Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Congress pressures Google on Glass privacy concerns
Developed by Treyarch, Call of Duty: Black Ops debuts a new theme around the Cold War conflict. We test 19 graphics card configurations, using AMD and Nvidia GPUs that ranged from the uber expensive models to budget-minded offerings.
Besides the fact that it's coming from the same development team, Black Ops essentially uses the older Call of Duty 4 game engine. To be precise the game runs on an enhanced World at War engine, which is in itself an improved version of what Call of Duty 4 used back in 2008. This new revision of the engine features a streaming texture technology also supported in Modern Warfare 2 that allows for larger levels, for example the "Payback" level where the player controls a helicopter. Additionally, lighting effects have been improved and the game supports 3D imaging rendered when using the correct hardware.
Read the complete performance review.
User Comments: 76
Got something to say? Post a comment-
KG363 said:
Thank you for including an X3 processor after asking many times.
Keep it up!
And what was wrong with the 4890? It's fps was miserable
-
I actually have an E8500 running overclocked @ 3.6 per core, with an HD 4890, and 8 GB of DDR2 on Vista 64-bit. I'm getting horrible performance on this game despite being well over the requirements. It really needs to be fixed badly on the part of the developer. It would appear the game was made for consoles, and PC was some sort of afterthought unfortunately :/
-
Very nice, thanks for doing this as always. And at 2560x1600 you really don't need 4x anti aliasing you show off's =P
unless you like stopping and staring at leaves and debris hahaha =)
-
I'm not sure how this accounts for the issues that I, and many others are having.
specs: e8400, 4gigs ram, GTX460 1 GB on a 1080p monitor
My computer meets recommended settings though still maintains 90-100% CPU usage at all times regardless of graphics settings. I'm currently playing on lowest settings, no AA, shadows etc... and continue to experience crippling lag.
-
GTX465 (which you missed...again)
Q9550 at 3.5ghz
4GB DDR2 at 945mhz
Eats the game with 1080p maxed out >~60fps easily.
Why do you keep missing the GTX465? It might not be popular..but some us do own it. We just haven't flashed to 470 yet...
-
StaffSteve said:
LNCPapa said:Perhaps these graphical hangs or fps drops to 0 were not experienced during the benchmarking process of this review - could that be the case, Steve?
Nice to see someone still uses their head
When testing we ran into no problems at all. I have finished the single player campaign and did not run into a single bug. I have no doubt there are bugs with the game, though they never affected us. All cards and configurations benchmarked without a hitch with the exception of dual-core processors which run like crap due to being over taxed.Either this game is too demanding for dual-core processors or there is a bug, in either case you cannot run this game using the highest visual quality settings on a dual-core, at least from what I saw.
kg363 said:Thank you for including an X3 processor after asking many times.
Keep it up!
And what was wrong with the 4890? It's fps was miserable
Hey we only introduced the triple-cores this time because it made sense, the dual-cores didn't perform well and the quad's did so we wanted to check the middle ground
Also there was a typo with the 4850 and 4890 cards, they were mixed up, I have double checked the excel spread sheet and I made a copy and paste error sorry. I have double checked all the results now and everything is in order. Thanks.
BlindObject said:GTX465 (which you missed...again)
Q9550 at 3.5ghz
4GB DDR2 at 945mhz
Eats the game with 1080p maxed out >~60fps easily.
Why do you keep missing the GTX465? It might not be popular..but some us do own it. We just haven't flashed to 470 yet...
You have a quad-core so I am not surprised by your performance. As for the GeForce GTX 465 I have addressed this time and time again. First of all if we had a card we would not include it as it's not a critical release. Given that we include the GTX 470 and GTX 460 you can work out where the GTX 465 would be. The GTX 465 is a card that should have never been released. Finally we were never sent one because ? well they suck and no one wanted to put their name to it in the end.
