Call of Duty: Ghosts Benchmarked

In the shadow of the competition. Almost parallel to Battlefield 4's release, Activision sends the newest edition of their Call of Duty series to the market. With its modern graphics the action game wants to seize its genre's throne. Our article deals primarily with the title's hardware demands. Can the engine make Call of Duty: Ghosts fun for PC gamers too?

Florian Glaser, ✓ Stefanie Voigt (translated by Ariana Brodsky), Published 11/15/2013 🇩🇪

Gaming

For the original German article, see here.

Graphics

We'll clearly state from the outset: No, Call of Duty: Ghosts isn't the graphics masterpiece that some gamers hoped it would be. Although the developers' efforts are clearly evident, most of the textures and effects don't attain to the level of Battlefield 4 or Crysis 3.

Ghosts tries to make up for this shortcoming -- as the Call of Duty series often must -- by starting off the staging with a bang. Compared to the earlier installations, now there are considerably more debris and physics elements, though the latter often seem "scripted" and not particularly dynamic. Overall, the graphics quality levels out to be no better than somewhere between decent and good. Gamers with high expectations will be quite disappointed.

The title also deserves criticism for its steep hardware demands. Without 6 GB of working memory (they claim it only needs a maximum of 2 GB), a graphics card that supports DirectX 11, and a 64-bit operating system, Ghosts refuses to function. Even Battlefield 4, which plays in a whole other league in terms of visuals and sound, doesn't demand this much. The game's enormous space requirement is another shortcoming. Despite its mediocre texture quality, Ghosts takes up about 40 GB of hard drive space. Like its main competitors, its load times could be shorter too.

The graphics menu also leaves us ambivalent. On the plus side, there are a lot of options. The ego-shooter doesn't offer any global presets, but PC users will still be excited about all the possible settings. For instance, in terms of anti-aliasing variants, Activision integrated FXAA, MSAA, SMAA and TXAA. We're less fond of the chaotic naming scheme (On vs. Yes, Off vs. No, etc.) and the lack of user-friendliness. Couldn't they have put some of the options on a separate screen, so the player wouldn't have to scroll for so long? Also annoying: Most changes automatically force the game to restart.

All this, combined with the following bugs and inconsistencies, arouse the suspicion that Ghosts wasn't really optimized for the PC:

Although the graphics aren't all that different, the game needs considerably more hardware power than Black Ops II.
You get the shortest load times with Nvidia graphics cards. AMD systems tend to take longer. Intel chips seem to take an eternity.
AMD GPUs compute -- especially at moderate settings -- slower than their Nvidia counterparts. The Enduro graphics switching is probably partly responsible for that (the Catalyst 13.11 Beta 9 was unfortunately released too late for us to use it in our tests).
If an Intel graphics accelerator is installed, the menus' responsiveness is jerky and there are delays that last more than a second. Worst case scenario, the screen freezes completely.
After load operations, AMD models have to cope with short drops in performance. In general, the frame rates vary more with AMD cards than with Nvidia models.
After settings changes the screen often goes black. Hitting the "Esc" key fixes the problem.
With high-end devices the game sometimes runs more fluidly on normal graphics settings than on low settings.

Benchmark

We used the beginning of the fifth mission ("homecoming") as our benchmark sequence. After a helicopter landing with jets zooming by, the protagonist follows his colleagues through a battle zone. Alongside explosions and numerous effects (smoke, fire, etc.), the around 45-second clip also features a ton of characters, who are no light load for the hardware.

Over the course of the game there are certainly more demanding scenes, but the sequence is still taxing. Like with Battlefield 4, you'll want at least 40 or even 50 fps on average.

Results

Considering the game's visuals, its hardware hunger is too high. Despite numerous deficits, the title's performance is similar to that of Battlefield 4. With entry-level chips, like the Intel HD Graphics 4000 or 4600, the game only plays at minimum settings and resolution. Even at those low settings it jerks now and then. Owners of mid-range GPUs, starting with the GeForce GT 640M, can at least switch to normal details and 1366x768 pixels.

For high settings and activated anti-aliasing, you'll definitely need a high-end model. The GeForce GTX 760M was the first card to run the game smoothly at those settings. Graphics freaks who expect to be able to use 1920x1080 pixels, maximum graphics options and 4x MSAA will need a GeForce GTX 780M or a dual-GPU system (the HD 8970M and GTX 770M are too weak).

Call of Duty: Ghosts
1920x1080 Extra / High / HBAO+ / No dynamic fur AA:4x MS 1366x768 High / On / Yes / No dynamic fur AA:2x MS 1366x768 Normal / Off / No 1024x768 (Very) Low / Off / No
Radeon HD 7660G, A10-4600M, Samsung SSD 830 Series MZ-7PC0128D/EU AMD Pumori Platform A10-4600M	3.4 (0.1^min) fps ∼3% 12.8 (8^min) fps ∼9% 24.6 (6^min) fps ∼12% 37 (23^min) fps ∼16%
HD Graphics 4000, 3610QM Schenker XMG P502	4 (0^min) fps ∼4% 7.2 (0^min) fps ∼5% 24.3 (0^min) fps ∼12% 40.6 (0^min) fps ∼17%
HD Graphics 4600, 4702MQ Schenker M503	5.2 (0^min) fps ∼5% 10.1 (0^min) fps ∼7% 27.4 (0^min) fps ∼13% 40.8 (0^min) fps ∼17%
GeForce GT 630M, 3720QM Asus N56VM	6.4 (0.1^min) fps ∼6% 14.9 (10^min) fps ∼11% 26.8 (16^min) fps ∼13% 41.8 (29^min) fps ∼18%
Iris Pro Graphics 5200, 4750HQ, Intel SSD 525 Series SSDMCEAC180B3 Schenker S413	8.7 (4^min) fps ∼9% 16.7 (12^min) fps ∼12% 40.1 (26^min) fps ∼20% 58 (38^min) fps ∼24%
GeForce GT 640M, 2637M, Lite-On LMT-256M3M Acer Aspire M3-581TG	8.9 (5^min) fps ∼9% 21.5 (14^min) fps ∼15% 40 (25^min) fps ∼20% 48.8 (29^min) fps ∼20%
GeForce GT 750M, 4702MQ Schenker M503	11.9 (0^min) fps ∼12% 27.5 (0^min) fps ∼20% 51.9 (0^min) fps ∼25% 67.4 (0^min) fps ∼28%
Radeon R7 250, 3770K Desktop-PC	13.5 (0^min) fps ∼14% 32.9 (0^min) fps ∼23% 69.3 (0^min) fps ∼34% 84 (0^min) fps ∼35%
GeForce GTX 660M, 3610QM Schenker XMG P502	16.3 (0^min) fps ∼16% 32.6 (0^min) fps ∼23% 59.4 (0^min) fps ∼29% 75.1 (0^min) fps ∼32%
GeForce GTX 670MX, 3610QM Schenker XMG P502	19.2 (0^min) fps ∼19% 38 (0^min) fps ∼27% 65.5 (0^min) fps ∼32% 81.1 (0^min) fps ∼34%
GeForce GTX 760M, 4700HQ, Liteonit LMT-128M6M Gigabyte P34G	20.5 (0^min) fps ∼21% 41.2 (0^min) fps ∼29% 72.4 (0^min) fps ∼35% 83.4 (0^min) fps ∼35%
GeForce GTX 765M, 4700MQ Schenker W503	21 (0^min) fps ∼21% 42.9 (0^min) fps ∼31% 77.6 (0^min) fps ∼38% 89.2 (0^min) fps ∼37%
GeForce GTX 675MX, 3610QM Schenker XMG P502	25.8 (0^min) fps ∼26% 44.8 (0^min) fps ∼32% 74.3 (0^min) fps ∼36% 76.5 (0^min) fps ∼32%
GeForce GTX 770M, 4700MQ Schenker W503	28.4 (0^min) fps ∼28% 53.4 (0^min) fps ∼38% 83.2 (0^min) fps ∼41% 87.7 (0^min) fps ∼37%
Radeon HD 7970M, 3610QM Schenker XMG P502	29.7 (0^min) fps ∼30% 49.8 (0^min) fps ∼36% 65.9 (0^min) fps ∼32% 68 (0^min) fps ∼29%
Radeon HD 8970M, 4700MQ Schenker W503	31 (0^min) fps ∼31% 53 (0^min) fps ∼38% 69.8 (0^min) fps ∼34% 70.3 (0^min) fps ∼30%
GeForce GTX 680M, 3610QM Schenker XMG P502	31.7 (0^min) fps ∼32% 55.3 (0^min) fps ∼39% 80 (0^min) fps ∼39% 82 (0^min) fps ∼34%
GeForce GTX 780M, 4700MQ Schenker W503	40.5 (0^min) fps ∼41% 65.2 (0^min) fps ∼47% 95.2 (0^min) fps ∼47% 86 (0^min) fps ∼36%
GeForce GTX 660 Ti, 3770K Desktop-PC	41.5 (0^min) fps ∼42% 70.2 (0^min) fps ∼50% 83.4 (0^min) fps ∼41% 84.1 (0^min) fps ∼35%
Radeon R9 280X, 3770K Desktop-PC	47.8 (0^min) fps ∼48% 69.2 (0^min) fps ∼49% 87.6 (0^min) fps ∼43% 84.2 (0^min) fps ∼35%
GeForce GTX 680, 2600K, Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV-0Z000 Desktop GTX 680, Intel Core i7-2600K	48.7 (27^min) fps ∼49% 70.8 (45^min) fps ∼50% 87.9 (50^min) fps ∼43% 99.7 (54^min) fps ∼42%

Verdict

The graphics don't really deserve to be termed "Next Gen". Call of Duty is only now at the level it could have been at years ago. Ghosts can't keep up with competitors like Crysis, Metro or Battlefield. Some of its textures are too spongy, and some of its effects are too antiquated.

It's better simply not to talk about the campaign. The story, gameplay and characters are reminiscent of a circus show. Unfortunately, the game just doesn't have much entertainment value for adults.

Test Systems

Our three most important test devices are courtesy of Schenker Technologies (mysn.de):

W503 (Core i7-4700MQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 765M, GTX 770M, GTX 780M, Radeon HD 8970M & HD Graphics 4600)
M503 (Core i7-4702MQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GT 750M & HD Graphics 4600)
XMG P502 (Core i7-3610QM, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 660M, GTX 670MX, GTX 675MX, GTX 680M, Radeon HD 7970M & HD Graphics 4000)

A further thank you goes to Micron for providing the 480 GB Crucial M500, on which Windows 7 Professional 64-bit is installed.

GPU drivers used: Nvidia 331.65, AMD 13.11 Beta 8 & Intel 9.18.10.3257

From left to right: Schenker Xesia M501, M503, XMG P502 & W503

Overview

Read all 6 comments / answer

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Editor of the original article: Florian Glaser - Managing Editor Gaming Laptops - 568 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2009

I discovered my interest in computers in my childhood, growing up with MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 in the early 1990s. I was especially fascinated with computer games, even from an early age. From Monkey Island through Lands of Lore to Doom, I tried every game I could get my hands on. I have been working for Notebookcheck since 2009 with my focus mostly being on high-performance gaming laptops.

Please share our article, every link counts!

.170

> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Archive of our own reviews > Call of Duty: Ghosts Benchmarked

Florian Glaser, 2013-11-15 (Update: 2021-05-18)

