Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Test System And Graphics Hardware

Medal Of Honor Warfighter Performance, Benchmarked
By

As always, we strive to represent game performance across a wide range of graphics hardware. We're including cards as far down the spectrum as AMD's Radeon HD 6450 and Nvidia's GeForce GT 210, to the powerful Radeon HD 7970 and GeForce GTX 680.

Testing Notes

All overclocked boards in our collection are set to their reference specifications to best represent the like-performing products on the market, and to keep comparisons between models fair.

With no in-game benchmark tool available, we had to create one of our own. We chose the "Changing Tides" mission because its outdoor jungle environment was harder on performance than the urban areas. We were forced to benchmark by playing through the game as identically as possible for just over two minutes, and recording the action with Fraps. Fortunately, we determined the results to be both repeatable and subject to very little variance.

Test System
CPU
Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E), 3.3 GHz @ 4.25 GHz , Six Cores, LGA 2011, 15 MB Shared L3 Cache, Hyper-Threading enabled.
Motherboard
ASRock X79 Extreme9 (LGA 2011) Chipset: Intel X79 Express
Networking
On-Board Gigabit LAN controller
Memory
Corsair Vengeance LP PC3-16000, 4 x 4 GB, 1600 MT/s, CL 8-8-8-24-2T
Graphics
GeForce 210 1 GB DDR3
GeForce GT 630 512 MB GDDR5
GeForce GTX 650 2 GB GDDR5
GeForce GTX 650 Ti 1 GB GDDR5
GeForce GTX 670 2 GB GDDR5
GeForce GTX 680 2 GB GDDR5

Radeon HD 6450 512 MB GDDR5
Radeon HD 6670 512 MB DDR3
Radeon HD 7750 1 GB GDDR5
Radeon HD 7770 1 GB GDDR5
Radeon HD 7850 1 GB GDDR5
Radeon HD 7970 3 GB GDDR5
Hard Drive
Samsung 470-series 256 GB (SSD)
Power
ePower EP-1200E10-T2 1200 W
ATX12V, EPS12V
Software and Drivers
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 8
DirectX
DirectX 11.1
Graphics Drivers
Catalyst 12.11 beta 4, Nvidia 310.33 beta
Benchmarks
Medal of Honor: Warfighter
"Changing Tides" Mission, Two-Minute Fraps Run
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 54 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 22 Hide
    greghome , November 2, 2012 6:14 AM
    No 7850 2GB to see if it's a memory bottleneck ? :/ 

    and you're missing the 7870 and 7950 in them. just sayin'
  • 17 Hide
    JJ1217 , November 2, 2012 6:23 AM
    You put a 7850 1 GB, so now no one is going to buy a 7850 to play this game, as they'll get the wrong results due to memory bandwidth constraints. People who know about video ram will have no issue with this, but what about those looking for a good cheap video card to run games well? You pretty much just destroyed any chance of someone getting a 7850 for this game, due to the terrible gathering of results.

    Expected more from T.H to be honest.
  • 12 Hide
    ojas , November 2, 2012 9:46 AM
    mohit9206its great to see that entry level cards like 650, 7750 and 7770 are all a viable option even at 1080p at high setting !!! am so proud of my 7750 .. hehe..btw i dont agree with toms on the fact that a game becomes "UNPLAYABLE" if its minimum fps drops below 30.thats just a load of bulls**t.

    Try playing the game (or any game) on a constant 60 and you'll see.

    Of course the level of comfort (as far as fps is concerned) varies from person to person, I personally don't enjoy it when the frame rates drop below 40, and sub 30 is intolerable.

    I guess what Don meant by unplayable was intolerable. And i guess most here, including me, would agree.
Other Comments
  • 4 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , November 2, 2012 4:46 AM
    Nice review! :) 
    In CPU benchmark, it would have been better to see the continuous FPS graph , rather than just the single values of 'Average' and 'minimum' .

    Also, CPU frequency scaling is needed
  • 10 Hide
    esrever , November 2, 2012 5:39 AM
    Interesting that the 1gb on the 7850 starts showing signs of weakness at higher settings even at 1080p. The minimals went lower than the 7770 :o 

    I think nvidia's gpu boost is causing the nvidia cards to have higher average and lower minimals since it can render higher fps when less things are going on but they can only have so much performance when the rendering gets tough. I think GPU boost is a pointless feature because of that since why would anyone want high maximal fps and low minimal fps?
  • 22 Hide
    greghome , November 2, 2012 6:14 AM
    No 7850 2GB to see if it's a memory bottleneck ? :/ 

    and you're missing the 7870 and 7950 in them. just sayin'
  • 17 Hide
    JJ1217 , November 2, 2012 6:23 AM
    You put a 7850 1 GB, so now no one is going to buy a 7850 to play this game, as they'll get the wrong results due to memory bandwidth constraints. People who know about video ram will have no issue with this, but what about those looking for a good cheap video card to run games well? You pretty much just destroyed any chance of someone getting a 7850 for this game, due to the terrible gathering of results.

    Expected more from T.H to be honest.
  • 8 Hide
    JJ1217 , November 2, 2012 6:25 AM
    Woops didn't mean memory bandwidth, meant amount of memory ^.^
  • 6 Hide
    EzioAs , November 2, 2012 6:28 AM
    Quote:
    No 7850 2GB to see if it's a memory bottleneck ? :/ 

    and you're missing the 7870 and 7950 in them. just sayin'


    I'm curious as well, though in my opinion it's most probably a memory bottleneck at 1080p wilth ultra settings. BF3 already uses more than 1GB with max image settings with 4xAA as well so if Warfighter uses an updated Frosbite2 engine, it's highly plausible.

