Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Call Of Duty: Black Ops II Graphics Performance, Benchmarked

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
November 16, 2012 6:45:52 AM

I'd like to know how the game performs using the 2550k/3570k chips versus the 3960x since they usually makes Toms' Recommended Buy list for gamers.
Score
13
November 16, 2012 6:48:16 AM

I'm surprised you guys even bother benchmarking this game since the requirement for the COD series hasn't really changed for 5 Years.....considering they're still the same engine.....not to mention the same game..
Score
32
Related resources
November 16, 2012 6:55:41 AM

Numbers aren't surprising. Doesn't push hardware at all since the 7750 can play at 1080p on medium. The game is more a console game than a PC game.
Score
15
November 16, 2012 7:09:12 AM

Jesus Christ Toms! Stop bloody benchmarking the 1GB version, its clearly the bottleneck.
Score
17
November 16, 2012 7:11:00 AM

by that I mean 1GB 7850
Score
9
November 16, 2012 7:59:54 AM

Im quite sure the game has not been optimized at all after its port to the PC :D . Makes it look like its better >D.

I saw the trailer for this game, and it looks like a DX9 game with decent textures. So, ill pass, just as i did since MW1.
Score
1
November 16, 2012 8:14:28 AM

nothing special I would say. Same crappy graphics!
Score
20
November 16, 2012 8:21:58 AM

Maybe im mistaken, but i think the comparison from mid and high details is a bit misleading.
Going from mid to high level it would be in the best interest of the readers to submit the same ammount of antialiasing. It is very hard to know the impact of the graphics themselves when it comes to image quality, if you add both AA and higher textures.

I am quite sure the game will be layable with full HD and no AA, then adding Sweet FX AA far better than with MSAA.
Score
13
November 16, 2012 8:32:03 AM

There's something wrong with the detail settings picture. I think Medium's been labeled as "Low" and vice-versa.

Doesn't make sense otherwise.
Score
-3
November 16, 2012 8:47:02 AM

"the game doesn't employ the IW 4.0 engine "......"but it looks like the developers are going after accessibility over advanced graphics"..."(Ed.: I don't think there's much to argue...)"

We welcome the good storyline but not the fact that this is clearly another port just to cover consoles. Not exactly helping to differentiate the gaming experience from any reasonable PC from the crowd.
Score
0
November 16, 2012 8:47:37 AM

I'm also at a loss why iterative games like MoH and CoD are always tested but new/different ones others like Dishonored aren't...even Planetside 2 for that matter.

Even AC III, iterative, yes but seeing that the 360 is unable to always hold 30 fps, should be interesting.
Score
6
November 16, 2012 8:54:38 AM

ojasI'm also at a loss why iterative games like MoH and CoD are always tested but new/different ones others like Dishonored aren't...even Planetside 2 for that matter. Even AC III, iterative, yes but seeing that the 360 is unable to always hold 30 fps, should be interesting.


I think we all know the answer to that one....
Score
6
November 16, 2012 9:13:27 AM

Cats_PawI think we all know the answer to that one....

Um...? :o 
Score
0
November 16, 2012 9:14:05 AM

I stop reading when I see the picture and "the game doesn't employ the IW 4.0 engine "......"but it looks like the developers are going after accessibility over advanced graphics"..."(Ed.: I don't think there's much to argue...)"

If a game dont have creative gameplay, aint a benchmark game like the old crysis, aint having decent graphic quality = what else that make it worth $60? more like $6.00
Score
8
November 16, 2012 9:20:18 AM

After the magic of the RadeonPro utility shown in the 7990 article, I'd love to see it incorporated as part of any sli/crossfire/microstuttering testing.

P.S. FWIW, I got a steady 60fps on my phenom II 940 @ 3.2 + 6950 2GB w/5% oc max in game settings and vsync, with occasional dips in 50's. Campaign mode.

P.P.S. at least we do get improved resolution, and full AA, xbox and ps only get 800x720 give or take with 2x MSAA I here. You can tell the detail given to the important character's faces since they are actual movie stars/actors, even when not in a cutscene.
Score
3
November 16, 2012 9:31:54 AM

What resolution do you play at?
Score
-2
November 16, 2012 9:38:34 AM

1920x1080, all in all not a very demanding game, but the single player campaign was quit enjoyable IMO well writen with it's multiple endings (except the strike missions, e.g. single player + bots, somewhat mandatory)
Score
2
November 16, 2012 9:54:31 AM

Don, in the pics of the graphics settings on the 2nd page. I think you accidentally swapped the Medium and Low settings (though those are just pictures and not the actual tested settings ;) ). ojas noticed as well. It isn't such a big deal since a lot of people reading this might've figured which is which anyway. :) 

Quote:
...doesn't support Surround or Eyefinity.
That's an outrage! :p  But seriously, one would hope they release a patch that would give support for them, and not force users to use a hack or workaround.