I've been having the same issues Elessar (Guest) has, and I've read many posts on other forums that this is a known issue, for the PC version in particular. The stuttering and FPS slowdown are game-breaking for me, I can't play it at all. My rig is only 19 months old, I'm running a Core2 Duo E8400/3GHz CPU, NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT (512MB), with 4GB RAM. There is no reason my rig shouldn't be able to run a game built on a souped-up Quake 3-engine, and run it well. This is a known issue that is not impacted by lowering graphical settings, though I obviously tried that at first.I'm not saying that you shouldn't do a performance review of a game until all the bugs are fixed--as someone rightly pointed out, that would mean no performance reviews would ever be written. But a performance review is the one place I would absolutely expect to see mention of a widespread performance-crushing bug, and I see no mention of it here.
Why are you “guests” convinced this is a bug? We saw high utilization across 4 cores, needless to say a dual-core processor is not going to like this. You have an old dual-core processor and are experiencing the lag we saw, again why is this a bug? Get a quad-core and see if the bug goes away?
This is not the first game to run terribly on a dual-core, Battlefield Bad Company 2 does as well.
-
I have a CORE2 quad 2.66 o/c by 20% and a GTX460 running of Windows 7 and it runs like a sack of crap with this game. It's only just been rebuilt and flattened and should be able to run no problems but I often see the CPU running flat out, game freezes and anywhere from 20-90FPS when I say 90 it's not often and usually for a couple of seconds. There are major bugs with this game and in my opinion it's a no brainer don't buy the game your wasting your money till they fix the problems and don't by a server like I did, as I'm now paying to play a buggy/stuttering game with a poorly design Rcon and very little you can program! If you just want to sit there kicking people all day then the server is the way however if you want to buy a clan server and play as a clan or your mates don't bother.
-
I believe many people responding have failed to realize that these tests were only in campaign mode. Maybe there needs to be a test of multiplayer mode as well?
-
please i am begging you next time add a Q9650 too
-
StaffSteve said:Guest said:
I believe many people responding have failed to realize that these tests were only in campaign mode. Maybe there needs to be a test of multiplayer mode as well?
It is difficult to accurately test the multiplayer mode without times demos. I agree though I think most do not realize its single player only performance.
-
i love how all the guests hide behind there no names and ***** at a guy who worked his ass off to give us this review give him some respect all the time he spent to do this is probably more than some of you work in a week.
-
Man, you have to have thick skin to work at TS. Nice review. Just got back from the weekend. Now off to crysis to run test for someone.
Definately gonna pick up black ops tomorrow. Looks good.
-
Man, you have to have thick skin to work at TS. Nice review. Just got back from the weekend. Now off to crysis to run test for someone.
Definately gonna pick up black ops tomorrow. Looks good.
i heard black ops is nice haven't got it yet but supposedly even the most amazing systems have stuttering problems while playing must be a bug or something bu smash your system could chew this game up and spit it out like nothing
-
this game is garbage, i couldn't even finish it, in tired of the same old boring shooting gameplay. the good news? the patch fixes the performance issues ( works great on a my E6600 + 4770) but at 1080p this is butt ugly to me, the shadows just looks better at 720p because of their lower resolution. it makes no difference anyway, like y said, garbage.
-
"Get a quad-core" i see so that's the point of this article? sorry but no, i rather buy better game- there is nothing wrong with my core duo, in fact my duo crushes both the "cell" and the garbage of powerpc inside the 360. this is a console game after all, even a calculator should be able to run it at 60fps.
-
One of XP SP2 PCs has a 2.93 Ghz Core 2 Duo E7500 CPU, 2 Gigs of DDR2 memory, a 3-year old 512MB GF 8800GT card and a Viewsonic VA912 LCD non-wide19-inch monitor which tops out at a resolution of 1280x1024. I wonder how well Black Ops will run on this rig. Every other PC seems to running at 1680x1050.
-
i had the same blue screen crash at first just updated my nvidia 9800gt drivers and the game ran fine
-
All of your test are done with directX 9 i am curiuos why? Every machine capable of running the game would most likely have directX 10 in most cases and possibly directX 11 as is my case.
