Ah, my bad. That 4T i5 should of read 4T i3 (or any AMD CPU).
Ah yea, I don't need that link... Mainly because it only shows 4 games out of 1000, and not even the best ones. If you think those 4 games tested are a full representation of multi-threading performance in games, then you stopped yourself short. Juss sayin.
I've built every computer I've ever owned, each costing at least $2000 (piece by precious piece). Click my name and take a look at my specs.
For the games I was playing at the time, and following all major CPU and GPU reviews, I knew I could get by with an i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz, but the majority of gamers on a budget, buy i3's and AMD CPU's, and we all know about i3's and AMD CPU's, which makes this multi-GPU review quite confusing on why they left out budget CPU's? I get the whole bottleneck thang, but budget gamers are MORE likely to already have bottlenecks, so showing, for example, 2 660Ti's getting 60fps @ 5760x1080, is not a true representation of what a budget gamer with an Phenom II 980 or Athlon II X4 will experience... IMO, and by the looks of it, others here too.
I mean, when we (me anyway) look at single GPU reviews using a single monitor, and see a range of CPU's tested with ours included in them, we can honestly expect to get VERY close to that performance.
When you show half the story, you get half the facts.