Call Of Duty: Black Ops II Graphics Performance, Benchmarked

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
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..
 
Im quite sure the game has not been optimized at all after its port to the PC 😀. 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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/
 
"the game doesn't employ the IW 4.0 engine "......"but it looks like the developers are going after accessibility over advanced graphics"..."(Ed.: I don't think there's much to argue...)"

We welcome the good storyline but not the fact that this is clearly another port just to cover consoles. Not exactly helping to differentiate the gaming experience from any reasonable PC from the crowd.
 
I'm also at a loss why iterative games like MoH and CoD are always tested but new/different ones others like Dishonored aren't...even Planetside 2 for that matter.

Even AC III, iterative, yes but seeing that the 360 is unable to always hold 30 fps, should be interesting.
 
[citation][nom]ojas[/nom]I'm also at a loss why iterative games like MoH and CoD are always tested but new/different ones others like Dishonored aren't...even Planetside 2 for that matter. Even AC III, iterative, yes but seeing that the 360 is unable to always hold 30 fps, should be interesting.[/citation]

I think we all know the answer to that one....
 
I stop reading when I see the picture and "the game doesn't employ the IW 4.0 engine "......"but it looks like the developers are going after accessibility over advanced graphics"..."(Ed.: I don't think there's much to argue...)"

If a game dont have creative gameplay, aint a benchmark game like the old crysis, aint having decent graphic quality = what else that make it worth $60? more like $6.00
 
After the magic of the RadeonPro utility shown in the 7990 article, I'd love to see it incorporated as part of any sli/crossfire/microstuttering testing.

P.S. FWIW, I got a steady 60fps on my phenom II 940 @ 3.2 + 6950 2GB w/5% oc max in game settings and vsync, with occasional dips in 50's. Campaign mode.

P.P.S. at least we do get improved resolution, and full AA, xbox and ps only get 800x720 give or take with 2x MSAA I here. You can tell the detail given to the important character's faces since they are actual movie stars/actors, even when not in a cutscene.
 
1920x1080, all in all not a very demanding game, but the single player campaign was quit enjoyable IMO well writen with it's multiple endings (except the strike missions, e.g. single player + bots, somewhat mandatory)
 
Don, in the pics of the graphics settings on the 2nd page. I think you accidentally swapped the Medium and Low settings (though those are just pictures and not the actual tested settings 😉). ojas noticed as well. It isn't such a big deal since a lot of people reading this might've figured which is which anyway. :)

...doesn't support Surround or Eyefinity.
Click to expand...
That's an outrage! 😛 But seriously, one would hope they release a patch that would give support for them, and not force users to use a hack or workaround.

Hm... I wonder if it's because Treyarch or Activision consider having a wider FOV, an unfair advantage.

I find it peculiar that you only used a 1GB HD7850, but not a 2GB version. I'm guessing it was because you didn't have one on hand, because I have a feeling that it might've shown different numbers compared to the former, especially with the 1600p test (considering the high resolution mixed with x8 MSAA, if I'm, not mistaken, the larger frame buffer (VRAM) might've helped). I'm not judging though, just pointing it out. :)
 
Nice review. It probably would've been better if you could include a graph/table about the memory usage at low, med and high settings with different resolution.

Do you guys think you could do an Assassin's Creed 3 Graphics Performance Review when the game comes out for the PC? Seeing as the game features a new engine, DX11 and a lot of patches and bug fixes for the PC, plus the developers themselves have taken lots of feedback on their forums to make it even better, I think it should be interesting.
 
[citation][nom]esrever[/nom]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.[/citation]

Seeing how Modern Warfare 1 is also a console game and a 9600GT 512Mb can barely hold a 35 frames at max in 1080p in that game, I would say the requirements have raised somewhat.
 
"If a game dont have creative gameplay, aint a benchmark game like the old crysis, aint having decent graphic quality = what else that make it worth $60? more like $6.00"

$60? Try more like $120 after you buy all the map expansion packs that wil be a required purchase to find games on MP after they are released....like always
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom