i5 750 at 3.8 to Haswell...worth the upgrade?

[Killora]

Cool story, except I am not making those benchmarks, Anand is, and according to him there is only an 1.7 FPS difference between an i7-2600k and an i7-4770k at 1440p in his benchmarks. If he felt that the results would be substantially different in WoW or in any other game for that matter, he would have published WoW (or other game) benchmarks too.

Like I said, if you feel you can do Anand's job better than him, maybe you shouldn't waste your time posting over 5k messages in a message board but apply for a job with Anandtech. They are always looking for talent. The sky is the limit.

...he's saying you're taking the benchmarks out of context. Which is a concept that seems to be going straight over your head and killing the poor little lady behind you.

[chazus]

Like I said, if you feel you can do Anand's job better than him, maybe you shouldn't waste your time posting over 5k messages in a message board but apply for a job with Anandtech. They are always looking for talent. The sky is the limit.

*Facepalm*
*Double Facepalm*

Results -would- be substantially different, actually. And I'm honestly not sure why benchmarks are not given for WoW, since it's a game that is CPU dependant, and one of the larger games in the gaming industry. I imagine part of it is because it's difficult to make an easily reproducible 'benchmark'

Instead of being snarky (and looking really, really silly in the process), do a little research.

[Ypo]

*Facepalm*
*Double Facepalm*

Results -would- be substantially different, actually.

That's cool. Feel free to make your own review site and publish your own results. I'll stick with Anandtech though, no offense.

And I'm honestly not sure why benchmarks are not given for WoW, since it's a game that is CPU dependant, and one of the larger games in the gaming industry. I imagine part of it is because it's difficult to make an easily reproducible 'benchmark'

So, is WoW the only "CPU dependant" game in the world? Aren't there other games out there which are "CPU dependant" and come with a benchmark app?

If Anand felt that there would be a notable difference in results between a "CPU dependant" gaming benchmark and his published gaming benchmarks, he would be sure to publish a gaming benchmark from a "CPU dependant" game and underline such a difference. The fact that he did not shows that such difference, if it exists, is negligible.

[chazus]

So, is WoW the only "CPU dependant" game in the world? Aren't there other games out there which are "CPU dependant" and come with a benchmark app?

Mostly MMO's, however there aren't any that are nearly as popular as WoW, and don't really warrant benchmarking of any kind. It's like providing benchmark results for Minecraft.... nobody really cares. So I guess the answer to your question is "Yes, WoW is pretty much the only CPU dependant game (worth benchmarking)". I'm actually going to pop on the EVE Online forums real quick and ask there, as I haven't played the game in years, however it's the only thing I can think of that comes close to CPU demand. Maybe GW2 mass battles (of which I haven't played enough of to participate in yet).

In fact, I'm pretty sure the gaming benchmarks provided there were courtesy. Most of them were synthetic benchmarks, which are important when understood properly.

I'm actually super amused right now, because it's pretty common knowledge, at least on these forums and people who know a bit about tech, about how important the CPU (and which ones) is for WoW (And Raiding, specifically).

[n0cturnal]

That's cool. Feel free to make your own review site and publish your own results. I'll stick with Anandtech though, no offense.



So, is WoW the only "CPU dependant" game in the world? Aren't there other games out there which are "CPU dependant" and come with a benchmark app?

If Anand felt that there would be a notable difference in results between a "CPU dependant" gaming benchmark and his published gaming benchmarks, he would be sure to publish a gaming benchmark from a "CPU dependant" game and underline such a difference. The fact that he did not shows that such difference, if it exists, is negligible.

You really should just stop posting now, all it does is making you look like some kind of sheep following someone without actually knowing why.
There is nothing wrong with the benchmarks on Anandtech, the problem comes when you don't understand how to use them.

You can take a look here and see the massive difference a CPU has on a game like WoW that is CPU dependent. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/62
The gap between the 2600K and 3770K is over 10fps these settings and you can assume that due to IPC improvements to the 4770K the gap from 3770K to 4770K would be about the same.

[Ypo]

You really should just stop posting now, all it does is making you look like some kind of sheep following someone without actually knowing why.
There is nothing wrong with the benchmarks on Anandtech, the problem comes when you don't understand how to use them.

