Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Performance Test

By on November 11, 2009, 4:08 AM
The wait is over as Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was released worldwide this week. Developed by Infinity Ward and published by Activision, this is the sixth installment in the series and a direct sequel to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. We expect Modern Warfare 2 to be just as hardware friendly as its predecessor despite the numerous engine enhancements. In our graphics card performance evaluation we'll be testing a large range of previous and current generation GPUs, both mainstream and high-end chips from the GeForce 9600GT and Radeon 3000 series, to the recently launched Radeon HD 5000 GPUs, dual GPU cards from Nvidia and ATI, and even a Radeon HD 5770 Crossfire setup to make up for a total of 19 different GPU configurations.
Needless to say, this should give you a perfect picture of how your current or prospective system will perform in Modern Warfare 2. Read the complete article.




User Comments: 59

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

Here's a nice video of Modern Warfare 2 on, gtx 295 , i7 920

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4t0XmrgWi0

Puiu Puiu said:

I never expected such low requirements for a game that looks so good. and has so much action. This goes to show that if you put a bit of effort into it you can get outstanding results. (unlike a certain crysis)

Kibaruk Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Too bad you left the Ati XT2600HD out =(

I'm still in love of that video card hehe

Kibaruk Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I'm wondering, would you make a comparison just for gigs of the old video cards vs the new ones? =)

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I wonder how the 8800GTS handles this?i know soo many people who still use that card, I personally own a GTX260 and I love it! extremely good card considering I got it less than hundred pounds. Nice to see it have a special mention here as its relatively cheap considering the performance of the card.

Puiu Puiu said:

burty117 said:

I wonder how the 8800GTS handles this?i know soo many people who still use that card, I personally own a GTX260 and I love it! extremely good card considering I got it less than hundred pounds. Nice to see it have a special mention here as its relatively cheap considering the performance of the card.

8800GTS is above 9600GT and below 9800GTX. it should work just fine with this game at the resolutions that 9600 worked.

Guest said:

What a FAIL benchmark.

What's the point of doing graphics test when you are running a Core i7 965 @ 3,7Ghz?

Seriously it would be better to run the tests with a E8400 or maybe and i7 920.

Ranger12 Ranger12 said:

Guest said:

What a FAIL benchmark.

What's the point of doing graphics test when you are running a Core i7 965 @ 3,7Ghz?

Seriously it would be better to run the tests with a E8400 or maybe and i7 920.

Benchmarking with the i7 965 makes perfect sense. Theyre benchmarking videocards here not whole systems. They gotta make sure it's the videocards that are bottlenecking the system not the CPU.

Kibaruk Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I still play the most recent games and some on maximum quality (But low AA filtering) on an ATI 256 mb DDR3 HD2600XT, AMD Athlon x64 5000+ and 2x twin corsairs 1gb ram 667mhz (Which is to be a 2 year old system).

With an ATI Radeon HD2600XT 256 mb DDR3, Windows 7 gives my 3D rendering a 6,4 in the windows experience evaluation, what is your score on which video card?

Nirkon said:

Guest said:

What a FAIL benchmark.

What's the point of doing graphics test when you are running a Core i7 965 @ 3,7Ghz?

Seriously it would be better to run the tests with a E8400 or maybe and i7 920.

That's how ALL the sites do their benchmarking...

but yeah I somewhat agree that the benchmark should be more about the whole PC and not about JUST the GPUs.

I have an HD4850 and a 22" (1680x1050) so here it runs with 4X AA at 60FPS but with 6GB DDR3 and Core I7 at 3.7GHZ... so I'm thinking.. how the heck is it going to run anywhere near that with an E6600 and 2GB DDR2???

But you know what, I'm gonna benchmark it and post it here afterwords for anyone interested.

I usually play with 8XAA though, and generally, a 30FPS average is good enough for me.

Guest said:

Hello ! Nvidia 7600 is ok ? What do you think ?

