GTX 970@1.5Ghz and 2500k vs Q9550 in 70+ benchmarks (+bonus i7-860)

[patrico]

hey @psolord thanks for taking the time to do this, its nice to what games are cpu dependent in real gaming and the difference in cpus over the past few years i found it interesting cheers

 

[kn00tcn]

whoa! i planned to do 970 on 3.6ghz q9550.... but then didnt want to spend $400+ on the card while being cpu limited, ended up getting a 660 with rebate for like $140 including tax

i've been collecting benchmarks for years comparing driver versions while also being able to compare 570m, 7850k, 660, (potentially 4870x2 before it died, if i ran the same benchmarks), maybe i should post them

you're toutagamon? apparently i'm already subscribed

EDIT: can you send me your bios settings? here are mine (may not be exact as now, but voltages probably are)

 

[psolord]

These comparisons are obviously not for contest ... I see it as a good indicator of how demanding each game is for the CPU generally. What this research unfortunately can't show is that many games can be light on the CPU 90% of the time and in 10% of the time with some of the action filled sequences game gets more CPU heavy.

That's the spirit. It was not meant to be a contest. Just to show readers what to expect with various hardware combinations.

It would ve a vettwr comparison if both cpus were running at the same clock speed regardless of cpu usage

Same clocks would be nice for sure, but I wanted to expose what the system can reach, by using everything they've got, IPC and Fab Process included.

Still some normalized clocks result will probably come at a later point.

 

[psolord]

Ok guys, since I have had some requests to post some i7-860 results already, here is the sum up of the 2500k, Q9550 and Core i7-860, on the most cpu limited benchmarks of the original benchmark suite.

Here is the list sorted by the 2500k vs Q9550 delta, from highest to lowest





and here are the same results, sorted by the 2500k vs core i7-860 delta, from highest to lowest.




As you can see, the 2500k/Q9550 delta dropped from 63% to only 13% for the 2500k/i7-860 comparison.

The clock difference of the 2500k@4.8Ghz and the i7-860@4.0Ghz is 4.8/4=20%, so for 20% more clock we only have 13% more performance. Of course this is due to the fact that this whole benchmark suite, is primarily designed to be GPU limited, with real life, very high settings, hence we have many GPU limits in all runs.

At this point, I believe it would be interesting to redo every 2500k benchmark that has a delta of 20% or more compared to the 860, which would correspond to the operating frequency difference of the two cpus, but this time clocked at 4Ghz, as the i7-860 is.

To stretch things even more, I could also disable the HyperThreading of the i7-860 for another run of these above 20% deltas, so we can see what a Lynnfield can do without the help of hyperthreading, but this is a story for another time I guess!

Of course I will come back to post the complete version of this test, with graphs, bbcode with video links etc.

 

[psolord]

whoa! i planned to do 970 on 3.6ghz q9550.... but then didnt want to spend $400+ on the card while being cpu limited, ended up getting a 660 with rebate for like $140 including tax

i've been collecting benchmarks for years comparing driver versions while also being able to compare 570m, 7850k, 660, (potentially 4870x2 before it died, if i ran the same benchmarks), maybe i should post them

you're toutagamon? apparently i'm already subscribed

EDIT: can you send me your bios settings? here are mine (may not be exact as now, but voltages probably are)

Yes I am toutagamon. Thank you for being a subscriber.

Here are my settings.



They could work for you, or put your system in flames.

Whatever you do, is your responsibility.

As you can see this is 2015 and the system still works, but it's only a testing system for quite some time now.