Battlefield 3 Beta GPU & CPU Performance

By on October 4, 2011, 3:16 AM

Battlefield 3, the latest in a long line of Battlefield titles is likely the most anticipated game of 2011. Using the new Frostbite 2 engine the game promises to deliver jaw dropping visuals coupled with fast paced action packed fun.

Admittedly we love that Battlefield 3 is using the PC as the lead platform rather than a console. When played on the PC the game will handle 40 more players and will take advantage of the latest computer hardware with support for DirectX 11 and 64-bit processors. As such the recommended system specifications are notably high.

DICE recommends a quad-core CPU be used along with 4GB of system memory. As for the graphics card a GeForce GTX 560 or Radeon HD 6950 is suggested, meaning that gamers will want to spend around $200 on a modern graphics card to appreciate Battlefield 3. Today we'll take a peak at what's required to play Battlefield 3 as we check out how the beta performs.

Read the complete review.




User Comments: 95

Got something to say? Post a comment
Anshrew said:

Hey, uh, I was under the impression that the "Ultra" settings were disabled for open beta to save on file size of the client.

Doesn't that make these tests defunct?

H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

anshrew said:

Hey, uh, I was under the impression that the "Ultra" settings were disabled for open beta to save on file size of the client.

Doesn't that make these tests defunct?

Ultra is in, there was a screenshot comparison on MMO Champion. Id dig it up for you but there is 64pages .... so yeah =/

Guest said:

WTF? Did Intel just sucked compered to AMD CPU, or what? I just made a big lol. :D

Intel i7 2600k = 300$

AMD Phenom II X6 1100T = 160$

Arris Arris said:

Wtf? Did Intel just sucked compered to AMD CPU, or what? I just made a big lol.

Intel i7 2600k = 300$

AMD Phenom II X6 1100T = 160$

Newegg has 2600k $315, X6 = $190. Still a big difference.

Plus this is an AMD "Gaming evolved" title, much like Nvidia's "The way it's meant to be played" so I'm not surprised the AMD CPUs gain a very minor boost.

Not sure if Matthew was a player of BF2:BC2 but the gameplay isn't that different.

It's not the same run and gun style as MW2/Black Ops or a lot of the other shooters. I particularly like the way they have balanced the re-introduction of prone by bringing in reflections of light off of sniper scopes giving away snipers positions more easily so the game doesn't devolve into 16 prone recon vs 16 prone recon. Glitchy crawling through the ground. Haven't found the hit detection to be too off. Little bit latency of based issues when I die and see my enemy has 100% but saw hit indicators from my shots during the fight.

Guest said:

so I'm not surprised the AMD CPUs gain a very minor boost.

CPU is not a GPU where you can make better drivers or else. It got the title because of the Radeons.

SKYSTAR SKYSTAR said:

Ohhh man, both AMD Phenom II X6 1100T and AMD phenom ii x4 defeat Intel i7 2600k

i wonder what the upcoming monster, amd eight cores bulldozer FX 8150p will do with this amazing game.

Guest said:

Well I run this on a 2500K @ 4.8ghz with a single GTX 480 at a resolution of 1920x1080 and I get between 45 - 60 fps with every setting on it's maximum.

As for the CPU part what do you expect really seeing as they tested them at the stock speed's both the AMD and Intel CPU's were at stock speed, but apparently even overclocking the CPU (2600K) only gives a 3fps boost and personally I would say that is rubbish and it would have given more than that, unless this game does require more core's rather than speed which is where the AMD will have the upper hand considering they are 6 core cpu's rather than 4 cores.

Notice though that there is no 6 core Intel CPU's tested?

I wonder why that is or maybe they just didn't want to show how much better they are than the AMD 6 cores are.

Arris Arris said:

CPU is not a GPU where you can make better drivers or else. It got the title because of the Radeons.

Indeed, but still means that the game has been developed working with AMD. I still wouldn't put it out of the question that it's somehow optimized in some small way for the AMD CPU architecture, or perhaps its just incidental that the AMD processor works better with this title. In almost all gaming benchmarks I've seen an i5 2500k on the Sandy Bridge platform beats the AMD solution, hence why I'm trying to suggest what the reason for the AMD lead here might be.

