Call of Duty: Black Ops gets patch for dual, quad-core CPUs

By on November 12, 2010, 7:00 PM
Folks disappointed in Call of Duty: Black Ops' launch bugs should be pleased to know that Treyarch hears you loud and clear. The developer says it's actively listening to the community and creating updates based on player feedback. In fact, the studio has already published a few patches as of Wednesday and Thursday, according to a post on the Black Ops forum.

On November 10, GameServers.com increased sv_maxrate to 25000 across all servers to reduce lag. That was followed by a larger update yesterday that improves performance for dual and quad-core processors as well as connectivity with the Black Ops Rcon tool, and adds a "Friends fix for join in progress and Friends tab in server browser."


Treyarch is also looking into "GPU hitching" on certain graphics cards, incomplete server browser results, improvements to Quickmatch joins (results with better ping and reduced lag), and a Zombies mode error that claims the game session is no longer available. Assuming you're running Black Ops through Steam, updates should be applied automatically.

We'll be sure to test the CPU-related patch in our upcoming performance review.




User Comments: 57

Got something to say? Post a comment
Ahmed90 Ahmed90 said:

yes thy really need uper fast patches

Guest said:

the biggest flaw of this game is no can get into matches with a party

Guest said:

This game sucks I much rather. Have spider monkey. Eat my eyes. Out then 2 stair

. At this game ever in my life

princeton princeton said:

No thanks. The day before halloween I got BC2 for 11 dollars. That 11 dollar game blows black ops out of the water, and black ops is $60.

DSparil said:

Intel and AMD just loves adding those cores to the cpus. The only problem is that, developers can't even use the technology properly. What's odd in all of this is that people (including the so-called "enthusiasts" get suckered into buying the quads and hex cores.

It doesn't mean that releasing a patch automatically makes the game quad-core. It simply means that they can sucker the end-user into thinking that it's actually running at quad-core by making Windows' task manager to display all 4 cores being used to appease the "overclocking" crowd.

Trust me, I know a lot of people in the overclocking scene and it doesn't take a genius to overclock a computer.

Anyone can script something that will make all the cores work. The only catch here is that, sure all cores are working, but it doesn't mean that they're actually doing anything other than acting like a glorified heater.

Guest said:

what an insightful comment about your bad taste

fpsgamerJR62 said:

Game programming is a complex task by itself plus the fact that it is impossible for any developer to anticipate the type of PCs on which their game is played on given the thousands of possible configurations of gaming PCs out there. The willingness of the developer to address the deficiencies of their product based on customer feedback by pushing out timely patches is the best we can hope for at present. I'm not surprise if Black Ops ships with more than a few bugs since Activision is shipping it out barely a year after MW2.

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

princeton said:

No thanks. The day before halloween I got BC2 for 11 dollars. That 11 dollar game blows black ops out of the water, and black ops is $60.

Good that you mention that. I just bought BC2 today for 15 at Amazon (I know, 4 more dollars!). And I admit, COD: BO has nothing on BC2.

I actually liked Black Ops, the single player wasn't that bad. Couldn't play multi-player 'cause there's no crack for it. :P

I downloaded it and finished it, and the game is alright, but definitely NOT worth 60 bucks. Not even half. Therefore I ain't going to buy it, so I used 15 bucks out of the 60 I saved for COD: BO in case it convinced me, and bought myself BC2.

Guest said:

Well after finally getting the pacth the game is still using 100% of both my CPU core patch didn't fix mine that's for sure

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

ive heard of this my buddy hasn't had a problem yet on his machine i don't know but i personally think BC2 is better from what ive seen.

princeton princeton said:

lawfer said:

princeton said:

No thanks. The day before halloween I got BC2 for 11 dollars. That 11 dollar game blows black ops out of the water, and black ops is $60.

Good that you mention that. I just bought BC2 today for 15 at Amazon (I know, 4 more dollars!). And I admit, COD: BO has nothing on BC2.

I actually liked Black Ops, the single player wasn't that bad. Couldn't play multi-player 'cause there's no crack for it. :P

I downloaded it and finished it, and the game is alright, but definitely NOT worth 60 bucks. Not even half. Therefore I ain't going to buy it, so I used 15 bucks out of the 60 I saved for COD: BO in case it convinced me, and bought myself BC2.

Also, It's not even funny how ******* obvious it is that Activision payed reviewers to give it good scores. Just look at the reviews then look at the user ones. Even the ****** on consoles know it's a bad game.

