Introduction and Test Hardware
How much does a processor matter for gaming?
The PC gaming world has become divided by two distinct types of games: those that were designed and programmed specifically for the PC, and console ports. Unfortunately for PC gamers it seems that far too many titles are simply ported over (or at least optimized for consoles first) these days, and while PC users can usually enjoy higher detail levels and unlocked frame rates there is now the issue of processor core-count to consider. This may seem artificial, but in recent months quite a few games have been released that require at least a quad-core CPU to even run (without modifying the game).
One possible explanation for this is current console hardware: PS4 and Xbox One systems are based on multi-core AMD APUs (the 8-core AMD "Jaguar"). While a quad-core (or higher) processor might not be techincally required to run current games on PCs, the fact that these exist on consoles might help to explain quad-core CPU as a minimum spec. This trend could simply be the result of current x86 console hardware, as developement of console versions of games is often prioritized (and porting has become common for development of PC versions of games). So it is that popular dual-core processors like the $69 Intel Pentium Anniversary Edition (G3258) are suddenly less viable for a future-proofed gaming build. While hacking these games might make dual-core CPUs work, and might be the only way to get such a game to even load as the CPU is checked at launch, this is obviously far from ideal.
Is this much CPU really necessary?
Rather than rail against this quad-core trend and question its necessity, I decided instead to see just how much of a difference the processor alone might make with some game benchmarks. This quickly escalated into more and more system configurations as I accumulated parts, eventually arriving at 36 different configurations at various price points. Yeah, I said 36. (Remember that Budget Gaming Shootout article from last year? It's bigger than that!) Some of the charts that follow are really long (you've been warned), and there’s a lot of information to parse here. I wanted this to be as fair as possible, so there is a theme to the component selection. I started with three processors each (low, mid, and high price) from AMD and Intel, and then three graphics cards (again, low, mid, and high price) from AMD and NVIDIA.
Here’s the component rundown with current pricing*:
Processors tested:
- AMD Athlon X4 860K – $74.99
- AMD FX 8350 – $165.93
- AMD FX 9590 (with AIO cooler) – $259.99
- Intel Core i3-4130 – $118
- Intel Core i5-4440 – $184.29
- Intel Core i7-4790K – $338.99
Graphics cards tested:
- AMD Radeon R7 260X (ASUS 2GB OC) – $137.24
- AMD Radeon R9 280 (Sapphire Dual-X) – $169.99
- AMD Radeon R9 290X (MSI Lightning) – $399
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti (OEM) – $149.99
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770 (OEM) – $235
- NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (ASUS STRIX) – $519
*These prices were current as of 6/29/15, and of course fluctuate.
Looking over the list above I’m immediately drawn to the R9 280 at just $169.99 on Amazon, a great price for a mid-range card (we'll see how well it performed). On the NVIDIA side I'll note that my choice of mid-range card might be questioned, with the GTX 960 the new $200-$220 option; I picked the 770 over the 960 simply because I already had one on hand to test. Finally, all of the AMD cards tested were overclocked retail models, such as the MSI R9 290X Lightning with a 1080 MHz core. Stock performance will be a bit lower, but these are all off-the-shelf cards and nothing was run beyond retail spec. If it was overclocked by the manufacturer, I ran it that way. Each platform was configured using default settings, with 8GB of dual-channel 1600 MHz DDR3 used for each testbench.
Making Sacrifices
The six games used to benchmark this hardware
For game testing I made the decision to use only automated benchmarks for the sake of consistency. I wanted to eliminate the possibility of variance with the test results, as there will often be minute differences in the results with this much hardware. As a result of this there were some excellent candidates that I simply couldn't use without an automated benchmark tool. I tried to vary the mix of games to provide an uncolored look at the true potential performance of the hardware, and of the 6 games selected half use AMD's Mantle API (these were tested with DX11 as well) and at least one (Civilization: Beyond Earth) is known to be highly CPU-bound.
All tests were run at both 1920×1080 and 2560×1440 resolution, with three identical runs at each resolution for each hardware component. Drivers were current when testing began in January, and therefore out of date by current standards. This was necessary to provide a true comparison between hardware results.
AMD cards were tested using Catalyst Omega 14.12
NVIDIA cards were tested using GeForce Game Ready Driver 347.25
Windows 8.1 64-bit was used for all game testing, and games were loaded using identical Steam backups for each title.
Without further preamble let’s get to the test results!
Thank you, Sebastian!
It
Thank you, Sebastian!
It would be interesting to see these data points plotted against the price of the setup, including motherboard and power supply of course.
Yes it would. There are a lot
Yes it would. There are a lot of things that can still be done with all of this data 🙂
This is the kind of content I
This is the kind of content I love, GREAT JOB! THANKS!!
In my personal “real world” situation I’ve been unable, until now, to decide if my OLD i7860 2.8GHz (3.46GHz when Turbos up) is bottle necking a recently purchased [and reasonably priced] GTX 770 with a 1080p 144Hz monitor. I finally have an answer (I think)!
If I’m extrapolating from your data correctly, I need not go beyond a Z97 MB w/ 4440 (or better) CPU and last gen DDR3 memory to get significant increases in FPS, due mainly to better CPU speed. And I’ll then have a new machine that is likely to upgrade acceptably as prices on better GPUs come down to more affordable levels!