Hm... I wonder if it's because Treyarch or Activision consider having a wider FOV, an unfair advantage.

I find it peculiar that you only used a 1GB HD7850, but not a 2GB version. I'm guessing it was because you didn't have one on hand, because I have a feeling that it might've shown different numbers compared to the former, especially with the 1600p test (considering the high resolution mixed with x8 MSAA, if I'm, not mistaken, the larger frame buffer (VRAM) might've helped). I'm not judging though, just pointing it out. :) 
Score
1
November 16, 2012 11:21:14 AM

Nice review. It probably would've been better if you could include a graph/table about the memory usage at low, med and high settings with different resolution.

Do you guys think you could do an Assassin's Creed 3 Graphics Performance Review when the game comes out for the PC? Seeing as the game features a new engine, DX11 and a lot of patches and bug fixes for the PC, plus the developers themselves have taken lots of feedback on their forums to make it even better, I think it should be interesting.
Score
5
November 16, 2012 11:36:22 AM

In Page 2, you reversed the Medium Settings Picture with the Low Settings picture.
Score
0
November 16, 2012 11:43:55 AM

esreverNumbers aren't surprising. Doesn't push hardware at all since the 7750 can play at 1080p on medium. The game is more a console game than a PC game.


Seeing how Modern Warfare 1 is also a console game and a 9600GT 512Mb can barely hold a 35 frames at max in 1080p in that game, I would say the requirements have raised somewhat.
Score
1
Anonymous
November 16, 2012 12:10:06 PM


"If a game dont have creative gameplay, aint a benchmark game like the old crysis, aint having decent graphic quality = what else that make it worth $60? more like $6.00"

$60? Try more like $120 after you buy all the map expansion packs that wil be a required purchase to find games on MP after they are released....like always
Score
1
November 16, 2012 12:37:59 PM

Oh yeah, forgot to add, might be about time to have a 7850 1GB vs 2GB article...
Score
10
November 16, 2012 1:25:59 PM

FWIW, I got a steady 60fps on my phenom II 940 @ 3.2 + 6950 2GB w/5% oc max in game settings and vsync, with occasional dips in 50's. Campaign mode.


The 6950 is more than enough for this game. I have no noticeable FPS dip with my 1x 6950 @ 5040x1050. A nice surprise for a card that's starting to show its age.
Score
1
November 16, 2012 1:45:58 PM

ojas said:
Oh yeah, forgot to add, might be about time to have a 7850 1GB vs 2GB article...


This is a brilliant idea. Obviously the 1gb is crippling the 7850. This appears to be the performance level where 1 isn't enough and 2 starts to take the lead.
Score
6
November 16, 2012 1:53:04 PM

The article mentions a 11-15-2012 SLI profile update. My computer got an update on 11-14-2012 and SLI still does not work. When I ckeck for updates today there is nothing. How did you folks get SLI to work with this game?
Score
0
November 16, 2012 2:03:26 PM

I find it pretty illuminating to see when 1GB becomes not enough.
Score
1
November 16, 2012 2:14:20 PM

@ Don Woligroski, nice review :-)

-- Good thing my modded and OC'd Rad 6950 2gb ref card @ 940 mhz / 1425 mhz @ 1.190 volts
can render this game on its very highest settings on a single full HD monitor and didnt experience
any single frame lag or whatsoever.
Score
0
November 16, 2012 3:44:10 PM

COD has really remained the same since the past few games. I'm still going to be able to play it with my 550ti at 1080p. Will have to turn down shadows and AA tho
Score
0
November 16, 2012 5:01:24 PM

Wow,
that last statement of ours says something about the game..!!!

Seems like spending on it won't exactly be a bad decision..!!!
Score
-1
November 16, 2012 5:04:04 PM

ojasThere's something wrong with the detail settings picture. I think Medium's been labeled as "Low" and vice-versa.Doesn't make sense otherwise.



[EDIT] Derp Derp! I thought you meant the animated GIF, not the image of the IQ settings...

