Originally Posted by Xplode
Ye I'm getting a new system in about ~ 3 weeks when the New Intel CPUs come out. But seriously? dipping down to low 20's on all low? what the **** is that all about. Is the 2500k that much better then the q6600?
You need more GPU power too, and imo you are getting a combination of poor GPU performance and CPU performance.
to answer your question about 2500k, yes the 2500k is that much faster than the Q6600, I got rid of my Q6600 when BC2 was released, at 3.8 it was a bit slower with much lower minimums than the i5 750 at stock clocks I have in my spare pc, and in my main pc I bought an i7 930 which was a little faster than the i5 750 although similar, and when oc'd to ~4.2 was about 50% faster in BC2, then I bought a 970 (sold the 930) which is a little faster than the 930 again at equal clocks (especially in BC2/BF3) plus it oc's to 4.6.
To cut a long story short, the progression from Q6600 to I7 970 has almost doubled frame rate in BC2, especially minimums, you could expect a 2500k at similar clocks to perform pretty close in anything that uses 4 or less threads.
Originally Posted by lukilla
It can´t be the cpu, my q6600 sits around 50% on all cores during action. I think you are using msaa which kills performance in this game in particular. Go with post aa.
That doesnt mean anything, the CPU doesnt have to be at 100% load for you to be CPU limited.
You guys will find with high end MGPU, which BF3 needs to run at decent settings, you need i5/i7 to power it these days.