Call Of Duty: Ghosts Graphics Performance: 17 Cards, Tested

[palladin9479]

it's your cpu. most games arent optimized beyond 2, 3 or 4 cores. fast 4 core is still best for gaming, your 8 core is wasted. Everyone knows this. Should have bought an i5 instead of your 8350 for gaming purposes.

It's not his CPU. This game is horribly optimized and limited to two heavy threads with one doing most of the work. The speed ratings are almost all lined up based on single threaded performance which is what you can expect for the FPS version of Madden. CoD: Ghosts has absolutely sh!t graphics for it's performance, it's got the same problem as the last few CoD's, infected by consolitis.

Personally, after reading so many people posting their experiences and the same pattern of system resource usage, I believe IFW has the game artificially limited in performance to be exactly the same as on their console versions. I do not know why they would do this but people getting 40~50 FPS with absolutely nothing being bottlenecked or showing anything remotely close to 100% utilization is fairly common. I'm smelling shenanigans amongst the IFW folks.

 

[silverblue]

I spotted another article somewhere which not only highlights a maxxing of the CPU during level loads (nice bug), but that scaling from three to four cores (or, presumably, six to eight for FX) is negligible. As such, the FX-8350 and the PII are capable of more, but likewise, so is the i5. As such, an overclocked triple core PII would probably perform identically to the X4 on show here, and a mildly overclocked FX-6 series CPU would perform identically to its FX-8 brethren.

Doesn't the XBox 360 have a triple-core CPU anyway? No wonder.

 

[dish_moose]

The game does run like crap - I keep waiting for dedicated servers that were promised. You can't see pings in game and I can just tell when my North American buddies and I end up playing with European/Russian.... players. Get you stuff together and deliver on your promises.
-Bruce

 

[SuperGamerBoy]

No GTX 780Ti's?

 

[ingtar33]

considering this game runs the same on an fx6300 and an fx8350, while the i3 is running behind it's quad core buddies, i'd say this game is 3 or 4 core optimized. someone with a dual core (even with hyper threading) will take a hit, otherwise you should be alright with a quad core cpu.

The PhII falling behind the bulldozer was a little surprising, even though the bulldozer was overclocked a bit, generally even a stock PhII x4 965be will best a bulldozer at 4ghz... so something must be going on with the game for that to happen. yet another patch they'll need to make i guess.

 

[ojas]

So basically:

The engine scales with the hardware thread count till 4, then it improves if those threads have full ALUs and FPUs driving them, then its basically just IPC and clock speed.

 

[photonboy]

Palladin9479,
It IS the FX-8350 that is bottlenecking anime59's system. Why would you say otherwise, did you even read the CPU scaling section of the article?

The MIN FPS for the FX-8350 in the test is 40FPS and the i5-4670K (not in the test) would be just over 60FPS if you look at the i5-2500K's results.

He complains of dropping below 45FPS yet the new i5 would be about 50% better so his minimum would have been OVER 60FPS and he could run VSYNC'd with no issues of CPU bottlenecking.

The test they did is completely valid to his scenario as he has a big gap between his CPU's poor single-thread performance and has a high-end GTX780 graphics card.

 

[tttttc]

due to the lack of new graphic card releases, tomshardware has to benchmark some mediocre games with mediocre graphics to keep the readership...

 

[jimmysmitty]