Thanks! Fixed![/EDIT]
Score
3
November 16, 2012 5:38:44 PM

Great, I don't think they bothered optimizing this at all for PC. Look at the graphical quality of the screenshots/ gameplay(youtube), now look at the performance. Seems a bit off doesn't it? Either they didn't even make a try at optimizing or they suck at coding.
Score
0
Anonymous
November 16, 2012 8:45:21 PM

Score
7
November 17, 2012 12:48:02 AM

I officially do not trust TomsHardware reviews anymore. I am running everything maxed with x16CSAA @1080p and I NEVER go below 60 frames with adapative vsync on with a 3570k and 660. I have been suspicious of their reviews as of late, but now that I have my own system to cross check, I am certain their numbers are off by a large margin all of the time. I don't know why or what is causing these terribly wrong reviews but it needs to be fixed.
Score
-5
November 17, 2012 2:09:21 AM

eric4277 said:
I officially do not trust TomsHardware reviews anymore. I am running everything maxed with x16CSAA @1080p and I NEVER go below 60 frames with adapative vsync on with a 3570k and 660. I have been suspicious of their reviews as of late, but now that I have my own system to cross check, I am certain their numbers are off by a large margin all of the time. I don't know why or what is causing these terribly wrong reviews but it needs to be fixed.


That could be because a lot of things actually, different drivers, different levels and maps, a patched version probably (idk, I don't play it) and maybe you haven't run any proper benchmarks (try running benchmarks using fraps for every level/maps with different difficulty as well and I'll bet you dollars to donuts the min fps will be lower than 60)

Plus, you're saying that their reviews are wrong also contradicts other reviewers who have done the same game review (Guru3D, etc) :non:  and unfortunately for you, most people trust the proper reviews rather than taking irrelevant comment from someone like you

Score
4
November 17, 2012 2:30:19 AM

eric4277I officially do not trust TomsHardware reviews anymore. I am running everything maxed with x16CSAA @1080p and I NEVER go below 60 frames with adapative vsync on with a 3570k and 660. I have been suspicious of their reviews as of late, but now that I have my own system to cross check, I am certain their numbers are off by a large margin all of the time. I don't know why or what is causing these terribly wrong reviews but it needs to be fixed.


Please provide FRAPS record of the same game level we're using for testing.

Unless you just 'figure' every level performs the same? In which case *we're* the ones suspicious of *your* results.

You probably should do a bit more research and objective testing before posting baseless claims. :) 
Score
4
November 17, 2012 4:54:51 AM

TomfreakI stop reading when I see the picture and "the game doesn't employ the IW 4.0 engine "......"but it looks like the developers are going after accessibility over advanced graphics"..."(Ed.: I don't think there's much to argue...)"If a game dont have creative gameplay, aint a benchmark game like the old crysis, aint having decent graphic quality = what else that make it worth $60? more like $6.00


personally i love the arcade style of the multiplayer
i hate vehicles in multiplayer beyond all rational reason, i despise the game play styles they introduce when there is on foot and in vehicle game play.
and i dont want to play multiplayer for the sake of multiplayer, i want that tangible reward carrot.

cod is really the only game that comes out, that offers that gameplay. while i dont buy the games myself, i still play them.

please tell me the other game that has many guns (dont care if not all are usefull) that has really fun combat.

i also appreciate when game companies build games for the mid range cards, and dont focus exclusively on the high high end, because they reduce detail through not through hand, but through the pc taking it away, and it always looks like hell when that happens.

rnwilis"If a game dont have creative gameplay, aint a benchmark game like the old crysis, aint having decent graphic quality = what else that make it worth $60? more like $6.00"$60? Try more like $120 after you buy all the map expansion packs that wil be a required purchase to find games on MP after they are released....like always


that is the one part of hating the game i can never argue with.

Score
-2
November 17, 2012 5:00:36 AM

alidanpersonally i love the arcade style of the multiplayeri hate vehicles in multiplayer beyond all rational reason, i despise the game play styles they introduce when there is on foot and in vehicle game play.and i dont want to play multiplayer for the sake of multiplayer, i want that tangible reward carrot. cod is really the only game that comes out, that offers that gameplay. while i dont buy the games myself, i still play them. please tell me the other game that has many guns (dont care if not all are usefull) that has really fun combat.i also appreciate when game companies build games for the mid range cards, and dont focus exclusively on the high high end, because they reduce detail through not through hand, but through the pc taking it away, and it always looks like hell when that happens. that is the one part of hating the game i can never argue with.

What's fun about being shot in the back 90% of the time in MP? The CoD series is a fucking plague to gaming as it is a bad game in every way. The fact that CoD sells well is as bad as if Uwe Boll films were to be successful.
Score
-2
November 17, 2012 6:29:50 AM

cleeve[EDIT] Derp Derp! I thought you meant the animated GIF, not the image of the IQ settings...Thanks! Fixed![/EDIT]

:lol:  at the back of my mind...i had a feeling that would happen!
Score
0
November 17, 2012 1:12:24 PM

It's actually quite impressive how they've managed to suger coat their engine long enough to make it appear as if they're actually improving it. All they really do is reskin everything. They even still use the exact same sound files for certain killstreaks, noises, grenade explosions etc. The saying that it's a recycled series is so true. Any avid gamer would instantly recognize the dated and poor visuals this game has especially compared to other AAA titles.
Score
2
November 17, 2012 3:41:58 PM

silverblueWhat resolution do you play at?

Why the downvoting? He said he had good performance, I asked what resolution. If people can't be bothered to read the post above... then what's the point in them bothering with the comments section?
Score
0
November 17, 2012 4:28:25 PM

alidan: "i also appreciate when game companies build games for the mid range cards, and dont focus exclusively on the high high end, because they reduce detail through not through hand, but through the pc taking it away, and it always looks like hell when that happens."

You misunderstand!......developers should offer significant graphic enhancements for those with higher end cards...the confusion you and some others are having is that just because a lower end card can't cope with maxed out settings dosen't mean that you are getting any less of a gameplay experience!

Quite simply, if enough developers did not offer something extra to keep enthusiasts happy then high end cards would never be bought, and the boundaries of graphics would never be pushed. Additionally, game programmers would find themselves in a very dull job.
Score
1
November 18, 2012 1:32:45 AM

maztyWhat's fun about being shot in the back 90% of the time in MP? The CoD series is a [removed for content] plague to gaming as it is a bad game in every way. The fact that CoD sells well is as bad as if Uwe Boll films were to be successful.


probably because i dont get shot in the back?
these games are made for you to run around constantly, if you are getting shot in the back you are doing something wrong.

mesab66alidan: "i also appreciate when game companies build games for the mid range cards, and dont focus exclusively on the high high end, because they reduce detail through not through hand, but through the pc taking it away, and it always looks like hell when that happens."You misunderstand!......developers should offer significant graphic enhancements for those with higher end cards...the confusion you and some others are having is that just because a lower end card can't cope with maxed out settings dosen't mean that you are getting any less of a gameplay experience! Quite simply, if enough developers did not offer something extra to keep enthusiasts happy then high end cards would never be bought, and the boundaries of graphics would never be pushed. Additionally, game programmers would find themselves in a very dull job.


lets say a developer makes a game that requires sli to play.
how do they take detail away from the game?
they dont make lower end models by hand, they feed it through a computer to do it, and it looks like hell.

take a look at witcher 2 on high end setting and on lower end settings, at least with textures, to me, textures are the only part of a game that i need to have maxed. now, if a developer took time to create textures for the lower end, i know they would look very passable, but look at what happes to them when fed through a computer.

now graphical advantages to the high end?
im not saying i want to play a game at 60fps maxed on a 5770
all im saying is i want games to look good and play on lower end hardware.
borderlands 2 is a great example of this

you want a high end card, get one for your game, but know most games will not take advantage of it just because most people will not pay 600$ for a gpu

when new consoles come out, they will be the lowest common denominator and if numbers are to be believed, they will be about as powerfull as next years mid range cards.

a high end gpu gets you a few things, AA, extra graphical touches, tesslation, physics, higher end lighting and shadows, and getting games to go 60fps at 1920x1080+ resolutions
but i never want a high end card being required for what i consider base game play like model detail and textures.
Score
0
November 18, 2012 1:34:40 AM

5 years of development and it still sux.
Score
-2
November 18, 2012 1:49:37 AM

"Games like Battlefield 3, Medal of Honor, and Crysis 2 are arguably (Ed.: I don't think there's much to argue...) superior when it comes to lighting, texture quality, and graphics effects."

thats true for the pc but remember cod is first and foremost a console game. cod looks 1000x better then any frostbite or crytek game on xbox. frostbite and crytek game look like garbage on xbox. dice struggles hardcore with the xbox games. thats why cod makes a billion dollars in its opening weekend as ea cries about no one buying battlefield. i love seeing greedy ea mad.
Score
-2
November 18, 2012 4:25:58 PM

So the lowest details with the highest end cards and still can't lock in 60fps? I doubt this is simply "bad console port" as the game was designed around PC architecture to begin with.
Score
0
!