Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Call Of Duty: Ghosts Graphics Performance: 17 Cards, Tested

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
December 3, 2013 9:29:22 PM

i think i will use mine 670 for more 5 years...
Score
11
a b 4 Gaming
a c 126 à CPUs
December 3, 2013 9:29:57 PM

Quote:
I think it's safe to say that Call of Duty defined, and then refined, the console-based first-person shooter experience


It is funny to see this as CoD1 and CoD2 were originally PC games. CoD2 was the first to be ported to the 360 but CoD3 was the first multi-console one of the series, with no release on the PC.

I loved 1 and 2 and 4 was pretty good but now CoD is just the same thing every year. It's just a cash cow currently with no innovation while 1 & 2 were very innovative (CoD1 was the first to have real recorded sounds for every gun used in the game).

I haven't done a CoD since 2. It's too bad as it could have been a great series if it didn't become console and money centric.

Also, on page 9 the chart for the FPS says Battlefield 4......
Score
6
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2013 9:34:41 PM

Page 9 top graph says "Battlefield 4 Beta Frame Rate"

[EDIT BY ADMIN: Thanks! Fixed]
Score
3
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2013 9:50:54 PM

If you have a PhII x4 965 BE, you can just OC it to get a bit more FPS if you like, so there is that option. Obviously you want more CPU, but not all of us have the $ to do so.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2013 10:03:15 PM

my last cod was mw2 which i stopped playing due to lack of dedicated server. The last i enjoyed was cod4.

bf is much better (personal opinion), 64 players on a huge map with vehicles and desctructions, better than cod
Score
2
December 3, 2013 10:11:29 PM

Loving these game graphics performance reviews!!! keep them coming tomshardware!!
B
Score
0
December 3, 2013 10:35:45 PM

Been playing this game on PC ever since it's release, and I gotta say, this is probably one of the worst performing games that I've ever seen. I'm running an FX-8350, a GTX 780, and 32GB of RAM, and this game will still dip below 45fps. I don't care what anyone says, but CoD and IW6 should be running with no issues on a rig like that. It's a little suspicious when I can get 60fps consistent on a game like Battlefield 4 with max settings, but CoD:Ghosts stutters like Porky Pig. Even Metro: Last Light runs better than CoD:Ghosts!

This game is horribly optimized and buggy. People on Steam forums have been complaining about game-breaking bugs from day one, and there's still issues that haven't been answered for, yet. Like the one in Squad Mode where you can't use any of your squad members in a game, except for the first one. Or the earlier bug where people couldn't even create their first soldier, because they didn't have 3 squad points to unlock it, hence locking them out of multiplayer.

Skip out on this game. Infinity Ward obviously doesn't care about the PC market, and their horrible release just further solidifies that fact. Spend your money on a MP shooter that doesn't insult it's audience.
Score
24
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2013 10:57:55 PM

animeman59 said:
Been playing this game on PC ever since it's release, and I gotta say, this is probably one of the worst performing games that I've ever seen. I'm running an FX-8350, a GTX 780, and 32GB of RAM, and this game will still dip below 45fps. I don't care what anyone says, but CoD and IW6 should be running with no issues on a rig like that. It's a little suspicious when I can get 60fps consistent on a game like Battlefield 4 with max settings, but CoD:Ghosts stutters like Porky Pig. Even Metro: Last Light runs better than CoD:Ghosts!

This game is horribly optimized and buggy. People on Steam forums have been complaining about game-breaking bugs from day one, and there's still issues that haven't been answered for, yet. Like the one in Squad Mode where you can't use any of your squad members in a game, except for the first one. Or the earlier bug where people couldn't even create their first soldier, because they didn't have 3 squad points to unlock it, hence locking them out of multiplayer.

Skip out on this game. Infinity Ward obviously doesn't care about the PC market, and their horrible release just further solidifies that fact. Spend your money on a MP shooter that doesn't insult it's audience.


Quake or Unreal Tournament, anyone?
Score
-2
a b 4 Gaming
a c 84 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 3, 2013 11:11:17 PM

LOL @ NVidia frame variance
Score
-5
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 12:02:42 AM

smeezekitty said:
LOL @ NVidia frame variance


I get that you're trying to phrase that as an AMD fanboy taking a shot at Nvidia, but frame variance is all over the place in this review. There's AMD hardware all over those charts too, not just clustered at the low end.

These frame variance numbers often aren't even logical—the HD 7990, with lower frame variance than a single HD 7950? A GTX 690 doing better than a single 670? I think its clear that the quality of Infinity Ward's PC port is a factor here, and maybe that's more important than pouncing on Nvidia's mistakes.
Score
7
December 4, 2013 12:06:54 AM

animeman59 said:
. I'm running an FX-8350, a GTX 780, and 32GB of RAM,


A mediocre-CPU with a top end GPU and too much RAM? I FOUND YOUR PROBLEM!
Score
-9
December 4, 2013 12:14:47 AM

All my friends hated, but hated, the graphics and they are now playing the new battlefield. The only good thing I heard was that the game lobby was well designed.

Successful or not the future success of this franchise has taken a hit from ghost. Diablo3 also had massive sales figures. And now Blizzard will have to come up with a miracle to generate the same amount of hype that accompanied the Diablo3 pre-launch. That franchise is practically dead in the water.
Score
4
a b 4 Gaming
a c 84 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 12:50:51 AM

oxiide said:
smeezekitty said:
LOL @ NVidia frame variance


I get that you're trying to phrase that as an AMD fanboy taking a shot at Nvidia, but frame variance is all over the place in this review. There's AMD hardware all over those charts too, not just clustered at the low end.


It was not completely serious. I am just sick of some of the some of the NVidia fanboys that always bash AMD for frame variance.

I do have an AMD bias but lately I am a bit disappointed with BOTH AMD and NVidia.

Score
0
December 4, 2013 3:16:27 AM

CPU scaling can't be THAT good if the difference between the FX-8350 and FX-6300 is practically limited to clock speed. What are those extra two integer cores and FlexFPU doing?

The FX chips require a clock speed bump to keep parity with Intel, which is a tall order given that it looks as if each chip is using its turbo mode frequently and there's a pretty hefty IPC disadvantage on AMD's side. The FX-4170's poor showing could be because it's a Bulldozer part as opposed to Piledriver, whereas the PII doesn't have a turbo mode to begin with.
Score
2
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 5:55:23 AM

I thought these next gen games are supposed to be finally where AMD destroys Intel... at least that's what the AMD fanatics kept saying. Now that they are here we have the 8350 just barely passing by an i3, just like it's always been. Then it gets beaten by an even wider margin using a stock i5 that's 2 gens old. Where's the destruction? I want some CPU fighting so that we finally see some performance progress again.
Score
-5
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 6:14:21 AM

Where would a 7870 GHz edition fall? Just below the 7950 boost?
Score
4
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 6:33:34 AM

The Geforce 210 would not launch the game because it can not run DX11. Ghosts is DX11 only. My older gamming system is a q9650 with 3 GTS250s in 3 way sli. It wont launch the game. Any one know of a hack to trick this game into running in DX9 or DX10?
Score
0
December 4, 2013 6:40:40 AM

yarmock said:
Where would a 7870 GHz edition fall? Just below the 7950 boost?


7870 GHz is virtually identical to the Radeon R9 270, a teeny bit slower than the R9 270X we tested.
Score
2
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 6:59:17 AM

It seems terribly unoptimized. The low framerates are by no means justified by the graphics fidelity.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 595 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 7:11:00 AM

The game patch this week added PhysX effects. Would be nice to see how that impacts the visuals and performance.
Score
1
December 4, 2013 7:20:39 AM

bucknutty said:
The Geforce 210 would not launch the game because it can not run DX11. Ghosts is DX11 only. My older gamming system is a q9650 with 3 GTS250s in 3 way sli. It wont launch the game. Any one know of a hack to trick this game into running in DX9 or DX10?