IAMTHESTIG said:

I'm not a software developer nor am I am expert on multithreading... but these multicore processors have been out for years now and it seems there are just a handful of applications that claim to truly support it. What's the deal???? Seems like a marketing ploy to me

Another thing about games, i'm really sick of the rushed releases and lack of time spent on quality control testing. Seems to just be a game of push it out as fast as you can to get revenue, then patch it until it is barely acceptable to the masses, then bail on your product and move onto the next one. Who is to blame? Do the developers of this software really want this? Are they being pushed by their marketing department? Or do they really not care?

The whole thing just angers me... I remember in the 90's when you bought a game, it just worked. Sure the games today are a LOT more complicated, and there are tens, perhaps hundreds of times more possible hardware configurations... but damn. I'm sick of buying half-assed, incomplete products.

Oh and I saw videos of CoD BO... meh, not interested. I'm going back to my S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game now...

UT66 said:

and this is why i hate consoles.

skitzo_zac skitzo_zac, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

No patch for my 6 core Phenom?

richo101 said:

So I guess gone are the days of having a fully functional game right out of the box, that doesn't need patching to play.

Superpeter Superpeter said:

Big companies are doing that A)To get us to buy another gamebox for our home. B)It takes longer to code for different pc configurations. Also these C.E.O.'s of companies that aren't actually doing the work wants ALL the versions to come out @ same time to rake in as much money as possible. That leaves the Pc titles to have to wait for patches. It "blows"...especially when all the games are made on a "PC" in the first place!! You cant build games on an Xbox or Ps3!! The This "I NEED IT NOW"&"Caffeinated" way of thinking is not giving good things the time to grow.

SilverCider said:

You could almost blame the internet for the so called half-arsed releases; because they know the majority can download the patches. When the internet was not as wide spread, and games couldn't be patched, they had to make sure it worked 100%

Damn internet... :P

Guest said:

Hey i got black ops and pc was rank 28 connected to a game my m8 was in and got kicked randomly, rejoined their game and then my rank was reset during connection

http://rapidshare.com/files/430462336/black_ops_rank_proof.j
g

Here is proof that i was lvl 28

wtf am i meant to do now + i still have major fps lag when my ping is 60-80 and on jungle its just not playable I got a AMD Phenom(tm) 9550 Quad-core processor 2.20 GHz and a 8500 GT gfx card

UT66 said:

what a joke, it runs like complete total arse on pcs that are 600 times more powerful than any console... not going to upgrade anymore, guess is time to read some books and sht

Guest said:

soo.. they release a patch for multi core CPUS ?!?! really, that fast?!?!

and in the first place the game didnt supported it

yeee... suuure...

sound like a special "we heard or community all the time" crap from Treyarch.. PR crap

lipe123 said:

Wow what a bunch of uninformed mouth breather comments!!

The game ran near perfect on my machine from day one and even better after the patch.

I haven't spent much time on the single player aspect of the game but the Multiplayer is lots of fun, the only drawback is the lack of parties and I'm sure that will be fixed soon.

Side note to all the complainers: If you have a dual core from 5 years ago, or a super budget gfx card then how can you possibly expect the game to play properly? Go buy a console if you can't handle the complexity of a PC and choosing the correct hardware to last you a few years.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

SilverCider said:

You could almost blame the internet for the so called half-arsed releases; because they know the majority can download the patches. When the internet was not as wide spread, and games couldn't be patched, they had to make sure it worked 100%

Damn internet... :P

I remember my first patch...Origins shipped me a CD ROM to fix the debacle that was Ultima IX.

Guest said:

so tru, me and my friends waited 20 minutes to find a game last night abd there was only 4 of us. cmon treyarch, step it up or im goin infinity ward. sick campaign though

compu4 said:

WTF?! Am I misinterpreting this, or did the game only utilize one processor core before this patch? Why, in god's name, did the developer not code support for dual and quad core cpus? Dual Cores are ubiquitous now (I challenge anyone to try and buy a PC with a single core), and quad cores are also very popular, especially among PC gamers.

More evidence that this game is a poorly coded POS.

sMILEY4ever said:

Dsparil said:

Intel and AMD just loves adding those cores to the cpus. The only problem is that, developers can't even use the technology properly. What's odd in all of this is that people (including the so-called "enthusiasts" get suckered into buying the quads and hex cores.

It doesn't mean that releasing a patch automatically makes the game quad-core. It simply means that they can sucker the end-user into thinking that it's actually running at quad-core by making Windows' task manager to display all 4 cores being used to appease the "overclocking" crowd.

Trust me, I know a lot of people in the overclocking scene and it doesn't take a genius to overclock a computer.

