Guru3D Thermal Paste Roundup 2019
Back-to-school Microsoft Office 2016 $18 Win 10 Pro $12
TeamGroup T-Force Vulcan 1TB SSD Review
Corsair K57 RGB Wireless keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X review
PowerColor 5700 RED DEVIL review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Evoke review
ASUS Radeon RX 5700 XT ROG STRIX review
ViewSonic Elite XG240R Monitor Review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Call of Duty Ghosts VGA graphics performance benchmark review
Posted by: on: 11/07/2013 03:28 PM [
36 comment(s) ]
We benchmark Call of Duty Ghosts. Join us in this preliminary article where close to 20 graphics cards are being tested with the new Call of Duty Ghosts. As such we'll take a dozen of graphics cards today and have a look at DX11 performance with the newest graphics cards and technologies. The new and popular title is looking great from a graphics point of view.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2
Slikar
Senior Member
Posts: 368
Senior Member
Posts: 368
Posted on: 11/06/2013 04:34 PM
What is this? Titan and 290x on 1600x1200 not even 60fps
nice job IW , nice job..
What is this? Titan and 290x on 1600x1200 not even 60fps
nice job IW , nice job..
moab600
Senior Member
Posts: 6087
Senior Member
Posts: 6087
Posted on: 11/06/2013 04:34 PM
game is such unoptimized horrible performance, this game should be banned from PC until they fix it.
game is such unoptimized horrible performance, this game should be banned from PC until they fix it.
CrazY_Milojko
Senior Member
Posts: 1982
Senior Member
Posts: 1982
Posted on: 11/06/2013 04:44 PM
Nice review Hilbert, but I have one question: GeForce GTX 690 results are there, but where are Radeon HD 7990 results?
Edit:
My bad, I've missed that: "...The mighty Radeon HD 7990 caves in, Crossfire did not kick in...". ...because I was probably shocked by low fps results on high-end Radeon cards.
Edit #2:
I've loled so hard after closer look @ results because I was not looking below 7970.
1600x1200 GTX 660 = 41 / R9 290X = 51
1920x1200 GTX 660 = 37 / R9 290X = 51
2560x1440 GTX 660 = 30 / R9 290X = 45
R9 290X could easily obliterate my GTX 660 in any game today, it's obvius that NVidia's money is drilling holes everywhere they can, "good job" NVidia, but you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, my next card probably will be from 79xx/R9-280X series... Hope that new Radeon drivers will improve performance in CoD:Ghosts for Radeon 78xx/79xx/R9 2xx cards, but after all who cares about CoD games on PC anymore.
Nice review Hilbert, but I have one question: GeForce GTX 690 results are there, but where are Radeon HD 7990 results?
Edit:
My bad, I've missed that: "...The mighty Radeon HD 7990 caves in, Crossfire did not kick in...". ...because I was probably shocked by low fps results on high-end Radeon cards.
Edit #2:
I've loled so hard after closer look @ results because I was not looking below 7970.
1600x1200 GTX 660 = 41 / R9 290X = 51
1920x1200 GTX 660 = 37 / R9 290X = 51
2560x1440 GTX 660 = 30 / R9 290X = 45
R9 290X could easily obliterate my GTX 660 in any game today, it's obvius that NVidia's money is drilling holes everywhere they can, "good job" NVidia, but you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, my next card probably will be from 79xx/R9-280X series... Hope that new Radeon drivers will improve performance in CoD:Ghosts for Radeon 78xx/79xx/R9 2xx cards, but after all who cares about CoD games on PC anymore.
cowie
Senior Member
Posts: 13186
Senior Member
Posts: 13186
Posted on: 11/06/2013 04:46 PM
hell i could still be on a 680 if a played this game,whats wrong with that?
A 250usd card plays it as well as a 1000usd card. Thats a game that is for the masses not like the other shooter game that came out just the other day
game is such unoptimized horrible performance, this game should be banned from PC until they fix it.
hell i could still be on a 680 if a played this game,whats wrong with that?
A 250usd card plays it as well as a 1000usd card. Thats a game that is for the masses not like the other shooter game that came out just the other day
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35738
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35738
Posted on: 11/06/2013 04:46 PM
Look harder
... CFX is not kicking in and brings the card to its bare knees.
Nice review Hilbert, but I have one question: GeForce GTX 690 results are there, but where are Radeon HD 7990 results?
Look harder
... CFX is not kicking in and brings the card to its bare knees.
CPC_RedDawn
Senior Member
Posts: 7651
Senior Member
Posts: 7651
Posted on: 11/06/2013 04:47 PM
CHECK WAAAY DOWN THE LIST
Massive crossfire downscaling there, worse performance than with one GPU enabled.
