Trending

Call Of Duty: Black Ops II Graphics Performance, Benchmarked

By

The Call of Duty series is an old favorite of ours, so it's a foregone conclusion that we'd check out Black Ops II's performance on the PC. How well does your graphics card handle it? Does this title have what it takes to stand out in a crowded genre?

Call Of Duty: Black Ops II Does Demand A Decent GPU

These are the backbone of the U.S. military's air power in 2025, apparently.

Call of Duty: Black Ops II certainly isn't the most demanding game out there, but its most demanding sequences do warrant a decent GPU. We consider the Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 or GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 entry-level hardware for 1280x720 or 1280x1024 at low-quality settings. But who wants that? Using medium-quality settings 1680x1050 you want at least a GeForce GTX 650 or Radeon HD 7750 to get through the tough parts. Stepping up to high-quality settings, 4x or 8x MSAA, and 1920x1080, a GeForce GTX 650 Ti or Radeon HD 7850 1 GB are bare minimums.

The loadout option screen

As far as the game itself goes, it's quite fun. At the risk of repeating myself to make a point, when it comes to entertainment, the premise isn't as important as the execution. Saying Call Of Duty: Black Ops II is just another first-person-shooter is like saying that Joss Whedon's Avengers is just another superhero movie. This isn't the second coming of Half-Life, and it's not without flaws, but Treyarch's production team clearly went out of its way to craft a compelling experience. As a hardware guy, I don't have time to finish all of the games I benchmark. But I'll finish Call Of Duty: Black Ops II.

General Noriega, I presume?
62 Comments Comment from the forums
  • JOSHSKORN 16 November 2012 14:45
    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.
    Reply
  • greghome 16 November 2012 14:48
    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..
    Reply
  • esrever 16 November 2012 14:55
    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.
    Reply
  • JJ1217 16 November 2012 15:09
    Jesus Christ Toms! Stop bloody benchmarking the 1GB version, its clearly the bottleneck.
    Reply
  • JJ1217 16 November 2012 15:11
    by that I mean 1GB 7850
    Reply
  • cats_Paw 16 November 2012 15:59
    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.
    Reply
  • jurisc 16 November 2012 16:14
    nothing special I would say. Same crappy graphics!
    Reply
  • cats_Paw 16 November 2012 16:21
    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.
    Reply
  • ojas 16 November 2012 16:32
    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.
    Reply
  • ojas 16 November 2012 16:35
    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/
    Reply