Call of Duty 2 (Xbox 360 and PC comparison)

[Todd33]

I'm waiting for 360 fanboy Wingznut to acknowledge the above discussion and pics. COD2 has no AA in HD.

 

[RobertR1]

The IQ of future Xbox 360 games will only continue to get better as developers have more time with their kits and learn to program better using the 3 cores and the unified architecture of Xenos along with it's feature set. You'll get IQ improvement all without having to upgrade your hardware for years to come.

I'm sure pleased with that I got for $399. Also, Xbox live really makes it all worth it. Hopefully Forza 2 is on it's way but PGR3 on Xbox live will do.

 

[kylebisme]

Yeah, I too am quite happy with the power of my 360, even in botched ports like CoD2. My main gaming PC is a 2.2ghz A64 with a x800xt-pe and 2gb of ram, and even considering the higher FOV on the PC version, my PC doesn't run the game well at all when set to 1280x720 with no aa or af while the 360 keeps up pretty good. I do wish they had used the power of the 360 better though, as my PC does run the game well at 856x480 with x2aa and x8af and that AA and AF overcomes the lower resolution and ends up looking better than what I get on 360.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: JRW

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Wingznut

I doubt it. There was another thread that had screenshots and the Xbox version had no AA. The person even presented the PC version at the same res with no AA and 2xx AA and the no AA version matched the 360 screeshot.

You make a lot of assumptions based on what you've "heard" and "seen"... But quickly discredit those who ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME. Why so defensive?

I mean... Isn't it possible that those of us who are ACTUALLY PLAYING THE GAMES, might know what we are talking about?

I am familiar with the thread you are talking about, but I can't say how that other person had his setup. All I can say is that the COD2 that I play on my 360/HDTV looks great and definitely has AA.

As he said, he is baseing his statment on both what he had heard and seen from someone who has actually plays the game. Namely, me.

CoD2 on the PC with no AA.

CoD2 on the PC with x2aa.

CoD2 on the 360.

Obviously, CoD2 on the 360 is solely lacking AA. Well if you turn the 360 down to 480p it has plenty of AA but it is obviously rendered at a lower resolution as well. But as far running at 720p or 1080i, yeah CoD2 on the 360 is missing AA.

Oh and yeah, the game does have vsync, though unfortuantly done with only double buffering.

I stand corrected, After looking at those pics I had to load up COD2 and look for myself, 360s version is indeed lacking any AA in 720p & 1080i, When I made my comments earlier I was playing the game in 480P mode (which DOES have AA enabled), Why would I play in 480P? Because the framerate remains much smoother versus running it 720 / 1080i. It still looks pretty darn good in 480P especially with the help of AA.

480p Shot - I was zoomed up closer in the 480P shot but you can still note the AA being applied.

1080i Shot

Wow, those comments are completely opposite what people have been saying about COD2 on Xbox. At 640x480 on my PC I can apply 4x AA and get a perfect framerate on my 6600GT at highest settings, which shouldn't be possible as the Xbox 360 blows away the 6600gt in both memory bandwidth and fillrate, not to mention everything else.

 

[GOREGRINDER]

id rather them demand to have AF applied before AA in next gen consoles


all xbox360 games should be mandatory 16xAF and optional AA,...i cannot play a game without AF,..at least 8x

 

[Stoneburner]

I zoomed in on snowman's pictures and the results were astounding. My x1800xl runs at 630/720 while playing COD2 at 1680x1050 with 4xaa and 8xAFF w/o any slow downs.

 

[kylebisme]

Well "w/o any slow downs" isn't a very precise mesurement, but like I said, CoD2 on the 360 is ca crappy rushed port of a great PC game. Granted, that still makes it come out as a pretty damn good console game as things go, but it really isn't a good point for comparison.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Well "w/o any slow downs" isn't a very precise mesurement, but like I said, CoD2 on the 360 is ca crappy rushed port of a great PC game. Granted, that still makes it come out as a pretty damn good console game as things go, but it really isn't a good point for comparison.

Yeah, "w/o any slowdowns" is rather subjective. We can, however, put some numbers to his settings based off of review sites:

AMD Zone shows the x1800xl getting an average of 14fps at 16x12 4xAA 8xAF. Granted, Steonburner's resolution is only 1680x1050, but I can't imagine it being too much different. Now, I don't consider 14fps average to be "w/o any slowdowns".

Since there's no actual benchmarking suite built in to the game, maybe AMD Zone just happened to be on a more stressful part of the game.

FiringSquad fared a little better. 21.3fps average. Again, the res is 16x12 not 16x10, but still...

Yeah, I wouldn't define 14 or 21 fps as playing "w/o any slowdowns".

