So I was looking around 3dmark11's (graphics) scores to see what other people have got at my configuration and while doing so I decided to check out the intel scores
It was surprising... because I thought the graphics score didnt really matter
that much on the CPU (it does a bit but not to this extent)
i5-2500k @ 4.8ghz and 7850 @ 1.225/1.400 ghz
Graphics score: 13815
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5950367
To my surprise a two core i3 had a better graphics score too...
i3-3220 @ 3.2ghz and 7870 @ 1.200/1.350 ghz
Graphics score: 7595
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5976370
In contrast the AMD scores are around the 8k mark. A
6300@5Ghz hits the 7988 mark (but ofcourse the 6300's physics scores are much much higher).
8320 @ 4,508 MHz and 7850 @ 1,268 / 1,516 MHz
Graphics score: 8160
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5835229
The AMD processors cant even get past the 10k mark... the fps difference is huge too.
I see alot of people saying, well 6300 wont bottleneck ur 7850 or heck even the 8350 wont. But it isnt true, from those links it seems the amd cpu
is too slow for the card (ie not making the most out of it)
Nothing new or am i interpreting it wrong? (I was using the 3dmark search feature to filter results (GPU : 1 and valid scores)