Mulitiple Performance tests across 3 pc setups -

[matsher]

Na worries,

I reckon that most guys have Vista or Win 7
thats why there is little response on this post.

gtx260 is not a card for med to high end PCs..more like low end of today

[FlatSpinMan]

Nonetheless, that is not a trifling PC. And a lot of people still use XP, even though they(we) will be upgrading in a year or two.
I've got 2 copies coming my way and though my PC is below spec I'll see what happens when I try and install it anyway. The other copy will go to a mate.
I'm amazed after a week away from the PC just how many problems are being experienced after such a long development time.

Thanks for posting the results of your tests. Maybe there IS some hardware issue in them but as you said, your minimum spec machine chews up most games so it is entirely reasonable to think it would handle CloD at least reasonably well.

Hopefully it'll be like Rise of Flight which has got lighter and lighter on systems in recent patches. I really hope the game and Maddox Games survive this initial period as I'd love to see this game move on to other areas.

[jibo]

gamers should upgrade to Win7/DX10

[diveplane]

Originally Posted by Tvrdi

gtx260 is not a card for med to high end PCs..more like low end of today

gtx260 imo is med range card, by no means low end.

[kindred]

Yes the GTX 260 is mid range. I can play Crysis 2 and it's playable on hardcore settings at 1920x1080, so I would expect to be able to play COD with decent fps.

[matsher]

Look chaps,

The GPU is not the be all and end all of your pc... The CPU is very important and so is RAM a factor. The phenom II and the GPU with 896mb Ram put the 3rd set up well above med spec.
for this game. Thats the point. The 260 GTX is a strong card in any language is is comparible to the muc bigger cards available.
The point of this exercise is to see if there was much performance difference between
the lowest quoted "playable" set up and the recommended set up.

It has shown us that the diferences are barly noticilbe. So what that logically points to is
massive optimisation areas that need to be addressed. With this bradn new patch released the other day, already there is a big improvement in the way the effects are handled.
In my first post I noted that bullet splashes in water crushed framerates to 0-1.
Now there is no slow down at all when shooting water or ground.
So a small but clear improvement. as well as a few others.

[TonyD]

I would think that the major limiting factor with your pc is the OS - try Win7 and I'm sure you'll find that it runs it a great deal better. Crysis 2 is not a good indicator as it uses DirectX 9, and therefore XP handles it OK.

Luthier has said elswhere (?) that most of the worst glitches are associated with DX9 - others using a GTX260 with Win7/Vista have not had these hassles. Oh, and you'll need more RAM, too.

[matsher]

yeah, you're right...

My next step will be a new Mther board, one that can run all these new goodies, properly, my mother board is not helping matters, its too old, I will also get the ram at the same time... Then, next on the list is a new 6950 GPU.

However the reasons for the post was to test performance on a min spec machine and see if there are any real world gains using stronger hardware and the differences between them.

I am still pretty convinced that when optimized as it should be my machine should be able to run the sim comfortably. None of should have to upgrade to NASA spec just to have smooth gameplay.