As Skystar says, will be interesting to see how the eight cores bulldozer FX cpus will do on this game.

RH00D RH00D said:

Guest said:

Notice though that there is no 6 core Intel CPU's tested?

I wonder why that is or maybe they just didn't want to show how much better they are than the AMD 6 cores are.

The AMD quad-core beats the Intel quad-core.

The AMD six-core beats the Intel quad-core.

What on Earth leads you to take the assumption that an Intel six-core would beat an AMD six-core?

Based off the evidence we ACTUALLY have, from the charts, any rational assumption would be that a Intel six-core would be beat by an AMD six-core for this game.

At best, I'd assume the Intel six-core would be equal to, or at best have a minor improvement on the AMD six-core, based off the evidence shown in the charts. So where do you get off saying "maybe they just didn't want to show much better" the Intel six-cores are?

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Guest said:

Well I run this on a 2500K @ 4.8ghz with a single GTX 480 at a resolution of 1920x1080 and I get between 45 - 60 fps with every setting on it's maximum.

As for the CPU part what do you expect really seeing as they tested them at the stock speed's both the AMD and Intel CPU's were at stock speed, but apparently even overclocking the CPU (2600K) only gives a 3fps boost and personally I would say that is rubbish and it would have given more than that, unless this game does require more core's rather than speed which is where the AMD will have the upper hand considering they are 6 core cpu's rather than 4 cores.

Notice though that there is no 6 core Intel CPU's tested?

I wonder why that is or maybe they just didn't want to show how much better they are than the AMD 6 cores are.

Firstly you do not get between 45 - 60fps with the ultra settings at 1920x1200 using a single GTX 480, no one is reporting performance remotely like that.

I like how you are calling my CPU results rubbish with no prior testing to back it up. I also find it odd that when clocked at its default frequency the game uses just 40% of the Core i7 2600K yet you are saying overclocking would make more difference.

Intel has no affordable 6-core processors and in any case the Core i7 2600K has 8 threads to work with.

In no way are we bias towards AMD, we simply report it as it is.

As for the other comments about the AMD vs. Intel CPU battle, yes the AMD processors perform well in BF3 but you cannot base their value on this single title alone. In fact you cannot base their value on gaming alone, simple fact is you get what you pay for with these processors. Right now Sandy Bridge rules.

Arris Arris said:

Firstly you do not get between 45 - 60fps with the ultra settings at 1920x1200 using a single GTX 480, no one is reporting performance remotely like that.

I found that when changing settings they did not seem to be applied until the game was completely restarted, this led me to believe that I was getting higher performance with AA when it hadn't been activated properly. I think this can be blamed for the erroneous results people have reported. Also have to be careful of any video driver settings that might be set to override AA/AF settings set within the game.

AA was a big performance hit for me. At 1920x1200 I don't value it as much as when I played at lower resolutions in the past. Therefore I currently have it turned off in favor of having everything else set to Ultra for decent FPS (outside 50/60+, inside 80-100). No idea what the impact of bigger maps, 64 player mode and vehicles are going to have, guess we'll have to wait and see if they open up Caspian Sea for the beta.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Arris said:

Firstly you do not get between 45 - 60fps with the ultra settings at 1920x1200 using a single GTX 480, no one is reporting performance remotely like that.

I found that when changing settings they did not seem to be applied until the game was completely restarted, this led me to believe that I was getting higher performance with AA when it hadn't been activated properly. I think this can be blamed for the erroneous results people have reported. Also have to be careful of any video driver settings that might be set to override AA/AF settings set within the game.

AA was a big performance hit for me. At 1920x1200 I don't value it as much as when I played at lower resolutions in the past. Therefore I currently have it turned off in favor of having everything else set to Ultra for decent FPS (outside 50/60+, inside 80-100). No idea what the impact of bigger maps, 64 player mode and vehicles are going to have, guess we'll have to wait and see if they open up Caspian Sea for the beta.

Yep you are correct you must exit the game for those changes to take effect.

Guest said:

Thanks for the review. I can only think about all the work going into it.

