i watched a gameplay on youtube with msi afterburner display and a 980 ti and it was use 12gb of pc ram with over 5gb of video card ram at 1920x1080 such a lot of ram for 1080p and graphics looked not very good use all that ram makes me think sloppy console port

Yeah, while really looking forward to this and finding plenty of "fixes" for such issues, this games hardware requirements for what's on display is just....pffft. Whats going on with this industry, Hilbert?

i have w8.1 and i have no problems with great performances and the game is smooth like few games i've seen on my pc... it use something like 5gb of vram and 6gb of ram some friends with w10 are experiencing that vram bug

The ram bugs were first discovered on a W7 system so its not an OS thing. Good thing i don't like COD games then, i would have no chance of running this maxed at 19x10. I imagine these issues will be fixed or at the least alleviated in upcoming patches, but they really need to start delaying these games until things are fixed, but doubt they ever will. I'm assuming it looks better in motion, as it looks quite mediocre in screenshots.

The ram bugs were first discovered on a W7 system so its not an OS thing. Good thing i don't like COD games then, i would have no chance of running this maxed at 19x10. I imagine these issues will be fixed or at the least alleviated in upcoming patches, but they really need to start delaying these games until things are fixed, but doubt they ever will. I'm assuming it looks better in motion, as it looks quite mediocre in screenshots.

You can run it fine with your h/w at 1080p-1440p 60fps+ with shadows or textures set to high. Plenty of peps with the same h/w as yours running fine. The issue is just another hit and miss between different pcs like batman ak (just not as worse).

No need for a review Hilbert,we know it`s a bad port,but thx anyway.

You can run it fine with your h/w at 1080p-1440p 60fps+ with shadows or textures set to high. Plenty of peps with the same h/w as yours running fine. The issue is just another hit and miss between different pcs like batman ak (just not as worse).

I'm sure i could find playable settings, but i don't believe it needs that sort of hardware, so i if i was into the game i would just wait until the issue was sorted.

At TechPowerup they noticed the game might need better memory management.

What's even more interesting is its video memory behavior. The GTX 980 Ti, with its 6 GB video memory, was developing a noticeable stutter. This stutter disappeared on the GTX TITAN X, with its 12 GB video memory, in which memory load shot up from maxed out 6 GB on the GTX 980 Ti, to 8.4 GB on the video memory. What's more, system memory usage dropped with the GTX TITAN X, down to 8.3 GB. .... On Steam Forums, users report performance issues that don't necessarily point at low FPS (frames per second), but stuttering, especially at high settings. Perhaps the game needs better memory management. Once we installed 16 GB RAM in the system, the game ran buttery-smooth with our GTX 980 Ti.

http://www.techpowerup.com/217308/black-ops-iii-12-gb-ram-and-gtx-980-ti-not-enough.html

I'm sure i could find playable settings, but i don't believe it needs that sort of hardware, so i if i was into the game i would just wait until the issue was sorted.

completely agree.

In other words, not even worth Guru´s time ATM.

Just spent an hour with it. Checked out a little campaign, multi, and zombies. And honestly, I'm getting great performance. I think the trick is to bring the shadow textures and regular textures down from extra to high. When I set them on extra the framerate is fine, but I get half second long pauses pretty frequently, which I expected given how memory hungry this game is. The other half is to to use the games frame limiter to limit the frame rate to one which you can always keep. I have a 1080p 144hz monitor so I limit to around 110 and things are buttery smooth. Now I do have to mention that I have a G-Sync monitor but even if I turned G-Sync off I think performance would remain the same, I would just have to deal with some tearing. Another tip, watch what you have running in the background. I had started the game with precision on and the first campaign scene was stuttering. I turned precision off and all of a sudden the game was buttery smooth. I honestly think treyarch will have this all sorted pretty quickly, the question is weather or not the game was worth the money I payed for it, which is still very much up for debate considering I've only had about an hour with it. But I will say this I didn't fall in love with the multiplayer immediately like I did with Halo 5 ( so what I love Halo ).

