Just as I was saying. GPU over CPU. If you have a decent quad you need more and more GPU horsepower. Upgrading over the Q6600 will only bump up your score a coupe hundred. CPU performance will be more relevant to 3DMark 11 due to the physics benches. I notice a huge leap over my i5 in 11. 13 not so much.
Just as I was saying. GPU over CPU. If you have a decent quad you need more and more GPU horsepower. Upgrading over the Q6600 will only bump up your score a coupe hundred. CPU performance will be more relevant to 3DMark 11 due to the physics benches. I notice a huge leap over my i5 in 11. 13 not so much.
Just as I was saying. GPU over CPU. If you have a decent quad you need more and more GPU horsepower. Upgrading over the Q6600 will only bump up your score a coupe hundred. CPU performance will be more relevant to 3DMark 11 due to the physics benches. I notice a huge leap over my i5 in 11. 13 not so much.
Yep. My concern now is Crysis 3. First map, I can play Ultra averaging 30-40fps. Get outside with tons of physics and it goes to the teens. Even on medium settings. I think the Q6600 is finally bottlenecking a game for me.
It was the opposite for me. The only place I had a hard time with was the very beginning in the rain. I believe your GPU is still a problem if you are using any AA. Ultra for me with 2xAA gave me an average of 50fps everywhere. 30-40 makes sense for a 660ti.