Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is coming for your disk space

cliffordcooley

Posts: 13,141   +6,439
Some games stutter on a hard drive. I tried BO4 on and it was literally unplayable on it, I'm guessing it will be the same for MW.
If that is the case it is time to upgrade or don't play the game. Nothing new about this Phenomenon.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,731   +4,105
If that is the case it is time to upgrade or don't play the game. Nothing new about this Phenomenon.
Sure, at some point that has to happen. Can't expect to run games on slower hardware forever hence I got SSDs now. I just think that in this case CoD visuals don't justify the hardware requirements.

I play cod of my hdd and have no problems. I wonder what the rpm hdd he was using.
7200 RPM.
 

Morris Minor

Posts: 249   +171
Sure, at some point that has to happen. Can't expect to run games on slower hardware forever hence I got SSDs now. I just think that in this case CoD visuals don't justify the hardware requirements.


7200 RPM.
my WD Black 4tb hdd is 7200rpm and runs cod with zero issues. must be something else
 

treetops

Posts: 3,064   +784
Hah I rem splitting D2 across 2 HDs on my first PC. Didn't think this would be an issue in 2020
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,351   +1,238
You need to load/unload textures in realtime as needed, which means they have to be uncompressed on the HD. And that's where your storage space is going to.
A simple RLE compression can be on the fly with little to no performance hit; in fact on a HDD rather than SSD load, it would almost certainly increase performance. More effective (and thus more demanding) compression algorithms might eat a little cpu time, but as I understand it, CoD doesn't use more than 4 cores anyway, so many systems have plenty of cpu overhead to spare.
 

treetops

Posts: 3,064   +784
I have a 4 gig HD just for bulky junk. It was like $60. I can barely tell a difference loading games vs my ssd. Of course my os browsers etc are on my ssd.
 
Simple solution is to buy a portable hard drive. I got one when I first bought the PS4. I knew that I was gonna need lots of space for my games. A phone utilizes 250G these days...you think that's enough for a game console? ?
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 793   +1,384
Downloading so much data for just a game....

If I had to download this game to play it and it's 250GB - that's 1/4 of my monthly datacap from Comcast.

With the whole "lockdown" BS from the stupid leaders and things being so limited/restricted my family is home so much more than we used to be. It's not hard with a family of 4-5 people to hit 750-1000GB of data in a month. A game this size just isn't a good use of data, at least not in my opinion.

Perhaps crap like this might sway companies to looking into moving back to physical copies more. A dual layer Blu-ray disc can easily hold up to 50GB and according to Samsung they could hold more:

"A dual-layer disc can hold 50GB. To ensure that the Blu-ray Disc format is easily extendable (future-proof) it also includes support for multi-layer discs, which should allow the storage capacity to be increased to 100GB-200GB (25GB per layer) in the future simply by adding more layers to the discs."

A multi-layer blu-ray (or two) could easily house any game out there and I'd much rather take an hour or two to install the game off a disc or two over downloading 100s of GB of data that takes several hours anyway and eliminate the massive data hit I would take towards my monthly datacap.
 

Kyruss55

Posts: 9   +8
They could add a texture download setting. Lord of the Rings Online has a texture download option that saves close to 7 gigabytes. And that game is from 2007! If they had a texture option to download low/medium textures only, and opt in for high or ultra. They could probably save a ton of space without having to split the games up. My pc with a 4GB card can only support low texture size. If I go to normal it has bugs as it surpasses the recommended video memory usage. Also that would save on patches/updates too.
 
At this point does it even matter? Its simply a hot mess. The game itself is so unoptimized its becoming a joke. 250GB and the game struggles with a i7 9700K and a 1070. 16 GB of memory, game eating up 5-7K MB, equally 70% of the memory.

Modern Warzone is/has turned into a disaster. Love the game but its a mess.

I agree that the download and storage situation is a mess, but I've always been impressed with how well the game runs. I average 135 fps on High with an i7 6600K (OC) and GTX 1080 (OC) with 32 GB ram. The performance is frankly a hell of a lot better than I get on BFV. Maybe that is due to the uncompressed assets?!
 

enemys

Posts: 266   +295
TechSpot Elite
RTX IO and the new consoles are designed entirely around PCIe 4.0.


I'd imagine if you enabled it on PCIe 3.0, it would defeat whatever advantage that's intended.

That said I still have no idea if it'll actually provide anything that would be noticable. Nvidia states it'll reduce CPU overhead but I'm not really sure that's such a big issue. They also state that object pop-in will be reduced but that can be achieved with 3.0 SSDs as well. This might just be a tech where we don't see any benefit until years down the line.
I disagree. The link you provided does not touch the subject of PCIE version at all. Nowhere does Nvidia say that RTX IO is PCIE 4.0 exclusive, nor that it requires a x4 link. What is more, Nvidia had been developing GPU<->SSD DMA for use in compute scenarios even before they had 4.0 capable GPUs. Such P2P DMA does not require any PCIE 4.0-exclusive features, it can be done via 3.0 with proper software support. Finally, I/O system in new Xbox uses 2 lanes of PCIE 4.0, which provides the exact same bandwidth as 4 lanes of PCIE 3.0, and Xbox does not even saturate it fully. If Xbox bandwidth was to be the minimum spec for GPU<->storage solutions, a good PCIE 3 x4 drive could actually be significantly faster than that (~3.5GB/s vs 2.4 on Xbox).

While neither MS nor Nvidia said if RTX I/O and DirectStorage will work on PCIE 3.0, there seems to be no technical reason blocking it.
 
