GeForce 344.60 WHQL drivers arrive alongside "Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare"

By Shawn Knight · 13 replies
Nov 4, 2014
Post New Reply
  1. Nvidia has published a new set of graphics drivers to complement the launch of the latest game in the Call of Duty franchise, Advanced Warfare. The WHQL 344.60 "Game Ready" drivers are said to offer performance optimizations as well as...

    Read more
  2. Steve

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

    You wont need SLI to run this game. Just another CoD title, we won't be publishing a performance article because the game isn't demanding.
  3. Alpha Gamer

    Alpha Gamer TS Evangelist Posts: 354   +116

    No Dragon Age in this list?
    I hope they release a new driver by November 18th
  4. Skidmarksdeluxe

    Skidmarksdeluxe TS Evangelist Posts: 8,647   +3,274

    Yeah. You could probably comfortably play this game using your igp. ;)
  5. SuperVeloce

    SuperVeloce TS Booster Posts: 133   +34

    I am not so sure. 1080p ssaa (and even without ssaa) can be punishing for a middle-top end graphics
  6. Steve

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

    I have already tested it. GeForce GTX 970 spat out well over 100fps on average at 2560x1600 with everything cranked up. Same card gets 34fps in Crysis and 36fps in BF4 at that resolution. If a game can't put a little hurt on a high-end graphics card at 2560x1600 we move on.

    Edit: Here you go these guys wasted their time :)

    You can happily play at 1080p maxed out with a Radeon R7 260X, nuff said. In fact Skidmarksdeluxe wasn't that far off when he said bring your IGP.
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2014
    wastedkill likes this.
  7. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TS Guardian Fighter Posts: 9,725   +3,700

    Hahaha! At least you were generous enough to provide a link. :)
  8. jsper3602

    jsper3602 TS Rookie

    I checked the 2560 x 1600 SSAA 4 x chart on gamegpu. It brings the GTX 980 to a average of 34 fps. I do think that´s kind of demanding. Let´s hope the game looks ok with out SSAA
  9. Skidmarksdeluxe

    Skidmarksdeluxe TS Evangelist Posts: 8,647   +3,274

    I was being facetious.
  10. wastedkill

    wastedkill TS Evangelist Posts: 1,423   +350

    thats because 4x 2560 x 1600 is well... beyond 4k so obviously the 980 is gonna be on its knees even for minecraft it will have around 34fps on a resolution beyond 4k....
  11. Nero7

    Nero7 TS Maniac Posts: 274   +104

    You say this as if it was a bad thing. Games are supposed to look better, they're not supposed to become more demanding. How many gamers have a GTX970 and play in said resolution? Does Techspot not want to be read by people with low end hardware? Ok then.

    What about streaming it to SHIELD or using that new Steam tech for streaming it?

    Sound is also very much important in games. Is that not worth hearing into either? Is a sound card worth it for these games? Plenty of stuff you could do. Well its up to you. Is your site.
    kingmustard likes this.
  12. Steve

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

    You do realize that games looking better goes hand in hand with becoming more demanding right?

    There is a reason why Crysis 3 and Battlefield 4 are demanding, they look amazing.

    As I said this is just another CoD game, low quality effects and low textures.

    If the gameplay is excellent then that is fine but there is no need to purchase new hardware for the game so why bother testing it? Not sure a sound card test for such a game is worth looking into either but that is certainly an out of the box idea :)

    I think you missed the point of us testing a high-end GPU at an extreme resolution. It is all relative, if a GTX 970 can push over 100fps at 2560x1600 then the game is going to be playable on very low-end hardware like the Radeon R7 260X. And well the game is playable on the R7 260X which we don’t even consider to be a gaming graphics card.
  13. Nero7

    Nero7 TS Maniac Posts: 274   +104

    I feared you'd ask me that. Yes I do realize that. I mean, a game becoming more demanding is natural when the graphics improve. But a developer shouldn't rise the requirement just for the heck of rising it. Efficiency.

    When CoD Ghosts required 6GB of RAM there was an outcry. I didn't understand it because at that time I thought everyone has 8GB of ram anyway especially in a gaming rig and even more especially if you want to play next gen.

    Another thing is, some people install games on a SSD or they buy RAM with higher stats. Mine has 1600 MHz instead of the cheaper 1333 MHz. But if there's no difference in performance at all then I'd bought the weaker one.

    I noticed in Ghosts that textures tend to have slight pop ins and outs. Like them changing from low to high quality, something many games do. You could for example cover if better RAM or an SSD helps there.

    I tend to have out of the box ideas, I'm certainly not forcing you to come up with I dunno what but you are a more specialised more tech savy page than others to me so I'd like to see that reflect in your articles. Certainly since Titanfall does Audio play a huge role. It needs 36GB of space afterall. I also realize that I don't pay you, so I'm happy with what I get. ;)

    btw. Ghosts runs in 4k on my gtx770 with rock solid 60fps. BF3 does not and the menu doesn't scale so chat and GUI gets really small. Some games I can't play with DSR due to that. I also read that Crysis has such high demand due to bad optimization. Something about the water tesselation in Crysis 2 being rendered for the whole level... Then there's software, difference between playing on Windows 7 or 8 or even 10. Mantle and DX12. New vs old drivers... Some games stopped working due to new physx updates... a plethora of influences.

    Sorry I wrote so much.
  14. Steve

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

    When you are paying top dollar for a triple-A block buster title you expect it to be cutting edge in all areas (story, gameplay, graphics and so on…)

    PC games should be able to scale down to play on lower end hardware anyway. So the way CoD AW looks maxed out should be at best the medium quality setting on PC. Gamers who have invested big should be able to enjoy much more exciting visuals in such a title.

    It is hard to go from a game like BF4 and then pay the same money for CoD AW a year later only to find graphics that are so inferior they are not worth comparing. I am just giving BF4 as an example here as the game looks great, it didn’t exactly have the smoothest of launches but that is an entirely different issue.

    I am not going to talk about the coding quality of Crysis 2, I am willing to admit I don’t know nearly enough about it to have a valid comment. What I can tell you is the game played well for me when it was first released back in 2011 and for a game that is now more than 3 years old I feel the graphics are as good or better than CoD AW. So maybe like all Crysis games it was a bit advanced for its time, pushed the envelope if you will.

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...