Medal of Honor SP Graphics & CPU Performance

By on October 15, 2010, 3:32 AM
It's hard to believe three years have passed since Medal of Honor: Airborne was released for the PC, and even harder to accept that the original MoH: Allied Assault debuted way back in 2002. I'm sure fans of the series have long awaited this moment, but personally despite the number of entries to the Medal of Honor franchise over the years, Airborne was admittedly the first I played extensively. Don't get me wrong, it's not that previous games in the series were bad, they just failed to impress me from what I could see on the surface and as a result I was quick to pass over them.

That wasn't the case with MoH: Airborne, which I picked up solely for benchmarking purposes but then I found it difficult to pull myself away from the game. I can't recall the last time I was motivated enough to play a single player campaign from start to finish, so when I heard about the 2010 version of Medal of Honor I instantly looked into pre-ordering the game.

Developed by EA's Danger Close and DICE, this latest installment is simply titled "Medal of Honor." Meant to reboot the series, MoH takes place during the ongoing war in Afghanistan featuring both single and multiplayer modes. For the purpose of this article we are focusing on single player performance. Medal of Honor is unique in that it uses two different graphics engines for single player and multiplayer modes, so all the performance testing we are about show you will only reflect output in the single player mode.

Read the complete article.

User Comments: 26

Got something to say? Post a comment
dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Very comprehensive review, thanks for the informative read!

fimbles fimbles said:

Nice to see my quad cores finaly getting some use for gaming.

The single player mode of this game is extremely short. Fully completed it on normal difficulty within 3 hours. It was a fun 3 hours though.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

This Video on BBC news may be worth a watch, Chris Ryan on how realistic the game is, I am tempted to buy it now after watching this, sounds epic!

Johny47 said:

Good article, and even though I have a gaming PC I've always liked getting Medal of Honor games on Playstation so I'll ask for this one as a gift for PS3 =P

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

I think I'll get this game - after they fix/patch/driver update to support SLI and AA properly.

KG363 KG363 said:

Why do you no longer include x3 cpu's?

Otherwise, Great Review

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

I appreciate the CPU use/core use information.

Great review Steve.

Guest said:

SP mode in this game is as boring as watching paint dry. There is simply nothing fun about it, MP mode is just as boring. There is nothing fun or challenging about this game when compared to other games in same genre.

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Amazing that they're still getting mileage out of the Unreal engine. Of course this is the 3rd iteration of the Unreal 3 engine they're using, but still....

Think I'll pass on this game. Metacritic gives it a below-average score of 75 and only a 3-hour solo campaign? That's not going to work for me. Besides, Fallout: New Vegas is coming out in 4 days. MUHAHAHAHA!!

Guest said:

Epic were among the first to write an engine that made proper use of more than 2 cores so there's nothing new here. Look at Bioshock in 2007 and it used quads properly even if it didnt thrash graphics cards because of the low res textures.

Unfortunately MOH betrays its console 'roots' with its narrow FOV which isnt fixable (in singleplayer) and the lack of head bobbing. The linearity and scriptedness are very apparent and on some levels if you dont move up and trigger the next script the game just stops until you move to the right place - in other words the whole pace and energy of the game depends on the player jumping through the right hoops at the right time.

The low scores its getting are entirely deserved.

grvalderrama said:

I believe its time for an Unreal Engine 4...

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Already in development:


"....the next Unreal Engine (Unreal Engine 4) already being under research and development with a small team. These new technologies as well as additional programmers take away some of the tedious work of project-specific programming and instead allow the game engine programmer to focus on larger concepts."

Guest said:

Very informative article . What I am interested in

is how do you access those graphics options ?

They are not available in my version of the single player campaign.

Isn't that the version the article was based on ?

Only graphics options I have are v-sync on or off , brightness/contrast and screen resolution.

There does not appear to be any "advanced" option.

I believe there is in multi but not SP.

Unless I'm missing something those screen shots of advanced graphics options for single player are mis-leading.