Two things:
1 - To Silverblue
Silverblue, if the game doesn't use more than 6 cores, you won't see a performance difference between the FX-6300 and FX-8350 (at the same clock speeds). That's the reason the FX-6300 is such a great gaming CPU. It's exactly what you need and it's only $120. As for the performance difference between Intel and AMD, AMD's extra cores promise greater longevity. The Phenom II X4 was off of tomshardware's best gaming CPUs for the money for at least 3 years. Once the games started leveraging more cores, suddenly the PH2X4 was on the list again. It performed better in the newer games than it did in the older ones. As games start to leverage more and more cores, the AMD CPUs, while maybe never hitting the top of the performance charts (like anyone who has a clue cares about that anyway), will deliver smooth and playable framerates for longer than their Intel counterpart. Think about it, people still game with Phenom II X4's. That Deneb (stars) architecture came out in 2008! It still works pretty damn well too in my Llano-based laptop for playing Skyrim. You have to judge an architecture on its merits more to the end of its lifetime because you never know what the intention of the CPU is. Would you rather have the brute power of the Ford Mustang, only to have it die on you after a number of years or would you rather have the not as fast but useful for much longer Scion FR-S?

Did you really compare a Scion 4 banger to a Mustang? And in all honesty, there are still 60s era Mustangs up and running so its a pretty bad comparison as Mustangs for the most part (apart from the bad 80s versions with the turbo charged 4 bangers) last a long time.

As for CPUs, the Phenom II x4 965 is not a bad CPU but by that same merit, a Q6600 is still a viable gaming CPU or a Q9450 as well and they are just as is not older.

It will bottleneck you a bit though as those CPUs cannot keep up with the higher bandwidth of current GPUs . I had a system with a QX6850 that I overclocked to 3.4GHz and when I went to a i5-2500K, my games performed much better.

 

[animeman59]

Listening to all of these comments about CPU performance just further proves my point about Infinity Ward's port of their game. I can't see how games like BF4, Metro:LL, Bioshock Infinite, and Crysis 3 can run on my rig with absolutely no issues, but somehow CoD:Ghosts is doing something so advanced and gloriously complex that my AMD processor just can't handle that amount of righteous god-like code.

The port is just terrible. The performance is terrible. And IW is terrible for releasing the game in the state that it's in. It's an insult to PC gamers. We're not mongrels meant to eat the crumbs and scraps that fall from the console player's table. CoD:Ghosts is doing nothing extraordinary with either their graphics, or their gameplay to explain the amount of power it needs to run. It just doesn't.

 

[Novuake]

Listening to all of these comments about CPU performance just further proves my point about Infinity Ward's port of their game. I can't see how games like BF4, Metro:LL, Bioshock Infinite, and Crysis 3 can run on my rig with absolutely no issues, but somehow CoD:Ghosts is doing something so advanced and gloriously complex that my AMD processor just can't handle that amount of righteous god-like code.

The port is just terrible. The performance is terrible. And IW is terrible for releasing the game in the state that it's in. It's an insult to PC gamers. We're not mongrels meant to eat the crumbs and scraps that fall from the console player's table. CoD:Ghosts is doing nothing extraordinary with either their graphics, or their gameplay to explain the amount of power it needs to run. It just doesn't.

Amen...

But to be fair, this has always been the case with COD titles. Stop complianing.

 

[dorsai]

I've played every CoD game since Modern Warfare came out and each one has fallen lower and lower in some aspect when compared to it predecessors...lack of true mod friendly dedicated servers on the PC side since MW2 was launched and the blatant lies about at least some sort of real dedicated servers being available in Ghost. Add in falling graphics quality compared to the competition (lets face it PC gamers...the folks making CoD don't care if you bought a 700 dollar 780 Ti or Titan)...anyone playing BF4 on the PC knows exactly what I mean...it's amazing graphics are miles beyond the graphics in Ghost, which are quite frankly awful...much worse than B02 and even MW3. Ghosts probably plays great and looks fine on a console...which is expected, since that's the market they moved to...4 year old consoles. For a PC gamers looking for modern graphics and real servers to play on theres a few choices like BF4 and Arma...but a console port of a 7 year old rehashed game with the same 7 year old graphics engine isn't worth your money.

 

[porkysatan]

Most of you guys are playing a 64bit game for the first time. And like alot of people you are not running your system right. I am not here to argue fact. Enable virtualization in your bios and this game looks and plays awesome. Those of you with and CPUs will see that they perform as well as if not better than Intel. IM sure Toms runs these tests.with virtualization off. Because they don't know that it is required for any 64 but Windows since xp64

 

[smeezekitty]

K-series intel processors don't even have visualization support.