Let us know if you do. Microsoft, Intel, Nvidia and AMD will be very interested in seeing how you worked that one out.
Score
1
December 4, 2013 7:27:02 AM

I like your comparison to wrestling here.

The COD series is the FPS of choice for people with no attention span.
Score
1
December 4, 2013 7:52:27 AM

you couldnt have added a core i7 or any ivy or haswell to cpu test?
Score
-1
a c 272 4 Gaming
a c 1362 U Graphics card
a c 850 à CPUs
December 4, 2013 7:58:20 AM

Good to see it is still enjoyable without top of the line Hardware.
Score
0
December 4, 2013 7:58:45 AM

Guess that Wii U could handle it and even run on the original Wii. Heck, I even enjoyed COD: MW3 on the Wii with my son!
Score
1
December 4, 2013 8:02:00 AM

thanks for all the graphs that stop at 60 fps i guess? Whats that about, lol. seems kind of silly to not show the entire graphs data locations.....
Score
-2
a b 4 Gaming
a c 156 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 8:51:09 AM

Two things:
1 - To Silverblue
Silverblue, if the game doesn't use more than 6 cores, you won't see a performance difference between the FX-6300 and FX-8350 (at the same clock speeds). That's the reason the FX-6300 is such a great gaming CPU. It's exactly what you need and it's only $120. As for the performance difference between Intel and AMD, AMD's extra cores promise greater longevity. The Phenom II X4 was off of tomshardware's best gaming CPUs for the money for at least 3 years. Once the games started leveraging more cores, suddenly the PH2X4 was on the list again. It performed better in the newer games than it did in the older ones. As games start to leverage more and more cores, the AMD CPUs, while maybe never hitting the top of the performance charts (like anyone who has a clue cares about that anyway), will deliver smooth and playable framerates for longer than their Intel counterpart. Think about it, people still game with Phenom II X4's. That Deneb (stars) architecture came out in 2008! It still works pretty damn well too in my Llano-based laptop for playing Skyrim. You have to judge an architecture on its merits more to the end of its lifetime because you never know what the intention of the CPU is. Would you rather have the brute power of the Ford Mustang, only to have it die on you after a number of years or would you rather have the not as fast but useful for much longer Scion FR-S?
Score
2
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 9:00:48 AM

this game is in the race for being the worst ported game ever. so buggy it's a shame!
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
a c 156 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 9:05:15 AM

Next thing:

To BuckNutty - How can you trick a game into playing a mode that it doesn't have? This game is DX11-only. They don't have a DX9 or DX10 mode that they have locked. It just plain doesn't exist. Your GeForce 210 wouldn't have run this game anyway, regardless of DX version. It wouldn't run it because it's a crappy card that is less powerful than even one of your GTS 250s. You'll have to get a DX11 card of considerable power (HD 7770 or better most likely) to play this game.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 156 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 9:07:15 AM

Next thing:

To BuckNutty - How can you trick a game into playing a mode that it doesn't have? This game is DX11-only. They don't have a DX9 or DX10 mode that they have locked. It just plain doesn't exist. Your GeForce 210 wouldn't have run this game anyway, regardless of DX version. It wouldn't run it because it's a crappy card that is less powerful than even one of your GTS 250s. You'll have to get a DX11 card of considerable power (HD 7770 or better most likely) to play this game.
Score
0
December 4, 2013 9:15:07 AM

Where's the 780 and 780 ti Tom?! Nobody cares about the 6xx series or the 7990... (even if it's for perspective)
Score
-2
December 4, 2013 9:23:22 AM

Avro Arrow

It'd be nice to have confirmation about it, and whether it's based on floating point or integer resources. It's entirely likely that, if this is indeed the case, the fourth core in an i5 may also be unused. There certainly isn't a doubling of performance between the i3 and i5, which could very well be proof.