Also HILBERT... did you make a mistake in the article? Twice
Page 5 & 8 you mention AMD 13.11 Beta 9 drivers yet you link to Beta 8 drivers.... do you have beta 9?
Nice review Hilbert, but I have one question: GeForce GTX 690 results are there, but where are Radeon HD 7990 results?
CHECK WAAAY DOWN THE LIST
Massive crossfire downscaling there, worse performance than with one GPU enabled.
Also HILBERT... did you make a mistake in the article? Twice
Page 5 & 8 you mention AMD 13.11 Beta 9 drivers yet you link to Beta 8 drivers.... do you have beta 9?
moab600
Senior Member
Posts: 6087
Senior Member
Posts: 6087
Posted on: 11/06/2013 04:48 PM
can someone ahm.. "leak" *cough* those beta driver? mainly 331.70
can someone ahm.. "leak" *cough* those beta driver? mainly 331.70
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35738
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 35738
Posted on: 11/06/2013 04:48 PM
CHECK WAAAY DOWN THE LIST
Massive crossfire downscaling there, worse performance than with one GPU enabled.
Also HILBERT... did you make a mistake in the article? Twice
Page 5 & 8 you mention AMD 13.11 Beta 9 drivers yet you link to Beta 8 drivers.... do you have beta 9?
No mistake, 13.11 Beta 9, not yet available to the public though.
CHECK WAAAY DOWN THE LIST
Massive crossfire downscaling there, worse performance than with one GPU enabled.
Also HILBERT... did you make a mistake in the article? Twice
Page 5 & 8 you mention AMD 13.11 Beta 9 drivers yet you link to Beta 8 drivers.... do you have beta 9?
No mistake, 13.11 Beta 9, not yet available to the public though.
CPC_RedDawn
Senior Member
Posts: 7651
Senior Member
Posts: 7651
Posted on: 11/06/2013 04:52 PM
ok. Does not seem to do much for Crossfire though to be honest, maybe they holding it back in order to get a crossfire profile for the game.
No mistake, 13.11 Beta 9, not yet available to the public though.
ok. Does not seem to do much for Crossfire though to be honest, maybe they holding it back in order to get a crossfire profile for the game.
Party Poison
Senior Member
Posts: 1175
Senior Member
Posts: 1175
Posted on: 11/06/2013 04:58 PM
331.70 Drivers ? are these available or is it just for the review, also in the dropdown box it says whats battlefield 4 about instead lol
331.70 Drivers ? are these available or is it just for the review, also in the dropdown box it says whats battlefield 4 about instead lol
CPC_RedDawn
Senior Member
Posts: 7651
Senior Member
Posts: 7651
Posted on: 11/06/2013 05:04 PM
Nope like Hilbert said they are only for the review.
331.70 Drivers ? are these available or is it just for the review, also in the dropdown box it says whats battlefield 4 about instead lol
Nope like Hilbert said they are only for the review.
UnrealGaming
Senior Member
Posts: 2629
Senior Member
Posts: 2629
Posted on: 11/06/2013 05:13 PM
Can't wait to play this latest quake 3 engine re-skin at 30 fps!
Can't wait to play this latest quake 3 engine re-skin at 30 fps!
meth curd
Member
Posts: 92
Member
Posts: 92
Posted on: 11/06/2013 05:17 PM
so can we expect all nvidia titles to kill crossfire from now on or what?
so can we expect all nvidia titles to kill crossfire from now on or what?
sounar
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Posted on: 11/06/2013 05:19 PM
oooooh look at all those pre-baked static lights, truly people next-gen is finally here!....abysmal performance honestly.
oooooh look at all those pre-baked static lights, truly people next-gen is finally here!....abysmal performance honestly.
Darren Hodgson
Senior Member
Posts: 15744
Senior Member
Posts: 15744
Posted on: 11/06/2013 06:07 PM
Shocking performance really... a GTX 780 with 2xMSAA on Ultra settings only manages an average framerate of 49 fps at 1920x1200? Sheesh.
Shocking performance really... a GTX 780 with 2xMSAA on Ultra settings only manages an average framerate of 49 fps at 1920x1200? Sheesh.
Darren Hodgson
Senior Member
Posts: 15744
Senior Member
Posts: 15744
Posted on: 11/06/2013 06:32 PM
The review says:
GeForce cards use the latest 331.70 Beta driver (drivers download here).
The link, however, misleadingly points to the 331.65 drivers.