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

hey hey! I used to use the 7600! its impressive for its size and age i'll give ya that! and yes, it won't run it in full res without lag and you will need to keep anti-alising off but appart from that, you could run it happily

SNGX1275 SNGX1275, TS Forces Special, said:

What a FAIL benchmark.

What's the point of doing graphics test when you are running a Core i7 965 @ 3,7Ghz?

Seriously it would be better to run the tests with a E8400 or maybe and i7 920.

No. Having system specs really high is the best way to guarantee you are card limited in performance and not system limited. Since this is benchmarking the video cards with this game it is the ideal way to do it.

Guest said:

Am I the only one that doesn't understand why they benchmarked an entire set of dx10 cards in dx9??

camuss15 camuss15 said:

I must have low standards, but I have a 22' monitor running at 1680x1050 with a 9600GT, and I think that 45 fps at max settings with 4xx AA on a game that came out this week is damn good... For a sub $100 video card.

I know that I am probably going to average like 25-30 fps with my E4300 and 2 gigs of ram though...

Guest said:

Is that gtx260 the 216 or 192 cores version? Or is the difference between them negligible?

yukka, TechSpot Paladin, said:

All the benchmark charts for AA/AF enabled show AA at 4x and AF at zero which is a bit confusing - did you test with anisotropic filtering off but antialiasing on full?

Guest said:

i'm using 5870, i benchmarked the game in Windows XP and Windows 7 64 bit, the result was that i got at least 25% more frames in Xp than in 7, ATI should work on that in their next driver.

Guest said:

I say again, why no dx10 benchies???

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Too bad you left the Ati XT2600HD out =(

I'm still in love of that video card hehe

Given the range of graphics cards included you can work out the performance of pretty much any graphics card.

I'm wondering, would you make a comparison just for gigs of the old video cards vs the new ones? =)

Anything slower than the GeForce 9600 GT or Radeon HD 3850 is going to struggle using maximum in-game quality settings based on what we saw.

What a FAIL benchmark.

What's the point of doing graphics test when you are running a Core i7 965 @ 3,7Ghz?

Seriously it would be better to run the tests with a E8400 or maybe and i7 920.

What a FAIL post, please take a time out to educate yourself before making the mistake of sharing your thoughts.

Am I the only one that doesn't understand why they benchmarked an entire set of dx10 cards in dx9??

When they make a DX10 version of the game I promise we will test it for you

I say again, why no dx10 benchies???

Again, the game is still only DX9...

Is that gtx260 the 216 or 192 cores version? Or is the difference between them negligible?

We only use the 216-SPU version these days but the performance difference is minimal.

All the benchmark charts for AA/AF enabled show AA at 4x and AF at zero which is a bit confusing - did you test with anisotropic filtering off but antialiasing on full?

That is 100% correct, there is no in-game setting for AF, only AA. At this stage we did not want to force these settings in the drive panels as it can skew the results.

i'm using 5870, i benchmarked the game in Windows XP and Windows 7 64 bit, the result was that i got at least 25% more frames in Xp than in 7, ATI should work on that in their next driver.

I never noticed that but it is interesting, having said that the 5870 still kicks some serious ****. Also you weren't testing DX9 in XP and DX10/10.1 in 7 were you?

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

i absolutely love this game and it runs full tilt on my current system which makes me happy

Guest said:

The message of that this Performance Test test gives is somewhat skewed because it doesn't take into account CPU scaling. I am running a GTX 295 on a E8400 @3.7GHz and am getting an average of only 70fps (1920x1200 @4x AA) at the same Bridge Level in this test. Nowhere near the 124fps in the Techspot benchmark. So yeah, this article is somewhat useful but doesn't paint a full picture at all at giving a reasonable expectation of performance on lower class CPU's as some graphic cards scale better than others.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

I would make sure you are using the latest drivers. This game is not CPU limited, we did test the CPU scaling side of things but there was little difference between a Core i7 processor and a Core 2 Duo processor.

Having said that if anything the results are not skewed, your system is imbalanced. So what you are suggesting is that we assume that everyone with a high-end graphics card uses an affordable dual-core CPU and limit the performance of the really fast cards so they perform more like mainstream cards?

These graphics card articles are not about how "your" system performs. They are about how certain graphics cards perform and if we wanted to skew the results we would use a lower powered CPU.

Guest said:

"These graphics card articles are not about how "your" system performs." Huh? In the article you clearly state:

"Needless to say, this should give you a perfect picture of how your current or prospective system will perform in Modern Warfare 2"

But how is my system imbalanced? What determines a balanced system? CPU, RAM, and GPU. Cpu is E8400 @ 3.7Ghz, Gpu is GTX 295 and Ram is DDR2 4GB. How is that imbalanced? That sounds pretty balanced to me. Building a comp isn't rocket science. Other benchmarks fall right in line with it. If the game is not CPU limited, why point your finger at my lesser dual-core CPU?

I never said your article was intentionally skewed. My complaint is that it doesn't tell the full story. While you say it does, I am not in a position to test that statement. But if what what you say is true, why not at least provide the evidence for comparison sake in the article? Or at least mention it. Without it, it gives the casual observer a false impression of expected performance.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Honestly I have no idea why your system is performing so poorly and I suggest that you check your drivers if you have not already done so.

Your performance is similar to that of our GeForce GTX 275 which leads me to believe that for whatever reason SLI is not working in Modern Warfare 2 for you. Having no idea how your system is set up I cannot determine if this is a matter of the processors being different or a problem with the graphics card or some other piece of hardware.

On a side note if the title of the article was "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 System Performance" rather than "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Graphics Performance" then yes I would agree with everything you have said.

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

yeah somewhere you need to enable duel video cards because your only using 1 card as the performance suggests.

camuss15 camuss15 said:

Well unfortunately, my system is severely CPU limited because COD MWF2 utterly unplayable on my 9600 GT with no AA and the texture settings left at auto at 1680x1050. I was hoping for 25-30 fps (15-20 fps less than this review states a 9600 GT should perform at with no CPU bottleneck) because I knew my system is no match for a Core i7 system.

I am only able to get about 15 fps and every few seconds, the screen freezes and the audio repeats itself for a little bit until the video catches up, making the game unplayable.

Too bad my computer is a piece of two year old trash, it looks like a good game....

Staff
Steve Steve said:

No that's not right, unless you have an old Pentium 4 processor or something. What CPU are you using exactly?

Guys this is not a brand new game engine, it is very old with some new tweaks but really if you could play Call of Duty 4 okay then you should be right to play CoD6 without much trouble.

Guest said:

very good article.

Unfortunately I am using an older MacBook Pro with only an ATI x1600, I can play CoD4:MW2 but all the text is scambled. If anyone can help, I will be forever in their debt!

Then even looking at the new MacBook Pros, their gpu cards arnt that great (9600M).

thanks

t2T

Guest said:

Im surprised for a game that looks so great, it runs almost perfectly on my 8800GT and i get anything between 45-60fps.

24" monitor at full resolution and everything at max.

camuss15 camuss15 said:

I have a Core 2 Duo E4300 @ 1.8Ghz with 2 gigs of DDR2 533 (It is a Gateway system, so no BIOS oc possible.) I just played with every setting turned off and the texture settings to low at 1680x1050 and it dipped to about 24 fps in heavy shooting scenes, but it stayed at 60 fps for the majority of the time.

I have a factory overclocked MSI 9600 GT (700mhz Core and 1900mhz memory), and the temps aren't bad, so that shouldn't affect it any. I played CoD4 with all max setting and forced 8x AA and 16x AF in the Nvidia Control Panel no problem a while ago.

