Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Graphics Performance

By Julio Franco · 59 replies
Nov 11, 2009
Post New Reply
  1. 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.

    Read the full article at:

    Please leave your feedback here.
  2. Here's a nice video of Modern Warfare 2 on, gtx 295 , i7 920
  3. Puiu

    Puiu TS Evangelist Posts: 2,662   +1,096

    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)
  4. Kibaruk

    Kibaruk TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,286   +902

    Too bad you left the Ati XT2600HD out =(

    I'm still in love of that video card hehe
  5. Kibaruk

    Kibaruk TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,286   +902

    I'm wondering, would you make a comparison just for gigs of the old video cards vs the new ones? =)
  6. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 3,146   +911

    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.
  7. Puiu

    Puiu TS Evangelist Posts: 2,662   +1,096

    8800GTS is above 9600GT and below 9800GTX. it should work just fine with this game at the resolutions that 9600 worked.
  8. 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.
  9. Ranger12

    Ranger12 TS Evangelist Posts: 621   +122

    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.
  10. Kibaruk

    Kibaruk TechSpot Paladin Posts: 3,286   +902

    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?
  11. Nirkon

    Nirkon TS Enthusiast Posts: 202

    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.
  12. Hello ! Nvidia 7600 is ok ? What do you think ?
  13. Burty117

    Burty117 TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 3,146   +911

    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
  14. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,742   +421

    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.
  15. Am I the only one that doesn't understand why they benchmarked an entire set of dx10 cards in dx9??
  16. camuss15

    camuss15 TS Rookie Posts: 45

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

    yukka TechSpot Paladin Posts: 861   +67

    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?
  19. 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.
  20. I say again, why no dx10 benchies???
  21. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,869   +2,037

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

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

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

    Again, the game is still only DX9…

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

    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 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?
  22. klepto12

    klepto12 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,115   +9

    i absolutely love this game and it runs full tilt on my current system which makes me happy :)
  23. 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.
  24. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,869   +2,037

    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.
  25. "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.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...