COD:AW Benchmarks

[saratoga172]

I can confirm sli was not working for me. I've got 2 x gtx780ti's in sli and only one was being used while playing. Maybe I need to modify some settings or play with profiles but it was definitely not working for me.

Having said that the game still felt smooth for graphics. Playing at 2560x1600. I got around 60-75 fps. I did notice a bit of lag and weak connections to the mp servers I connected too. I'm sure they'll resolve that with a patch. Seems to be common.

 

[desprado]

sli works but not cf.

No both Do not work.SLI and CF both do not have support yet.

 

[Silverforce11]

Terrible AAA releases this year, so many go on sale for ridiculous prices on PC without even caring about PC gamers leaving out CF & SLI support.

Shameful. Will not support lazy devs.

 

[davie jambo]

Terrible AAA releases this year, so many go on sale for ridiculous prices on PC without even caring about PC gamers leaving out CF & SLI support.

Shameful. Will not support lazy devs.

Nonsense It's been a great year for AAA games , also CF and SLI have never worked straight away on a lot of games over a lot of years.

 

[desprado]

Terrible AAA releases this year, so many go on sale for ridiculous prices on PC without even caring about PC gamers leaving out CF & SLI support.

Shameful. Will not support lazy devs.

Yup most shameful year for CF and SLI user.

 

[guskline]

No both Do not work.SLI and CF both do not have support yet.

You appear to be correct. I disabled CF and still was averaging 89 fps, max 94 with a single 290 (OC'd)^_^

I wonder if Activision will work with either Nvidia or AMD or both to get a SLI/CF profile?

 

[KaRLiToS]

You appear to be correct. I disabled CF and still was averaging 89 fps, max 94 with a single 290 (OC'd)^_^

I wonder if Activision will work with either Nvidia or AMD or both to get a SLI/CF profile?

I'm almost certain they already have profiles for their next drivers.

 

[desprado]

I'm almost certain they already have profiles for their next drivers.

nvidia has already launch COD AW game ready driver with SLI support today.

 

[psolord]

Studying Gamegpu.ru's benchmarks I saw something strange!

The cpu performance when using a GTX 980 and when using a R9 290x!



I mean wtf?

How can the lowest performing processors perform so much better with the Nvidia card? Even the dual cores perform much better! :S

 

[96Firebird]

Other games are like that too, some say there is less driver overhead with the Nvidia cards. Who knows what the actual reason is though.

 

[davie jambo]

Wait for a driver update or some of the other sites to test the game

 

[psolord]

Other games are like that too, some say there is less driver overhead with the Nvidia cards. Who knows what the actual reason is though.

Has any other site studied this? Is this a driver issue or an architecture advancement in Nvidia's part? Do older series present the same differences?

I mean we are not talking a couple of frames here. We are talking differences of 65% here. This is HUGE.

If that is true, what's the point of Mantle and everything? If Nvidia does have so much lower overhead, it's game set and match already.

Especially in an era where CPU advancements are drops in the ocean, such difference should be highlighted by every entity involved, especially Nvidia.

I mean if I was Nvidia and knew this, I would throw out slides that said look guys we are much faster with the same cpu or something!

Think of it differently, getting an Nvidia card over an AMD one, would be like getting a 60% faster cpu as well, when gaming! This is HUGE!

 

[davie jambo]

Has any other site studied this? Is this a driver issue or an architecture advancement in Nvidia's part? Do older series present the same differences?

I mean we are not talking a couple of frames here. We are talking differences of 65% here. This is HUGE.

If that is true, what's the point of Mantle and everything? If Nvidia does have so much lower overhead, it's game set and match already.

Especially in an era where CPU advancements are drops in the ocean, such difference should be highlighted by every entity involved, especially Nvidia.

I mean if I was Nvidia and knew this, I would throw out slides that said look guys we are much faster with the same cpu or something!

Think of it differently, getting an Nvidia card over an AMD one, would be like getting a 60% faster cpu as well, when gaming! This is HUGE!

