Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 5 Dec 2010.
Well, this shows that any video card will work
shame i still find the MP to be one of the laggiest games ever.
What is this.. I don't even..
A game that uses an obsolete engine runs on most graphic cards?
Stop the press.
I don't want to be an arse, but you get the point..
how do you test frame rates with this game? is there an ingame function?
you might want to go back over VRAM numbers again. you've got the GTX 260 listed as 768MB (it should be 896MB) in the graphs and paragraphs, and the GTX 280 listed as 768MB in half the graphs too.
Fun fact. If MS is shooting for another-5-year for the Xbox 360 then I won't have to upgrade my 8800GT for said time! But.. we all know that won't be the case.
I actually somewhat take offense to this article, or at the very least the title of it.
In my opinion you should *never ever* even consider buying hardware for the benefit of one specific game. That's just plain stupid. Especially in this day and age where there's a new "blockbuster" (usually console-ports) every couple of months.
For professional purposes it *does* make sense to match hardware and software and might even be necessary. For a game? Never!
Any chance of listing what the rest of the hardware in the test rig is? I've got a 5850 1GB and don't get the kind of frame rates you're getting with it....
i keep thinking about upgrading my 5770 crossfire to gtx580 or the next ati card but would realy like to skip a generation of cards as what i have now plays all my games fine at 1920x1200, i should keep hold of the cash and wait untill some games require a new graphics card
So what about all the millions of people who dedicate their entire lives to things like WoW? They should build all singing, all dancing rigs capable of playing games they're never going to play, rather than try and optimise as best they can for the one they know they will?
I built my father's PC for him to use Microsoft Flight Simulator X - and apart from surfing the internet, writing the odd letter and sending the odd email, that's ALL he uses it for - hence when I built it I did a load of research beforehand to see what would run that one game as best as possible on his budget.
The graphics card came with a free copy of Batman AA, he loaded it up to look at the 3D effects, played it for literally 5 minutes and then never touched it again.
I understand the point you were making, but you can't call other people stupid just because they don't necessarily see things the same way you do...
Some people may pick up this game and easily put in 500+ hours over the next year. Why wouldn't you want to pick up a card that plays that plays the game particularly well compared to what else is on the market.
For myself this graphics test helps me to decide whether it's really worth upgrading my 4870 at this point so I can get decent 1920x1200 frame rates or just hold tight for now playing 1680x1050 for the next few months.
I'm assuming it's the standard one in all their graphics cards tests:
Intel Core i7 Test System
* Intel Core i7-965 processor (3.2GHz: 133MHz x 24)
* Asus P6T V2 motherboard (Intel X58 Express with three PCI-Express 2.0 x16 slots)
* 3x 2GB Corsair TR3X6G1333C9 memory modules (operating in dual channel at DDR3 1,600MHz 9-9-9-24-1T)
* Corsair X128 120GB SSD running v1 firmware
* Corsair HX1000W PSU
* Windows 7 Home Premium x64
* Antec Twelve Hundred Chassis
A high-end system aimed so that it's the graphics card itself being tested, not bottle-necked by other components...
Ya, some people will pretty much only play CoD games, I know at least 2. They might dabble in others, but will get in at least 2 hours a day on CoD MP (on any of the games since CoD 2). It's fair to assume they will move onto other CoD games in the future, and it's also a safe bet they will all use a variation of the CoD4 engine until the next console generation. It's the same **** for bad company 2 and countless other MP titles out there with a following. So this article does have worth, although I'd like to see it done for more games / game engines.
It runs fine on an 8400GS anything more than that it's going to run perfect.
Now aren't you the easily offended one!
It's only a comparison of graphics cards for a game, it's not like it's comparing nazi memorabilia or top tips for internet grooming.
Anyway back on track. Nice roundup guys, confirms my own findings that my 285OC plays the game fine at 1920x1200 with everything to the max. No lag! No stutter!
And what is it with the bitching about the graphics? I think they are pretty good, and that's comparing them to other A list "Eye Candy" titles, like Crysis Warhead etc. But hey what would I know, I'm a girl.
The most pertinent info regarding BLOPS and hardware is that this game really benefits from a quad core - many dual core users have had problems with this game. For that reason the article on Techspot that covers both CPU and GPU usage is far more valuable than this article - sorry but its true.
Wow, I think you need to check your 5970 results.
Running 1920x1200 with max settings I just ran the Vorkuta section (starting from the armoury checkpoint) with the death machine and using FRAPS 60s benchmark. I got Min-71 and Avg-111. With 16xAA I got Min-68 and Avg-103.
I also ran through the campaign with max settings at 1920x1200 with 16xAA, with v-sync enabled and had 60 fps pretty much all-the-way.
I'm running the 10.11 drivers with the the 10.11 CAP2 crossfile profiles. Hope this helps!
No 6850? How so?
Nice to see an 8800GT in the graphs, I'm going to upgrade from mine soon and was curious about the relative power of new cards....
Edit: not that I'll be playing CODBLOPS with it.
Separate names with a comma.