| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ggrobot
Elite Member
Joined: 28 May 2004
Posts: 53575
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:07 am Post subject: CoD Black Ops GPU & CPU performance in-depth [29964] |
 |
|
The chaps over at TechSpot have tested 19 graphics
card configurations, using AMD and Nvidia GPUs that range
from the uber-expensive models to budget-minded offerings. On the CPU
front, scaling and performance comparisons between dual, triple and
quad core processors inside. Here\'s a taster:
Gett
Read more...
Source: GGMania headlines
GGMania.com - Daily Gaming and Tech news |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jeremyofmany
Contributor
Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
What about 1280x1024 with AA disabled?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Elite Member
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 4289
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Honestly nobody gives a crap about a resolution like that. PC gaming is widescreen these days dude. Get with the program! Maybe Koogle can get you some fps, that headcase still games with a CRT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psolord
Elite Member
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 960
Location: Greece
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dude don't tell people at what resolution to game at. Mind your own crappy resolution on your stupid console games. Btw, isn't it you that has a 2152*1688 or something, stupid CRT screen?
================
On topic, why the hell did they use bilinear filtering? What's wrong with trilinear? We are in 2010, hello! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
odysseuscm
Contributor
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tom wrote: | | Honestly nobody gives a crap about a resolution like that. PC gaming is widescreen these days dude. Get with the program! Maybe Koogle can get you some fps, that headcase still games with a CRT. |
Dude, 1280x1024 is not CRT but 5:4 17'' LCD. Still the most sensible resolution for *working* - I hate all that 16:9 crap. Of course guys like you who bitch about everything, probably never use their PC for anything that requires a few braincells.
That said most GFX-Cards handle such low resolutions without AA pretty easily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psolord
Elite Member
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 960
Location: Greece
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tride
Elite Member
Joined: 27 Feb 2010
Posts: 566
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lol, psolord. Dude, is this the max graphics quality you can get from this game ?
Omg, it looks like 4year old  Jesus, wtf are they selling here ? lol, i wont even pirate the game...!
And i dont think there is a need to run tests with this game, obviously nobody will proove anything to anybody! Here not the VGA will fail, the only fail goes for the company that made this game and did not optimize it to run properly for the hardware! In other hands, lazy fucks that want to make easy money selling a franchise title and doing it for consoles, witch is easyer since the work is less than optimizing it at max for PC hardware! Less work more money - clever guys!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psolord
Elite Member
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 960
Location: Greece
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tride wrote: | lol, psolord. Dude, is this the max graphics quality you can get from this game ?
Omg, it looks like 4year old Jesus, wtf are they selling here ? lol, i wont even pirate the game...!
And i dont think there is a need to run tests with this game, obviously nobody will proove anything to anybody! Here not the VGA will fail, the only fail goes for the company that made this game and did not optimize it to run properly for the hardware! In other hands, lazy fucks that want to make easy money selling a franchise title and doing it for consoles, witch is easyer since the work is less than optimizing it at max for PC hardware! Less work more money - clever guys! |
Totally agree man. That's why I call it Fuck Ops! lol
In any case, have a look at my fraps recorded gameplay, for better pitcure quality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aErpJAbUsvQ
The camera does introduce a level of image quality loss.
What the camera does show though, is that the geometry is screwed, the models are fucked up, the animation is so-so, the textures could be far better and the framerate needs an i7 to be decent.
Thankfully we still get high res and anti aliasing, so it is still a better experience than the retarded consoles, but still fucked up nontheless.
From whatever angle you see it though, it runs worse than previous COD games, while not looking better, that's why I said it does not introduce anything new. My small rig, equipping an E6600+4850 run previous COD games nicely at 1080P no AA. It got completely choked with this one. It also run Bad Company 2 greatly and Bad Company 2 is a far far far better looking game. Oh it was DX10 too, which is a heavier shaderpath anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha5wmLqQA2A#t=5m46s
FUCK YOU TREYFUCK! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koogle
Elite Member
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 1362
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Honestly nobody gives a crap about a resolution like that. PC gaming is widescreen these days dude. "
You're a tit Tom,a lot of people play PC games on LCD screens without going widescreen!
I game on both CRT and my default monitor lcd 24" ...for lcd playing at native resolution 1920x1200 @60hz is not bad for many games like strategy/rts/rpg etc just not really fps or racing, though for some games I'll use 1280x1024 @75hz ...its the highest resolution at the higher refresh rate possible on this lcd(and probably most others I think). Playing any fast paced game at any resolution at max 60hz/fps sucks, but really its the fucking lcd input/display lag more than the refresh/fps limit that irks me.