By the way, I am using 195.39 forceware drivers and Windows 7 Ultimate x64. I don't know what the problem is. According to the review, you used the 191.07 drivers, so I wonder if that has any effect since mine are beta drivers.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Im surprised for a game that looks so great, it runs almost perfectly on my 8800GT and i get anything between 45-60fps.

24" monitor at full resolution and everything at max.

That ties in with the 64fpt we saw with the 9800 GT which is the same product.

By the way, I am using 195.39 forceware drivers and Windows 7 Ultimate x64. I don't know what the problem is. According to the review, you used the 191.07 drivers, so I wonder if that has any effect since mine are beta drivers.

I would certainly look to update your drivers.

camuss15 camuss15 said:

I am using the latest drivers on Nvidia's website (released October 30th), they just happen to be Beta drivers (195.39). Anyway:

I just did a benchmark of my system on the first level with max settings, 4x AA, and Extra Texture settings and did a few Fraps benchmarks and I recorded temps of my GPU and CPU.

My Video Card peaked at 54 degrees C and my CPU peaked at 49 degrees C. I got 0 fps minimum (from the nearly constant freezes), 56 fps max and 18.6 fps average.

This is from a total of 8 minutes of the first level. I got to the room with the RPG's on the table before giving up and checking my temps and fps.

I just figured I would share that. I plan on playing with normal texture settings and no AA, which seems to be ok for my system.

camuss15 camuss15 said:

I forgot to mention, that my 9600 GT is overclocked from 650mhz to 750mhz core and from 1800mhz to 2000mhz on memory.

yukka, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Well it finally unlocked on steam for me last night and i was able to play. I have a i7 920 @ 2.66.ghz, 9gb ddr3 and a 512mb 4850. Performance at 1360*768 was brilliant with all settings on maximum and vsync on. I havent tried forcing the anisotropic filtering yet. I am playing at that resolution on my 26inch lcd tv but I will try out 1680*1050 at the weekend on my other monitor. No need to upgrade my graphics card quite yet. Left 3 dead 2 next please

Guest said:

Im also using the Beta 195.39 drivers with 8800GT and i have no issues.

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

camuss15 you might try using driver sweeper to uninstall your nividia drivers it cleans everything out so there is no little files left. the simply reboot and install your drivers over again. My friends 9800 gtx + was having a problem with this game and he did what i just mentioned and it fixed his problem. also how do you run a benchmark on this game?

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

also how do you run a benchmark on this game?

probably used Fraps klepto, I just did the same thing.

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

hey red whats your system pull on this game?

Guest said:

Good Article

but alot of us, if you check the other forums out there are having big issues with SLI

i myself use a GTX 295 and im getting even less then 70fps!

in the end i've put the exe's into the cod4MW1 profile do get a solid 60fps. but in heavy fire fights it drags! even a 275 should be doing better then this!

I've tried the drivers you guys tested with. but i also tried the new beta drivers from nvidia.

no bottleneck here

Q9550 @ 3.8 Prime & OCCT stable

4GB Corsair Dominator @ 1102

GTX 295 overclocked to 650/1400/1020

I do however have a physx card - 8800GTX im wondering if this might be for some totally unrelated reason be causing an issue? i'll probably take it out and try it.

I can also confirm that SLI works perfectly in all the other games i play. Crysis wars/warhead being one of them.

I must ask! how did you get SLI to work with those drivers steve? as SLI support for that title isn't native. - fact.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Nothing special was done the GeForce GTX 295 (SLI) just worked perfectly which I also found surprising given that when we typically write these articles SLI is broken. I didn't think much of it though as I expected both AMD and Nvidia to get their multi-GPU technologies working perfectly for this major title.

I just took another look at it today using the GeForce GTX 295 and the performance at 2560x1600 is incredible. The only things worth mentioning are that we are using an X58 board and Windows 7, other than that I cannot think of any reason why it's working for us.

