FPS COMPARISON 1.02.14821 vs 1.03.15527 @ 09-08-2011

[SPUDLEY1977]

Ice,
I have been shopping for an SSD 64GB Crucial M4, as the latest SSD technology is not quite ready for prime time as our HD technology is. Once I locate one at the correct price point I will get one.

[Icebear]

Originally Posted by SPUDLEY1977

Ice,
I have been shopping for an SSD 64GB Crucial M4, as the latest SSD technology is not quite ready for prime time as our HD technology is. Once I locate one at the correct price point I will get one.

hmmm...don't think you got me right. I'm talking about the video RAM of the graphic adapter, not about SSD or HDD. Anyway, I'm running a 256GB Crucial m4 and a 1TB Western Digital Black Caviar at SATA6. Tested CloD on both drives with no remarkable difference, except the loading times.

[LoBiSoMeM]

The "new" graphics engine is just this FPS killer blue filter?



Can't resist... And i'm a fanboy...

[SPUDLEY1977]

Now steam is jacked and the normal connection steps are rejected. Steam blows

[mazex]

Originally Posted by Icebear

hmmm...don't think you got me right. I'm talking about the video RAM of the graphic adapter, not about SSD or HDD. Anyway, I'm running a 256GB Crucial m4 and a 1TB Western Digital Black Caviar at SATA6. Tested CloD on both drives with no remarkable difference, except the loading times.

A game that gets better performance from a faster disk accept occasional loading times is in serious need of optimization... Regarding RAM memory speed there is in my experience very little performance to gain from that for gaming. A few percent maybe but never in the same league as changing GPU (and the memory bandwidth of that GPU) or CPU (which naturally in many cases gives a good memory speed boost as new CPU:s have faster memory access through new chipsets, memory types etc). But if you have an i7 2600k for example and go from memory clocked at 1600Mhz to 1866Mhz or even 2000Mhz the performance gain in a game like CoD should be hard to measure... Someone sure have some benchmark available.

EDIT:

Link to comparison of different memory speeds and it's impact on the Sandy Bridge chipset (which most of us with new rigs use here):

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20377/3

[Vengeanze]

This is my 3DMark Score before and after adding more RAM:

• P12 688 with 4GB RAM
• P12 718 with 12GB RAM

[LoBiSoMeM]

The bottlenecks of this sim are CPU+RAM.

ANY graphics settings here have minor FPS impact than number of AI aircrafts and ground units ingame - even if I can't see these units.

I believe that the direction needed is focus in more RAM usage and multicore suport. Looking at the graphics engine only is poor. Test for yourselves.

[Fall_Pink?]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

The bottlenecks of this sim are CPU+RAM.

ANY graphics settings here have minor FPS impact than number of AI aircrafts and ground units ingame - even if I can't see these units.

I believe that the direction needed is focus in more RAM usage and multicore suport. Looking at the graphics engine only is poor. Test for yourselves.

Sorry, have to disagree. I use a i2600 and 8 Gb ram and CoD hardly uses it. 50% of first core is used and only 15 to 20% (often less) of the other ones. ~ 6 Gb ram is enough for this game, but as always the more the better but that's purely meant for Windows to be used.

The bottleneck is still the game itself; it simply does not make optimal use of latest multi core cpu's.

What it does however is, is put a hefty load on the GPU when you run near max video settings.

Rgs,
FP

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Fall_Pink?

Sorry, have to disagree. I use a i2600 and 8 Gb ram and CoD hardly uses it. 50% of first core is used and only 15 to 20% (often less) of the other ones. ~ 6 Gb ram is enough for this game, but as always the more the better but that's purely meant for Windows to be used.

The bottleneck is still the game itself; it simply does not make optimal use of latest multi core cpu's.

What it does however is, is put a hefty load on the GPU when you run near max video settings.

Rgs,
FP

So, you are talking the same: CloD don't use multicore CPU power in an optimal way. And the game itself uses only 1.5GB. It's not good if FPS drop with lots of objects NOT IN SIGHT.

CloD uses all GPU power available. And if the game doen not make optimal use of latest mulit core GPU's, the bottleneck IS CPU and RAM...

[Mr Greezy]

Originally Posted by mazex

A game that gets better performance from a faster disk accept occasional loading times is in serious need of optimization...

Exactly. You can't have a game with massive stutters, an inability to run SLI, and crazy FPS dips and then have "the fix" be a SSD. I've got one...guess what, it still runs like something is broken.