COD: Black Ops 3 PC graphics performance review

it's new freshhh...agree with other say to wait 2-3 patches&update

hopefully not a mesh..:bed:

 

I can't believe there's still people spending actual money on anything with that name (COD).....:3eyes:

 

What an utterly bizarre comment.

 

I can't believe you thought this was worthy of posting. Nice crap post.

 

Call of Duty series has sold over 175 million copies...If you were part owner/owner of this Cash Cow your opinion would be different...

But then again...maybe not...

 

PF disabled and virtual memory commit charge was at 26gb.

 

Here is a pic of the credit screen:

Spoiler

It's using 16.5Gb of DDR3 2400mhz system ram. It is committing 29.5Gb of that system ram.
It's using 53% of an i7 4930k @ 4.4ghz
It's pushing 3 290x's at 100%
It's using 3.69Gb of vram

Seriously...I have no words. It's a plain black screen with white letters.

 

!!! IT commits 30 GB and use 16.5 GB for a tri-fire!

:eek3:

Hopeful you have 32 GB of RAM.

Where are the usual "experts" saying 16 GB of real RAM is overkill and 8 GB is enough!

:fart:

LOL

 

As a RAM Glutton it wins over GTA V by more than a GB.

Right after the intro/cutscene:

i3700 locked at 4.1 Ghz (unparked)

CFX 2x290X (4 GB) 1150/1600

Installed RAM: 32 GB

Page file for all disk drives: 0 bytes

Used RAM 11.3 GB

Commited RAM: 17.6 GB




....

 

Regarding the FCAT part: "BTW for FCAT I need a DVI (Dual-link) output, hence I cannot use the Fury X or NANO here (otherwise I would have done so of course)."

According to the charts you also tested the game with an "R9 Fury" and since you have reviewed only the ASUS Strix R9 Fury I assume the same card (which has a Dual link DVI-D output) was used in this benchmark.
So may I ask - if I assume the above correctly - why didn't your run the FCAT test on this "R9 Fury" instead ?

 

How does the game work with min settings?

 

It doesn't. Seriously anyone with close to the min settings are having really bad issues.

 

My gosh

 

18GB. Hefty.

 

Hmm, looks like I'm not the only one experiencing texture not loading. Talked to a few guys today with in game chat with the same issue.

Luckily for me it only affects multiplayer and disabling SLI fixes it. The guys I talked to couldn't fix it at all.

 

I think it seems the common theme with those having SLI/CFX users is we all have more than 4 cores. Everyone I have seen with 6 or 8 cores is running into major issues in the SP campaign with SLI/CFX. Seems like peeps with 4770k etc.. are running just fine.

 

And still the game looks like s**t compared to Battlefield 4/hardline.
They didn't understand that a military game without destruction is S**T uke2:, and again more intense than Battlefield, worse graphics and ultra unoptimised (broken Crossfire for now, I need to play it with 1 GPU only) -> Piece of S**t.
I was expecting more... and I was a fan of COD once... damn :rpg:

 

It doesn't really look worse, and the good thing is that it's look is consistent.
Battlefield looks great here, ugly there and has terrible LOD problems.

 

+1 on this. I am one of the people whose last COD was Modern Warfare. The rest was just commercial games only. No soul, just milking! Now the new COD is so expensive here, much more than games like MGSPP. Ridiculous specially if one takes into account that the former is a masterpiece while the second is more of the same with sub-par graphics.