...and I challenge you to prove me wrong. Check out these benchmark results:

These results indicate I am GPU-bound, that is, quote "If this number is near 100%, then a faster CPU would make no difference in the score". The logical inference is that a faster GPU is called for. That's the conclusion Frogboy came to here. Let's explore that. Check out ASADDF's benchmark:

He has the same video card as me, his test has higher graphics quality, his test is not GPU-bound, and he gets 50% higher FPS than me. You might say "Yeah, but he has a better processor and more memory". True, but wouldn't that imply that my CPU and memory are the bottle-necks, not the GPU? You might say "Yeah, but you are comparing apples to oranges, you have different systems running different software, it's not a fair comparison." Fair enough, but just taking raw numbers, it doesn't make sense for my system, with a weaker CPU, to be GPU-bound and his system, with a strong CPU, to not be GPU-bound.
Note: I'm not suggesting that the benchmark itself is at fault. I think either the data gathering, the results, or the interpretation of the results is wrong.
So, what's the word, hummingbird?