Maybe when lcd/display manufactuers actually put out a decent production LCD that is 16:10 aspect and does a higher native resolution like 1920x1200 @120hz and zero inputlag(wishful thinking), I'll consider it to replace my CRT for good(only I'd still want to use a lower resolution like 1280x1024@ 120hz as you do a beasty machine to start pushin past 60fps towards 120fps at a 1920x1200 native resolutions, and as we know LCDs fucking SUCK when comes to using any other resolution that is the not native, ie black borders vs blocky pixels pff). Probably still another year to wait, the nearest is dual DVI ports 16:9(baah) 23" 1920x1080 @120hz... so until something better comes and the technology improves, I keep the CRT for my gaming enjoyment (and so far CRT still beats 120hz/3d capable lcd's! in performance/resolution choice and NO displayLAG) , so no way I'd get a smaller sized LCD that doesn't match the existing dual screen setup, better to wait.
tl:dr long live CRT monitor gaming!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gx-x
Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2652
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@psolord:
does the game use all cores? The fact it runs in DX9 is quite self-explanatory when CPU usage is in question. DX9 hogs the CPU pretty much compared to dx10. I have a C2D at the moment (OCed @4ghz) and I bet my min fps is going to suck big time due to dx9. It happens in MoH 2010 from time to time that fps drops bellow 61, which sucks considering the game is average looking at best + I have 1680x1050 screen res. (Koogle, this Dell 2209wa can run 76hz in 1680x1050, is eIPS panel and has no input lag, but still 6ms response so some ghosting is mandatory)
anyway, haven't played the game yet, it is sort of on the bottom of my "roster", senseless shooters always are. I might try it just for benchmark thou. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psolord
Elite Member
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 960
Location: Greece
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gx-x wrote: | @psolord:
does the game use all cores? The fact it runs in DX9 is quite self-explanatory when CPU usage is in question. DX9 hogs the CPU pretty much compared to dx10. I have a C2D at the moment (OCed @4ghz) and I bet my min fps is going to suck big time due to dx9. It happens in MoH 2010 from time to time that fps drops bellow 61, which sucks considering the game is average looking at best + I have 1680x1050 screen res. (Koogle, this Dell 2209wa can run 76hz in 1680x1050, is eIPS panel and has no input lag, but still 6ms response so some ghosting is mandatory)
anyway, haven't played the game yet, it is sort of on the bottom of my "roster", senseless shooters always are. I might try it just for benchmark thou. |
Surprisingly, my Q9550 used all cores with quite high cpu usage on each. Definitely much more than 50% which is the norm. Although this is a good thing, the game run like shit. (you can see the cpu usage at the end of my videos)
On the other hand, on the i7, cpu usage was as always quite low. This is to be expected though, since hyper threading always confuses things. Windows extracts overall usage having in mind 8 cores, while they are not really 8. To put it simply, if the cpu is at 50% load, it appears as 25%.
As for the DX9 being heavier on the cpu, I haven't noticed something like. DX10 has always been slower for me, for example in Devil 4, Resident 5, Crysis and many others. I am talking about the whole package. The cpu could still be more burdened in DX9 but the gpu less burdened and thas the better score. I'll fire up Devil 4 when I have the time to check!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
psolord
Elite Member
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 960
Location: Greece
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just realised that what I said was stupid. No need to check. Of course DX9 will have higher cpu usage, but not because it is worse speed wise. This happens because the system as a whole, pushes more frames per second, thus the cpu does more work.
A crude example. If you have the DX10 version of the game pushing 50fps with 50% cpu usage, when you switch to DX9 and you get 70fps, the cpu usage will obviously be higher, since the cpu will have to more work to guide the system for the higher framerate.
Exactly the opposite happens when you have like 100fps and switch on vsync. If you force the system to hold it's horse, both gpu usage, cpu usage and power consumption will be driven down.
In the case of Black Ops, the system has high cpu usage while having low framerate as well. This is bad coding and is totally different altogether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Elite Member
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 4289
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koogle wrote: | "Honestly nobody gives a crap about a resolution like that. PC gaming is widescreen these days dude. "
You're a tit Tom,a lot of people play PC games on LCD screens without going widescreen!
I game on both CRT and my default monitor lcd 24" ...for lcd playing at native resolution 1920x1200 @60hz is not bad for many games like strategy/rts/rpg etc just not really fps or racing, though for some games I'll use 1280x1024 @75hz ...its the highest resolution at the higher refresh rate possible on this lcd(and probably most others I think). Playing any fast paced game at any resolution at max 60hz/fps sucks, but really its the fucking lcd input/display lag more than the refresh/fps limit that irks me.