Anyone can script something that will make all the cores work. The only catch here is that, sure all cores are working, but it doesn't mean that they're actually doing anything other than acting like a glorified heater.

So you think they're just making it look like the cores are working, when in fact they're doing nothing of value. Any proof for what you're saying?

Guest said:

Unfortunately, while Treyarch should be commended for trying something new with the Call of Duty franchise's storytelling techniques, it's evident that the designers got a bit carried away with it, both in terms of content and execution. The motive and identity of Mason's interrogators is plainly obvious long before you reach the halfway point, and as the script stumbles along with all the charisma of a nude, drunken grandfather it's impossible not to become weary of the overhammed exposition. Missions are regularly interrupted by migraine-inducing flashes of light and the pestering of Mason's torturers - a technique which moves from being merely annoying to a compelling reason to play something else.

This is part of what i mean when i say that Call of Duty: Black Ops is a crudely implemented game. There's absolutely no subtlety to the way it's put together, and the twists are all insultingly obvious. Treyarch is apparently oblivious to the obviousness of these impending plot twists, and only just manages to stop short of having a 'ta-da!' sound clip play. Where Modern Warfare 2 was carved with scalpels, Black Ops has been bashed into shape with sledgehammers.

bioflex said:

well its good to see the game is being worked on....and all those saying thow bad the game is i cant really undertand.....imo its one of the best CODs to me, if not the best......though multiplayer seems to be some kind of a let down. but overall the game is good okay and it surely deserves good scores

Guest said:

fpsgamers comments

"fact that it is impossible for any developer to anticipate the type of PCs"

What an absolute load of bollox, the game makers have know for years what sort of PC's these games will be played on,and the graphics cards used in them

The problem is that the games these days are so sloppily written that they expect the graphics card manufacturers to compensate for the poor writing in the development of new g/cards

black ops is the biggest load of **** in a game i have played for years

the maps are too small, the graphics are pants the game play is even worse, and what ever where they thinking when the "TOY TOWN" map appeared

you ought to be ashamed of yourselves even thinking of letting this game loose on the general public i paid £39 for this game and i have been stitched up big time.

If it wasn't for the fact that no real game footage was available to watch (only the video clip) or a playable demo i wouldn't have bought the game in the first place

The game shop obviously won't accept the game back 'cos' the seal is broken.

anyone thinking of buying this game after reading the forums (not only this one

GO TO BIT-TECH.NET (REVIEW PAGE) and see what's said there...they TRASHED THE GAME

AND RIGHTLY SO TOO

I have been playing this type of game for literally years MOH1. MOH 2. BATTLEFIELD. all the other COD'S to name but a few

THIS IS BY FAR THE WORST EVER

princeton princeton said:

lipe123 said:

Wow what a bunch of uninformed mouth breather comments!!

The game ran near perfect on my machine from day one and even better after the patch.

I haven't spent much time on the single player aspect of the game but the Multiplayer is lots of fun, the only drawback is the lack of parties and I'm sure that will be fixed soon.

Side note to all the complainers: If you have a dual core from 5 years ago, or a super budget gfx card then how can you possibly expect the game to play properly? Go buy a console if you can't handle the complexity of a PC and choosing the correct hardware to last you a few years.

I R COD FANBOY!

Just summarized your comment for others as it was quite long.

UT66 said:

trolling, CHECK, bragging about his super ( imaginary) pc, CHECK, posting sarcastic bad advice (by a console) CHECK, this guy is awesome, i want to be your best friend.

Razerblade said:

From what I have heard this is desperately needed. I am not even going to think about buying the game until they have sorted the bugs out. Will be interesting to see if these patches have worked.

CRad said:

How's about better optimization for 6-cores? And dual-6 cores!!! ... Yes... I have a 12-core.

I'm actually very surprised that games aren't automatically optimized for 4 core machines these days... especially AAA releases!

fpsgamerJR62 said:

Sloppy writing and poor code optimization are almost always the result of the company's rush to push out games even before they've been properly tested and debugged. That is why launch day game patches have become so common. Add to this, the different combinations of motherboard chipsets, CPUs, graphics cards and memory types which make up the gaming PCs on which the game is played on and you have this mess called Black Ops. I still remember the first Call of Duty game. I played it all the way to the end and I didn't need a single patch to do it. Activision should aim for this level of quality if it wants to keep the franchise alive.

klepto12 klepto12, TechSpot Paladin, said:

i wonder how many more games they will release with the same old dx9 gfx engine i mean come on this is not 2007.

