COD 4 How well does it run on your system??

Solid 60fps (rig specs below) at max settings, 16xAF, vsync, and 16xSLIAA (aka, CoD 4 doesn't have true SLI support, so I just dump AA duties onto the second card- works well though b/c my single 8800GTS can already handle everything CoD 4 can throw at it except very high levels of AA).
 
§·H·ï·Z·N·ï·L·T·ï;1031827662 said:
* 195fps
* 16:9 w/ fov 70
* 2xAA
* 8xAF
* Textures EXTRA
* All other settings as high as they can go...

http://www.stage6.com/user/SHiZNiLTi/video/1955925/



iw3mp2007121117040082qz5.jpg
Click to expand...

TheGooch69 said:
Shiznitlie bootie sugar ray dady, how the hell you getting 195FPS? I have a 3dmark06 score of over 8,000 and I don't get anywhere near that high, usually 80-90. What resolution are you running at?

Also is extra texture setting better than high?
Click to expand...

LOL, 1st you need to unlock your framrate in the console I think it's /SETA MAXFPS 0 with this enabled it removes the 90fps cap.

I'm running at 1360x768 and I have a 21" Sony Trinitron FD CRT setup for 16:9 widescreen. I play at this resolution because my CRT will
handle a refresh rate of 144hz. If I'm not competing online in the servers I will enjoy 1600x1200 @ 100hz getting around 70-125fps.

Setting the TEXTURES to EXTRA is better then HIGH.

144hz refresh rate FTW!
 
TerranUp16 said:
Solid 60fps (rig specs below) at max settings, 16xAF, vsync, and 16xSLIAA (aka, CoD 4 doesn't have true SLI support, so I just dump AA duties onto the second card- works well though b/c my single 8800GTS can already handle everything CoD 4 can throw at it except very high levels of AA).
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? COD4 scales very well with two and three card SLI configurations. Doesn't have true SLI support my ass. :rolleyes:
 
Dan_D said:
What the hell are you talking about? COD4 scales very well with two and three card SLI configurations. Doesn't have true SLI support my ass. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hm, odd. Wasn't working for me. I was getting the same performance I got under a single card. Not until I switched it to use the SLIAA did I notice any appreciable difference (namely being able to hold 60fps solid and attain 16xAA).
 
TerranUp16 said:
Hm, odd. Wasn't working for me. I was getting the same performance I got under a single card. Not until I switched it to use the SLIAA did I notice any appreciable difference (namely being able to hold 60fps solid and attain 16xAA).
Click to expand...

The difference between a single card, dual cards, and three cards is noticable. What resolution do you run the game at? If you aren't running SLI at at least 1920x1080 or so I can see why SLI wouldn't do much for you. You'd need to really crank the AA and AF up in order to get anything out of it. At 2560x1600 two or three cards makes a huge difference in most games.

Hell UT3 is almost unplayable at 2560x1600 with everything in game maxed out. With two cards it is as smooth as butter.

BTW, I have to mention that I always use V-Sync. There was confusion on that in another thread. With V-Sync off, I could actually get ok performance with one card, but the tearing would be evident, and I can't stand that.
 
John Gault said:
COD4 = great programing. Crysis devs should take note. IMHO the game is stunning!!
Click to expand...

Crysis still has better graphics, but the performance per graphic goodness ratio is skewed WAY in favor of CoD4. I don't know enough about how these games do their stuff to really comment on any of this stuff seriously, but Crysis rarely goes above 50FPS for me using the Very High tweaks in DX9 at 1280x1024.
 
krameriffic said:
Crysis still has better graphics, but the performance per graphic goodness ratio is skewed WAY in favor of CoD4. I don't know enough about how these games do their stuff to really comment on any of this stuff seriously, but Crysis rarely goes above 50FPS for me using the Very High tweaks in DX9 at 1280x1024.
Click to expand...

The game also has the most complex physics of any FPS game I can think of. While not perfect I'd bet that Crysis has to handle far more physics calculations than other games do. Combine that with larger textures, larger maps, more enviromental variables, and more complex character models it becomes easy to see why Crysis runs so badly compared to other games.
 
krameriffic said:
Crysis still has better graphics, but the performance per graphic goodness ratio is skewed WAY in favor of CoD4. I don't know enough about how these games do their stuff to really comment on any of this stuff seriously, but Crysis rarely goes above 50FPS for me using the Very High tweaks in DX9 at 1280x1024.
Click to expand...

