Call of Duty 2 Performance

R

ralfyboy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Messages
211
how are your video cards holding up to this game?

i'm playing it at 1024x768 with 4AA and 8AF with all other settings normal. i brought up the console to see my fps, and i was surprisingly getting less than 30 on average. this is with a 6800GT, 1gb ram, and an amd 3400. i cant really notice the lag, but it bothers me knowing i'm getting less than 30.

and does anyone else have a problem setting it at 1280x960?
 
These are odd reports. I'm always around 90-130, 70's at the lowest.

Playing at 1360x768 aspect 16:10, 4xAA and AF just says AF, large # of corpses, Zfeather on everything. This game doesn't seem that taxing, at all.


[edit]Playing as I post this, and it seems the framerate keeps getting better.

[edit2] Just set the resolution to 1680x1050 and took no performance hit, what-so-ever. 90-130's all the way.
 
pandora's box said:
what drivers are you using, what are you using to show the fps?
Click to expand...

Still using catalyst 5.7 Enable the console in the options, then cg_drawfps 1
 
yeap both fraps and the in game fps counter is showing 20fps average at 1280x1024 anistropic set in game and 4xaa set in game. x800xt at default clocks.
 
pandora's box said:
yeap both fraps and the in game fps counter is showing 20fps average at 1280x1024 anistropic set in game and 4xaa set in game. x800xt at default clocks.
Click to expand...

Very odd. Plays better than COD:UO ever did. :D
 
Looking at your guys system specs it might be the CPU that limits things. Just a guess.
 
with DX7 mode forced i can get much higher frames...in the 50s range at 1280x1024


Video Mode: 1280x1024
aspect ratio: Auto
Texture Filter: Trilinear
Anti-Aliasing: 4x
Sync Every frame: no
Dual Video Cards: no
Model Detail: Normal
Zfeather smoke: World Only
number of corpses: Insane




DX7 Disabled = 9FPS
DX7 Enabled = 45-60FPS
 
1280x1024 4xaa and anisotropic filtering set in game, dx 7 mode disable = 20fps.

1280x1024 4xaa and anisotropic filtering set in game, dx 7 mode enabled = 90fps.


dont know about you but i didnt buy a x800 xt to play in directx 7 mode.


edit: exact game settings:

video mode 1280x1024
aspect ratio: auto
texture filter: anisotropic
anti-aliasing: 4x
force directx 7 mode: yes
sync every frame: no
optimize for dual video cards: no
model detail: normal
zfeather smoke: off
number of corpses: medium

that gets me 90-120fps average.

video mode 1280x1024
aspect ratio: auto
texture filter: anisotropic
anti-aliasing: 4x
force directx 7 mode: no
sync every frame: no
optimize for dual video cards: no
model detail: normal
zfeather smoke: off
number of corpses: medium

that gets me 20fps average.


what changed? forcing directx 7 mode to off.
 
alot of the stuff looks different...basically your walls dont look like they have poursand other stuff...doesnt really change antyhing i care about really...
 
pandora's box said:
1280x1024 2xaa 16xaf, around 25fps. :mad:
Click to expand...

I won't get to play it until tomorrow, but possibly this game is heavily CPU reliant.

EDIT: And shaders.
 
Seemed to run like ass on my system. 1280x1024 with or without AA and AF at 16. Will mess around more with some settings tomorrow, need some sleep.
 
I havent downloaded the demo yet, but I think there might be a killer in the settings. I know that with dynamic shadows just turned on on BF2, it absolutly slaughters my fps.. there might be something like that with COD2.

I just got the 1st one last weekend (I love it!) and it runs like a DREAM on the highest settings with the rig in my sig.
 
Low 40s to as high as 100 depending on the action using Fraps I only played for a few seconds since i am on my way to work

1920x1200 , hdr lighting.exe in the profile menu of Nvidia control panel, 4x/4x

Looks amazing and plays real smooth. I will do some experimenting with settings when i have more time

OMG i am refering to day of defeat not call of duty sory boys
 
I don't see a point in measuring performance on the standard detail level. I'll wait till the retail comes out and you can crank the settings to high before I judge the game.
 
