Call Of Duty: Black Ops II Graphics Performance, Benchmarked

Low-Detail Benchmark Results

Despite its old engine, this game is demanding enough that low-end graphics hardware isn't playable at 1280x720. Configured for our lowest-detail preset at 1280x1024, the Radeon HD 6450 and GeForce 210 DDR3 are simply too slow.

See how the frame rates bounce up and down toward the end of the benchmark? That's a result of a difficult-to-render depth-of-field (DoF) effect as you zoom down your gun sights, run out of ammo, and zoom back out to reload. As you can see, DoF can slow the frame rate down considerably, even at this entry-level setting. We're expecting the impact to increase at higher detail settings.

The GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 (also known as the GeForce GT 440 GDDR5) and Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 are still viable at 1280x1024, but let's see what happens when the resolution increases to 1920x1080.

As we suspected would happen, the higher resolution is too much for AMD's Radeon 6670 DDR3 and Nvidia's GeForce GT 630 GDDR5. However, the GeForce GTX 650 and Radeon HD 7750 generate smooth-enough frame rates.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
62 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • greghome
    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..
    33
  • jurisc
    nothing special I would say. Same crappy graphics!
    21
  • JJ1217
    Jesus Christ Toms! Stop bloody benchmarking the 1GB version, its clearly the bottleneck.
    17
  • Other Comments
  • JOSHSKORN
    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.
    13
  • greghome
    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..
    33
  • esrever
    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.
    15
  • JJ1217
    Jesus Christ Toms! Stop bloody benchmarking the 1GB version, its clearly the bottleneck.
    17
  • JJ1217
    by that I mean 1GB 7850
    9
  • cats_Paw
    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.
    1
  • jurisc
    nothing special I would say. Same crappy graphics!
    21
  • cats_Paw
    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.
    13
  • ojas
    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.
    -3
  • ojas
    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/2012/11/15/black-ops-2-pc-review/
    3
  • mesab66
    "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.
    0
  • ojas
    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.
    6
  • cats_Paw
    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....
    6
  • ojas
    Cats_PawI think we all know the answer to that one....

    Um...? :O
    0
  • tomfreak
    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
    8
  • abbadon_34
    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.
    3
  • silverblue
    What resolution do you play at?
    -2
  • abbadon_34
    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)
    2
  • army_ant7
    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. :)
    1
  • EzioAs
    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.
    5