Guest said:

And despite these problems all 3 version of the game are still the top sellers of the online stores I checked. Doubt Activision will change anything as long as it doesn't show in sales, good marketing > good product and all that -.-

IkarugaShiver said:

compu4 said:

WTF?! Am I misinterpreting this, or did the game only utilize one processor core before this patch? Why, in god's name, did the developer not code support for dual and quad core cpus? Dual Cores are ubiquitous now (I challenge anyone to try and buy a PC with a single core), and quad cores are also very popular, especially among PC gamers.

More evidence that this game is a poorly coded POS.

^This is exactly what I was thinking... o_O That's... kind of surprising that it was released like this. -___-

dummybait said:

ok peeps the point here is... Games are being sold to us incomplete / defective.. when you buy a $60 game, shouldn't it be damn near perfect out of the box? What does their testing department do any way? Saying these issues are no big deal and saying that they will fix it soon.. well that's just an excuse to make yourself feel better for buying a $60 game that's not worth it. If i was an XBOX360 owner... (which i'm not) I'd be FURIOUS if these problems were affecting the console, there's no reason for it as every XBOX360 is the same. Now as for the PC.. problems are expected...small problems that is. because of all the different combination of hardware. That is alot of testing.. but still, having a patch come just a couple of days after release? Come on...

ryan29121 said:

Agreed. Battlefield games are much better in my opinion.

Guest said:

From Laser:

Victor--you are an ash. We are hoping for some usable info to play the game well. Yeah, some are complainers that never created anything--But some of us need help to enjoy our purchase, created by talented people for our enjoyment. For some reason, some of us have no problems. For others of us with high end machines, there is some unknown collective problem that affects many. What is the answer other than to ***** at the developers? Some are NOT bitching at them, but rather at we who can't run the game as well as they can. It is frustrating, but no excuse for bad behavior in a place like this--

What I gather here is that for me to switch to a Core 2 Quad Extreme from my Core 2 duo will not fix it. Besides the game "Requirements" on the box (and whose machine is not at LEAST that or double) tell you that all is gonna be as you RIGHTLY EXPECT when you shell out your $$ for a Face Value, Highly Advertised piece of formerly acclaimed Entertainment Software!

You ppl with a 64 bit OS are doing well. You can use more ram. Seems that Vid cards with at least 1Gb Vram onboard are doing best, even if all else is lower.

A buddy just xfired me: I have a buddy who has an older PC. AMD 5800+ I believe and 2GB of memory. nVidia 8600 GTX. If he turns his resolution to 1024x768 and graphics on low, the game runs fine

Now, My dual GTX260SSC SLI, 4Gb Corsair ram, 3.16Gb Core 2 Duo, 2.5TB+ HDD, and an EVGA 790i SLI FTW Mobo, 1KW PSU--- WTF else does it REQUIRE, dammit.........

TorturedChaos, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Wow the people who are running these game developmental companies really need to understand that we, the consumer, wants a fully functional game right out of the box. half done, unoptimized code really doesn't do it from me.

Says "Treyarch hears you loud and clear. The developer says it's actively listening to the community and creating updates based on player feedback"

I wonder if they are seeing all the complaints about needing to be patched within a week of release, and if they will actually try to put out fully function games in the future....

Probably not.

Guest said:

The edit from "o" to 1 on the SETA R multithread line in the config repairs the lag

g

Guest said:

Im with you i'm find quite stupid that everyone says they are actively working on it. That every things its ok to have release day patches. Releasing buggy games are never ok doesn't matter if you patch it 2,3,8th week. When people stop buying this crap on release date maybe they will stop.

I blame all you console players damn mouth breathers camping out at bestbuy for the next buggy POS with a COD title on it.

Remember the good old days when they did QA on games and to see a patch on day 1 was unheard of.

jonelsorel said:

fpsgamerJR62 said:

Game programming is a complex task by itself plus the fact that it is impossible for any developer to anticipate the type of PCs on which their game is played on given the thousands of possible configurations of gaming PCs out there.

Yes, it's much simpler to code for consoles and port to PC. It's a fact.

jonelsorel said:

PS: Treyarch, you didn't know people use multi-core CPUs for a while now? Go figure! Keep releasing titles like this and then moan about piracy!

Guest said:

Yes, it's much simpler to code for consoles and port to PC. It's a fact.

+1 on that.

Since consoles have become more popular (PS3 + 360) the game developers have been concentrating on developing for console and then porting the game to PC - MW2 proved that.