You can take a look here and see the massive difference a CPU has on a game like WoW that is CPU dependent. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/62
The gap between the 2600K and 3770K is over 10fps these settings and you can assume that due to IPC improvements to the 4770K the gap from 3770K to 4770K would be about the same.

1. Assumptions are useless. Only facts count.

2. The graph you quoted was done with the game in such low graphic settings that even AMD Athlon II X4 620 scores almost 60 FPS. That makes it useless, because nobody games in such low settings anymore.

The "10FPS" difference in mid or low settings, would become abt 1.5 FPS at 1440p, which is what Anand's bench shows.

[Majesticii]

Stop derailing someones topic for your personal discussion. Either create your own topic about this, or continue in private messages.
I know im not a mod, but seriously guys..this isn't benefiting the OP in the slightest.

[n0cturnal]

1. Assumptions are useless. Only facts count.

2. The graph you quoted was done with the game in such low graphic settings that even AMD Athlon II X4 620 scores almost 60 FPS. That makes it useless, because nobody games in such low settings anymore.

The "10FPS" difference in mid or low settings, would become abt 1.5 FPS at 1440p, which is what Anand's bench shows.

What does low or mid settings have to do with 1440p resolution? Those are not mutually exclusive.

The test are not done on low or mid settings, if you go further and look at a specific CPUs benchmark it says the tests are done at 1680x1050 at max settings except for AA(See notes).

The reason for the somewhat high fps is that they are doing the tests in a non crowded flightpath scenario for highest possible replication in future test.

The 10fps difference will not be that big in a 25man raid setting you are correct, but it still shows the performance difference between the CPUs when it comes to a game. The 10fps difference might become 3-5 in a 25man raid with max settings at 1080/1440p but the 70 fps difference down to the Athlon you mentioned might still be 20-30fps.

Increasing the resolution and graphics settings in WoW will only effect your highest reachable fps, the lowest fps limit will still be set by your CPU.

---------- Post added 2013-06-06 at 11:15 AM ----------

Stop derailing someones topic for your personal discussion. Either create your own topic about this, or continue in private messages.
I know im not a mod, but seriously guys..this isn't benefiting the OP in the slightest.

OP was asking for advice when it comes to 25man raiding performance, that is exactly what we are discussing, I don't see it as derailing.

[Idrinkwhiterussians]

The "10FPS" difference in mid or low settings, would become abt 1.5 FPS at 1440p, which is what Anand's bench shows.

The thing here is, I also read this Anand article you keep quoting as scripture. if you paid attention to the words and not the pretty graphs only, you would see:
1. Anand did not do any of the testing for games. He borrowed graphs from another guy that writes for the site.
2. He specifically says "GPU bound gaming" <---- meaning performance increases are more on the GPU than the CPU at 1440, which is why you see a very small increase in FPS going from IB>HW.
3. There is NOTHING to show that the CPU bound game would not be quite a bit faster at the same clocks when comparing IB>HW. The only thing that is remotely close is the single threaded performance test earlier in the article.

To OP: going from the 750 to the 4670k would be a significant upgrade (at the same clocks, which is only 400Mhz over what you are running your chip, Haswell being easily clocked to that and beyond with a decent cooler)

[Killora]

1. Assumptions are useless. Only facts count.

2. The graph you quoted was done with the game in such low graphic settings that even AMD Athlon II X4 620 scores almost 60 FPS. That makes it useless, because nobody games in such low settings anymore.

The "10FPS" difference in mid or low settings, would become abt 1.5 FPS at 1440p, which is what Anand's bench shows.

i...what? You cannot be this naive.

1) I fail to see any assumptions.

2) The graph he quoted was very clearly at 1680x1050 @ max settings sans AA. If you actually read, rather than assumed you'd know that.

the raw FPS increase isn't the key point here. They use a flightpath to test WoW as it provides the most repeatable results. however, this results in higher framerates than normal. But percentages are still the same universally. That 10 FPS may drop to 4 or 5 FPS, sure. But the percentage increase will be the same. And that's what it's conveying. the percentage increase between processors performance.