Adding an i7 as well as perhaps SB-E could help with this.
Score
1
December 4, 2013 9:39:29 AM

It would be nice if Tom's would acknowledge the existence of Haswell processors. Enthusiasts have been buying them for 6 months now for new builds. So it makes sense to use them in benchmarks even if you don't feel the 5 - 10% improvement over Ivy Bridge would make it worth an upgrade.
Score
-1
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 10:16:35 AM

Avro Arrow said:
Next thing:

To BuckNutty - How can you trick a game into playing a mode that it doesn't have? This game is DX11-only. They don't have a DX9 or DX10 mode that they have locked. It just plain doesn't exist. Your GeForce 210 wouldn't have run this game anyway, regardless of DX version. It wouldn't run it because it's a crappy card that is less powerful than even one of your GTS 250s. You'll have to get a DX11 card of considerable power (HD 7770 or better most likely) to play this game.


I don't have a GeForce 210. In the article they said they tried to run the game on a 210 and it did not launch but they gave no explanation as to why. I explained why.

I did not say it was possible to run a DX 11 game on DX10 hardware, I do not know if there is DX 9 code in the game,(however I am guessing it might be possible because at least 1 version of the game runs on xbox360 which uses a variant of DX 9.) I was simply trying to ask the community if they have seen a "third party" try to "fix" a DX11 game to run on one of the older APIs.

Why do people have to be so negative? Think positive!
Score
-1
December 4, 2013 10:39:29 AM

Quote:
The single-player story is the element that strays furthest from previous Call of Duty games. Infinity Ward must have guessed that gamers are tired of fighting Germans, Russians, Asians, and Middle Eastern countries. So, this time around, the bad guys are South American.


While I am an avid BF player, long ago converted from COD, I have to point out an error with this statement.

In MW2, the enemy was actually shown to be of American decent, as well. While there were certainly Russian, Chinese and various Middle Easter enemies, there were certain individuals within our own government and military who assisted in the attack on the US.

While this game is far from realistic, the idea that a large nuclear device, detonated in the atmosphere above the US would result in an EMP and near-nationwide is not and is actually a emergency scenario that has been considered by the Pentagon and the military. It is this actual act in the game that has the unfortunate assistance of rogue US soldiers.

An extremely similar plot line is found in Splinter Cell: Conviction.
Score
1
a b 4 Gaming
a c 84 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 10:42:55 AM

Why bother with a low end pre-DX11 GPU?
AMD has lots of nice low end offerings (6450-7750) that are fully DX11 compatible.
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a c 160 U Graphics card
a c 202 à CPUs
December 4, 2013 10:51:03 AM

As expected, the usual ported junk that looks horrible and STILL runs horrible.

Getting real tired of your #@$% Activision.

Score
0
December 4, 2013 12:13:59 PM

quote The Geforce 210 would not launch the game because it can not run DX11. Ghosts is DX11 only. My older gamming system is a q9650 with 3 GTS250s in 3 way sli. It wont launch the game. Any one know of a hack to trick this game into running in DX9 or DX10?

Yes upgrade your hardware its time. I know you like your 3 way sli but your hardware has run it's course. I just upgraded mine about 6 months ago from 2 nvidia 295's to one 680. I was tired of not being able to play dx11 games. I love the card I have. I will probably sli it next month or so.
Score
0
December 4, 2013 12:21:53 PM

i have an odd issue in multiplayer. on some parts of maps my framerate drops from 90 to sub-50. meanwhile my gpu and cpu usage stay the same: http://i.imgur.com/JgJQAzy.png (this is on octane, walking onto the main street)
Sniping also more than halves my framerate, i assume because it renders the game twice.

So i did some testing in a private match, tried lowest and highest settings:
http://i.imgur.com/6yDpH5R.jpg
it LOOKS like a classic bottleneck. However, not a single part of my pc is maxed out.
(note: since making this, drivers updated twice (331.92 now) and the game had a few updates. I still have this issue though)
Score
3
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 12:23:32 PM

hfitch said:
quote The Geforce 210 would not launch the game because it can not run DX11. Ghosts is DX11 only. My older gamming system is a q9650 with 3 GTS250s in 3 way sli. It wont launch the game. Any one know of a hack to trick this game into running in DX9 or DX10?