-
Very interesting review
I'm running a i7 860 @ 3.4Ghz with an 5970 at 5870 speeds.
I'm having major issues with crossfire scaling
With catalyst AI (crossfire) enabled for the 5970 i will have a framerate of 50-70fps (com_maxfps = 125) with catalyst AI disabled i will hit 80-125 fps.Ingame settings are all set to lowest and some fancy stuff in the config has been turned off, the resolution used is 1680x1050.
This shows to me that somehow crossfire performance scaling is negative. So what i would really like to know is why the issue does not arise in your testing. Which Catalyst drivers are you using? I have tried 10.5 through 10.11 with no notable difference.
-
StaffSteve said:All of your test are done with directX 9 i am curiuos why? Every machine capable of running the game would most likely have directX 10 in most cases and possibly directX 11 as is my case.
You should test it in DX11 and let us know how you go
-
, post: 966145"]You should test it in DX11 and let us know how you go
-
This review is not reflective of what I'm experiencing in game. And from what I'm reading on various Black Ops forums, there is a large percent of players in my boat. One week after release, game is still not playable.
I'm averaging around 20fps in MP at 1680x1050 (no noticable change at 1280x1024)
my comp:
Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.00 Ghz
4.00 GB RAM
480 GTX w/ 1.5GB RAM
-
This review was a surprise to see with how buggy this game is. It will need an update after the game has been patched for sure.
-
StaffSteve said:This reveiew is not reflective of what I'm experiencing in game. And from what I'm reading on various Black Ops forums, there is a large percent of players in my boat. One week after release, game is still not playable.
I'm averaging around 20fps in MP at 1680x1050 (no noticable change at 1280x1024)
my comp:
Phenom II X4 940 @ 3.00 Ghz
4.00 GB RAM
480 GTX w/ 1.5GB RAM
This review also does not reflect MP performance in anyway...
This review was a surprise to see with how buggy this game is. It will need an update after the game has been patched for sure.If they update and change the single player performance we will update for sure.
-
This is the second well-threaded game in a row where the numbers for the i3-540 seem low. The last game MOH also showed the same thing with the i3-540 no faster than the G6950 clock for clock. You have me convinced something is wrong with your i3-540 setup. Someone needs to bring up the Windows Task Manager (CTR+ALT+DEL) and click the performance Tab to check to make sure all 4 logical processors are functioning. My bet is hyperthreading is turned off and your I3-540 will only show 2 of the 4 logical cores active.
In my last comments I stated that the i3/i5 dual cores can see a 50% boost in frame rates with HT, as HT does generally very well in well threaded games. The quad cores with HT (i7) don't seem show as large an increase because the 4 physical cores appear to take care of most of the load.
A few examples of this i3 HT performance.
RE5
i3-530 ? 153.7 ? ? 65% faster
G6950 ? 93.0
Colin McRae : Dirt 2
I3-530 ? 84.69 ? 50.3% faster
G6950 ? 56.35
Source ? http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/2010/test-int
l-pentium-g6950-und-core-i3-530/23/#abschnitt_resident_evi
_5DAO (Dragon Age Origins)
i3-530 ? 95.0? 56% faster
G6950 ? 60.9
Source ? http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/60
BF - BC2 multiplayer
See ? http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?p=11398817#
ost11398817About half way down the page of the link is a graph of the i3-530 with HT off and on. The frame rate increase (an eyeball estimate) goes from an average of just under 40 to close to 60 -- about a 50% increase. Even more significant is that the minimum frame rate goes from dips into the low 20's (several times) to just one dip below 40 (mid-high 30's) -- a even greater boost than 50%.
Your i3-540 just doesn't seem to be performing where I would expect to see it in multi-threaded games.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
-
Microsoft launches YouTube app, Google demands it taken down
-
Nvidia Shield arrives in June for $349, pre-orders open now (update)
-
Bill Gates is once again the richest person in the world
-
Google, NASA join forces to build quantum computing laboratory
-
Google I/O 2013 Roundup: Learn about all the company's updates and announcements
Featured on Laptops
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.