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

Results: High Quality, 1920x1080

Now we apply those same taxing settings to a more popular enthusiast-oriented resolution: 1920x1080. Because we're actually rendering to a higher resolution, performance is expected to drop compared to the numbers at 1680x1050.

The Radeon HD 7770 and GeForce GTX 650 Ti don't cut it anymore. To achieve at least 30 frames per second, we need at least a Radeon R7 260X (also known as a Radeon HD 7790) or GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost.

Although most of the frame time latencies aren't bad, worst-case results spike well over 10 ms. Only the Radeon HD 7950 Boost and rebranded Radeon R9 270 demonstrate reasonably low variance.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
112 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • animeman59
    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.
    25
  • Amdlova
    i think i will use mine 670 for more 5 years...
    11
  • Other Comments
  • Amdlova
    i think i will use mine 670 for more 5 years...
    11
  • jimmysmitty
    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......
    7
  • iknowhowtofixit
    Page 9 top graph says "Battlefield 4 Beta Frame Rate"

    [EDIT BY ADMIN: Thanks! Fixed]
    3
  • lunyone
    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.
    1
  • Cons29
    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
    2
  • Frank Zigfreed
    Loving these game graphics performance reviews!!! keep them coming tomshardware!!
    B
    0
  • animeman59
    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.
    25
  • lunyone
    Anonymous 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?
    -2
  • smeezekitty
    LOL @ NVidia frame variance
    -5
  • oxiide
    Anonymous 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.
    7
  • bemused_fred
    Anonymous 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!
    -9
  • The_Trutherizer
    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.
    4
  • smeezekitty
    Anonymous said:
    Anonymous 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.
    0
  • silverblue
    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.
    2
  • Traciatim
    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.
    -5
  • Anonymous
    Where would a 7870 GHz edition fall? Just below the 7950 boost?
    4
  • bucknutty
    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?
    0
  • cleeve
    Anonymous 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.
    2
  • expl0itfinder
    It seems terribly unoptimized. The low framerates are by no means justified by the graphics fidelity.
    0