• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Various CPU's tested for gaming.

Protomize

Protomize

Protomize

Associate
Joined
10 Jun 2012
Posts
158
Link: http://techreport.com/articles.x/23246

"Before your eyes glaze over from the prospect of data overload, listen up. The results we've compiled confront a popular myth: that PC processors are now so fast that just about any CPU will suffice for today's games, especially since so many titles are console ports. I've said something to that effect myself more than once. But is it true? We now have the tools at our disposal to find out. You may be surprised by what we've discovered."
 
Tests were done with an HD7950. Even with a relatively old CPU,I suspect you are still getting better framerates and lower latencies than with most consoles, and the games will probably look better too.

At least,by the metrics of tens of millions of people who are used to consoles,I suspect many modern CPUs are probably good enough!! :p
 
A lot of effort, sadly wasted due to using high graphical settings imo. The benefit of such tests is to show how long your cpu is likely to give good gaming performance. For this you need to run modern games at medium detail or below, removing the graphics card as part of the equation. Upgrading the graphics card every year is easy. Upgrading the cpu not so much.
 
sadbuttrue said:
A lot of effort, sadly wasted due to using high graphical settings imo. The benefit of such tests is to show how long your cpu is likely to give good gaming performance. For this you need to run modern games at medium detail or below, removing the graphics card as part of the equation. Upgrading the graphics card every year is easy. Upgrading the cpu not so much.
Click to expand...

It's showed that the CPU's can bottleneck the games in 2012 not using the highest end GPU while using high settings. The fact there's bottlenecking now shows more modern games will bottleneck with even better GPU's.
 
Martini1991 said:
It's showed that the CPU's can bottleneck the games in 2012 not using the highest end GPU while using high settings. The fact there's bottlenecking now shows more modern games will bottleneck with even better GPU's.
Click to expand...

TBH,I suspect Intel sells many more Core i3 CPUs worldwide than Core i5 3570K CPUs and AMD more HD7850 cards than HD7950 ones worldwide.

Its about matching the components properly with the budget you have. Most modern games will still run on an older computer at reasonable settings. and still are better than a console though IMHO.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
TBH,I suspect Intel sells many more Core i3 CPUs worldwide than Core i5 3570K CPUs and AMD more HD7850 cards than HD7950 ones worldwide.

Its about matching the components properly with the budget you have. Most modern games will still run on an older computer at reasonable settings and still be better than a console though IMHO.
Click to expand...

Oh definitely, I agree.
All about going for a balanced system, not a system that's heavy in one aspect.
Also agree with the console stuff, my brothers old E5200 and 3850 was a perfect example of that on his 720p screen, although now he's running a G620 6850 and 1680x1050.
 
sadbuttrue said:
A lot of effort, sadly wasted due to using high graphical settings imo. The benefit of such tests is to show how long your cpu is likely to give good gaming performance. For this you need to run modern games at medium detail or below, removing the graphics card as part of the equation. Upgrading the graphics card every year is easy. Upgrading the cpu not so much.
Click to expand...

no thats if your benchmarking a cpu.

they were benchmarking for bottleneck
 
Informative review.
I do wish they had controlled for clockspeed (in essence reviewing architecture) as well as studying at stock clocks, but that would be more work (although you wouldnt need duplicate architectures ie i5 2400 and 2500k).

The effect on performance by having a game designed to run on multiple cores even remotly well shows a lot of promise for future games.
 
Martini1991 said:
And they got it.
Even without SC2.

Shame the variety of games wasn't there, I'd have liked to see some RTS games, Shogun 2 etc.
Click to expand...

it wasnt a bottleneck for most people who only want 60fps because they dont have a 120hz monitor and that was without any overclock

unless you want to count a 60hz monitor as a bottlekneck to
 
andybird123 said:
http://lab501.ro/placi-video/gigabyte-radeon-hd-7970-oc-partea-iv-scalare-cu-procesorul/23
Click to expand...

Holy christ GPU settings.
8x AA at 1920x1200 is absolutely pointless.

All that shows is a massively GPU limited scenario, however each of the CPU's could cope with that load.

arknor said:
it wasnt a bottleneck for most people who only want 60fps because they dont have a 120hz monitor and that was without any overclock

unless you want to count a 60hz monitor as a bottlekneck to
Click to expand...

Agreed, in those tests you probably wouldn't notice much difference if you didn't have the FPS running, however it's still a bottleneck, or there wouldn't be that degree of FPS difference in some of them (At least how I would define a bottleneck)
 
Last edited:
Very interesting.

So much information to take in i love it. My Phenom II 965BE doesnt struggle on Skyrim much and often get 60fps even with ENB mod and 2K texture plus around 60 other mods that range from graphical to gamplay features.

But this really does help show the broad line between AMD and Intel performance. I'm now considering getting a 3770K over the 2700K from this chart, its £30 more but seems worth it to some extent, i will consider this when it comes to choosing one of the two processors now.
 
DeanV255 said:
Very interesting.

So much information to take in i love it. My Phenom II 965BE doesnt struggle on Skyrim much and often get 60fps even with ENB mod and 2K texture plus around 60 other mods that range from graphical to gamplay features.

But this really does help show the broad line between AMD and Intel performance. I'm now considering getting a 3770K over the 2700K from this chart, its £30 more but seems worth it to some extent, i will consider this when it comes to choosing one of the two processors now.
Click to expand...

3770k all the way, no brainer.
 
I think it would have been nice to include the q6600 in there due to how popular it was and is still to compare bottlnecks compared to higher end cpus. I think most would know the difference it would be between the cpus of then and now but still i think it would have been informative.
 
opethdisciple said:
3770k all the way, no brainer.
Click to expand...

It just runs a lot hotter, that's something that puts me off. Plus im already somewhat right at the edge of my budget. Time will tell, i may try to keep my patience level for a few more weeks to get the 3770K. In this it really shows its has the edge even against the Sandy's, not a huge amount but from going to a 965BE to 3770K or 2700K going to be a well worthy jump.
 
Last edited:
DeanV255 said:
It just runs a lot hotter, that's something that puts me off. Plus im already somewhat right at the edge of my budget. Time will tell, i may try to keep my patience level for a few more weeks to get the 3770K. In this it really shows its has the edge even against the Sandy's, not a huge amount but from going to a 965BE to 3770K or 2700K going to be a well worthy jump.
Click to expand...

Yes it runs hotter. But I think IPC makes up for it as does PCI-Ex3 and faster ram overclocking.

I personally would not buy the 2700k. Even if you managed to get a 2700k at 4.8Ghz but got a poor clocking 3770k at only 4.4Ghz, I reckon they would perfomr pretty close to each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom