Any Core 2, Athlon II, or Phenom II seems quite fine at this game, as long as you are at at least 3.0GHz (maybe a bit more on cache-less AII's). It's a GPU dependent game, but only so long as you have the proper CPU frequency.
Definitely get that CPU of yours to 3.2 if you can, settle on 3.0 if you can't.
Not quite - any QUAD CORE chip in those families will work, but a dual-core will severely limit any graphics card to 40fps or below in multiplayer, which is close to unplayable.
again for multi player its much more cpu intensive.
Sure it is. But I still stand any Core 2, AII, or PhII at 3.0 (3.2 for the AII) will run the game fine on High if paired with a 6870 or better. Are you disputing that? I'm not sure what the point of your most recent post is in the discussion. Do you think Skurge's OC to 3.0 or 3.2 will not help? Explain yourself.
I can't speak for Toyota, but you read what he wrote. Basically, multiplayer requires a lot of CPU - it is not strictly a "GPU-limited" game. Unfortunately, I'm going to guess that Skurge will never be satisfied with the multiplayer performance in BF3 on his e6600.
I wasn't satisfied playing BC2 on my e8400, and that had plenty more in reserve than his e6600 (which I owned prior to the e8400). Just for comparison's sake, I average about 70% load on my OC'd i7-860 in BF3, evenly distributed on all four cores (basically, the cores appear as one line on the graph). The game requires a ton of CPU, period.
Back to the original topic, I didn't find Tech Report's article all that helpful. Apparently, both AMD and Nvidia suffer some odd stuttering problems, but it depends on the level (and this is all single-player). Well, that doesn't help us much. If anything, it suggests the engine needs some work, as a card that performs fine in one level apparently kicks the bucket in the next level.
Facebook
Twitter