Just spent an hour with it. Checked out a little campaign, multi, and zombies. And honestly, I'm getting great performance. I think the trick is to bring the shadow textures and regular textures down from extra to high. When I set them on extra the framerate is fine, but I get half second long pauses pretty frequently, which I expected given how memory hungry this game is. The other half is to to use the games frame limiter to limit the frame rate to one which you can always keep. I have a 1080p 144hz monitor so I limit to around 110 and things are buttery smooth. Now I do have to mention that I have a G-Sync monitor but even if I turned G-Sync off I think performance would remain the same, I would just have to deal with some tearing. Another tip, watch what you have running in the background. I had started the game with precision on and the first campaign scene was stuttering. I turned precision off and all of a sudden the game was buttery smooth. I honestly think treyarch will have this all sorted pretty quickly, the question is weather or not the game was worth the money I payed for it, which is still very much up for debate considering I've only had about an hour with it. But I will say this I didn't fall in love with the multiplayer immediately like I did with Halo 5 ( so what I love Halo ).

That's the problem with the game, for some people it runs great. For others, it runs like crap even though they have comparable systems. My brother got the game and he has a FX6300, 16gb ram, and a 285. Runs like crap and actually had same problems Hilbert had. We're gonna put his steam account on my computer and see if it has that problem.

HH, your honest write-up is as good as full benchmark with dozens of cards. Only thing which remains is to say if AMD or nVidia or both have this bad performance atm. I guess, that both have troubles, probably memory leak, and some dead threads eating CPU before they are put out of misery. (but it is only guess)

Well I haven't touched CoD since it went all futuristic. Get back to reality like what the game was built on (Minus the zombies) otherwise we may as well play star wars battlefront.

This game was so smooth and played amazingly when it was in BETA, even with my HD7970. I don't understand these days how games lose optimization and performance as they move towards the final build. Rather than the other way around. Pathetic! I didn't purchase the game, but reports are it's not running great or consistent for many people as Hilbert suggested in the OP.

Each year wheneverÂ*Call of Duty is released traditionally we publish a nice VGA graphics performance review. This year I am delaying that article until there are better drivers / game patches availab... Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 Benchmark performance review delayed

as if the game is caching to the max.

Yep. (Just as the previous COD did though I think they used a smaller amount, Shadow of Mordor does the same too to name another game.)

//Fraction of video memory usage to target
VideoMemory = "0.9" // 0.75 to 1

(Config.ini in the "players" folder.) Could be just the VRAM though, previous COD game also cached system RAM for no real reason (I remember someone on the Cheat-Engine forums dumping that data and it was all a bunch of zero filled "fluff" or how to call it.) though it was speculated it was to make hacks more difficult to create but it doesn't seem to have worked.

Sometimes measuring 1902x1080...

:pc1::pc1::pc1::pc1:

The following 2 posts below are very helpful ------------------------------------------- #5184243 Posted on: 11/06/2015 02:33 PM i have w8.1 and i have no problems with great performances and the game is smooth like few games i've seen on my pc... it use something like 5gb of vram and 6gb of ram some friends with w10 are experiencing that vram bug Redemption80 Ancient Guru -------------------------------------------- Posts: 16210 Joined: 2009-01-06 #5184244 Posted on: 11/06/2015 02:36 PM The ram bugs were first discovered on a W7 system so its not an OS thing. Good thing i don't like COD games then, i would have no chance of running this maxed at 19x10. I imagine these issues will be fixed or at the least alleviated in upcoming patches, but they really need to start delaying these games until things are fixed, but doubt they ever will. I'm assuming it looks better in motion, as it looks quite mediocre in screenshots. -------------------------------------------

Found a workable solution ... have been working on the perf review all afternoon. It will be limited, but it will be up in the next few hours.

Found a workable solution ... have been working on the perf review all afternoon. It will be limited, but it will be up in the next few hours.

Thanks for the update, Hilbert. And you know what? It's so weird that you decide to delay the review because of performance issues, while the game publisher decides to rush the game in this situation. Anyway it looks like 16gb of system ram and 9gb+ of graphic ram is kinda enough... well, great for console port.