The review says:
GeForce cards use the latest 331.70 Beta driver (drivers download here).
The link, however, misleadingly points to the 331.65 drivers.
dsbig
Senior Member
Posts: 3987
Senior Member
Posts: 3987
Posted on: 11/06/2013 07:04 PM
The review says:
GeForce cards use the latest 331.70 Beta driver (drivers download here).
The link, however, misleadingly points to the 331.65 drivers.
did a search. seems other review website have these beta drivers as well.
why you no share???..
and why no benchies for 5xx and later cards.. there still people using these. come on show the benchies, so we can see how badly our card is performing, so it gives us a good excuse to upgrade.
The review says:
GeForce cards use the latest 331.70 Beta driver (drivers download here).
The link, however, misleadingly points to the 331.65 drivers.
did a search. seems other review website have these beta drivers as well.
why you no share???..
and why no benchies for 5xx and later cards.. there still people using these. come on show the benchies, so we can see how badly our card is performing, so it gives us a good excuse to upgrade.
---TK---
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Posted on: 11/06/2013 07:20 PM
Bah I was expecting to dl the new driver as well. Bogus link
Bah I was expecting to dl the new driver as well. Bogus link
thatguy91
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Posted on: 11/06/2013 07:43 PM
If Forceware 331.70 beta and Catalyst 13.11 beta 9 are only available to reviewers, it's possible the released 331.70 (or whatever) and Catalyst 13.11 beta 9 may be updated even further... you could only confirm this with a file-by-file comparison once they become available.
If Forceware 331.70 beta and Catalyst 13.11 beta 9 are only available to reviewers, it's possible the released 331.70 (or whatever) and Catalyst 13.11 beta 9 may be updated even further... you could only confirm this with a file-by-file comparison once they become available.
twtaylor
Senior Member
Posts: 2943
Senior Member
Posts: 2943
Posted on: 11/06/2013 07:58 PM
Now I have a question, why 1600x1200? That's a 4:3 resolution found on CRTs mostly. 1680x1050 or 1600x900 are more prevalent. Even 1920x1200 isn't as common as 1920x1080. This isn't a gripe, I'm just curious.
Now I have a question, why 1600x1200? That's a 4:3 resolution found on CRTs mostly. 1680x1050 or 1600x900 are more prevalent. Even 1920x1200 isn't as common as 1920x1080. This isn't a gripe, I'm just curious.
StewieTech
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2538
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2538
Posted on: 11/06/2013 08:11 PM
People who look primarily for a gaming monitor will most likely buy a x1200 over a 1080p, as an example. And this is a game performace article after all. But yeah i hear you, it´s a bit odd since most people, same example, are running 1080p monitors.
Now I have a question, why 1600x1200? That's a 4:3 resolution found on CRTs mostly. 1680x1050 or 1600x900 are more prevalent. Even 1920x1200 isn't as common as 1920x1080. This isn't a gripe, I'm just curious.
People who look primarily for a gaming monitor will most likely buy a x1200 over a 1080p, as an example. And this is a game performace article after all. But yeah i hear you, it´s a bit odd since most people, same example, are running 1080p monitors.
AcidSnow
Senior Member
Posts: 404
Senior Member
Posts: 404
Posted on: 11/06/2013 08:23 PM
Now I have a question, why 1600x1200? That's a 4:3 resolution found on CRTs mostly. 1680x1050 or 1600x900 are more prevalent. Even 1920x1200 isn't as common as 1920x1080. This isn't a gripe, I'm just curious.
I totally agree, I always roll my eyes when I see 1920*1200, it must be a European thing, considering this site never quotes US dollar prices... Zzz
twtaylor
Senior Member
Posts: 2943
Senior Member
Posts: 2943
Posted on: 11/06/2013 08:29 PM
Actually Hilbert quotes US dollars prices when he has the info.
I totally agree, I always roll my eyes when I see 1920*1200, it must be a European thing, considering this site never quotes US dollar prices... Zzz
Actually Hilbert quotes US dollars prices when he has the info.
Crowbar
Senior Member
Posts: 358
Senior Member
Posts: 358
Posted on: 11/06/2013 08:34 PM
I gotta be honest... It doesn't look that great...
I gotta be honest... It doesn't look that great...
pages 1 2
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Posts: 9094
Cheers Hilbert, awesome write up.
I still think nvidia and IW missed an opportunity to ship retail pc versions in a fur covered dvd case and then, when you open it, random crap falls out onto the ground representing PhysX.. well thats probably more gravity and an annoying mess to clean up... but its still be better than 'John Romero is going to make you his b***h' advertising campaign.