You can see, at 2560 x 1600 there’s no CPU limitation; instead we’re only limited by our video cards. At 1920 x 1200 and 1680 x 1050, though, there’s a clear CPU limitation with the difference between the 3.06GHz clock and 4.2GHz one being extremely large.
Of course, the article shows other games where the CPU speed, > 4 cores, shows little or no fps improvement:
So I guess the upshot is that both the "GPU is the limiting factor" and the "CPU makes a difference" camps are correct, depending on how the game is written..
Thanks. I just wanted to dispel the blanket statements by both sides in the ongoing debate over CPU vs. GPU bottlenecking. Of course, all games will start choking eventually as you diminish CPU power, but for a lot of current games, that threshold is lower than what a lot of the CPU bottleneckers think. Which means a decent tri-core or modern dual-core can play them at decent fps. Which is what a lot of game designers intended, since not everybody can or wants to pay for their CPU alone what a console costs .