    On the other hand, I'm not fully satisfied that they didn't test the game with the 7870. And how about 560ti and 6870(the 2 very popular card from last-gen), I think at least a couple mid-range card from last gen should be tested
  • 4 Hide
    greghome , November 2, 2012 6:30 AM
    EzioAshow about 560ti and 6870(the 2 very popular card from last-gen), I think at least a couple mid-range card from last gen should be tested


    i miss my 6950 on benchmarks.......
    Story of my hardware life.

    First Year, Wow Top of the line
    2nd Year, Still in benchmarks
    3rd Year, Still performing good enough
    4th Year......I need an uphrade
  • 7 Hide
    the3dsgeek , November 2, 2012 6:54 AM
    Can you please do a performance benchmark comparison of NFS most wanted? its running like shit on my GTX670
  • 4 Hide
    ojas , November 2, 2012 7:40 AM
    Liked the way you ran benchmarks, covered all major resolutions with all major detail levels across a wide spectrum of cards.

    Anyway, didn't really read your game review, but Rock, Paper, Shotgun was extremely critical of the game, and i understand their sentiment, because BF3 is similar in some respects.
    http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/10/29/wot-i-think-medal-of-honor-warfighter/

    P.S. Why you no benchmark Sleeping Dogs? It brings my GTX 560 down to 40 fps minimums at 1024x768 at the highest settings...It may be a CPU bottleneck though, have to look into that fully.
  • 7 Hide
    ojas , November 2, 2012 7:52 AM
    the3dsgeekCan you please do a performance benchmark comparison of NFS most wanted? its running like shit on my GTX670

    Lol that's because it's a sucky console port.
  • -6 Hide
    mohit9206 , November 2, 2012 8:56 AM
    its great to see that entry level cards like 650, 7750 and 7770 are all a viable option even at 1080p at high setting !!! am so proud of my 7750 .. hehe..
    btw i dont agree with toms on the fact that a game becomes "UNPLAYABLE" if its minimum fps drops below 30.
    thats just a load of bulls**t.
  • 2 Hide
    captainblacko , November 2, 2012 9:03 AM
    Im shocked at the Pentium G860's FPS. that's pretty impressive for a £52 CPU!
  • 7 Hide
    Iastfan112 , November 2, 2012 9:08 AM
    I always give a big sigh when I see them acknowledge that the multiplayer is likely a CPU bottleneck....yet we're not going to make any sort of attempt to illustrate where it exists. It'd be lovely to know, for instance, does the 4170's four "cores" help it compared to the i3?

    I understand there would be a significantly greater margin of error compared to the repeatable SP benches but the information would still be pertinent and useful.
  • 12 Hide
    ojas , November 2, 2012 9:46 AM
    mohit9206its great to see that entry level cards like 650, 7750 and 7770 are all a viable option even at 1080p at high setting !!! am so proud of my 7750 .. hehe..btw i dont agree with toms on the fact that a game becomes "UNPLAYABLE" if its minimum fps drops below 30.thats just a load of bulls**t.

    Try playing the game (or any game) on a constant 60 and you'll see.

    Of course the level of comfort (as far as fps is concerned) varies from person to person, I personally don't enjoy it when the frame rates drop below 40, and sub 30 is intolerable.

    I guess what Don meant by unplayable was intolerable. And i guess most here, including me, would agree.
  • 6 Hide
    mayankleoboy1 , November 2, 2012 10:15 AM
    ojasTry plating the game (or any game) on a constant 60 and you'll see.Of course the level of comfort (as far as fps is concerned) varies from person to person, I personally don't enjoy it when the frame rates drop below 40, and sub 30 is intolerable.I guess what Don meant by unplayable was intolerable. And i guess most here, including me, would agree.


    Playing on intel IGP + P4 for many years made me accustomed to 30FPS. :p 
  • 4 Hide
    Onus , November 2, 2012 10:41 AM
    Interesting. I too have to wonder about the 1GB HD7850. The results don't appear to extrapolate cleanly to my 2GB HD7870.
    I've noticed you've used the DDR3 version of the HD6670 in recent tests, and would really like to see the GDDR5 version instead. For those who can't quite afford a HD7750, it seems to me that even the most entry level card for games should be one with GDDR5. Particularly in this case, it looks like this change might cross the line back into "playable" on some settings.
    It is also rather remarkable that an old Athlon II X2 240 can play this game as well as it does. Even though objective measurement might not be possible, I think some subjective observations on its ability to handle Multi-player would be useful.
  • 3 Hide
    ojas , November 2, 2012 11:04 AM
    jtt283Interesting. I too have to wonder about the 1GB HD7850. The results don't appear to extrapolate cleanly to my 2GB HD7870.I've noticed you've used the DDR3 version of the HD6670 in recent tests, and would really like to see the GDDR5 version instead. For those who can't quite afford a HD7750, it seems to me that even the most entry level card for games should be one with GDDR5. Particularly in this case, it looks like this change might cross the line back into "playable" on some settings.It is also rather remarkable that an old Athlon II X2 240 can play this game as well as it does. Even though objective measurement might not be possible, I think some subjective observations on its ability to handle Multi-player would be useful.

    I think their GPU chart puts the 6670 GDDR5 two tiers above the GDDR3...at par with a 9800GT.

    Also Tom's: Dishonored and Hitman: Absolution. One i know is resource intensive, the other one simple looks great, so i'm interested. :p 
  • 5 Hide
    Katsu_rap , November 2, 2012 11:25 AM
    Can't believe my 560ti isn't in the benches. It's not too long ago that I bought it and I believe many people who bought it a couple months ago aren't planning for another video card upgrade just yet.

    I'm not really complaining but you know, where's the value of mid-range cards if the next gen cards and new games comes out and they aren't even tested?
Display more comments