It won't be untill later this afternoon before I get to play it, and see how my computer likes it, I'm hoping its not as bad as the SS 2 demo, heck even BF2 runs better on my rig than SS 2
 
i can say only ... wow ! i run FEAR DEMO 3 times better than this ... auto detect says 640x480 @ 2aa trilinear ... but i play it on 1024 @ 2AA Anisotrophic with about 35 fps ... its wow ... just wow :) so low fps :rolleyes:
 
Fuck the games is turning to be more and more powerfull not all of us can pay for a 2x 7800gtx and 2gb of memory and fx55 or 57
 
i have everything set to high and if i remember i have 4x aa and played at 1600x1200 and it seemed fine no lags noticable it felt just a little like it had low fps....i'' run the game with fps enables and see what it looks like.....game is beautiful btw
 
I'm a little confused by the giant differences a few people are reporting. Guy said he had lag issues with a 7800gtx at 1280x1024, then we have a few with lower end cards running 1600x1200 with no lag. I'm thinking you guys are talking about different games.

Personally, I was running the demo yesterday at 1280x1024, 2xAA with anisotropic enabled, z-feather nothing, highest setting on the rest, and it was pretty bad. Down into the 20's pretty often. Surprisingly playable, but dissapointing.
 
I set it to

1600x1200
V-sync: off
AA: 4x
Texture Filter: Bilinear
Lighting: High
Detail: Normal
Corpses: Insane

It ran playable on my box. AMD 4000+ and a 6800 Ultra. I might go down a notch or two on the resolution just to make it a little smoother. Either that or enable vsync.
 
1680*1050 all maxxed except aa is off (AF is on) and it was playable. Thats all ill say...playable...
 
GeT In ThE GaMe said:
Fuck the games is turning to be more and more powerfull not all of us can pay for a 2x 7800gtx and 2gb of memory and fx55 or 57
Click to expand...

That is why when you go into eb/gamestop, every wall is full of console games, and there is a tiny little rack near the back with about 20 computer games on it.
 
Yes and you console fans get to play games way before they come out too. No one gives a shit. Don't bother bringing up consoles in PC gaming threads. It's tired, and most of us PC enthusiasts are just plain damn sick of it, and we know what you will say to defend your opinion too. Makes me sleepy and bored as hell just thinking about it.
 
Game ran awesome at 1280 x 1024 everything maxed with Synce every frame on. NO lag or anything. Can't wait to get it.
 
Ran on my mx440 forcing directX 7...
1024... some dips in fps but overall playable

sweet :cool:
 
mtx said:
who still plays COD? :S
Click to expand...

I do.

Runs fine for me at optimal settings 800x600. Yes it runs at 30-40fps... but in this demo, 30fps is very smooth. My eyes can barely tell the difference between 30 and 90fps with this demo. Game is even playable at 15fps (framerate with everything maxed). This is unusual... but it's nice.
 
Sephiros said:
Ran on my mx440 forcing directX 7...
1024... some dips in fps but overall playable

sweet :cool:
Click to expand...

well i tryed 1280x1024 4aa all max in DX7 amd i get 60fps ... but i dont wan to play it in dx7 ..
and u ? what fps u got in dx7 ? ~10 ???

but in this demo, 30fps is very smooth. My eyes can barely tell the difference between 30 and 90fps with this demo
Click to expand...
True
 
not too impressed here. battlefield 2 looks better and gets frame rates more than double CoD2. Does it really have hdr lighting? I couldn't tell to be honest. I also didn't notice any hdr options in the video settings. Also, no ragdoll or other physics. They might as well have kept using the quake 3 engine, it barely looks any better than CoD:UO

Gameplay is still the same linear, scripted missions and dumb enemies that rarely move from their positions and just pop up every so often so you can shoot them. YAWN!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top