Battlefield 3 vs. Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare --- Which is harder to run?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
L

LogicalCaveman

Reputable
Nov 7, 2014
35
0
4,540
Before anything, I'll post the specs to my gaming laptop and request that only people that have played both games respond...

Manufacturer: MSI
Processor: Intel Core i5-4210M (up to 3.2 GHz)
Graphics Card 1 (integrated processor graphics): Intel HD Graphics 4600
Graphics Card 2 (dedicated): NVIDIA GeForce GT 820M 2GB VRAM
RAM: 8GB DDR3 1600MHz
Hard Drive: 750GB 5400rpm
OS: Windows 8.1 64-bit

I play Battlefield 3 quite often. My native screen resolution is 1366x768 so on that resolution at medium graphics is about the highest combination of settings my computer can handle in Battlefield 3 while achieving a constant 30 FPS. However, because I don't care much for extra special graphics, I play Battlefield 3 on the lowest settings possible at 1280x720 and cap my FPS to 30 to keep the stress and temperature of my computer as low as possible.

My question is simple: Is Battlefield 3 harder to run than Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare? Does one cause higher CPU or GPU stress than the other, or more importantly, does one cause higher temperatures than the other? Lastly, would Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare on the lowest settings be much easier to run than Battlefield 3 on lowest settings?

Thanks for your help! I will respond to any questions you have about my question.
 
Solution
Warukyure
Advanced Warfare is going to be MUCH MUCH harder to run on your specific laptop. The CPU and GPU needed for it would be a lot higher. But thats to be expected since its comparing a new game to a 3 year old game. Even at its time, Battlefield 3 did need a lot of power to run. The CoD game closest to BF3 in terms of power needed would be ghosts.

There was a huge jump in the specs needed to play Advanced Warfare mainly because this is the first CoD game that is made specifically to run on the next gen consoles. The previous years it was held back by the aging X360 and PS3 which overall meant a game could still run decently on a weaker computer.

I hate to say it but Consoles are literally making it harder for PC gamers, again.
Sort by date Sort by votes
Warukyure

Warukyure

Reputable
Oct 20, 2014
877
0
5,660
Advanced Warfare is going to be MUCH MUCH harder to run on your specific laptop. The CPU and GPU needed for it would be a lot higher. But thats to be expected since its comparing a new game to a 3 year old game. Even at its time, Battlefield 3 did need a lot of power to run. The CoD game closest to BF3 in terms of power needed would be ghosts.

There was a huge jump in the specs needed to play Advanced Warfare mainly because this is the first CoD game that is made specifically to run on the next gen consoles. The previous years it was held back by the aging X360 and PS3 which overall meant a game could still run decently on a weaker computer.

I hate to say it but Consoles are literally making it harder for PC gamers, again.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
L

LogicalCaveman

Reputable
Nov 7, 2014
35
0
4,540
Really, it's that bad? I mean my GPU clock goes up to 934 MHz and my CPU goes up to 3.2 GHz and there's 8 GB RAM, yet on lowest possible settings at a 720p resolution I'm still looking at 20-25 FPS?

I didn't realize how big of a change Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare means to the world of PC gaming... :(
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

MasFBailey

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2013
169
0
18,680


call of duty, along side counter strike is one of the games that NEEDS high fps to be enjoyable, or else you will be getting curb stomped online pretty badly from the lag alone. its ok on consoles because everyone has the same fps, but on pc you will be playing people who see 5 frames for every one you see.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
L

LogicalCaveman

Reputable
Nov 7, 2014
35
0
4,540
Yeah, I get that. I've played Call of Duty on console before so I get the feel of the game. I just find it hard to believe all this. At first glance, Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare seems like it would be easier to run than Battlefield 4, and since I know I can run Battlefield 4 at medium and 1366x768 with a constant 30 FPS like I can run Battlefield 3, I figured I can at least run Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare at similar or better settings. But oh well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

MasFBailey

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2013
169
0
18,680


i would always recommend cod on consoles, i hated it on pc its badly optimized and is an obvious console port. if you think 30 fps (best case scenario) is ok for you then i say go for it, but just remember you'll be at a massive disadvantage
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M

MasFBailey

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2013
169
0
18,680


also i can max bf4 on ultra 1080p yet cod ghosts lagged really badly for me, despite looking like shit in comparison to bf. on a side note aw is really, really, really shitty. this coming from a master prestige of every cod since modern warfare. stick with BF
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Warukyure

Warukyure

Reputable
Oct 20, 2014
877
0
5,660
If you're still alive, heres a little video with the game running on the GT 720M which for the most part is exactly the same as the 820M.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThUkyDEuUHE

If you notice at the top right hand corner, the Red is current FPS, the Green is average FPS. This is at 1366x768 and at lowest possible settings. If you watch it, when you're doing nothing or nothing is happening, the FPS is relatively decent at like 30 FPS, but when you engage the FPS drops to 21-22. When you're in battle having FPS drops like that means you're probably gonna die.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom