The oldest post I can find here is from 2004. But that wasn't my first on the new forums. And beyond that I had a few thousand posts on the old forums in the early 2000's that, of course are all gone now.
I am just posting what I find, I didnt know Far Cry 2 was good with Intel CPUs more so than AMD, anyway I have posted plenty of other benchmarks. But do I even need to post any more? If you pick an AMD chip over Intel for gaming at this point and have no budget then you you are seriously doing something wrong...So how about we end the lame "anything over 1080p and intel is useless lulz!" crap, people are picking intel chips heavily over AMD for a reason now, they have nothing on intel at this point in the CPU market.
V4LENT1NE
You only want to stop arguing because you are wrong.
More benchmarks, these are from 720p to 1200p in Far Cry 2 from Guru 3d, this game is CPU and GPU intensive, again they show how much the Intel beats AMD CPUs even at high res like 1200p with the same GPU.
04dcarraher
80 fps+
Farcry 2 is horribly biased toward Intel, even so a measly AMD A6 gets 60+ fps which is a triple core cpu at 2.1 ghz
yeah and with such a push over of a game, may as well go back and do quake 3 and see if the i7s 1000 fps really feels better than the 8120s 800 fps.
More benchmarks, these are from 720p to 1200p in Far Cry 2 from Guru 3d, this game is CPU and GPU intensive, again they show how much the Intel beats AMD CPUs even at high res like 1200p with the same GPU.
How's it feel to be so poor that one days gas money is so valuable to you that you go on a tirade on the internet against people that voted for the "wrong game"
Log in to comment