 

[photonboy]

K-series intel processors don't even have visualization support.

I believe you mean "virtualization" and yes they do. My i7-3770K has it, and the latest i5-4670K (and other CPU's) have it as well: http://ark.intel.com/products/75048/ (under "advanced technologies"; it's called VT-X).

porkysatan,
Virtualization technology has NOTHING to do with gaming in the way you describe. It's for running a virtual OS. It can be done solely by software, but it's faster by doing it with a compatible CPU and enabling virtualization in the motherboard BIOS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware-assisted_virtualization

I'm always open to being proven incorrect if it's done NICELY. Feel free to post a link explaining the performance advantage by enabling VT-X for Intel CPU's or the AMD equivalent. And while you're at it maybe you can justify your statement that it's better with AMD CPU's.

Because quite frankly IMO the very BEST gaming CPU is a top-end Intel CPU and virtualization is irrelevant.

 

[smeezekitty]

Oh I see. Its just VT-D thats missing.

 

[gsxrme]

no GTX780ti. stop using GTX titan. less than 1% can using a 1k card, $700 is already bad enough. but I rather see GTX780ti in the reviews over Titan,

 

[bucknutty]

Most of you guys are playing a 64bit game for the first time. And like alot of people you are not running your system right. I am not here to argue fact. Enable virtualization in your bios and this game looks and plays awesome. Those of you with and CPUs will see that they perform as well as if not better than Intel. IM sure Toms runs these tests.with virtualization off. Because they don't know that it is required for any 64 but Windows since xp64

This post makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Khurram Tariq]

Aoa well people i have been running this game on core i5 2400, Gigabyte GTX 670 OC and 8GB Ram , Win 7 64 bit at avg of 65 fps ( 56fps min and 80fps max) the game runs excellent.

 

[Utkarsh Minhas]

Maybe they should launch it in xbox one http://techismyzone.com/xbox-one-console-for-the-next-decade/

 

[Christopher Shaffer]

Been playing this game on PC ever since it's release, and I gotta say, this is probably one of the worst performing games that I've ever seen. I'm running an FX-8350, a GTX 780, and 32GB of RAM, and this game will still dip below 45fps. I don't care what anyone says, but CoD and IW6 should be running with no issues on a rig like that. It's a little suspicious when I can get 60fps consistent on a game like Battlefield 4 with max settings, but CoD:Ghosts stutters like Porky Pig. Even Metro: Last Light runs better than CoD:Ghosts!

This game is horribly optimized and buggy. People on Steam forums have been complaining about game-breaking bugs from day one, and there's still issues that haven't been answered for, yet. Like the one in Squad Mode where you can't use any of your squad members in a game, except for the first one. Or the earlier bug where people couldn't even create their first soldier, because they didn't have 3 squad points to unlock it, hence locking them out of multiplayer.

Skip out on this game. Infinity Ward obviously doesn't care about the PC market, and their horrible release just further solidifies that fact. Spend your money on a MP shooter that doesn't insult it's audience.

it's your cpu. most games arent optimized beyond 2, 3 or 4 cores. fast 4 core is still best for gaming, your 8 core is wasted. Everyone knows this. Should have bought an i5 instead of your 8350 for gaming purposes.

While it's not exactly inaccurate to say that most games are not optimized to take advantage of more than 8 cores, it IS inaccurate to say that this is the CAUSE of bad performance.

By that logic, if a game only takes advantage of 1 core (like, say, Doom) but I run it on a quad core system, it should also perform poorly, but this is not the case.

There are also ways of editing a game's ini that will often allow you to tell it to use more cores, though again, I don't think this is the issue.

This game, like many others, may require better drivers and updates to see real optimization.