Why is everyone complaining about games being optimised for Dual / Quad / Hex core CPU's???? Dont you know that it's your Graphics card that renders your game????? Plus seeing as it has been ported from console (single core CPU) it won't be optimized for quad core anyway.......

Guest said:

old ways to join a game was the best ways. ENter in ts with friends or chat with them in xfire and enter in a server without that stupid and useless tool created in mw2!!!

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Why is everyone complaining about games being optimised for Dual / Quad / Hex core CPU's???? Dont you know that it's your Graphics card that renders your game????? Plus seeing as it has been ported from console (single core CPU) it won't be optimized for quad core anyway.......

your kidding right?

Its your CPU that feeds your graphics sub system. Do you think every benchmark showing increased performance commensurate with number of cores is made up?...or just a glitch?

so then anyone with a P4 can just get themselves a GTX 580 and get the same performance as a i7 and a GTX 580?...rats!, I wish I had known this before I spent all that $.

Zecias said:

red1776 said:

Why is everyone complaining about games being optimised for Dual / Quad / Hex core CPU's???? Dont you know that it's your Graphics card that renders your game????? Plus seeing as it has been ported from console (single core CPU) it won't be optimized for quad core anyway.......

your kidding right?

Its your CPU that feeds your graphics sub system. Do you think every benchmark showing increased performance commensurate with number of cores is made up?...or just a glitch?

so then anyone with a P4 can just get themselves a GTX 580 and get the same performance as a i7 and a GTX 580?...rats!, I wish I had known this before I spent all that $.

the performance of most games are more heavily based on the gpu, not the cpu. meaning that if yur gpu is choked by yur cpu, the performance wont suffer as much. obviously u still need yur cpu and it does help in running the game, but isn't as important. people that know how to build a computer, have a cpu that matches up with their gpu on 2 cores/threads since thats what most programs use. a large majority of players wont actually benefit from this.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

the performance of most games are more heavily based on the gpu, not the cpu. meaning that if yur gpu is choked by yur cpu, the performance wont suffer as much. obviously u still need yur cpu and it does help in running the game, but isn't as important. people that know how to build a computer, have a cpu that matches up with their gpu on 2 cores/threads since thats what most programs use. a large majority of players wont actually benefit from this.

First thats not what he said:

Why is everyone complaining about games being optimised for Dual / Quad / Hex core CPU's???? Dont you know that it's your Graphics card that renders your game????? Plus seeing as it has been ported from console (single core CPU) it won't be optimized for quad core anyway.......

He is denying that it is actually optimized for multi core, not true.

secondly, check the hardware survey's quad cores are quite pervasive, lots of people have them.

Thirdly, check the many reviews that include CPU scaling (cores) you will see that almost all games run better on more than one core.

Fourthly, You have not read many game reviews lately, more and more of them are using more than two,three, and yes more than 4 cores (see BC2)

Here is a benchmark going back a year and a half ago with a dated Q6660 and a GS 250 card. see the huge jump from 1-2-3 cores?

[link]

and how do you explain this?...same GPU being used, the only difference is the number of cores and the CPU frequency.

Call of Duty: Black Ops can take advantage of four cores and is undoubtedly optimized for the current crop of chips. In fact, the game relies so heavily on all four cores that we found it almost unplayable (OK, that may be exaggerating a bit) on even the fastest dual-core CPU. That said, AMD's triple-core Athlon II and Phenom II processors did provide lag free performance.

the performance of most games are more heavily based on the gpu, not the cpu

okay, plug in a single core in its place and see what happens.

. meaning that if yur gpu is choked by yur cpu, the performance wont suffer as much.

Huh?

obviously u still need yur cpu and it does help in running the game,

ya think?

again, what do you think feeds your GPU subsystem? and most games scale with CPU cores and frequency.

a large majority of players wont actually benefit from this.

A large majority?

anyway, check your hardware surveys

and one more time, he was asserting that they cannot, and are not optimized for more than a single core, and that it does not make a difference because the GPU is running the whole show...obviously not.

people that know how to build a computer, have a cpu that matches up with their gpu on 2 cores/threads since thats what most programs use.

I do do every day, If I was only giving the gamers two cores for games today...I would be out of business. If you are a gamer, and have more than two cores, you should log your CPU while you play... what you find may surprise you.

have a cpu that matches up with their gpu on 2 cores/threads

If its so overwhelmingly GPU dependent, why do you need to have equal or "matched up" GPU/CPU?

Guest said:

dose this Cpu support black ops?

AMD Athlon II X2 250 Dual Core Processor Socket AM3 3.0GHZ

Happy hunting

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.