Ivy is better than Sandy, but doesn't clock as high. An Ivy at 4400, 4500 Mhz is at least as good as a Sandy at 4800, if not higher. I highly doubt an Ivy Bridge can do 4700 without getting warm. The issue is the TIM used by Intel, it simply can't transfer the heat quick enough. Using LN2 etc is different though, the coldness is such that it overcomes the bad TIM somewhat. In terms of ARMA III, the actual topic of discussion, I wouldn't overlook AMD over Nvidia just because of Physx. ARMA III uses Physx 3, which should be better in terms of performance on CPU. Physx was deliberately made to run a bad as possible on CPU, to make the performance on CPU look better. The problem with GPU physx is that it take processing away from the graphics. If Physx was programmed properly for CPU, it would be pretty the case that if the GPU is taxed and CPU not, CPU Physx would be better, and vice versa. Physx 3 is only barely 'optimised', if you can call it that, for CPU, it doesn't make use of SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.x, AVX, XOP, or anything else that may or may not be beneficial.