Maybe when lcd/display manufactuers actually put out a decent production LCD that is 16:10 aspect and does a higher native resolution like 1920x1200 @120hz and zero inputlag(wishful thinking), I'll consider it to replace my CRT for good(only I'd still want to use a lower resolution like 1280x1024@ 120hz as you do a beasty machine to start pushin past 60fps towards 120fps at a 1920x1200 native resolutions, and as we know LCDs fucking SUCK when comes to using any other resolution that is the not native, ie black borders vs blocky pixels pff). Probably still another year to wait, the nearest is dual DVI ports 16:9(baah) 23" 1920x1080 @120hz... so until something better comes and the technology improves, I keep the CRT for my gaming enjoyment (and so far CRT still beats 120hz/3d capable lcd's! in performance/resolution choice and NO displayLAG) , so no way I'd get a smaller sized LCD that doesn't match the existing dual screen setup, better to wait.
tl:dr long live CRT monitor gaming! |
FFS you are a moron. I would have expected you, the genius above all of us people <sic> would have already known that there are displays of true 120Hz. Check it out brainiac maybe there is hope for people like you of limited abilities and big mouthes. SAMSUNG 2233RZ 120HZ and ViewSonic VX2265wm with an easy search. The Viewsonic is hard to come by, could be a new model, I don't know I don't care. I am in no immediate rush because input lag does not affect me in anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gx-x
Elite Member
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 2652
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| psolord wrote: | I just realised that what I said was stupid. No need to check. Of course DX9 will have higher cpu usage, but not because it is worse speed wise. This happens because the system as a whole, pushes more frames per second, thus the cpu does more work.
A crude example. If you have the DX10 version of the game pushing 50fps with 50% cpu usage, when you switch to DX9 and you get 70fps, the cpu usage will obviously be higher, since the cpu will have to more work to guide the system for the higher framerate.
Exactly the opposite happens when you have like 100fps and switch on vsync. If you force the system to hold it's horse, both gpu usage, cpu usage and power consumption will be driven down.
In the case of Black Ops, the system has high cpu usage while having low framerate as well. This is bad coding and is totally different altogether. |
dx10 path allows for GPU to perform more functions per CPU cycle. Meaning (in layman's terms) that in dx9 GPU requests 1000 cycles per frame, in dx10 it can be done with only 500.
dx10 path also allows some of the work that CPU does does on dx9 to be done on the GPU or partially done on the GPU via predictions or some other instruction calls. Depending on implementation (read: shoddy or good coding) this can yield in lower CPU usage (leaving space for CPU to do more things) and higher framerates or it can lead to less frames per second due to GPU being overwhelmed with junk. This is said with keeping in mind that we do identical render of frames in both cases. There is stuff that dx10 does that dx9 cannot do and while the difference may appear to be non existent for the viewer, it doesn't mean it isn't calculated. (blame game designers, not dx10/11).
As far as games such resident evil 5 go, they are console ports, thus it implies shoddy coding being done since they are just ported over in a manner which takes least time and money to do. I wouldn't regard it as an "benchmark" especially since there is no difference in dx9/10 visuals.
What you can try for example is warhead with hi amounts of AA in dx9 and dx10 mode. Notice that dx10 +64bit yield "interesting" results.
also, if I remember correctly, bioshock and stalker SoC worked better in dx10 mode and offered better visuals at the same time. There were few more titles like this but I cannot recall their names atm. I think Call of Juarez was one of them too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koogle
Elite Member
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 1362
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Tom FFS, read the whole freaking post next time! I already stated I knew about the such 120hz lcd's | Quote: | | the nearest is dual DVI ports 16:9(baah) 23" 1920x1080 @120hz... so until something better comes and the technology improves, I keep the CRT for my gaming enjoyment (and so far CRT still beats 120hz/3d capable lcd's! in performance/resolution choice and NO displayLAG) |
| Quote: | | (Koogle, this Dell 2209wa can run 76hz in 1680x1050, is eIPS panel and has no input lag, but still 6ms response so some ghosting is mandatory) |
yeah I hadn't checked refresh rates of other panels all that much ...76hz @ that native resolution is good I guess, though input/display lag would still put me off buying something that just wouldn't beat my crt, though it would beat using my current lcd for games but not desktop usage. Like I said I'm waiting for 16:10 aspect that does 120hz. ie exact same 24" +resolution just double the refreshrate capabilities and hopefully a lot less input/display lag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2666 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
