Medal Of Honor Warfighter Performance, Benchmarked

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

bigdragon

Distinguished
Oct 19, 2011
492
11
18,785
0
People, stop buying EA games. We've all played this title before. It's simply a rehash of games from the past. Don't support EA or Origin.
 

Mailman377

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2012
13
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]mohit9206[/nom]its great to see that entry level cards like 650, 7750 and 7770 are all a viable option even at 1080p at high setting !!! am so proud of my 7750 .. hehe..btw i dont agree with toms on the fact that a game becomes "UNPLAYABLE" if its minimum fps drops below 30.thats just a load of bulls**t.[/citation]
Try playing UT2k4 or Quake Live with under 30 fps. Even the bots would faceroll over you.
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]i miss my 6950 on benchmarks.......Story of my hardware life.First Year, Wow Top of the line2nd Year, Still in benchmarks3rd Year, Still performing good enough4th Year......I need an uphradesomething that makes it easy to note for the next graphics card for the money is the last 2 digits moniker of either brand speaks the volumes even in sli/crossfire than the first 1 or 2 digits. this is exactly more of what i have been wanting to know if the low end 50 and below in crossfire/sli can make up for performance impact of higher settings at playable rates as most customer don't want to spend $125-150+ on graphics and i've had very little to show them #'s wise with dual cards on the low end (the ones that can sli/Xfire)[/citation]

you just need to buy an identical and XFire it and you're good to game.

next time don't buy anything nvidia below x70 of amd x870 then you can just SLI/X-Fire it down the road and still be good to game.

something that makes it easy to note for the next graphics card for the money is the last 2 digits moniker of either brand speaks the volumes even in sli/crossfire than the first 1 or 2 digits. this is exactly more of what i have been wanting to know if the low end 50 and below in crossfire/sli can make up for performance impact of higher settings at playable rates as most customer don't want to spend $125-150+ on graphics and i've had very little to show them #'s wise with dual cards on the low end (the ones that can sli/Xfire) despite the fact that i know and i can demo show them the differences it's still hard to make a sale based on details with out #'s to show low end dual card or single higher end card.

would like to see more of the xx50 X-Fired and x50-x60's SLI'd in the charts after they fall into unplayable single card rates when possible!
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
[citation][nom]SinisterSalad[/nom]I'm getting tired of not seeing triple monitor results in these reviews.[/citation]

i know right? even the photos of AMD LAN party were showing an awful lot of dual monitors and people running 30"+. i've got guys i LAN game with if they DON'T have dual 24" monitors they are bringing 42" tvs to game on (yes i laugh too every time i see the tv guys)
 

clonazepam

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2010
2,625
0
21,160
119
I'd like to hear more about the process behind choosing a run-through scenario for fraps benching. Is there a youtube upload?

I've seen many run-through type benchmarks. Everyone does it differently. One guy walked around and hid behind cover a lot while slowly picking off enemies. My preferred type of run-through is at the start of the level, just start sprinting across the map. Do it a couple times to get a basic path down so the run is a suitable length, and then repeat. It's not always possible and just depends on the game. I don't like fraps runs of game engine "videos" like from BF3.

Jus' curious :)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Happy to see the fx-8350 doing very well!

I agree why not benches from hd6950\6970?
 

clonazepam

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2010
2,625
0
21,160
119
[citation][nom]hahakkkloool[/nom]Happy to see the fx-8350 doing very well!I agree why not benches from hd6950\6970?[/citation]

I guess rather than test a multitude of cards they'd leave the responsibility with the reader to go check the hierarchy charts. It doesn't bother me at all that the 580 isn't shown.
 

esrever

Splendid
[citation][nom]tanh[/nom]Why 630 DDR5 is so slow (in comparision to 6670 DDR3)? 650 is comparable to 7750.[/citation]
because the 630 is a really weak card and is a rebranded 440.
 

razor512

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2007
2,044
2
19,815
15
That game is not worth the money, also your team members have no AI, their movements are completely scripted. They do not kill any enemy units in single player, if you don't believe me then using the PC version, give your self unlimited health, then walk out into the middle of a battle, your team will shoot constantly but will never hit a single enemy, meaning they are just there for show.

I have a GTX 460 (overclocked) and a Phenom II x6 1075t (overclocked)

The game ran fine with all settings maxed out.

Also, the graphics suck compared to battlefield 3, they used textures with very little detail in comparison, the HDR lighting was done poorly (many highlights were clipped to gray)
 

Hiii

Honorable
Jul 25, 2012
144
0
10,690
2
[citation][nom]bigdragon[/nom]People, stop buying EA games. We've all played this title before. It's simply a rehash of games from the past. Don't support EA or Origin.[/citation]
I think the same, i think they just upgrade the graphics, change some scenarios/buildings, same AI and there you go.
 

Thomas Creel

Honorable
Oct 21, 2012
351
0
10,810
5
Very nice review, I won't be getting MoH: Warfighter any time soon but it was an interesting read, especially the part where the 8150 beats out the 3960x.
 

Hiii

Honorable
Jul 25, 2012
144
0
10,690
2
[citation][nom]Thomas Creel[/nom]Very nice review, I won't be getting MoH: Warfighter any time soon but it was an interesting read, especially the part where the 8150 beats out the 3960x.[/citation]

I think you mean the 8350.
 
[citation][nom]mailman377[/nom]Try playing UT2k4 or Quake Live with under 30 fps. Even the bots would faceroll over you.[/citation]

Actually, I play that game and I played it on an Intel IGP with FPS usually around 25-35 and I "faceroll" the bots, so that's bullshit unless you suck at playing the game.
 
[citation][nom]Ninjawithagun[/nom]Benchmarks flawed from the start - use a GTX680 4GB DDR5 card and re-run...NUFF SAID!![/citation]

There's no such thing as DDR5, so good luck with that. Besides, 4GB of frame buffer for a makes little to no difference in almost every situation.
 
[citation][nom]clonazepam[/nom]I guess rather than test a multitude of cards they'd leave the responsibility with the reader to go check the hierarchy charts. It doesn't bother me at all that the 580 isn't shown.[/citation]

That doesn't work. The hierarchy chart doesn't give you much of a clue about performance in specific games.
 

catatafish

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2012
448
0
18,810
17
I'd like to throw in another vote to start including 1080p triple monitor set ups.... seems to be a common or at least growing population of gamers using them. I'll be adding a 3rd soon and I continue to wonder what I'll need under the hood to play these FPSs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS