Call Of Duty: Ghosts is graphically interesting. And while it doesn't do anything innovative in terms of game play, it's at least as fun as its predecessors. The question is, what sort of hardware do you need in order to enjoy the title?

When it comes to your graphics card, we wouldn't bother playing the game at its lowest settings without a Radeon HD 6570 DDR3 or GeForce GT 640, though that hardware won't be satisfactory above 1680x1050. If you want to get the most from Call of Duty with more visual realism, you want at least a Radeon R7 260X (a rebranded Radeon HD 7790) or GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost. Those cards should be good for 1920x1080 with a minimum frame rate above 30 FPS.

If you're the type of enthusiast who feels compelled to turn every setting up as high as it'll go, you need a Radeon HD 7950 Boost or GeForce GTX 670 (or its equivalent, a 760) to play the game at 1080p. At 2560x1600, it takes a Radeon R9 280X (rebranded Radeon HD 7970) or GeForce GTX 770 (close to a rebranded GeForce GTX 680) to maintain fluid frame rates.

What about your host processor? The good news is that every CPU we tested managed frame rates above 30 FPS, except for AMD's Phenom II X4 965. Of course, that was also paired up to a GeForce GTX Titan. There will come a point where lower-end graphics cards turn into a bottleneck, and you'll see lower performance. It appears that a combination of high core count and aggressive clock rates helps the FX's case. However, Intel's architecture maintains its dominance, as the two-generation-old Core i5-2500K still finishes first in our chart. Naturally, Ivy Bridge- and Haswell-based chips are going to fare even better at the same or higher clock rates.
In the end, it takes about $110 of CPU and $150 of graphics card to run Call of Duty: Ghosts smoothly at 1080p with High details enabled. That's not a particularly high bar, but it's more than we were expecting from such a mainstream title. Were the developers concentrating their efforts on next-gen consoles this time around? Perhaps. That would have certainly made sense, given the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 release frenzy. If you're playing on the PC, though, make sure your Image Quality option is set to Extra. Otherwise you're going to get upscaled blurriness.
- Duty Calls: Welcome To The Ghosts, Son
- Game Engine, Image Quality, And Settings
- Test Hardware: Graphics Cards And Platform
- Results: Low Quality, 1280x720
- Results: Low Quality, 1680x1050
- Results: High Quality, 1680x1050
- Results: High Quality, 1920x1080
- Results: Ultra Quality, 1920x1080
- Results: Ultra Quality, 2560x1600
- CPU Benchmarks
- Call Of Duty: Ghosts: Good With A $150 GPU And $110 CPU
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 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......
[EDIT BY ADMIN: Thanks! Fixed]
bf is much better (personal opinion), 64 players on a huge map with vehicles and desctructions, better than cod
B
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.
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?
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.
A mediocre-CPU with a top end GPU and too much RAM? I FOUND YOUR PROBLEM!
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.
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/call-of-duty-ghosts-still-using-heavily-modified-q-29395281/
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.
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.
7870 GHz is virtually identical to the Radeon R9 270, a teeny bit slower than the R9 270X we tested.