http://www.anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-cpu-single-multigpu-at-1440p multiple platforms - multiple chipsets from the last 7 years. 9 AMD cpu`s - AM3 , AM3+ , FM1 and FM2 10 Intel cpu`s - 775,1155,1366 and 2011 AMD with the 8350 does really quite well - mixing it with the i7`s.
just skimmed this. Looked good. I need to read the intro again... don't necessarily understand the GFX card choice for Nvidia. Possibly a skim didn't reveal the digging around for cards to use. Obviously this test is mainly focused on CPU perf in games though...
Interesting conclusion - AMD's CPUs seem to be fine for single GPU gaming, but fall behind when you have two or more GPUs, which forces you in to an IvyBridge i7 to get best performance.
After the overview, my recommendation for dual GPU gaming comes in at the feet of the i5-2500K. This recommendation may seem odd – these chips are not the latest from Intel, but chances are that pre-owned they will be hitting a nice price point, especially if/when people move over to Haswell. If you were buying new, the obvious answer would be looking at an i5-3570K on Ivy Bridge rather than the 2500K, so consider this suggestion a minimum CPU recommendation. On the AMD side, the FX-8350 puts up a good show across most of the benchmarks, but falls spectacularly in Civilization V. Civ V isn't the only game that is CPU intensive - the Total War series for example. As such, an AMD choice might not be best.
and the rest that you quoted: http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/cpu/amd_vishera_fx8350_launch_review/index.php?p=11 ^^ civ 5 review - different figures than anand I`ve suggested they test using tomb raider and crisis 3 as well
Of course their figures are going to be different, they're not using identical hardware etc etc. However, even using your link, you can clearly see the AMD CPUs fall flat, needing an over clock to remain competitive with a stock i5. Nobody can test every game, but Civ V is simply reflective of a highly CPU demanding game, where Intel's strengths lie. Not saying that the AMD is a bad choice mind, but simply not quite as good.
you have a very unique definition of `falls flat` - since its minimum fps is comparable (and both are under 30)
Minimum is within 3fps, yes, but the max is a bigger difference of 11fps which tells you something about the CPU performance. Considering both are under 30 minimum though, I'd actually consider a 2600K more of the minimum purchase, going off their tests, where AMD have nothing to compete (apart from OC'ing the nuts off something).
It's a very interesting article which reveals just how little the CPU matters in modern games when tied with a competent GPU. A GTX580 represents a modern mid-high GPU, so it scales down this far. It would be interesting to see the point at which a CPU becomes more important when paired with progressively slower GPUs.
Id be more intrested to see that myself, Sleeping Dogs the most modern game in there test is playable on anything from a e6400 to a high end ivy and the dif in Fps between them in 2.4 fps on a single card ( 7970 theres 0.1 using a 580). Comes more intresting with SLI And Crossfire. Sleeping dogs actually has the best SLI and Crossfire Scaling of all the games tested as well. Only Civ 5 of the games on test is an actual CPU heavy game and thats because the AI is all Ran from the player hosts CPU. That game does not support SLI or Crossfire. Id of prefered a more modern testing of games with more titles tested. Starcraft 2, Crysis 3 and LOL the most 3 played titles on the pc at the moment should of been tested. X3 and Sup com FA should of both been tested both are CPU killers.
