Image Quality And Graphics Settings
Call of Duty: Black Ops II is based on an updated version of the IW 3.0 engine used in the original Call of Duty: Black Ops. That's particularly interesting because the game doesn't employ the IW 4.0 engine used in Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. It looks good, and very similar to all of the CoD titles since Modern Warfare, but it looks like the developers are going after accessibility over advanced graphics. 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.
Surprisingly, the game has no global detail presets, forcing us to adjust its image quality controls manually, creating combinations that we consider high, medium, and low for our benchmarking purposes.
In the animated sequence above, most of the detail differences come from texture quality and filtering adjustments most noticeable up close. There are some shadow and lighting differences as well, though. With FXAA enabled, even the low-detail screenshot doesn't suffer from noticeable jagged edges.
Related Stories :
- Call Of Duty: Black Ops II Graphics Performance, Benchmarked
- Delta Six Game Controller for Call of Duty Black Ops II
- Call of Duty: Elite Free in Black Ops 2, Season Pass Confirmed
- Call of Duty: Black Ops Getting 3D Treatment
- Call of Duty: Black Ops Getting Dedicated Servers
- Call of Duty Black Ops Revealed Tonight
- Treyarch Removes, Restores Black Ops II Map Nuketown 2025
- CoD: Black Ops II Breaks $500 Million Mark in One Day
- Activision Details Black Ops II Digital Deluxe Edition, Others
- Force Unleashed II, Black Ops PC Specs
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.
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..
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.
Jesus Christ Toms! Stop bloody benchmarking the 1GB version, its clearly the bottleneck.
by that I mean 1GB 7850
Im quite sure the game has not been optimized at all after its port to the PC
. 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.
nothing special I would say. Same crappy graphics!
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.
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.
Also, it's odd, your mini-review (like MoHs) almost completely contradicts the RPS review. But then i guess there's a reason i come to Tom's for hardware related stuff and RPS for all things gaming...
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20 [...] pc-review/
"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.
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.
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.
I think we all know the answer to that one....
I think we all know the answer to that one....
Um...?
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
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.
What resolution do you play at?
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)
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. 
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.