Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare PC graphics benchmark review

Posted by: Hilbert Hagedoorn on: 11/04/2016 10:21 AM [ 53 comment(s) ]

It's that time of the year, Infinity Ward and Raven Software releases Call of Duty in it's Infinite Warfare glory has been released. We will look at the game in our geeky gamer way. We'll test the game on the PC platform relative towards graphics card performance with the latest AMD/NVIDIA graphics card drivers. Multiple graphics cards are being tested and benchmarked. We have a look at performance with the newest graphics cards and technologies.

Read article

Advertisement

Tagged as: Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare PC graphics Performance Analysis, Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare PC benchmarks

pages 1 2 3

Undying
Senior Member

Posts: 12272

Posted on: 11/04/2016 11:43 AM

Thanks for another game benchmark, HH. Next stop Dishonored 2

Overall decent performance from both sides. I wonder how MW remaster compare to this IW.

EdInk
Member

Posts: 98

Posted on: 11/04/2016 11:57 AM

Thanks HH for this swift benchmark.

Most impressive card for me in this line up at 1080p would be the RX470. What a performance!

xIcarus
Senior Member

Posts: 941

Posted on: 11/04/2016 12:43 PM

What's up with the 970 results? Nvidia shafting us already?

realmadrid
Senior Member

Posts: 177

Posted on: 11/04/2016 12:52 PM

the gimping is so real

saucerer
Junior Member

Posts: 8

Posted on: 11/04/2016 01:09 PM

What motherboard did you use for AMD FX-8370 tests?

Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone

Posts: 36816

Posted on: 11/04/2016 01:12 PM

What motherboard did you use for AMD FX-8370 tests?

The MSI 970 Gaming.

mattm4
Senior Member

Posts: 159

Posted on: 11/04/2016 01:17 PM

That RX480 is kicking @$$ and taking names!!

But on a side note... I feel its really time for COD to make a new engine, and revamp the whole game, instead of a few new features and a little polish on the graphics. I would consider buying one of their games then. But I guess..... if they keep getting good sales at a priemium price, why revamp it? lol

Undying
Senior Member

Posts: 12272

Posted on: 11/04/2016 01:25 PM

Yeah, very nice performance from RX480. Outperforming 980 and 390X and even a Fury Pro.

DeskStar
Senior Member

Posts: 674

Posted on: 11/04/2016 02:00 PM

I hate to say it, but man am I sad to see the fury X with its 4gb of ram reduced to a low end card after all of that HBM is used up. 4gb was seriously a waste of time and effort on AMD's part.

CronoGraal
Senior Member

Posts: 4162

Posted on: 11/04/2016 02:02 PM

What's up with the 970 results? Nvidia shafting us already?

they shafted you when they sold you a 3.5gb card

Loophole35
Senior Member

Posts: 9478

Posted on: 11/04/2016 02:02 PM

What's up with the 970 results? Nvidia shafting us already?

Probably has something to do with the memory configuration. Nvidia may optimize it in a later driver (or not).

After looking closer may not be any issue. It's just a tad faster than the 780ti and about 20% slower than the 980. Seems about where it should be. This title is on a older engine that Kepler still has some optimization for so it may be you guys are seeing that.

Undying
Senior Member

Posts: 12272

Posted on: 11/04/2016 02:03 PM

I hate to say it, but man am I sad to see the fury X with its 4gb of ram reduced to a low end card after all of that HBM is used up. 4gb was seriously a waste of time and effort on AMD's part.

Low end card? Fury X is a third best performing card this review. You really have no idea what your talking about.

They real sad part is that you cannot use your 4xTitan cards in any game.

mattm4
Senior Member

Posts: 159

Posted on: 11/04/2016 02:26 PM

I hate to say it, but man am I sad to see the fury X with its 4gb of ram reduced to a low end card after all of that HBM is used up. 4gb was seriously a waste of time and effort on AMD's part.

