Skip to main content

Medal Of Honor Warfighter Performance, Benchmarked

CPU Benchmarks

As we take our first look at processor performance using a fairly real-world combination of settings, bear in mind that we're testing with the single-player campaign. The multiplayer component of this game, like Battlefield 3, is likely much less forgiving of CPU bottlenecks. With that said, these numbers are still very much relevant, so long as you use them in context.

At least in the single-player game, Medal of Honor Warfighter goes relatively easy on host processing resources, as much of its load is graphics-based. Even a dual-core CPU with Hyper-Threading (the Core i3) sustains performance similar to Intel's much more expensive Core i7-3960X.

Dropping to a dual-core Pentium or an Athlon II X2 240 has a greater effect on minimum frame rates, as the processor isn't able to feed the graphics card fast enough during demanding scenes. Only the entry-level Athlon II holds back average and minimum performance.

Given our findings in AMD FX-8350 Review: Does Piledriver Fix Bulldozer's Flaws?, which show AMD's newest processor trailing Sandy and Ivy Bridge-based CPUs in processor-bound workloads and tied in graphics-bound tests, it's interesting to see the FX-8350 with a slight lead in average and minimum frame rates.

  • mayankleoboy1
    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
    Reply
  • rmpumper
    No one is playing this crap. Why waist your time testing it?
    Reply
  • esrever
    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?
    Reply
  • greghome
    No 7850 2GB to see if it's a memory bottleneck ? :/

    and you're missing the 7870 and 7950 in them. just sayin'
    Reply
  • JJ1217
    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.
    Reply
  • JJ1217
    Woops didn't mean memory bandwidth, meant amount of memory ^.^
    Reply
  • EzioAs
    10446769 said:
    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
    Reply
  • greghome
    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
    Reply
  • the3dsgeek
    Can you please do a performance benchmark comparison of NFS most wanted? its running like shit on my GTX670
    Reply
  • ojas
    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.
    Reply