Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare PC graphics benchmark review

#5354723

Loophole35

2016-11-04 15:58

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.

#5354725

Embra

2016-11-04 15:59

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

#5354726

PrMinisterGR

2016-11-04 15:59

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.

#5354743

NudeDude

2016-11-04 16:38

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?

#5354757

Hilbert Hagedoorn

Administrator

2016-11-04 17:17

Correct, there is a hard cap at 125 FPS which shows at 1080P with the two fastest cards.

#5354760

CPC_RedDawn

2016-11-04 17:21

The game is broken! Massive amounts of stuttering in the game in certain areas, and when loading new scenes too it literally pauses for a few seconds then continues. Just go and read the steam reviews. The frame rate is not the issue its the game it self it seems to HAMMER the pagefile into next week. I came out of the game and checked MSI AB and saw that I was maxing out a 10.6GB RAM usage and 17.5GB PF usage!!! Like WTF!????

#5354769

PrMinisterGR

2016-11-04 17:36

The game is broken! Massive amounts of stuttering in the game in certain areas, and when loading new scenes too it literally pauses for a few seconds then continues. Just go and read the steam reviews. The frame rate is not the issue its the game it self it seems to HAMMER the pagefile into next week. I came out of the game and checked MSI AB and saw that I was maxing out a 10.6GB RAM usage and 17.5GB PF usage!!! Like WTF!????

That sounds like a memory leak. Is there a specific area where you started noticing that, or is it like that every time?

#5354798

iTile

2016-11-04 18:27

Don't mind me, just passing by. COD is more an nVidia Title on PC than AMD and have been for the passed few years of COD iterations, can go back and check the previous reviews. But it goes to show AMD knows whatsup, and it shows why they are so confident with their architecture. I don't mean to sturr up the thread but I was wondering how the nvidia buyers are feeling at this moment in time. This is not the NEW game that shows AMD GPUs on par or better than their competitors counterpart. People buy GPUs to play new games isn't it?

#5354833

kinggavin

2016-11-04 19:40

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

depends what you call progress cod has not progress much black ops 3 look better than this one, if it had 2016 state of the art graphics then yeah ok you need a gtx 1080 to max it, but with the graphics it has a titan should be hitting the 125 fps cap at 1080p

#5354840

user1

2016-11-04 19:56

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.

dat 5k doe, I do wonder how it manages it, maybe the low latency of hbm allows the fury card to respond faster to texture loads?

#5354843

moaka

2016-11-04 20:00

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.

LoL ... HBM is not calculated in same way as the DDR5/X ( 4 GB on 512gb bandwitch ) , R9 Fury Nitro Cost 269e in france i think its a really good card at this price for now ... Cheaper than GTX 1060 6gb or RX 480 8gb . Look Guru3d reviews : Cod , Bf1 , Gow4 , Mafia III , DEus Ex , Far cry and other , Fury ( x ) perform very well .

#5354887

xIcarus

2016-11-04 21:43

they shafted you when they sold you a 3.5gb card :P

Yeah, I should've waited just 9 more months for the 390. ?

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.

20% from the 980 is quite on the high side, the difference between the two cards until now hasn't been quite that big on average. Actually it's probably just the title favoring AMD hardware considering the good performance across the board.

#5354902

StewieTech

2016-11-04 22:38

Good performance, well optimized my 960 can keep up at 1080p, happy with that.

#5354908

Koniakki

2016-11-04 22:44

Good performance, well optimized my 960 can keep up at 1080p, happy with that.

I would say more in the lines of less graphically demanding than well optimized, from what I read so far. Even HH mentioned it in the article. "At one point the result set would be 50 FPS, and on the second similar path and execution 42 FPS and another 56 FPS. This means that the results shown today are indicative, not a precise measurement. Another problem was that some levels average out at say 40 FPS, yet there are a handful of scenes where the framerate will crumble down to say 25 FPS or where running a luxurious 60 FPS all of the sudden. That is the reality of this game engine."

#5354910

StewieTech

2016-11-04 22:48

I would say more in the lines of less graphically demanding than well optimized, from what I read so far. Even HH mentioned it in the article. "At one point the result set would be 50 FPS, and on the second similar path and execution 42 FPS and another 56 FPS. This means that the results shown today are indicative, not a precise measurement. Another problem was that some levels average out at say 40 FPS, yet there are a handful of scenes where the framerate will crumble down to say 25 FPS or where running a luxurious 60 FPS all of the sudden. That is the reality of this game engine."

Oh ok, gotcha. I just saw the numbers.

#5354920

vase

2016-11-04 23:30

Yeah, I should've waited just 9 more months for the 390. ?

if i "remember correctly" both the 290 and the 290x carried 4GB VRAM and came out ~12 months prior to the 390. (apart from the 390 being a rebrand of the 290 hawaii chip ofc 🙂 ) so you wouldn't have had to wait... but you're also the guy who praised the 780ti (quote: "is going mega strong") so much over the 290x in end of 2015 ... and now 10 months later we all know what's up. so your comments make perfectly sense in terms of "holding your position without room for compromise" :deflate:

#5354924

pharma

2016-11-04 23:48

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

It's probably the game ... pcgameshardware.de game review has wildly different results.

#5354973

RooiKreef

2016-11-05 04:27

I'm glad to see that this game is nicely optimized for the AMD RX400 series. Man that 480 is a killer @ 1080P, however it does drop when going higher resolution. Still a very well optimized game overall for both Nvidia and AMD. I would like to do a level or two in this game, just to see how this space iteration plays out.

#5354983

Party Poison

2016-11-05 04:58

The game is broken! Massive amounts of stuttering in the game in certain areas, and when loading new scenes too it literally pauses for a few seconds then continues. Just go and read the steam reviews. The frame rate is not the issue its the game it self it seems to HAMMER the pagefile into next week. I came out of the game and checked MSI AB and saw that I was maxing out a 10.6GB RAM usage and 17.5GB PF usage!!! Like WTF!????

I AM HAVING AN ISSUE THEREFORE THIS GAME IS 100% BROKE. Thanks for that.

#5355010

xIcarus

2016-11-05 09:03

if i "remember correctly" both the 290 and the 290x carried 4GB VRAM and came out ~12 months prior to the 390. (apart from the 390 being a rebrand of the 290 hawaii chip ofc 🙂 ) so you wouldn't have had to wait... but you're also the guy who praised the 780ti (quote: "is going mega strong") so much over the 290x in end of 2015 ... and now 10 months later we all know what's up. so your comments make perfectly sense in terms of "holding your position without room for compromise" :deflate:

Yeah I didn't have to wait, I just had to shell out an extra $200 dollars for the 290x since AMD stubbornly refused to drop the price until around february 2015. You didn't think it through at all, did you? And I don't know exactly what you're 'stalking' about, sounds like you found a random post and misinterpreted it. I was probably talking in light of lower expectations for the 780Ti. Who the hell brings out a year old argument in the first place? Not sure why you're getting salty over me replying to a different user.

It's probably the game ... pcgameshardware.de game review has wildly different results.

Yes, I see now that Hilbert wrote the FPS is all over the place and other reviews have different results. Weird.