Guest said:

, post: 817901"]Nothing special was done the GeForce GTX 295 (SLI) just worked perfectly which I also found surprising given that when we typically write these articles SLI is broken. I didn't think much of it though as I expected both AMD and Nvidia to get their multi-GPU technologies working perfectly for this major title.

I just took another look at it today using the GeForce GTX 295 and the performance at 2560x1600 is incredible. The only things worth mentioning are that we are using an X58 board and Windows 7, other than that I cannot think of any reason why it's working for us.

well it's not windows 7. thats for sure! and i'm failing to see it being the X58. if it is! i'll eat my hat.

perhaps you could look at the profile for us? maybe look at it through nhancer?

i reckon this would help alot of us out.

Guest said:

Well! i found a fix! hope this can be of some use to everyone!

it seems that the normal upgrade to the new beta drivers from nvidia didn't like the transition. despite trying it about 3 times.

in the end i ran driversweeper and did it from scratch

now i'm getting 100+fps maxed out. 80~ in heavy firefights.

Not bad!

swing82 swing82 said:

Some people are unaware that motherboards using an Nvidia chipset often have problems. I have read here many problem statements from posters with CPU and video cards listed, however, except for [-Steve-], no motherboards were listed [that I can remember].

Motherboards made with Intel chipsets that support SLI do not exhibit the SLI problems that many motherboards with Nvidia chipsets exhibit.

Note: Early X58 chipset motherboards has had some problems in various areas, some USB situations for example, however, BIOS revisions have been fixing those problems.

Guest said:

Very good read.

I have a pair of geforce gtx 260 graphics cards and they work fine in sli with mw2. The performance is incredible at 1920x1080 and for a game that doesnt use a new engine the graphics sure are impressive.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Thanks for all the feedback and support guys we really appreciate it.

I am glad to hear you got your SLI setup working and it sounds like you are seeing a similar level of performance to us.

Guest said:

No no Steve,

thank you for the indepth comparisons. best on the web for sure!

to the other bloke, im using an intel chipset and i had the SLI issue.

Like i said. it didnt seem to enjoy a straight upgrade from 191.07 to the betas.

Driversweep and a fresh install was my cure!

alot of my friends are having bigger problems however. crashes as soon as it loads! apparently steam and IW are working on the issue.

swing82 swing82 said:

I must have low standards, but I have a 22' monitor running at 1680x1050 with a 9600GT, and I think that 45 fps at max settings with 4xx AA on a game that came out this week is damn good... For a sub $100 video card.

I know that I am probably going to average like 25-30 fps with my E4300 and 2 gigs of ram though...

Put a half way decent cooler on your E4300 and you should be able to overclock it between 3.4GHz and 3.6GHz, more than enough power to feed your 9600GT.

Guest said:

very good article.

Unfortunately I am using an older MacBook Pro with only an ATI x1600, I can play CoD4:MW2 but all the text is scambled. If anyone can help, I will be forever in their debt!

Then even looking at the new MacBook Pros, their gpu cards arnt that great (9600M).

thanks

t2T

im also having the same problem, I have an macbook pro with this ATI x1600 with 256 MB, i already tryed to reinstall the drivers, but it didnt work

ANY SUGGESTIONS?

Guest said:

hi my name is angel and i have a problemou i cant seem to fix.

q9550 2.6 oc to 3.4 steady

i780 sli mobo

6g ram ddr2 800

gtx 260 core 16 oc to 675/1455/1152/40

aftermarket fan my cpu temp never goes higher than 49 on stress load! 34idle

win 7 64 ultimate

nvidia 191.07

i start playing cod mw 2 on mp and for a a stage or maybe for two stages i'm steady at 60fps never a hick up. but then suddenly it drops to 40 - 46 fps and it stays there. now if i restart the PC then it goes back to been fine for a bit and then boom.. fps drop again. all other games run perfect. im downloading now the beta drivers from nvidia 195 and see how that goes.. any suggestions or tweaks on cfg anything you guys think might help?

thanks!

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.