I assure you, I'm not looking stupid here. For AMD to be rendering using the CPU, they'd have to create a virtual 3D graphics card, much like what was done for Tomb Raider III. I think it'd be rather absurd for a graphics card company to just throw something like that into a driver for their real physical card.
I certainly find it unusual that a Quake III Arena derivative would require so much CPU power on a modern processor, but it's clear that that's what's happening. I very much doubt it uses more than a single thread, so anything at about 25% or 50% would indicate maximum capacity, depending on exactly how Windows 7 reports CPU usage for two AMD Bulldozer modules, which is something I don't know.
Originally posted by: 12oadA logic question: If the game struggles to get 90-100fps (125 is limit), then why doesnt the core/memory clocks activate so they can help me reach 125fps ?
Shows that you didn't understand anything I wrote. The CPU can only feed the GPU those 90-100 frames per second, and the GPU can easily render them (given the low resolution and simplicity of the game engine) without having to even raise the clock rate.
Raise the CPU clock speed, and the frame rate will go up. The GPU might even have to bump the clock speeds to keep up.
But above all else, educate yourself on the the Dunning-Kruger effect, then ponder the signifance of the confidence you have in your own correctness.