I'm a little dissapointed though that you didn't do GTX 480 SLI / GTX 570 SLI / 6950 Crossfire and I think a lot of other people :)

Stupido Stupido said:

It looks like it is less demanding on the CPU than Bad Company 2?

fpsgamerJR62 said:

Frankly, it's disappointing to see the lack of polish in current builds of BF3 with just 21 days before launch day. I'm thinking of replacing my old GTX 275 with an EVGA GTX 580 SC just for this game. I hope I won't have to go through weeks and months of downloading patches before I can get the gaming experience that DICE promised.

H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

fpsgamerJR62 said:

Frankly, it's disappointing to see the lack of polish in current builds of BF3 with just 21 days before launch day. I'm thinking of replacing my old GTX 275 with an EVGA GTX 580 SC just for this game. I hope I won't have to go through weeks and months of downloading patches before I can get the gaming experience that DICE promised.

People expect a finished game/demo in Beta. Its laughable.

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

fpsgamerJR62 said:

Frankly, it's disappointing to see the lack of polish in current builds of BF3 with just 21 days before launch day. I'm thinking of replacing my old GTX 275 with an EVGA GTX 580 SC just for this game. I hope I won't have to go through weeks and months of downloading patches before I can get the gaming experience that DICE promised.

Actually DICE has mentioned that the Beta build is somewhere around 1 month older than their current build. So technically if they still have 21 days left, that means they already have 51 days of extra polish before the game is released.

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

Stupido said:

It looks like it is less demanding on the CPU than Bad Company 2?

I think it has something to do with the less destructible environments. There's definitely a lot more going on in BC2.

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

Arris said:

Firstly you do not get between 45 - 60fps with the ultra settings at 1920x1200 using a single GTX 480, no one is reporting performance remotely like that.

I found that when changing settings they did not seem to be applied until the game was completely restarted, this led me to believe that I was getting higher performance with AA when it hadn't been activated properly. I think this can be blamed for the erroneous results people have reported. Also have to be careful of any video driver settings that might be set to override AA/AF settings set within the game.

AA was a big performance hit for me. At 1920x1200 I don't value it as much as when I played at lower resolutions in the past. Therefore I currently have it turned off in favor of having everything else set to Ultra for decent FPS (outside 50/60+, inside 80-100). No idea what the impact of bigger maps, 64 player mode and vehicles are going to have, guess we'll have to wait and see if they open up Caspian Sea for the beta.

I found the best balance when it came to AA for me at 1920x1080 was to use 2xMSAA and either Low or Med post processing. It helped give me a decent boost with my GTX 580 while still doing a decent job of hiding aliasing. Indoors it's a rock solid 60fps, while outdoors it's more around 45-50. 4XMSAA definitely takes a huge toll on frame rate.

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

Oh and here's where it says they state the code is a month old.

"The blog post also reiterates that the main purpose for the beta is to stress test the servers and backend, and that the game on show is based over a month old code, so bugs are to be expected; ?the code you are now playing is actually quite early and not representative of the final game.?"

[link]

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

sarcasm said:

fpsgamerJR62 said:

Frankly, it's disappointing to see the lack of polish in current builds of BF3 with just 21 days before launch day. I'm thinking of replacing my old GTX 275 with an EVGA GTX 580 SC just for this game. I hope I won't have to go through weeks and months of downloading patches before I can get the gaming experience that DICE promised.

Actually DICE has mentioned that the Beta build is somewhere around 1 month older than their current build. So technically if they still have 21 days left, that means they already have 51 days of extra polish before the game is released.

I'm still happy to bet there will be a hefty day 1 patch to fix alot of stuff...

Stupido Stupido said:

less destructible environment?! that would be stupid! I really like playing BC2 mainly for that. Otherwise it would be yet another military shooter...

I was thinking to upgrade my CPU (Q9650@4.2GHz driving 2 x 6850 in CF) because BC2 is constantly using 90-98% during game play while the GPUs are arround 60% load...

But if BF3 is not so CPU demanding, probably I could just keep current setup...

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

Stupido said:

less destructible environment?! that would be stupid! I really like playing BC2 mainly for that. Otherwise it would be yet another military shooter...

I was thinking to upgrade my CPU (Q9650@4.2GHz driving 2 x 6850 in CF) because BC2 is constantly using 90-98% during game play while the GPUs are arround 60% load...

But if BF3 is not so CPU demanding, probably I could just keep current setup...

