Not really, game developer companies just BLOW.
Let's face it, this game has poor graphics YET its s system hog?
Sad, really sad.
How is this game a "system hog"? A $230 GTX470 is putting out 91 fps at 1920x1080 4AA.
Hold on, so we now have another game that has almost perfect CPU-core scaling (along with Resident Evil 5, Arma2, GTAIV, etc.) and excellent performance per clock cycle scaling as evident by Core i5/i7s smoking everything, and game
developers blow?
It's refreshing to see a game that actually takes advantage of the best processors on the market. Whether or not you think its graphics justify having a Core i5 750 is another argument altogether. The point is, the engine scales extremely well with the most modern CPU architecture and with more cores - which is how things should be. It's about time quad core processors are more heavily utilized in games considering Q6600 came out in 2007. I was able to get my Q6600 in 2007 for $300 CDN. That's more than 3 years ago; while E6400 @ 3.4ghz could be had in
2006. It's the year 2011 in less than 2 months....
The game likes Intel Cpu's
I look at it as Nehalam/Lynnfield processors having a
superior performance/clock architecture than Conroe/Penryn/Phenom II processors. This is why games run faster on Intel CPUs in general, not the idea that games have somehow been designed specifically to favour Intel processors. The game engine is targeting PS3 (Cell) and Xbox360 (PowerPC), both multi-core processor systems. This probably explains why this game runs so well on multi-core CPUs in the first place.
I have personally noticed my Q6600 @ 3.4ghz bottlenecking my Radeon 4890 when I was CPU limited in Resident Evil 5 at 1920x1080 8AA. But when we are constantly bombarded with "CPU doesn't matter for game articles/threads" (such as Tom's Hardware GTX460 768mb CPU scaling), then people quickly forget how important the CPU is.