If you're aiming for 100+ fps instead of the best possible graphics quality and terrible fps then the CPU is definitely the limiting factor.
The answer to the original question: Yes, the 960T bottlenecks, as do all AMD CPUs.
Quite honestly I'm looking and can't find one. However, every other review/bench I linked shows that the i3 just as fast or faster than any AMD chip.
On the other hand, the AMD fanboys posted a review that showed AMD chips were 24%-73% lower in minimum FPS in BF3 MP compared to the i5-2500k and i7-2600K respectively.
Can you even find one review where an AMD chips is definitively faster than the i3 in games?
Of course it matters. The required CPU horsepower is the same in every resolution, it's just that the GPU becomes the more limiting factor. But that's not the case in A LOT of games nowadays that are console ports (like 80% of available games?) or optimised for low end (Diablo 3).
I had also the impression that AMD vs Intel CPUs made little difference in gaming but after going from Phenom -> i5 2500 I'd say that the difference is not as small as AMD fanboys are trying to convince us.
And most certainly if I had a 120 hz screen like the op, Sandy Bridge / Ivy bridge is the only path I'd look.
But yeah, lots of Intel and AMD fanboys here. People who probably never used a CPU from the other camp (or had an unpleasant experience with one of the products so they decided to neglect the whole company).
The thing is you can get a i3 setup for the same price or cheaper as a Phenom II setup and the i3 is superior in gaming. Not only that, but the Phenom II setup will cost more if you plan to overclock, and it'll still be slower than the i3 setup. The i3 setup would also offer a superior upgrade path and consume much less power.Agreed. The difference between my old PII 955 and i5 2500K is great in some games, but in others, it is just a dead tie (GPU bottleneck). I still have the old HD4890 1GB, and even it was bottlenecked by my AMD CPU in some games, such as World in Conflict, Far Cry 2, Minecraft (lol), Civilization 4&5 and so on. In others, such as Crysis, the difference is literally non-existent. Not a single frame per second was added going to the Intel platform.
It all depends on the games you play, the things you do and the price you want to pay for the experience you want to get. You can't say that AMD is bad. Bulldozer is bad because it costs much and doesn't deliver a lot compared to the competition. Other AMD CPUs are kicking pretty well.
But yeah, lots of Intel and AMD fanboys here. People who probably never used a CPU from the other camp (or had an unpleasant experience with one of the products so they decided to neglect the whole company).
The thing is you can get a i3 setup for the same price or cheaper as a Phenom II setup and the i3 is superior in gaming. Not only that, but the Phenom II setup will cost more if you plan to overclock, and it'll still be slower than the i3 setup. The i3 setup would also offer a superior upgrade path and consume much less power.
Another thing to consider is that future games will inevitably require more CPU power therefore Intel setups will last longer before the next upgrade. GPUs are getting more powerful and will also require more CPU power.
Why would anyone buy a AMD setup now when Intel is faster and cheaper? I think we can all admit that AMD's best CPUs are 3 years old (architecture). AMD's own guide for testing their GPUs suggests a X79 platform.
Nor is any AMD chip "logical" for BF3.when know intel is faster than AMD but to recommend a i3 for BF3 mp is not logical ?
Nor is any AMD chip "logical" for BF3.
I guess if you're stuck with a 3 year old Phenom II you'll have to settle. If you're buying new the i3 is a far better option considering it's faster, consumes less power, and is cheaper if we take into account overclocking the Phenom II. Plus it has a far superior upgrade path.
Another thing I want to point out is the relevance of CPU and GPU bottlenecks. It's better to have a CPU bottleneck than a GPU bottleneck because you can alleviate the GPU bottleneck by turning down the IQ settings. With a CPU bottleneck, you're pretty much stuck with it regardless of how you adjust the settings. Obviously the system can be extremely unbalanced either way.
. AMD's own guide for testing their GPUs suggests a X79 platform.
Why would anyone buy a AMD setup now when Intel is faster and cheaper?
Where are you linking this crap from? The latest from AMD's official gaming blog recommends a i7-3770K for the "secondary" platform:It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. They use both Intel and AMD systems.
From the HD7970 Benchmarking Guide
As you can see, they used the FX8150 with a 990FX motherboard for the CrossFire benchmarks and not the Intel Setup.
Stop spreading fud and misinformation.
Where are you linking this crap from?
Then again this is coming from the person with a terrible blog that says the i7-920 is better for gaming than the i5-2500K. We can discount whatever you say.
In BF3 the AMD FX seemed to have a small edge against the intel Core i5 2500K but it seems that the Core i7 920 was the better CPU at the end.
The thing is you can get a i3 setup for the same price or cheaper as a Phenom II setup and the i3 is superior in gaming.
Seems to work fine to me.We are still waiting for those benchmarks of an i3 destroying a 960T / FX8120 in Battlefield 3 multiplayer. Giver your proclaimed superiority of the i3 at everything gaming, those should be easy to find or generate, right?
Stop dodging the bullet and provide the data, or just move on and stop spamming your "answers" to questions that nobody asked.
Seems to work fine to me.
I can't find any benches where the i3 is slower than AMD chips in any games, from legitimate review sites anyways. I have already shown multiple instances where AMD chips fall behind the i3 in gaming.
Find me a bench where the 960T is superior to the i3 in any game.
Find me any gaming bench where the 960T is superior to the i3 in any game.This is a good example of goal posts being moved. You have claimed numerous times that an i3 is better at BF3 multiplayer. You've been called out on it, asked to provide data showing this. So what do you do? Give us a youtube video of someone playing BF3 on an i3 and claiming it "seems to work fine" to you. That isn't what is being asked. BF3 has been shown to benefit from cores. You claim that the i3 is better than the AMD quad core (that has a decent chance of unlocking to a hexcore). Can you provide benchmarks that show this or not?
Find me any gaming bench where the 960T is superior to the i3 in any game.
So the i3 is just as faster or faster than Phenom II in every gaming benchmark so far but that doesn't hold for BF3. That's likely.
Dude start a new thread if you want to argue this! This thread is now totally hijacked.
Find me any gaming bench where the 960T is superior to the i3 in any game.
So the i3 is just as faster or faster than Phenom II in every gaming benchmark so far but that doesn't hold for BF3. That's likely.