Devs have gotten lazy and stopped using compression
I read this somewhere and it made sense to me, so here it is:
Most games have compressed audio/video files which call of duty does not, which accounts for the larger size. Other games decompress on the fly and consume CPU's power while it's running the game. Having uncompressed files makes it easier for the game to run, even on low-end devices.
HDD is unlimited, CPU Power is not. Which makes a bit sense though, since people can replace hard drives easily.
I heard they did a pretty good job running this game on most of the devices.
 
Now consider that the PS5 only has 660 GB to install games.
Soon enough gamers can install only CoD and a couple of indie games.
Now consider the ps5 uses proprietary hardware compression. Ps5 games are smaller, look at Spider Man Miles Morales, it takes up less space on the ps5 then the PS4.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,469   +6,157
I disagree. The link you provided does not touch the subject of PCIE version at all. Nowhere does Nvidia say that RTX IO is PCIE 4.0 exclusive, nor that it requires a x4 link. What is more, Nvidia had been developing GPU<->SSD DMA for use in compute scenarios even before they had 4.0 capable GPUs. Such P2P DMA does not require any PCIE 4.0-exclusive features, it can be done via 3.0 with proper software support. Finally, I/O system in new Xbox uses 2 lanes of PCIE 4.0, which provides the exact same bandwidth as 4 lanes of PCIE 3.0, and Xbox does not even saturate it fully. If Xbox bandwidth was to be the minimum spec for GPU<->storage solutions, a good PCIE 3 x4 drive could actually be significantly faster than that (~3.5GB/s vs 2.4 on Xbox).

While neither MS nor Nvidia said if RTX I/O and DirectStorage will work on PCIE 3.0, there seems to be no technical reason blocking it.

Every piece of marketing material, from Microsoft to Nvidia, references PCIe 4.0.

It may "support" PCIe 3.0 (as it will likely "support" any drive) but as I said earlier that might defeat the entire purpose.

"good PCIE 3 x4 drive could actually be significantly faster than that (~3.5GB/s vs 2.4 on Xbox)."

Please read Microsoft's press release on the SSD. It's custom designed for sustained writes, not burst. Not that big upfront performance numbers mean much on paper anyways. When it comes to games burst isn't that important past a point.
 
I think it's funny that anyone would think we'd give anyone time to "fix" anything. We would still find time to complain about something. We are a instant gratification, "I want, I need, I'm owed" society. Remember a thing that used to exist called "customer service"? The mistake was giving people options. We had to choose what we wanted or were willing to persue. Now we want it all, and the world to bend to our will. If your not happy, find something else. Be happy, humble, and grateful.
 

texasrattler

Posts: 1,279   +605
I agree that the download and storage situation is a mess, but I've always been impressed with how well the game runs. I average 135 fps on High with an i7 6600K (OC) and GTX 1080 (OC) with 32 GB ram. The performance is frankly a hell of a lot better than I get on BFV. Maybe that is due to the uncompressed assets?!
Thats why I was stating the 9700K which can have issues in games. Likely do to no HT. My only fix is to limit the fps to 80. Keeps the cpu from spiking to 80 or higher for the most part.
 

enemys

Posts: 266   +295
TechSpot Elite
Every piece of marketing material, from Microsoft to Nvidia, references PCIe 4.0.

It may "support" PCIe 3.0 (as it will likely "support" any drive) but as I said earlier that might defeat the entire purpose.

"good PCIE 3 x4 drive could actually be significantly faster than that (~3.5GB/s vs 2.4 on Xbox)."

Please read Microsoft's press release on the SSD. It's custom designed for sustained writes, not burst. Not that big upfront performance numbers mean much on paper anyways. When it comes to games burst isn't that important past a point.
Not every material - the link you provided does not. Official devblog on DirectStorage does not mention that, either, though it can be argued that a devblog isn't exactly marketing material: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/directstorage-is-coming-to-pc/
Please provide direct links, it'll be easier to discuss them.

You said PCIE 3 support "might defeat the entire purpose", but you failed to say why. Please elaborate why you think so, form technical standpoint. I might be missing something, but it seems there are zero obvious technical limitations here and a very similar solution has already been available on PCIE3 for a couple of years, though only for compute workloads.

As for the custom drive - it's probably designed for sustained reads, not writes, which a higher-end NVME drive can handle easily, too. HP EX950, Samsung 970 Evo Plus and ADATA SX8200 easily hit 2.7GB/s of sustained sequential read bandwidth: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13759/comparing-adata-sx8200-pro-vs-hp-ex950/7
So does SK Hynix Gold P31: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16012/the-sk-hynix-gold-p31-ssd-review/5
And even if a given drive cannot maintain the ~2.4GB/s throughput, PCIE bandwidth is not a limiting factor here, rather the controller or flash performance is. Or thermal throttling, but that is directly connected to power draw, which again comes from the controller and flash memory.

I still stand by my opinion, but if you can provide solid technical arguments against it, I'll gladly change my mind.
 

Gastec

Posts: 219   +108
Maybe they do maybe they don't, I do have 2 x 1TB SATA SSD's in my cupboard as spare, I upgraded them to a singular 2TB m. 2 nvme SSD because it was reasonable cheap and it was 6 times faster than what I had. I don't buy a storage device and wait 10 years before I upgrade it. You see a good deal you buy and you don't worry about game sizes ;)
This is not about what and how much you have, it's about the ineficiency and user-unfrindlines of those game developers and publishers. We are ranting here about that and threatening them with not buying their products.
 
Last edited: