Call of Duty: Ghosts Benchmarked
Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Wanted:
- Specialist News Writer
- Magazine Writer
- Translator (DE<->EN)
Details here
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.
Join our Support Satisfaction Survey 2023: We want to hear about your experiences!
Participate here
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.
Top 10 Laptops
Multimedia, Budget Multimedia, Gaming, Budget Gaming, Lightweight Gaming, Business, Budget Office, Workstation, Subnotebooks, Ultrabooks, Chromebooks
under 300 USD/Euros, under 500 USD/Euros, 1,000 USD/Euros, for University Students, Best Displays
Top 10 Smartphones
Smartphones, Phablets, ≤6-inch, Camera Smartphones
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 | |
HD Graphics 4000, 3610QM | |
HD Graphics 4600, 4702MQ | |
GeForce GT 630M, 3720QM | |
Iris Pro Graphics 5200, 4750HQ, Intel SSD 525 Series SSDMCEAC180B3 | |
GeForce GT 640M, 2637M, Lite-On LMT-256M3M | |
GeForce GT 750M, 4702MQ | |
Radeon R7 250, 3770K | |
GeForce GTX 660M, 3610QM | |
GeForce GTX 670MX, 3610QM | |
GeForce GTX 760M, 4700HQ, Liteonit LMT-128M6M | |
GeForce GTX 765M, 4700MQ | |
GeForce GTX 675MX, 3610QM | |
GeForce GTX 770M, 4700MQ | |
Radeon HD 7970M, 3610QM | |
Radeon HD 8970M, 4700MQ | |
GeForce GTX 680M, 3610QM | |
GeForce GTX 780M, 4700MQ | |
GeForce GTX 660 Ti, 3770K | |
Radeon R9 280X, 3770K | |
GeForce GTX 680, 2600K, Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB MZ7PD256HAFV-0Z000 |
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