. Beware of single core CPUs however, with the G465 not fairing well.
Two 580s
Similarly in dual NVIDIA GPU, there is not much difference - ~3 FPS at most unless you deal with dual core CPUs. Interestingly the results seem to be a little varied within that 41-44 FPS band.
Metro2033 Conclusion
In terms of single GPU, almost all the CPUs we have tested perform the same within a margin. On dual AMD GPUs we start to see a split, with the older Nehalem CPUs falling under 60 FPS. On tri-GPU setups the i5-4430 performs close to the Nehalems, and moving from 4670K to 4770K merits a jump from 72.47 FPS to 74-77, depending on lane allocation.
137 Comments
View All Comments
rygaroo - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
thanks for the info!Flunk - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
I upgraded from a Q6600 last year and it really did make a difference. If you're not looking to upgrade you CPU I'd get something like a Radeon 7850 and save the rest for a full rebuild in a year or two,rygaroo - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
That sounds a pretty decent plan. Thanks for the recommendation!Felix_Ram - Sunday, October 6, 2013 - link
You mean overclock an i5-2500k and job done.Scarier - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I'm surprised many people do not use Starcraft 2 or Heart of the Swarm to benchmark CPUs more often.I've noticed a much bigger increase in that particular game going from i7 920 to 3770k.
Jaguar36 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
I'd lvoe to see some more SC2 benchmarks. Single player may not be that demanding but 4v4 with big armies will crush any CPU.Dustin Sklavos - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
The problem is that StarCraft II is threaded HORRIBLY. It's single-threaded performance or bust, and that's really easy to quantify. HotS may have been released this year, but its architecture is from 2003.althaz - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
This is absolutely correct. It can murder any CPU, but the game engine runs entirely on one core, with part of another used for a few extra things (networking, AI, etc).Flunk - Friday, October 4, 2013 - link
This is why some people who are really in to Starcraft 2 are configuring their desktops with low turbo settings on 3 cores and one very-high setting on the fourth to get that extra tiny bit of performance. I'm not too sure how well it works but some people swear by it.cbrownx88 - Thursday, October 3, 2013 - link
Starcraft2 and BF3/4 pleeease