CoD4, like HL2, is pretty obsolete technologically. They're really old engines with a couple of newish features tacked on. They really depend on art direction and the environments that they render to look good. The types of environments that Crysis has to deal with are really really hard to make look good and require a very advanced engine to do so. It's pretty easy to make the sort of areas you see in CoD4 look good. It's mostly right angles, with little complex vegetation and undergrowth and you don't need much draw distance. Crysis is just the opposite. There's a reason you didn't see any large jungle environments before Far Cry. They're really hard to pull off. I guarantee that if they tried to do a big island in the CoD 4 engine it would look worse than Far Cry. Same for UEIII, even though that engine does have a lot of untapped potential in other areas.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
CoD4, like HL2, is pretty obsolete technologically. They're really old engines with a couple of newish features tacked on. They really depend on art direction and the environments that they render to look good. The types of environments that Crysis has to deal with are really really hard to make look good and require a very advanced engine to do so. It's pretty easy to make the sort of areas you see in CoD4 look good. It's mostly right angles, with little complex vegetation and undergrowth and you don't need much draw distance. Crysis is just the opposite. There's a reason you didn't see any large jungle environments before Far Cry. They're really hard to pull off. I guarantee that if they tried to do a big island in the CoD 4 engine it would look worse than Far Cry. Same for UEIII, even though that engine does have a lot of untapped potential in other areas.
Click to expand...

I agree. COD4 is mostly urban areas that are decimated. The engine pulls it off nicely, but it isn't nearly the same thing as complex jungle enviroments.
 
jmackay said:
If you have an older version of fraps there are problems in Vista/64 iirc. Make sure you have a recent version.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that can make all the difference. I had to update FRAPS when I switched to Vista x64.
 
Only game where FRAPS hasn't worked for me is, oddly, Company of Heroes. It just spits out 999 and occasionally drops down to what must be a real number (generally when the framerate drops for a second- seems to drop to 45-50, which seems about right for some of the drops). It actually had been working until I put my second card in (second card works nicely in that though- get very smooth 16xAA).
 
It runs horrible on my computer and I dont know why. I get about 25-30 FPS average at 1920x1200 resolution, everything maxed except for shadows and that fog smoothing option. if I turn those on my system CRAWLS. Even when I turn almost everything off and run at 800x600 (the "optimal" settings the game gives me) I only get about 50fps avg. I'm sure it has something to do with SLI probably not working correctly once again, so if anyone has my card working well... let me know what you did!! Last time I spend more than $300 on a video card thats for damn sure.

My system:
Opteron 165 @ 2.6ghz
A8N-SLI
2GB DDR
Geforce 7950GX2 @ 565core 760mem w/ 169.04
Soundblaster x-fi
 
at 1600 x 1200 with all settings at max except aa :


2007-12-26 19:34:36 - iw3mp
Frames: 7492 - Time: 120172ms - Avg: 62.343 - Min: 35 - Max: 93

2007-12-26 19:36:37 - iw3mp
Frames: 2985 - Time: 51717ms - Avg: 57.717 - Min: 38 - Max: 93

2007-12-26 19:37:31 - iw3mp
Frames: 4411 - Time: 83956ms - Avg: 52.539 - Min: 36 - Max: 92

2007-12-26 19:38:56 - iw3mp
Frames: 3464 - Time: 67963ms - Avg: 50.968 - Min: 25 - Max: 92

2007-12-26 19:40:05 - iw3mp
Frames: 9101 - Time: 140602ms - Avg: 64.728 - Min: 29 - Max: 93

2007-12-26 19:42:27 - iw3mp
Frames: 5616 - Time: 109334ms - Avg: 51.365 - Min: 33 - Max: 80

2007-12-26 19:44:18 - iw3mp
Frames: 9158 - Time: 166066ms - Avg: 55.146 - Min: 33 - Max: 93

2007-12-26 19:47:04 - iw3mp
Frames: 6172 - Time: 108520ms - Avg: 56.874 - Min: 34 - Max: 93

those are all mp maps in xp with my 8800 at stock speeds. ill will do some more testing with vista.
 