Actually I just got off a recent session. I've been seeing 80% usage on my Phenom X4 965 3.7Ghz.

In BC2, I used to see around 65-70%.

So I don't know if the claim of less CPU usage is accurate, at least on my machine.

GPU Usage though, pftt.. BF3 definitely hits 100% even on my GTX580 at 900/2200mhz. Insane. I'm curious how the final game will look.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I wouldn't say the enviroments are less destructable, they're just harder to blow up. At least that's how I've felt so far. I can blow through most walls with enough Rockets and c4's

Stupido Stupido said:

I got invitation email few days ago but installed the game yesterday... unfortunately I was not able to start it - it just gives error in the origin (what a F#@$ joke is that origin...) and that is it... and I have the latest drivers... and re-installed the game twice...

Stupido Stupido said:

sarcasm said:

Actually I just got off a recent session. I've been seeing 80% usage on my Phenom X4 965 3.7Ghz.

In BC2, I used to see around 65-70%.

So I don't know if the claim of less CPU usage is accurate, at least on my machine.

GPU Usage though, pftt.. BF3 definitely hits 100% even on my GTX580 at 900/2200mhz. Insane. I'm curious how the final game will look.

I had similar CPU load when I had GTX280 instead of 6850CF. I guess that now my setup is bottle-necked on the CPU side...

Lionvibez said:

Guest said:

Wtf? Did Intel just sucked compered to AMD CPU, or what? I just made a big lol.

Intel i7 2600k = 300$

AMD Phenom II X6 1100T = 160$

you sir would be a ***** if you think the X6 is better than the 2600k after one game.

Stupido Stupido said:

burty117 said:

I wouldn't say the enviroments are less destructable, they're just harder to blow up. At least that's how I've felt so far. I can blow through most walls with enough Rockets and c4's

if this is the case, than it would be better than BC2 because destructive environment was a bit too easily destructive in BC2...

AlanCasseb said:

I found it to be a "less destructible environment" either. Maybe i'ts Operation Metro's fault. Let's see how the other maps go. Buildings falling around me on BC2 was a real turn on : )

Lionvibez said:

Steve said:

Guest said:

Well I run this on a 2500K @ 4.8ghz with a single GTX 480 at a resolution of 1920x1080 and I get between 45 - 60 fps with every setting on it's maximum.

As for the CPU part what do you expect really seeing as they tested them at the stock speed's both the AMD and Intel CPU's were at stock speed, but apparently even overclocking the CPU (2600K) only gives a 3fps boost and personally I would say that is rubbish and it would have given more than that, unless this game does require more core's rather than speed which is where the AMD will have the upper hand considering they are 6 core cpu's rather than 4 cores.

Notice though that there is no 6 core Intel CPU's tested?

I wonder why that is or maybe they just didn't want to show how much better they are than the AMD 6 cores are.

Firstly you do not get between 45 - 60fps with the ultra settings at 1920x1200 using a single GTX 480, no one is reporting performance remotely like that.

I like how you are calling my CPU results rubbish with no prior testing to back it up. I also find it odd that when clocked at its default frequency the game uses just 40% of the Core i7 2600K yet you are saying overclocking would make more difference.

Intel has no affordable 6-core processors and in any case the Core i7 2600K has 8 threads to work with.

In no way are we bias towards AMD, we simply report it as it is.

As for the other comments about the AMD vs. Intel CPU battle, yes the AMD processors perform well in BF3 but you cannot base their value on this single title alone. In fact you cannot base their value on gaming alone, simple fact is you get what you pay for with these processors. Right now Sandy Bridge rules.

Easy answer steve that guy doesn't know what the hell is taking about.

45-60 fps maybe standing in one spot lol all details maxed keep dreaming bud. Like I said about the other fool and as you also mentioned basing your decision off one game is foolish.

Lionvibez said:

artix said:

fpsgamerJR62 said:

Frankly, it's disappointing to see the lack of polish in current builds of BF3 with just 21 days before launch day. I'm thinking of replacing my old GTX 275 with an EVGA GTX 580 SC just for this game. I hope I won't have to go through weeks and months of downloading patches before I can get the gaming experience that DICE promised.

