Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Google, NASA join forces to build quantum computing laboratory
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-
9:31, have you already used the performance update? my rig: amd x2 3800+, 2gB ddr2, 8600gt, didnt play it on lowest settings before the update, after the update i've got decent fps on medium settings and 1024*768 resolution
-
Yeah, I have an E8500 C2D 3.16GHz with 3GB and a 5870. Game looks good, both cores max out, it stutters, and it's unplayable. I got amazon to agree to refund me. I hope everybody does the same so we can just highlight that we shouldn't have to pay for incomplete, poorly tested product.
Sorry guys, it's a great looking game and I think you've done a good job, but major problems on all platforms? Really? The fact that you released it anyway just means you know we're your bitches and once we've paid for it there's FA we can do. That relationship with your patrons is wrong, and it needs to change.
-
So is COD BO running better after the patch? been holding out till i find out if its going to be worth getting.
-
The other possibility for a slow running i3-540 could be thermal throttling. If the heatsink isn't making good contact with the CPU, it will still run but throttle to keep temps in check -- lowering performance. You might check the temperature of the i3-540 during a benchmark run.
-
StaffSteve said:
So is COD BO running better after the patch? been holding out till i find out if its going to be worth getting.I am looking into the single player performance now.
-
Look, the review is very clear.. You need at least a Core i5 750 to get maximum performance from your GPU. Now STOP WHINING about lagging and shuttering as the problem is YOUR RIG and NOT the game.. Why would anyone pair up a garbage phenom x2/x3 with a high end gpu (eg. 5970)?! Heck why would anyone use AMD processor for gaming in the first place? Look, even for intel core 2 duo user (ie. e8600 etc), your CPU is near garbage. Bottom line, your CPU is not sufficient to run the game. So do yourself a favor, stop upgrading your GPU and get a INTEL core i5/i7.
-
Quite simple, minimi requirements where much lower so off course are alot of dual core players feelign riped off. ****ing ignorant bastard!!!
-
Look, the review is very clear.. You need at least a Core i5 750 to get maximum performance from your GPU. Now STOP WHINING about lagging and shuttering as the problem is YOUR RIG and NOT the game.. Why would anyone pair up a garbage phenom x2/x3 with a high end gpu (eg. 5970)?! Heck why would anyone use AMD processor for gaming in the first place? Look, even for intel core 2 duo user (ie. e8600 etc), your CPU is near garbage. Bottom line, your CPU is not sufficient to run the game. So do yourself a favor, stop upgrading your GPU and get a INTEL core i5/i7.
Big words from a guest lol you know what it doesnt take an i5 or i7 to run this game also an amd cpu is just fine even paired with a 5970 i for one think you are an ***** and more than likely you are running an old piece of crap P4 system or something and are acting like a child grow up and have a nice day. PS if you want to keep saying this stuff try telling some of the TS members here that have AMD 6 core systems and 3 way crossfire that they are morons get over it and have a great day.
-
klepto, 6 cores?! You do know what crap you're saying here right? It doesnt takes 6 bloody cores to run the game. Heck which game actually utilize 6 cores?! Don't be one of those morons out there and think that more core = better, at least not for gaming. Now, you can dump your AMD cpu, period.
Btw i'm running a i5 750 =) have a nice day
-
StaffSteve said:Look, the review is very clear.. You need at least a Core i5 750 to get maximum performance from your GPU. Now STOP WHINING about lagging and shuttering as the problem is YOUR RIG and NOT the game.. Why would anyone pair up a garbage phenom x2/x3 with a high end gpu (eg. 5970)?! Heck why would anyone use AMD processor for gaming in the first place? Look, even for intel core 2 duo user (ie. e8600 etc), your CPU is near garbage. Bottom line, your CPU is not sufficient to run the game. So do yourself a favor, stop upgrading your GPU and get a INTEL core i5/i7.
I am starting to think you are right, the game simply calls for a tri/quad-core processor but the developer never made that clear. Anything with 3 or more cores plays the game fine, anything with 2 or less results in a power point slide show.
I do not agree at all with your comments about AMD processors though, they are every good for gaming, despite the fact that they get creamed in CoD:BO. I have carried out extensive testing on this very subject?
[link]
[link]
-
. Heck which game actually utilize 6 cores?!
Well BC2 for one ^, F1 2010 and Lost Planet 2 so far that I have found.
Now, you can dump your AMD cpu, period.That's just ignorant fanboi
Why would anyone pair up a garbage phenom x2/x3 with a high end gpuThe machine i am on now is a "garbage" Phenom II x6 feeding 3 x OC'd HD 5850's CFX.
Here is my garbage heap playing Crysis Warhead, the dreaded 'Frost map,' on all enthusiast settings @ 130 FPS
[link]
My other gaming rig is a "garbage" x3 720 feeding 4 x HD 4850's it scales to all four cards 3200 SPU's and gets slightly better FPS than a 5970. Frame rates are a few frames faster in some games ...a few slower in others than a i7 920 comparably setup.