Pos	Model	< Prev Next > Call of Duty: Ghosts (2013)
Pos	Model	low 1024x768 (Very) Low / Off / No	med. 1366x768 Normal / Off / No	high 1366x768 High / On / Yes / No dynamic fur 2x MSAA	ultra 1920x1080 Extra / High / HBAO+ / No dynamic fur 4x MSAA
140	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980	182.6	165.6	115.4	77.1
153	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M SLI	238.3	204.1	140.2	90.2
168	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 Ti	170.1	154	110.6	81.8
196	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M SLI	97.2	91.4	75.1	71.2
198	AMD Radeon R9 290X				53.5ⁿ²
201	AMD Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire	53.2	50.1	37.4	27.1
205	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M	167ⁿ²	142.45ⁿ²	97.9ⁿ²	63.85ⁿ²
209	AMD Radeon R9 280X	84.2	87.6	69.2	47.8
220	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M	153.4	133.2	84.4	51.5
223	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M SLI	102.2	96.8	73.2	46.3
224	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680	99.7	87.9	70.8	48.7
242	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M	98ⁿ²	84.15ⁿ²	66.4ⁿ³	46.8ⁿ³
249	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti	84.1	83.4	70.2	41.5
250	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760	150.2	112.5	76.2	50
251	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M	86	95.2	65.2	40.5
257	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M	167.6	117.1	70.3	42.9
261	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M	87.3	83.4	57.15ⁿ²	37.25ⁿ²
262	AMD Radeon R9 M290X	58.6	55.9	44.7	33.2
263	AMD Radeon HD 8970M	70.3	69.8	53	31
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >Call of Duty: Ghosts
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra
267	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M SLI	91.4	83.3	65	40.7
269	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M	82	80	55.3	31.7
275	AMD Radeon HD 7970M	68	65.9	49.8	29.7
283	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti	150.7	99.3	58.6	34.6
306	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M	87.7	83.2	51.15ⁿ²	27.25ⁿ²
311	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M	83.5ⁿ⁵	78.15ⁿ⁶	51.4ⁿ⁷	31ⁿ⁷
314	NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M SLI		73	55.1	32
317	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX	76.5	74.3	44.8	25.8
326	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M	78.4ⁿ⁵	70.6ⁿ⁵	40.85ⁿ⁶	21.1ⁿ⁶
337	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M	89.2	77.6	42.9	21
366	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX	81.1	65.5	38	19.2
368	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M	80.95ⁿ²	65.7ⁿ²	39.2ⁿ²	19.65ⁿ²
377	AMD Radeon HD 8870M	31.1	24.6	19.4	11.6
397	AMD Radeon R7 250	84	69.3	32.9	13.5
398	NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M		54.1	35.1	17.9
400	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M	75.1	59.4	32.6	16.3
402	AMD Radeon HD 8850M	35.1	33.2	16.9
404	AMD Radeon R9 M265X	45.8	31.7	20.8	13.2
414	NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M	67.4	51.9	27.5	11.9
446	NVIDIA GeForce 840M	57.9ⁿ³	38.2ⁿ³	22ⁿ³	10.8
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >Call of Duty: Ghosts
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra
451	AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)	55
452	Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200	58	40.1	16.7	8.7
461	NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M	58.05ⁿ²	38.35ⁿ²	18.7ⁿ²	7.2
485	NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M	53.7	29.9	18.7
487	NVIDIA GeForce 825M	60.4	42.5	18.7
499	NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M	65.1	29.1	16.5	6.9
503	AMD Radeon HD 8750M	35.3	32.7	14.3
506	AMD Radeon R7 M265	32.8	31.1	8.6
511	NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M	48.8	40	21.5	8.9
531	AMD Radeon R7 M260	41.2	26.8
564	AMD Radeon HD 8670D	56.3	40.3	17.7	6.2
568	AMD Radeon R6 (Kaveri)	26.3	22.3
590	AMD Radeon HD 8650G + HD 8570M Dual Graphics	24.8	23.6	12.7
593	AMD Radeon HD 8670M	27.3	21.3
613	AMD Radeon HD 8650G	30.1	18.9
618	NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M	41.8	26.8	14.9	6.4
624	AMD Radeon R5 M255	42	28.1	15.1
628	NVIDIA GeForce 820M	53.7	30.6	15.4
632	NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M	51.3	34.9	15.8
636	AMD Radeon R5 M230	31.15ⁿ²	24.1ⁿ²	10.2ⁿ²	6.3
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >Call of Duty: Ghosts
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra
649	Intel Iris Graphics 5100	40.5	26.5	10.3	4.9
653	Intel HD Graphics 4600	40.8	27.4	10.1	5.2
655	Intel HD Graphics 5500	24.8
686	AMD Radeon HD 7660G	37	24.6	12.8	3.4
689	Intel HD Graphics 5000	24	20.5	6.2
705	AMD Radeon HD 8550G	33.6	19.7
726	Intel HD Graphics 4400	42	28	12
769	AMD Radeon HD 7480D	30.9	19.6	7.6
770	Intel HD Graphics 4000	40.6	24.3	7.2	4
777	AMD Radeon R4 (Beema)	12.3	7.7
782	Intel HD Graphics 4200	18.4	12.7	4.2
791	AMD Radeon HD 8450G	27.8	12.6	28
795	AMD Radeon HD 8400	14	12.3
813	AMD Radeon HD 8350G	20	13
814	AMD Radeon HD 8330	13.3
880	AMD Radeon HD 8280	11.9
915	AMD Radeon HD 8210	2.6

Legend
5	Stutters – This game is very likely to stutter and have poor frame rates. Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, average frame rates are expected to fall below 25fps
	May Stutter – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game. Based on interpolated information from surrounding graphics cards of similar performance levels, stutters and poor frame rates are expected.
30	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 25fps
40	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 35fps
60	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 58fps
	May Run Fluently – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game. Based on interpolated information from surrounding graphics cards of similar performance levels, fluent frame rates are expected.
?	Uncertain – This graphics card experienced unexpected performance issues during testing for this game. A slower card may be able to achieve better and more consistent frame rates than this particular GPU running the same benchmark scene.
	Uncertain – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game and no reliable interpolation can be made based on the performances of surrounding cards of the same class or family.
The value in the fields displays the average frame rate of all values in the database. Move your cursor over the value to see individual results.