Or I might just wait for Skylake and overpurchase… *_*
I hate to ruin the party but
I hate to ruin the party but this review is already outdated by the drivers. AMD made huge gains in overhead compared to last year Catalyst Omega. Yes huge difference!
Even the latest beta 1023.7 compared to Catalyst 15.7 is +40% with 3DMark overhead feature test. These drivers are just a few weeks away from each other…
Some very important games are
Some very important games are left out. The latest games are very demanding. You need to look for the worst case scenario, games that are challenging. GTA5, Witcher 3, Far Cry 4, Flight Simulator X (mainly single threaded, still madness today)
I never would have chosen game like Bioshock Infinite, since it’s a Unreal 3 engine game you know that even a Core 2 Duo would do well probably…
what were the clock speed of
what were the clock speed of the cpu’s?
Everything was run at stock
Everything was run at stock speeds.
For AMD the X4 860K runs at 3.7 GHz with a 4 GHz boost, the FX 8350 has a 4 GHz base and 4.2 GHz boost, and the FX 9590 has a 4.7 GHz base and 5 GHz boost.
On the Intel side the Core i3-4130 runs at 3.4 GHz, the i5-4440 has a base of 3.1 GHz with 3.3 GHz turbo, and the i7-4790K has a 4 GHz base and 4.4 GHz turbo.
Great work.
This will be a
Great work.
This will be a reference for months to come. Very comprehensive and informative.
AMD needs to work on IPC. I hope Zen has good memory controllers paired with the promised 40% increase in IPC even though it’s too little to late.
These results convinced me to make the jump from FX-6300 to 4690k and I am so happy I did.
Why bother using core i3 4130
Why bother using core i3 4130 when a 200MHz faster core i3 4160 cost exactly the same. Check newegg prices
You’re right, the Core i3
You're right, the Core i3 prices are pretty flat so it makes sense to buy the faster model, obviously. I used the i3-4130 because I already owned one.
I wish just 1 site would put
I wish just 1 site would put prepar3d or FSX in their benchmark testing so people in the simulation community had a way to measure the hardware they need to get as it is completely different than every other gaming platform out there. Think about please
Will you be adding
Will you be adding price/performance charts? If not do you have the benchmark data in excel so i can put the charts together myself.
I say with dx12 your cpu will
I say with dx12 your cpu will become even more of a factor
As usual i wa smentioned the
As usual i wa smentioned the benchmarks were done with any other process closed.
But a lot of the time we have a crap tone of shet open in the background: browser (with god knows how many tabs), music player, audio player, voice chat, game platform (steam origin etc), a download or two and so on.
Also no benchmarks for something like a mmo/rts. Kinda hard to pull of but those are the games the processor will cry in.
Awesome project, should give more people an understanding of balancing a system, but i’d love some comparisons with a real life situation.
Awesome test guys, very
Awesome test guys, very interesting results sometimes :).
This review has saved me a
This review has saved me a lot of money, I was going to systen change to intel and retire my 8350 that i pair with my Zotac Gtx 980 amp Edition. The i5 was kicking it`s ass, but I plan to start only gaming at 1440.
the 980 is more than up to the job and as this review proves when you crank up the resolution to 1440 the FX8350 battles back and gives me no reason to go intel.
This is so good it should be
This is so good it should be permanently linked to the website homepage.
Well done sir!
These results are amazing,
These results are amazing, and also surprising to me. Going up in resolution, in my mind I figured more CPU horsepower would be a necessity. But it seems most modern GPUs are still the bottleneck here, making stronger CPUs less of a necessity at higher than 1080P. It’s very interesting data, and I thank you for taking so much of your time to collect all of it. Keep it up 🙂
I am still on a C2Q 9550
I am still on a C2Q 9550 LOL
I understand that a midrange / low-end card will give better results I f I move to a modern CPU.
Working on it.
Good read ! thank you for the
Good read ! thank you for the effort put in this 🙂
omg that i3 is the best value
omg that i3 is the best value per $$ on a budget build if you want to upgrade in the future you can get an i3 for like $80 and upgrade to the i5 k ver in the future if you want.
Thanks for the hardword guys perfect first post to read from you guys very helpful.
Hey there, I really
Hey there, I really appreciate this big review, but I’m still confused on bonding certain GPUS and CPUs toghether. SO if it’s not much of a bother, can anyone please give me an opinion?
Q: I’m building a 900p budget gaming rig, so far I have the R9 270 ( could upgrade later this summer to a GTX 960/R9 380) and I’m having a tough time choosing a CPU. SO the main problem is I don’t wanna spend too much money (here it is too expensive. So the Question is: Does it HAVE to be an intel i5? Could I be able to play new games for the next 2~3 years (High settings not obligatory) with just an i3? (BTW I also have an open mind to AMD CPUs as well) I reall need an opinion ( or three), please!
Hello, very nice review, I
Hello, very nice review, I was wondering if the gap between fx 8350 and 4790k it is shorter in 4K gaming. I have a 4790k with a 980 sli. And I am thinking to sell my cpu and mainboard and get a fx 8350 and a asus formula z. Will notice a decrease of fps at 4K..?? The idea is with the extra money upgrade my 980 sli to a 980 ti sli. Thanks