I believe it's /cg_drawfps 1 in the console.

Shiznit: What you using to show your GPU temps in the corner like that? 3rd party or in game command? I've not seen that before.
Also, how did you change the FOV to 70 or is that the default for cod 4? In COD 2 there was a way to change it, but punkbuster would not allow it. Are you able to play online with alterered fov?

When I was running SLI, I had the fps capped at 125fps running on my 2 7900GTOs. On medium settings at 1680x1050, the game would usually be above 60fps, but sometimes drop to around 30fps or so during gunbattles. This, of course, is not good since it slows down the rate of your gunfire. so I dropped it to 1024x760 with everything on low. I then had 125fps fairly constant with drops to around 90fps in gunbattle. Pretty awesome fps but not so much for graphics.

Yesterday, I got my 8800GT SC and am now bumped back up to 1680x1050 and see no reason not to have vsync on since there is only one video card now. Game never drops below 60fps. Runs smooth as hell and rate of fire is constant. Looks alot better now too. I bumped some of the settings up. If I have shadows enabled, I take a 15-20fps drop so I keep shadows off for now. I still have an ancient processor and ram so that will be my next upgrade after tax refunds :D
 
I have High Res, Max Settings, Max AA and AF. I am running it on an 8600GTS for the time being. The game isn't a system hog period...
 
Frag0Lution said:
I have High Res, Max Settings, Max AA and AF. I am running it on an 8600GTS for the time being. The game isn't a system hog period...
Click to expand...

How exactly are you running it with "max AA" and "High Res" on a 8600gts? I have AA turned off @ 1600x1200 with my 8800GTS 640mb. Sure your Max AA isn't only with your SLI 8800?
 
jmackay said:
How exactly are you running it with "max AA" and "High Res" on a 8600gts? I have AA turned off @ 1600x1200 with my 8800GTS 640mb. Sure your Max AA isn't only with your SLI 8800?
Click to expand...

You have no AA on w/your 8800GTS? I had a single factory OCed 8800GTS that was able to handle 4xMSAA or 8xCSAA at 50-60fps (I have two now, so 16xMSAA is a given).
 
TerranUp16 said:
You have no AA on w/your 8800GTS? I had a single factory OCed 8800GTS that was able to handle 4xMSAA or 8xCSAA at 50-60fps (I have two now, so 16xMSAA is a given).
Click to expand...

o_O, at what resolution? 1280x1024?

I got mid-high 30s when using 4xAA (set in game) so I just turned it off and got 60+. Vista 32bit @ 1600x1200
 
1600x1200, 16xAF, vsync, all settings maxed- that's in XP though (but Vista x64 just arrived today, so...).
 
Hmm... well I am using older drivers so maybe thats part of the problem (2-3 months old?), as I haven't played games much lately besides the two nights of CoD4.
 
1280x1024 2xAA 16xAF everything maxed averages about 45 fps in MP on my HD3870. Sometimes it gets a little choppy with a lot of players on but I think that has to do more with my slow processor and RAM than anything else.
 
Oline61 said:
1280x1024 2xAA 16xAF everything maxed averages about 45 fps in MP on my HD3870. Sometimes it gets a little choppy with a lot of players on but I think that has to do more with my slow processor and RAM than anything else.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine so.
 
I also occasionally get some choppiness while playing online, but I'm 100% certain that's just from server lag (I check my ping every time ;)). Besides, my rig has held CoD 4 steady even in a 50-player TDM match on Shipment when I had a sufficiently low ping ;)
 
Just for reference...

I run 1360x768 in a 16:9 format
2xAA and 8xAF
Everything else as high as it goes*
*except for shadows

I've got a coupe things tweaked in my config_mp too.

iw3mp2007120802145712fo5.jpg


iw3mp2007120802244615rk4.jpg


iw3mp2007120622281109hv5.jpg


iw3mp2007120622263750ym6.jpg


iw3mp2007121303554884sc0.jpg


iw3mp2007121117002379gx9.jpg
 
on my system i get about 65fps avg, with 35fps being the low. that is at 1600x1200 4xaa max everything in xp, i havent tried the game in vista yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top