Deskstar, either you're one of those fanboys or a troll out against AMD. Most of your posts I've seen have been attacks on AMD for dumb reasons. Some of which come across that you really don't know what you're talking about half the time.

But... I cant take anyone seriously when they have 4x Titans, and run a 120hz monitor.. cause that's plain stupid lol.

Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone

Posts: 36816

Posted on: 11/04/2016 03:11 PM

Guys, how about not fighting and insulting for a change?, it would make a heck of a paradox towards the game right

Singleton99
Senior Member

Posts: 1027

Posted on: 11/04/2016 03:13 PM

I hate to say it, but man am I sad to see the fury X with its 4gb of ram reduced to a low end card after all of that HBM is used up. 4gb was seriously a waste of time and effort on AMD's part.

Are you looking at different benchmarks to everyone else @ 1440p the fury-x is 2fps behind a 980ti which is pretty much equal , i class this as a excellent show for AMD and just confirms how well a 4gb card is still performing in the latest games today

Turanis
Senior Member

Posts: 1474

Posted on: 11/04/2016 03:20 PM

I hate to say it, but man am I sad to see the fury X with its 4gb of ram reduced to a low end card after all of that HBM is used up. 4gb was seriously a waste of time and effort on AMD's part.

Errmm...HBM is not GDDR5/X!

HBM releases textures & stuff from memory with more Speed than Gddr5/x.
So better get informed than spread non-sense.
When you get Gtx with HBM then you can talk real,until then stay low.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MGLQWlXo0Q&feature=youtu.be&t=2m48s

kinggavin
Senior Member

Posts: 297

Posted on: 11/04/2016 03:23 PM

read the article my thoughts are considering this runs on a ps4 which is older hardware hd7870 and looking at the graphics quality which is not great its shocking that the orginial titan £1000 card on release which has pretty beefy specs to this day and a nice 6gb of vram is way down the bottom with a 1050 ti

Koniakki
Senior Member

Posts: 2843

Posted on: 11/04/2016 03:31 PM

read the article my thoughts are considering this runs on a ps4 which is older hardware hd7870 and looking at the graphics quality which is not great its shocking that the orginial titan card on release which has pretty beefy specs to this day and a nice 6gb of vram is way down the bottom with a 1050 ti

I would say more close to a GTX 970 and it's called progress.

huilun02
Senior Member

Posts: 327

Posted on: 11/04/2016 03:35 PM

So BF1 looks way better with far larger maps, higher player count, better assets, and yet uses less VRAM and manages to run better on the same equipment.
Bravo, Activision.

PrMinisterGR
Senior Member

Posts: 7005

Posted on: 11/04/2016 03:49 PM

How is the 380x the same as a 970. WTF happened.

-Tj-
Senior Member

Posts: 16505

Posted on: 11/04/2016 03:49 PM

Does the game have artificial 125fps cap?

Loophole35
Senior Member

Posts: 9478

Posted on: 11/04/2016 03:58 PM

How is the 380x the same as a 970. WTF happened.

AMD seems to have a bit of an edge in this title. Just look at the 480.

Embra
Senior Member

Posts: 941

Posted on: 11/04/2016 03:59 PM

Still running a Piledriver, I really appreciate you adding the AMD CPU numbers HH!

Thank you!

PrMinisterGR
Senior Member

Posts: 7005

Posted on: 11/04/2016 03:59 PM

AMD seems to have a bit of an edge in this title. Just look at the 480.

Looks like a lot of an edge. And Polaris with the Primitive Discard Accelerator seems to be doing really well compared to previous GCN. I wonder if it has always been like this, or if they changed the engine now in anticipation of the PS4 Pro release.

NudeDude
Member

Posts: 23

Posted on: 11/04/2016 04:38 PM

Yeah, is this Campaign also capped to 125, or is this just heavier than BF1 and BO3?

Damn i hate these FSP caps, no use for my 165Hz screen. Multiplayer is capped to 91 with this and with CoD4 remastered.

Any change to unlock it? Banned by that?

pages 1 2 3

Post New Comment

Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.