Call Of Duty: Black Ops II Graphics Performance, Benchmarked

Features
By Don Woligroski
published

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?

Low-Detail Benchmark Results

Despite its old engine, this game is demanding enough that low-end graphics hardware isn't playable at 1280x720. Configured for our lowest-detail preset at 1280x1024, the Radeon HD 6450 and GeForce 210 DDR3 are simply too slow.

See how the frame rates bounce up and down toward the end of the benchmark? That's a result of a difficult-to-render depth-of-field (DoF) effect as you zoom down your gun sights, run out of ammo, and zoom back out to reload. As you can see, DoF can slow the frame rate down considerably, even at this entry-level setting. We're expecting the impact to increase at higher detail settings.

The GeForce GT 630 GDDR5 (also known as the GeForce GT 440 GDDR5) and Radeon HD 6670 DDR3 are still viable at 1280x1024, but let's see what happens when the resolution increases to 1920x1080.

As we suspected would happen, the higher resolution is too much for AMD's Radeon 6670 DDR3 and Nvidia's GeForce GT 630 GDDR5. However, the GeForce GTX 650 and Radeon HD 7750 generate smooth-enough frame rates.

Don Woligroski
62 Comments Comment from the forums
  • JOSHSKORN
    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
    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
    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
    Jesus Christ Toms! Stop bloody benchmarking the 1GB version, its clearly the bottleneck.
    Reply
  • JJ1217
    by that I mean 1GB 7850
    Reply
  • cats_Paw
    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
    nothing special I would say. Same crappy graphics!
    Reply
  • cats_Paw
    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
    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
    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