Call of Duty Ghosts VGA graphics performance benchmark review
Click here to post a comment for Call of Duty Ghosts VGA graphics performance benchmark review on our message forum
(.)(.)
Cheers Hilbert, awesome write up. :thumbup:
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.
Slikar
What is this? Titan and 290x on 1600x1200 not even 60fps 😀 nice job IW , nice job..
moab600
game is such unoptimized horrible performance, this game should be banned from PC until they fix it.
CrazY_Milojko
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
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
Administrator
Look harder 🙂 ... CFX is not kicking in and brings the card to its bare knees.
CPC_RedDawn
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
can someone ahm.. "leak" *cough* those beta driver? mainly 331.70
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Administrator
No mistake, 13.11 Beta 9, not yet available to the public though.
CPC_RedDawn
:( 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
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
Nope like Hilbert said they are only for the review.
UnrealGaming
Can't wait to play this latest quake 3 engine re-skin at 30 fps!
meth curd
so can we expect all nvidia titles to kill crossfire from now on or what?
sounar
oooooh look at all those pre-baked static lights, truly people next-gen is finally here!....abysmal performance honestly.
Darren Hodgson
Shocking performance really... a GTX 780 with 2xMSAA on Ultra settings only manages an average framerate of 49 fps at 1920x1200? Sheesh.
Darren Hodgson
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
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---
Bah I was expecting to dl the new driver as well. Bogus link
twtaylor
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.
