Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Single-Player: GPU-Dependent, Just Like Battlefield 3

Medal Of Honor Warfighter Performance, Benchmarked
By

Built on the same Frostbite 2 engine that debuted alongside Battlefield 3, Medal of Honor Warfighter's single-player campaign is likewise highly dependent on graphics performance. At the lowest available detail settings, you need at least a GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 or Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 for playable performance. And that's at a meager 1280x1024. Crank the knob up to medium details and use a more enthusiast-oriented 1920x1080 resolution; suddenly, you're looking at a Radeon HD 7750 or GeForce GT 650 just to get by. And at the highest detail levels (the Ultra preset) with 4x MSAA, plan on buying a card with at least 2 GB of memory and either AMD's Radeon HD 7850 or Nvidia's GeForce GTX 660 graphics processor. Stepping up to 2560x1600 or a triple-display configuration necessitates a Radeon HD 7970 or GeForce GTX 670, at least.

A little paratrooping to mix it up.A little paratrooping to mix it up.

As we saw in Battlefield 3, CPU performance matters little to the single-player campaign. A 3 GHz Pentium G860 manages to achieve the same average frame rate as a Core i7-3960X overclocked to 4.2 GHz (even if the Pentium's minimum frame rate dips a bit lower). Even an old Athlon II X2 240 at 2.8 GHz is able to serve up a smooth experience. It simply holds back our Radeon HD 7970 a bit. Pairing that inexpensive CPU to a more mainstream graphics card would likely yield a better-balanced combination.

Farooq Al Rashid is about to have a really bad day.Farooq Al Rashid is about to have a really bad day.

As for the game itself, I consider it another well-produced first-person shooter set in modern times, which perhaps makes it more relatable to a 30- or 40-something year-old gamer than tale from World War II or Vietnam. I applaud the game's developers for putting in the effort to convey the human element behind our Tier 1 operators, whose work largely goes unrecognized...necessarily.

On the other hand, I find the whole presentation somewhat disjointed. The missions are fun and interesting, but they seem unrelated at times, leaving the impression that someone wrote a story around them, after they were designed. Still, if you love Battlefield 3 and Call Of Duty: Black Ops, then you'll probably enjoy Medal of Honor Warfighter, too.

True BromanceTrue Bromance

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