It's not true though , other websites are showing the R9 290x above the 970

 

[96Firebird]

It's not true though , other websites are showing the R9 290x above the 970

You aren't understanding what we're talking about.

But I took a look through the most recent game tests, Alien Isolation seems to be the only other one where they have both AMD and Nvidia CPU tests. Shows a large difference between the two, but all those CPUs seem to work well enough for the game.

 

[RussianSensation]

is it me, or in this card generation 980 is faster than usual than x70 part?

and not just in COD AW where 980 is 20% ahead.

It depends on which generation you compare.

GTX480 vs. GTX470
1920x1080 4AA = 28% faster
1920x1080 8AA = 30% faster
2560x1600 4AA = 31% faster
2560x1600 8AA = 37% faster
Average = 31.5% faster
http://www.computerbase.de/2010-11/test-nvidia-geforce-gtx-580/20/

Since 480 cost $500 and 470 $350, every 1% increase over 470 cost $4.76.

GTX580 vs. GTX570
1920x1080 4AA = 17% faster
1920x1080 8AA = 21% faster
2560x1600 4AA = 21% faster
2560x1600 8AA = 25% faster
Average = 21% faster
http://www.computerbase.de/2012-03/test-nvidia-geforce-gtx-680/12/

Since 580 cost $500 and 570 $350, every 1% increase over 570 cost $7.14.

GTX680 vs. GTX670
1920x1080 4AA = 11% faster
1920x1080 8AA = 9% faster
2560x1600 4AA = 10% faster
2560x1600 8AA = 7% faster
5760x1080 4AA = 10% faster
Average = 9.4% faster
http://www.computerbase.de/2013-05/nvidia-geforce-gtx-770-test/4/

Since 680 cost $500 and 670 $400, every 1% increase over 670 cost $10.64.

GTX780 vs. GTX770
1920x1080 4AA = 15% faster
1920x1080 8AA = 20% faster
2560x1600 4AA = 19% faster
2560x1600 8AA = 25% faster
5760x1080 4AA = 26% faster
Average = 21% faster

Since 780 cost $650 when GTX770 came out at $400, every 1% increase over 770 cost $11.90.

GTX980 vs. GTX970
1920x1080 4AA = 17% faster
1920x1080 SSAA = 17% faster
2560x1600 4AA = 19% faster
2560x1600 SSAA = 19% faster
4K = 17% faster
Average = 17.8% faster

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/...vidia/6/#diagramm-rating-1920-1080-4xaa-16xaf
and
http://www.computerbase.de/2014-09/...vidia/6/#diagramm-rating-1920-1080-4xaa-16xaf

Since the cheapest 980 costs $550 and 970 is $330, every 1% increase in performance over 970 costs $12.36.

Of course comparing performance without attributing what it costs to obtain the extra performance is rather meaningless. That's why we have to take into consideration how much extra does it cost to get 980's average performance increase over 970 relative to previous generation x80 vs. x70 comparisons. In that context, it means that starting with GTX470/480, NV has continuously worsened the price/performance of every x80 part, with 980 naturally being the worst x80 card in price/performance over x70 card in the last 5 years.

^ This is why I like mathematics to do the talking since it really puts things in perspective without any emotions getting in the way of logic. That's why I've always maintained that 480 was a great flagship card despite its higher power use but to me 980 is severly overpriced low wattage mid-range card marketed as flagship by NV.

Stupid Nvidia, hurry up with the 980 Ti so I can pay a $1K over here and get it in. Will not buy a piffling mid range card. And yes the 980 is $700+ here. Want 980 Ti NOW.

Agreed. In Canada some after-market 980's approach $700+ CDN, which after taxes is > $800 CDN. But since people are now paying $700-800 CDN for mid-range next gen parts, NV is laughing all the way to the bank. That could mean GM200 flagship at $1K Australian/Canadian is going to be wishful thinking in 2015. NV may easily raise 780Ti's successor's price to $900-1000 USD seeing how people are jumping all over $550-600 USD mid-range 980 4GB card!