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Good review and love the CPU breakdown, would've been nice to see some multiplayer benchmarks though. Personally played the multiplayer beta last week and the game on average performed 10-15 FPS lower then what I get in Battlefield Bad Company 2 with similar settings (1680x1050, DX10 & Maxed) which I found odd considering the smaller maps and overall graphics felt a bit inferior to BC2.

fimbles said:

The single player mode of this game is extremely short. Fully completed it on normal difficulty within 3 hours. It was a fun 3 hours though.

Ya quite disappointing I have to say. I was looking forward to this game, but with a lackluster multiplayer and extremely short campaign I decided to skip it for now. Especially disappointed in Danger Close who was solely working on a the campaign and didn't deliver more. I'll stick with BC2 and its Vietnam expansion come December.

Guest said:

oops.....found those extra settings.

Just didn't scroll down enough.

What a knucklehead !!

Apologies for any offence I may have given to the reviewer.

princeton princeton said:

burty117 said:

This Video on BBC news may be worth a watch, Chris Ryan on how realistic the game is, I am tempted to buy it now after watching this, sounds epic!

It's far from realistic.... The guns have almost no recoil. If you've ever handled a firearm, ESPECIALLY an automatic one, you would know the game isn't even remotely realistic.

Guest said:

The fps numbers for the i3-540 don't appear correct. Clock for clock slower than the G6950? Can't be, the 6950 is same core as i3 without HT (hyperthreading) and with a smaller L3 cache. In well multithreaded games like BF:BC2, DAO, and RE5, HT gives a 40-50% boost in frame rates. Well threaded games is one of the best areas for a performance boost from HT (like video encoding). Either HT was off, or perhaps the fps number got transcribed wrong (a 6 instead of an 8 ...?) which would mean 82 fps instead of 62. Please recheck the i3-540 numbers.

dummybait said:

What about Nvidia's 295 card??? iId like to see more benchmarks with this card included...

Guest said:

Nice review and thanks for the good work. I hope there will be DX10/DX11 reviews on this soon.

Julio Franco Julio Franco, TechSpot Editor, said:

@Guest, we have verified our results and evidently hyper-threading doesn't result in the boost you can expect to see in other titles.

Arris Arris said:

3-4 hours single player. Virtually nothing new or exciting in the multiplayer either. If they'd put in the "slide into cover" and leaning out from cover from the single player then it might have offered a slightly different fps experience.

edzz111 said:

sigh of gtx 275 still has a while in the system..magnificent win over a 5850

jxdang said:

Enjoy the review. Looks like my HD4850 can still handle this game at 1920x1080. You have given me a reason to seriously consider upgrading from a dual core CPU to a quad-core (that Athlon II X4 645 gives you great performance for the price). Been holding off for a good reason to upgrade. I've been anxiously waiting for this game. Tried the beta online multiplayer and it was fun. Nice graphics!

compu4 said:

I still cannot understand why the developer would use two different engines for one game. It gobbles up HD space (forced to store the same assets twice) and makes the two parts of the game feel entirely dissimilar. At least the game is coded to use four cpu cores.

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

It can probably re-use the costly assets.

silvershad0w said:

I've yet to play this game but am looking forward to it. I was very surprised to see MOH doing so well with utilizing a quad core CPU. I really need to update my system... I'm still on a e5200 @ 3ghz. It's getting about time to move towards i3 or i5.. maybe my first AMD system? Who knows.. Anyways, back to the game. This game seems to run great even on older architecture and I think the choice of using UE3 in single player and Frostbite in multiplayer was a great choice. The frostbite engine probably lacks a bit of aesthetic that the unreal engine provides but there's no doubt that it makes up for this with it's ability to provide amazing physics. If the explosions and destruction are anything similar to Battlefield Bad Company 2 and the multiplayer is as fun as it looks from the videos then I'm in for a treat once I load this game up. Great article!

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.