People expect a finished game/demo in Beta. Its laughable.

it is in fact so funny I pity the fools :P

RandyN said:

Yes, I know it's a beta but overall have been disappointed with it. Very buggy and crashes frequently. Why does Origin use ~150MB when doing nothing and having no in-game server is ridiculous.

Guest said:

My BF3 beta experience with my phenom ii 720 x3 @ 3.4ghz shows 85-90% utilization with 2 of the cores around 95% and one around 75%. Nice to know a cpu I paid $100 for over 2 years ago can will still run with the big dogs. Runs every console port with the best of them. ;) Thank you xbox 360. Frickn' love my triple core!

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Just one complaint about how you tested the CPU's in this benchmark, I know this may be due to time constraints but it would have been nice to see core scaling on one chip. As in disable cores one by one and see how it scales. Personally running on my 960 at 4.2 I get 50-60% usage during gameplay.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Looks like they have several loose ends to tie up.

Poorly designed menu's are more of a minor complaint, but the above mentioned gameplay glitches and visual bugs need to be ironed out, and soon.

I won't get this game till its $35-$40 but I look forward to playing it online.

1977TA said:

amstech said:

Looks like they have several loose ends to tie up.

Poorly designed menu's are more of a minor complaint, but the above mentioned gameplay glitches and visual bugs need to be ironed out, and soon.

I won't get this game till its $35-$40 but I look forward to playing it online.

I agree with you 100%.

Thanks for the nice review. I don't know what the big fuss is about the CPU's. Games have always relied more heavily on the GPU anyways. You could have Intel's finest 6 core using an IGP and you wouldn't be able to play games on it ( very well ). Everyone knows Intel's Sandybridge owns AMD's offerings in pretty much every benchmark.

It is nice to see my 945 X4 will be hanging in there for a little while longer though!

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

1977TA said:

amstech said:

Looks like they have several loose ends to tie up.

Poorly designed menu's are more of a minor complaint, but the above mentioned gameplay glitches and visual bugs need to be ironed out, and soon.

I won't get this game till its $35-$40 but I look forward to playing it online.

I agree with you 100%.

Thanks for the nice review. I don't know what the big fuss is about the CPU's. Games have always relied more heavily on the GPU anyways. You could have Intel's finest 6 core using an IGP and you wouldn't be able to play games on it ( very well ). Everyone knows Intel's Sandybridge owns AMD's offerings in pretty much every benchmark.

It is nice to see my 945 X4 will be hanging in there for a little while longer though!

It's not about CPUs being the most relied on, every body knows a proper video card is needed to play 3D games. What is known, however, is how an specific combination of a processor and graphics card would improve framerate in comparison to another set up.

BC2 was known for taking advantage of quad core processors. In fact, so much, that benchmarks showed about 30 to even 40 percent improvements. The thing is, it just so happens some games don't take advantage of quad cores as much, and that doesn't necessarily mean we mean CPUs have always been primarily realied on,

As for Battlefield 3, the graphics are crazy. But it needs a lot of work regarding mechanics. It has a lot of glitches here and there; the expected in a beta. I particularly hate when you hit somebody, and they kill you, their health says 100%; that's some serious game client latency issues. But what gets me the most though, is how ridiculous it is that the game doesn't have an in-game menu, or in-game server browser. Consoles do have one, and that's just an insult to the PC community.

There's a thread with like 4000 votes already, which asks DICE to incorporate in game menu and server browser, and stop using battlelog as the sole server browser. Hopefully they listen and put it in by the 25th.

1977TA said:

I particularly hate when you hit somebody, and they kill you, their health says 100%; that's some serious game client latency issues.

Dude, I hear ya! I'm not even playing the beta anymore. I tried it out for a few hours, bugs like this plus origins/browser setup just makes it not worth my while.

I don't disagree that having a great CPU/GPU combo is ideal. But for gaming the general rule is:

Top of the line CPU + budget GPU = Poor frame rates

Budget CPU + Top of line GPU = Decent frame rates

That's what my point was. I've been using the same CPU for 3 years, I just upgrade my GPU once a year.

