Well BC2 for one ^, F1 2010 and Lost Planet 2 so far that I have found.

That's just ignorant fanboi

The machine i am on now is a "garbage" Phenom II x6 feeding 3 x OC'd HD 5850's CFX.
Here is my garbage heap playing Crysis Warhead, the dreaded 'Frost map,' on all enthusiast settings @ 130 FPS
http://www.techspot.com/gallery/member-galleries/p4090-crysis-warhead.html

My other gaming rig is a "garbage" x3 720 feeding 4 x HD 4850's it scales to all four cards 3200 SPU's and gets slightly better FPS than a 5970. Frame rates are a few frames faster in some games ...a few slower in others than a i7 920 comparably setup.
OCC seems to have come to the same conclusion.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenomii_720_810_am3/9.htm
http://www.techspot.com/gallery/member-galleries/p3868-crysis-crusher-quad-re.html
I don't think that's what Klepto meant, but multi core/threaded is where gaming is going, and in some cases , arrived.
When I play BC2 My machine spends considerable time bumped up against the 200 FPS cap. I have built machines for customers withe 2,3,4,6 cores and played BC2 on them, the cores do matter.
which begs the question....how is the benefit package over there at Intel?

Y33h his is a german Troll, banned in every forum, a joke.

I5-750 ist crap for gaming , only good for 800x600 and miimum details, and in sponored games ! Muhahahahaa


CPU performance Patch for COD: BO is avaiable

:haha: I was was just trying to have some lite banter, you recognize his style or something?

Yes, lol !

Sponsered by Intel & NVIDIA

Is this guy serious lol what a ***** he didnt even understand what i was trying to say i was simply meaning like red said AMD CPU's are not crap for gaming. I play BC2 all day with E7400 and AMD 4850 and i dont have problems hmmm........ oh well fixing to build a much much nicer rig

What are you going to put together Klep?

Klepto, are you following the standard convention for assigning an article to a noun? You know, "a" before a consonant, and "an" before a vowel. (Well, "an" before an "h" also).
I'm just curious, since I'm using the article as a clue to try and figure out what you called him....:rolleyes:

lol i put mor on is what i put but it blocks it.

It's not anybody's CPU or GPU that's the problem. The problem is pure and simple sloppy programming since Activision rushed out Black Ops barely a year after the release of MW2 so that they could head to head with EA's MOH. Forget about the "optimized for triple or quad-core CPUs" line. Activision hasn't even bothered to publish the recommended requirements for Black Ops since they themselves don't know what it's optimized for. The only thing it's optimized for is "maximum revenue" or in other words, to milk more money out of the Call of Duty franchise.

Awww barely scratching 60 fps on top hardware...with lots of stutters...on small fugly maps..need quad core WHAT!? It's the ancient quake 3 engine ppl ffs! LMAO failarch worked so hard optimizing yeah right.

can anyone tell me if u could get black ops to work with a nividia geforce 9600gs 768mb

Um your getting those frames on a GTS 250 because you are playing on either low res or/and low graphics settings.

Good to see you have tested it thorougly. What i see is a Phenom II X4 heavily overclocked having great difficulty to keep up with default or mild overclocked i7's. Thank you for that insight.

Also i think it is a weird choice to only show 1680x1050 and 2560x1600 results. While, afaik; 1920x1080/1200 monitors are very populair today and 2560x1600 is a niche monitor; much too expensive for most and as such not very common.

So, why o why you leave out those 1920x1080/1200 results, the most populair resolution for a gamer ?
Well, you don't have to answer that to me; i believe it's a shame.

Proof that your i3-540 benches are out of whack as I complained in my pervious emails and forum posts.

Computerbase.de put up their new CPU benchmark review and in it they have CPU benches for both COD:BO and MOH for the i3-540. You have the Athlon II X4 faster than the i3-540 in your review, where here the i3-540 is easily faster.

COD:BO …

i3-540 …………………… 115.25
Athlon II X4 645 ………… 103.78
Phenom II X3 740 ……….. 101.70
Athlon II X3 450 ………… 94.21
Phenom II X2 565 ……….. 86.93

see… http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2010/test-prozessoren-2010/14/#abschnitt_call_of_duty_black_ops

In both your reviews for these games (COD:BO and MOH) you have the i3-540 essentially tied with a Phenom II X2. At computerbase.de the i3-540 is much faster than the Phenom II X2 in both games, and in fact, the i3-540 has no problem outrunning a Phenom II X3 in both games.

MOH …

Athlon II X4 645 … … 115.04
i3-540 … … … … … 100.84
Phenom II X3 740 … 93.62
Phenom II X2 565 … 83.21

see … http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2010/test-prozessoren-2010/17/#abschnitt_medal_of_honor

Dual core processors simply can't compete with the 4 logical cores (2 real 2 virtual) of the i3's in games that take advantage of more than 2 cores so your i3-540 should be much faster than a Phenom II X2 in both those games. If the X4 645 had the same differential to the i3-540 in your review as this one for MOH, about 14% faster, the i3-540 would come in around 85 (compared to 97 for the X4 645), it would be slightly faster than the Q6600 (84) -- you have it at only 62.