OCC seems to have come to the same conclusion.
[link]
[link]
I don't think that's what Klepto meant, but multi core/threaded is where gaming is going, and in some cases , arrived.
When I play BC2 My machine spends considerable time bumped up against the 200 FPS cap. I have built machines for customers withe 2,3,4,6 cores and played BC2 on them, the cores do matter.
which begs the question....how is the benefit package over there at Intel? :p
-
Y33h his is a german Troll, banned in every forum, a joke.
I5-750 ist crap for gaming , only good for 800x600 and miimum details, and in sponored games ! Muhahahahaa
CPU performance Patch for COD: BO is avaiable
-
Y33h his is a german Troll, banned in every forum, a joke.
I5-750 ist crap for gaming , only good for 800x600 and miimum details, and in sponored games ! Muhahahahaa
CPU performance Patch for COD: BO is avaiable
I was was just trying to have some lite banter, you recognize his style or something?
-
Yes, lol !
Sponsered by Intel & NVIDIA
-
klepto, 6 cores?! You do know what crap you're saying here right? It doesnt takes 6 bloody cores to run the game. Heck which game actually utilize 6 cores?! Don't be one of those morons out there and think that more core = better, at least not for gaming. Now, you can dump your AMD cpu, period.
Btw i'm running a i5 750 =) have a nice day
Is this guy serious lol what a ***** he didnt even understand what i was trying to say i was simply meaning like red said AMD CPU's are not crap for gaming. I play BC2 all day with E7400 and AMD 4850 and i dont have problems hmmm........ oh well fixing to build a much much nicer rig
-
klepto12 said:klepto, 6 cores?! You do know what crap you're saying here right? It doesnt takes 6 bloody cores to run the game. Heck which game actually utilize 6 cores?! Don't be one of those morons out there and think that more core = better, at least not for gaming. Now, you can dump your AMD cpu, period.
Btw i'm running a i5 750 =) have a nice day
Is this guy serious lol what a ***** he didnt even understand what i was trying to say i was simply meaning like red said AMD CPU's are not crap for gaming. I play BC2 all day with E7400 and AMD 4850 and i dont have problems hmmm........ oh well fixing to build a much much nicer rig
What are you going to put together Klep?
-
Is this guy serious lol what a *****Klepto, are you following the standard convention for assigning an article to a noun? You know, "a" before a consonant, and "an" before a vowel. (Well, "an" before an "h" also).
I'm just curious, since I'm using the article as a clue to try and figure out what you called him....
-
lol i put mor on is what i put but it blocks it.
-
It's not anybody's CPU or GPU that's the problem. The problem is pure and simple sloppy programming since Activision rushed out Black Ops barely a year after the release of MW2 so that they could head to head with EA's MOH. Forget about the "optimized for triple or quad-core CPUs" line. Activision hasn't even bothered to publish the recommended requirements for Black Ops since they themselves don't know what it's optimized for. The only thing it's optimized for is "maximum revenue" or in other words, to milk more money out of the Call of Duty franchise.
-
Awww barely scratching 60 fps on top hardware...with lots of stutters...on small fugly maps..need quad core WHAT!? It's the ancient quake 3 engine ppl ffs! LMAO failarch worked so hard optimizing yeah right.
-
StaffSteve said:Awww barely scratching 60 fps on top hardware...with lots of stutters...on small fugly maps..need quad core WHAT!? It's the ancient quake 3 engine ppl ffs! LMAO failarch worked so hard optimizing yeah right.
The Windows 7 task manager clear shows that the game uses 4 cores heavily...
-
can anyone tell me if u could get black ops to work with a nividia geforce 9600gs 768mb
-
Um your getting those frames on a GTS 250 because you are playing on either low res or/and low graphics settings.
-
Good to see you have tested it thorougly. What i see is a Phenom II X4 heavily overclocked having great difficulty to keep up with default or mild overclocked i7's. Thank you for that insight.
Also i think it is a weird choice to only show 1680x1050 and 2560x1600 results. While, afaik; 1920x1080/1200 monitors are very populair today and 2560x1600 is a niche monitor; much too expensive for most and as such not very common.
So, why o why you leave out those 1920x1080/1200 results, the most populair resolution for a gamer ?
Well, you don't have to answer that to me; i believe it's a shame.
-
StaffSteve said:So, why o why you leave out those 1920x1080/1200 results, the most populair resolution for a gamer ?
Well, you don't have to answer that to me; i believe it's a shame.
The point of those articles is to test using maximum quality settings at the maximum resolution. There is no point spending big dollars on high-end GPUs to play at low resolutions. That said for one of the articles we did test at a low resolution (1680x1050) to show if and when GPU bottlenecking was going on. Again this kind of article does not require 1920x1200 when testing CPU scaling. If we were testing GPU scaling then yes I would agree 1920x1200 needs to be included.
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
-
Asus' new lineup of Z87 Haswell motherboards revealed
-
Google, NASA join forces to build quantum computing laboratory
Featured on Cameras
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.