What I don't want to see is reviewers show us "true" cpu results and benchmark at 1368x768 on Low settings to "remove the gpu bottleneck". I mean yeah it shows us something but its like a car mag taking off two wheels on a car and then racing them ."See which car drags its axle the best!?"
I want to see CPU's compared at normal resolutions with everything turned on.
Anybody have a link to how a regular core 2 duo performs on a more modest card? eg. 6850/6870? Would it be cpu or gpu limited?
Hacked into their site and found the exact benches you were looking for! What are the chances?
EA, delivering shitty performance with enthusiast hardware since 2001.
The Phenom II is quite competitive in most games across the board. There are only a handful that require more than a Phenom II at 3.8ghz or so, provided that you game at 1920x1200 or higher.Beta test means nothing.
They striped the crap out of this game, can't you tell?
It is weird that AMD "all of the sudden" has an edge in 1 game (out of 100s).
yeah I did not want to say anything either at this point...Im surprised noone mentioned this was a repost!
I didn't care that much for 2142 or BC2 though.
it ran pretty badly on my e5400 @ 3.3 w/ a hd4890.
It is weird that AMD "all of the sudden" has an edge in 1 game (out of 100s).
Really? ran ok on my 4850 with a q9450 @1280x1024 - around 35fps but never felt unplayable or had any drops to 10fps.
I know if I just upgraded my gpu it would be enough but I have people asking me if they just upgraded their gpu with a core 2 duo only would it be enough and I have no idea.
It may be cpu limited then?
Beating it by 2 fps means it still beat it and I ment the 2600k.
2fps is insignificant but the fact that it gets anywhere close to the intel CPU means the game must use all six threads, a good trend in my eyes.
The game is still not CPU bound so it doesnt mean much.