I don't think we have enough information to tell this user the exact reason for his low FPS, but I do think we have enough information to say that his hardware is not the issue, and least not based on it's rated capabilities.

Just as an example, BF4 system requirements:
Recommended requirements:
OS: WINDOWS 8 64-BIT
PROCESSOR: AMD SIX-CORE CPU / INTEL QUAD-CORE CPU

Yeah, no games would ever use more than 3 cores.

 

[Christopher Shaffer]

Most of you guys are playing a 64bit game for the first time. And like alot of people you are not running your system right. I am not here to argue fact. Enable virtualization in your bios and this game looks and plays awesome. Those of you with and CPUs will see that they perform as well as if not better than Intel. IM sure Toms runs these tests.with virtualization off. Because they don't know that it is required for any 64 but Windows since xp64

This post makes absolutely no sense.

Right, because most of us have missed out on all of those other games over the last 5 or so years that have been 64-bit, and even the ones we were oh-so-lucky to have purchased with our meager 32-bit minds that actually were 64-bit just magically worked even though we had no idea that we had to enable virtualization, which wasn't even an option when 64-bit processors came out.

 

[porkysatan]

Wow Windows on Windows requires virtualisation to rune correctly. YOu are running a 32bit OS on top of a 64bit OS. What magic technology allow 2 operating systems at one time. How can you say IM wrong when it is fact? Ever read the tech docs that come with your windows disk?

 

[COD Ghosts]

Worst game in the COD series! !! I love COD but this .... such a huge disappointment. #1 regardless of what anyone says...and if they say otherwise they are full of it. The servers for this game CANT handle 60 fps. Lags constantly and I play with a hard wire connection and dedicated router with no interference. #2 anyone looking to buy this game I would say to you really reconsider!!! Yes it has alot of new and cool features however the one and most important feature infinity ward forgot was to make this game fun!!!! I know personally many many people and are truly disappointed in this aspect. They (Infinity Ward) can take and use different things from Treyarch however probably the most important thing they could have used was how Treyarch servers matched your K/D, score per min with that of someone of equal skill. UNLIKE infinity ward!!!! Either way you look at it weather your good or not so good. If your good how fun is it to cream your opponent every single time. Or if your not so good how fun is it when you play someone beyond your skill level and you loose ever match or that you cant even score ...like going 1 for 33. Ive seen it. It becomes frustrating and people no longer wanna play.

 

[palladin9479]

Wow Windows on Windows requires virtualisation to rune correctly. YOu are running a 32bit OS on top of a 64bit OS. What magic technology allow 2 operating systems at one time. How can you say IM wrong when it is fact? Ever read the tech docs that come with your windows disk?

WTF.....

Seriously .... that makes absolutely no sense .... and I do this for a living.

WoW64 is not HW virtualization, it's environmental virtualization and has absolutely nothing to do with your CPU. The NT 64 bit kernel is significantly different then the NT 32 bit kernel, binaries compiled for the NT 32 bit kernel will not run natively on the NT 64 bit kernel. What MS does instead is provide an environment for that 32 bit application to run inside that behaves like 32 bit NT even though your running a 64 bit NT. WoW64 has a separate registry, Program Files location and other OS specific variables are set differently. Most importantly a form of sandboxing takes place where the 32-bit NT application runs inside it's own 100% separate memory space and never gets to talk directly to the NT 64 bit kernel.

Since 99.999% of all applications have absolutely zero reason to talk directly to the kernel there is no need for them to be recompiled for 64-bit NT. The ones that do need recompiling are HW Drivers and Virus Scanning / Security utilities and such.

Also virualization has been around LONG before the HW assisted virtualization support we have in modern CPU's. The only thing CPU assisted virutalization support does is allow for faster context switching and direct access to supported HW for VM's. That last is important because if your virtualizing a storage server you want to map the Fiber Channel HBA directly to the VM so that it can manage your SAN. Same with special I/O adapters and Ethernet controllers for security applications.