Yes upgrade your hardware its time. I know you like your 3 way sli but your hardware has run it's course. I just upgraded mine about 6 months ago from 2 nvidia 295's to one 680. I was tired of not being able to play dx11 games. I love the card I have. I will probably sli it next month or so.


I have a bunch of computers. 3 of them have DX11 GPUs. The one I described does not. Its only used when my brothers come over for random game nights, so its not worth it for me to buy something to run this game. Its really more of a curiosity if a 3rd party has tried to adjust a game to run an older API.
Score
0
December 4, 2013 3:02:33 PM

glad to finally see a 7950 in a benchmark
Score
0
a b 4 Gaming
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 3:39:56 PM

Well that's very interesting! The news of the game asking for so much ram was true. The real problem is the engine is yet the same old M@ engine, nothing special :)  but then again the call of duty series is supposed t be fun and not special.

^haven't had the time to try it out but eager to.

As always, very good article.
Keep going :) 
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2013 4:15:12 PM

as you can see.. Infinity Ward or Treyarch or whoever made this game needs the step their game up in terms of graphics and diversity. even old cards can play it above 60fps
Score
0
December 4, 2013 5:20:38 PM

bemused_fred said:
animeman59 said:
. I'm running an FX-8350, a GTX 780, and 32GB of RAM,


A mediocre-CPU with a top end GPU and too much RAM? I FOUND YOUR PROBLEM!


You do know that people use computers for things other than gaming, right? Go back to /r/buildapc for an education, boy.
Score
3
December 4, 2013 5:52:14 PM

animeman59 said:


You do know that people use computers for things other than gaming, right? Go back to /r/buildapc for an education, boy.


Leddit? No thanks.

And if your computer isn't built for gaming, then why are you complaining when it gets poor performance in games? Seems like the cause of that is pretty self-evident.
Score
-4
a b 4 Gaming
a c 84 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
December 4, 2013 5:56:10 PM

"Too much" RAM doesn't negatively impact performance. That hasn't been the case for >15 years
And yeah stay away from reddit unless you like idiots by the shipload.
Score
-3
December 4, 2013 7:32:29 PM

smeezekitty said:
"Too much" RAM doesn't negatively impact performance. That hasn't been the case for >15 years
And yeah stay away from reddit unless you like idiots by the shipload.


I suppose "more RAM than you need" would have been a better phrasing....
Score
-2
a b 4 Gaming
a c 171 U Graphics card
a c 82 à CPUs
December 4, 2013 7:40:54 PM

animeman59 said:
Been playing this game on PC ever since it's release, and I gotta say, this is probably one of the worst performing games that I've ever seen. I'm running an FX-8350, a GTX 780, and 32GB of RAM, and this game will still dip below 45fps. I don't care what anyone says, but CoD and IW6 should be running with no issues on a rig like that. It's a little suspicious when I can get 60fps consistent on a game like Battlefield 4 with max settings, but CoD:Ghosts stutters like Porky Pig. Even Metro: Last Light runs better than CoD:Ghosts!

This game is horribly optimized and buggy. People on Steam forums have been complaining about game-breaking bugs from day one, and there's still issues that haven't been answered for, yet. Like the one in Squad Mode where you can't use any of your squad members in a game, except for the first one. Or the earlier bug where people couldn't even create their first soldier, because they didn't have 3 squad points to unlock it, hence locking them out of multiplayer.

Skip out on this game. Infinity Ward obviously doesn't care about the PC market, and their horrible release just further solidifies that fact. Spend your money on a MP shooter that doesn't insult it's audience.


it's your cpu. most games arent optimized beyond 2, 3 or 4 cores. fast 4 core is still best for gaming, your 8 core is wasted. Everyone knows this. Should have bought an i5 instead of your 8350 for gaming purposes.
Score
0
!