 

[Grooveriding]

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-page...-graphics-performance-benchmark-review,7.html

Just the same tired 7 year old poorly optimized turd of an engine they use for this game every year. Looks like mid range cards can do 60fps in this trainwreck. COD sells very poorly on PC, it's really more a console game that they toss together a crappy port of for PC as well.

On those graphs a mid range card from several years ago is doing 60fps. COD should go all in on console and just leave the PC platform, Ubisoft and Activision have no idea what the hell they are doing when it comes to making a decent game for PC.

 

[96Firebird]

Did you just say it is poorly optimized, yet upset that it runs fine on older hardware?

Are you just into using buzzwords?

 

[desprado]

Well here is also an benchmark video
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2...e-tests-windows-8-1-1080p-1440p-4k_videogames

 

[davie jambo]

Where is the poorly optimized part ?

Oh look R9 290x in second place

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Has any other site studied this? Is this a driver issue or an architecture advancement in Nvidia's part? Do older series present the same differences?

I mean we are not talking a couple of frames here. We are talking differences of 65% here. This is HUGE.

If that is true, what's the point of Mantle and everything? If Nvidia does have so much lower overhead, it's game set and match already.

Especially in an era where CPU advancements are drops in the ocean, such difference should be highlighted by every entity involved, especially Nvidia.

I mean if I was Nvidia and knew this, I would throw out slides that said look guys we are much faster with the same cpu or something!

Think of it differently, getting an Nvidia card over an AMD one, would be like getting a 60% faster cpu as well, when gaming! This is HUGE!

I've seen some tests way back showing nvidia gpu's performing better with amd cpu's than amd's own cards, but since most games were ps360 ports and intel cpu's were fast it wasn't really an issue. When amd started pushing mantle nvidia's driver team has been focussing on cpu overhead even more.

It might be something stupid though, nvidia introduced a "shader cache" feature in the driver. Some game engines have their own shader cache feature, maybe cod devs didn't bother? Anyway, just speculating here, might just need a driver update, cod is pretty much dead on pc, maybe amd's driver team just focusses on games people actually want to play.

 

[Grooveriding]

Agreed. In Canada some after-market 980's approach $700+ CDN, which after taxes is > $800 CDN. But since people are now paying $700-800 CDN for mid-range next gen parts, NV is laughing all the way to the bank. That could mean GM200 flagship at $1K Australian/Canadian is going to be wishful thinking in 2015. NV may easily raise 780Ti's successor's price to $900-1000 USD seeing how people are jumping all over $550-600 USD mid-range 980 4GB card!

GM200 price is going to depend solely on whether or not AMD has a 390X that is appreciably faster than the 980 out at the time of its release. If they don't GM200 will possibly get the $1000 Titan treatment, alternately we see at least a $700 980ti for it.

I'd like to see both of them get on with it. Titan released almost two years ago and we haven't seen any major improvements since. The 980 is less than 10% on average over a 780ti and I hope the intention is not to use it as a long-term flagship part, but to just milk it for $500 as a filler and then release the big card. It's getting ridiculous as we move into the fourth year of 28nm.

 

[desprado]

NVM Edited.

 

[Carfax83]

is it me, or in this card generation 980 is faster than usual than x70 part?

and not just in COD AW where 980 is 20% ahead.

I'd say it's the opposite. A lot of these reviews are using reference models, and the clock speed on the reference GTX 970 is much lower than on the reference GTX 980..

When you use aftermarket parts though, the performance gap shrinks significantly..

 

[Grooveriding]

Aren't there quite a few disabled units on the 970 compared to the 980 ? A higher percentage than we've seen in the past comparing the top to second top card ?

 

[raghu78]

Here is another benchmark from computerbase.de

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-11/...diagramm-grafikkarten-benchmarks-in-2560-1600

GTX 980 is once again the indisputable leader at all resolutions with a clear margin of 17 - 20% ahead of the next card at all resolutions. GTX 970 edges out R9 290X at 1600p and at 4k its vice-versa. Surprisingly the GTX 780 Ti falls behind the R9 290X at 1600p and even the R9 290 at 4k. Even the guru3d charts show the R9 290X beating the 780 Ti at 1600p and 4k.