I posted multiple examples above of non-overclocked and essentially outdated AMD cpu's in lfr performing extremely well, even with bargain bin GPU's behind them.
But if you must break it down numbers wise instead of just looking at how the game actually plays, here you go:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...w,3328-15.html
Sure the AMD processors finish behind the Intels, but when you're talking about the difference between 90 something fps vs. 80 something fps...is that really such an incredibly game breaking lack of performance that you should overspend on your cpu, especially when the AMD will handle so many other computing tasks better than the Intel? Honestly when you're up at that amount of fps, what's the difference? The only reason to spend the extra on an Intel would be just because you have some kind of bee in your bonnet mentally telling you that you NEED those extra 7 or 8 fps to be happy.
I admit I'm by no means an authority on the subject, but just as somebody who's kind of on the outside looking in, I don't feel the need to spend an extra $100 to have the game at 100 fps vs. 86 fps. Honestly I can't even tell the difference between 100 and 86 fps.