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Nice preview here Steve, but I was under the impression that true ultra and higher end textures were not in the beta. In any case, I've been experiencing pretty smooth gameplay minus glitches and lag. And so far my averages are pretty solid at 43 FPS with my 6850 on high-preset playing Metro, first MCOM's only. Bit higher than your reports too, anything special on your end?

Regarding bugs, DICE says we are playing on an early beta build and most of these issues we are experiencing have been addressed in the final release. I'm hopefully, but they have a lot to fix before then and as Burty said we'll likely get a huge day one patch.

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I particularly hate when you hit somebody, and they kill you, their health says 100%; that's some serious game client latency issues.

I can put up with a lot, but this right here is a deal breaker for me. I'm extremely disappointed that it hasn't improved at all since the alpha and feels worse than BC2.

This youtube review pretty much sums up some of the major gameplay flaws not to mention the poor design issues (browser menus etc).

Guest said:

The game needs some optimization before going to sale, because, looking at the graphics, it doesn't sincerely impress.Battlefield Bad Company 2 looks similarly good, and it runs miles better.

I think they created so much hype on purpose, so that addicted gamers go and spend all of their money on expensive GPU's and CPU's.It's allright for me, because my 9600GT churns along the games for quite some years now, and it never failed to run everything on max.

So no, nvidia and AMD, you won't see money from me!

Red87 said:

For what it's worth, 25 FPS average with two GTX560Ti's in SLI at 2560x1440 and settings at ultra, while outside, 4x AF and no AA. Going to need beefier cards for higher than 1920x1080.

Conversely, with the same setup I get 60-80 fps at 1920x1080 at ultra, and 50 fps outdoors.

Guest said:

I hope you will include DX10 and DX10.1 cards when benchmarking the retail version, for example the GTX260 and HD4870

It would also be interesting to see a GPU's 512MB model compared with its 1GB model, to see how badly low VRAM affects the performance

Lionvibez said:

RandyN said:

Yes, I know it's a beta but overall have been disappointed with it. Very buggy and crashes frequently. Why does Origin use ~150MB when doing nothing and having no in-game server is ridiculous.

Having a browser based server is alot better than in game. They can now make changes to the browser without actually patching the game. Dice isn't known for having excellent ingame browsers. Just look at all previous BF games.

Stop trying to resist change this is one you cannot control no matter how loudy you complain.

blimp01 said:

this game uses up double the GPU power and half the CPU power compared to BC2, so older systems with newer cards will probably run it great

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

The game needs some optimization before going to sale, because, looking at the graphics, it doesn't sincerely impress.Battlefield Bad Company 2 looks similarly good, and it runs miles better.

I think they created so much hype on purpose, so that addicted gamers go and spend all of their money on expensive GPU's and CPU's.It's allright for me, because my 9600GT churns along the games for quite some years now, and it never failed to run everything on max.

So no, nvidia and AMD, you won't see money from me!

You hear that all you fools that have purchased graphics cards over the past 4 years? You should have just got yourself a 9600GT ...it max's everything out.

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

Is that better than my 8800? I thought that was the be-all and end-all of gaming?

1977TA said:

You hear that all you fools that have purchased graphics cards over the past 4 years? You should have just got yourself a 9600GT ...it max's everything out.

Dude, obviously he is using an 8" monitor, 800X400res on ultra settings.

you don't need new GPU's, just get smaller monitors!

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Dude, obviously he is using an 8" monitor, 800X400res on ultra settings.

you don't need new GPU's, just get smaller monitors!

haha: right, in a couple years he will be able to max it out on his phone!...unless its an iphone, the resolution is too high

Guest said:

Processors that only support 2 threads will take a hit as our Phenom II X2 560 delivered 42fps, almost 20% slower than a similarly clocked Phenom II X4 processor. However we were surprised by how well dual-cores performed when compared to other recently tested games.

This is a flawed conclusion since it looks as though the game is getting GPU limited at ~ 50 fps on your GTX 580 and the settings you used.

For a CPU benchmark you need to bench the game at a lower resolution and/or lower settings (medium settings) to make sure the benchmark is CPU limited rather than GPU limited. With the GPU limitation holding back frame rates on the quad cores it's impossible to tell how much faster the quad cores are over the dual cores CPU's. At lower graphic settings the Phenom II X2 may be much slower than 20% compared to the quad core Phenom II X4.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.