 

[Stoneburner]

read more carefully, my x1800 xl runs at 621/720 ... which as you will notice is pretty near xt speeds.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
read more carefully, my x1800 xl runs at 621/720 ... which as you will notice is pretty near xt speeds.

That's nice and all. So, does that make it as fast as 7800GT SLI? Because a 7800GT SLI config only gets an average of 26fps at those settings. Which, still, IN MY OPINION, is not playable "w/o any slowdowns".

The only way you're gonna play COD2 at that resolution with 4xAA and 8xAF, with all the eye candy turned to max, "w/o any slowdowns" is with a 512GTX SLI or Crossfire solution. Unless you feel that 30fps is enough as an average (meaning minimums would be in the teens, causing severe slowdowns).

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
read more carefully, my x1800 xl runs at 621/720 ... which as you will notice is pretty near xt speeds.

So 24fps instead of 21. Still not buying it

 

[Stoneburner]

a subjective statement is better than pulling numbers out of your ass. But if you want actual numbers, feel free to tell me how the game is benchmarked since i have no interest in looking it up. Until then, work on your ability to extrapolate numbers. Xl memory timings are tighter than XT according to some people so 621/720 is probably a hairs breath of the xt speeds which the firing squad article shows at 30.1, and since i'm pushing a few less pixels, you'd assume it would be somewhat higher. Try again.

 

[kylebisme]

Yeah, there is no standard benchmark for CoD2 to compare with. If you want to show how it runs on your system though I recomend some screenshots with the frame counter up in heavy action in the middle of the first Hill 400 mission. It gets really hot in between some of those house there and if you can post some shots of the most stressful parts, that would give a pretty good idea of how the game runs on your setup.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
a subjective statement is better than pulling numbers out of your ass.

As I said, I gave ACTUAL numbers based off of 3rd party review sites. They matched your settings as CLOSELY as I could in a such a short time (though, I imagine if I spent any more time looking, I'd likely never find any with your exact resolution tested).

Xl memory timings are tighter than XT according to some people so 621/720 is probably a hairs breath of the xt speeds which the firing squad article shows at 30.1, and since i'm pushing a few less pixels, you'd assume it would be somewhat higher. Try again.

I am sure your XL is doing a great job and overclocking well-- one of the main reason I love the med-high range parts versus the ultra-high (the whole price/performance equation). However, I will say it again. Even if you're getting at or around 30fps average at that setting, I can only assume that it must dip down into the teens at SOME point during gameplay. Framerate in the teens is not something I would describe as playing "w/o any slowdowns".

This isn't a matter of me "trying again". You made a claim that you played a demanding game at extremely high settings with a med-high end graphics card. I showed published examples of how this is not possible without slowdowns. All I can do is ask you to do the same. I have no idea how they benchmarked (FRAPS? making a demo file with the console?), but there are many sources out there showing that every single-card solution in existance today has difficulty running COD2 maxed out at high resolutions. I don't need to "try again". Every hardware site on the web has done so for me.

 

[Stoneburner]

didn't i already tell you I dont have slowdowns? Maybe I haven't gotten to the intense parts, but I was stating what my experience was. Arguing about your mishandling of numbers is actually distinct. Thanks for telling me what i should have been experiencing though.

 

[kylebisme]

So how bout some shots of the most intense parts you have gotten to? I'm curious to put some numbers to your claim of no slowdowns.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Crescent13
From what I have seen/heard, the xbox360 will not support 2xAA until the next generation of games. I think it runs it at 1280x720, no AA, no AF, everything on medium. I also highly doubt VSYNC.

no. The xbox 360GPU doesn't come close to the 7800GTX 512.I think it would be between a 7800 vanilla, and a 7800GT.

There is AA on plenty of games. Maybe even all of them?

And I do think it does have at least the same capabilities of a 7800GTX... Just look at the screenshots for Fight Night 3. There's nothing on the PC that compares, no matter what hardware you have.

And yes, these are actual gameplay screenshots... And yes, it really does look that good!

• Pic 1
• Pic 2
• Pic 3

Wow it really draws those two models well!! Im not impressed. It better look good. It is a square room, a couple lights, some faded background shelves, and two guys pummelling each other.

 

[Stoneburner]

will do.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
didn't i already tell you I dont have slowdowns? Maybe I haven't gotten to the intense parts, but I was stating what my experience was. Arguing about your mishandling of numbers is actually distinct.

Yeah, you mentioned you had no slowdowns. That's what this whole discussion has been about. At your settings and resolution, with that card, I cannot believe you have "no slowdowns". You can state your subjective "experience" and that is fine. But when websites like this one show an XT (which, you say you've overclocked to) getting an average of 28fps at your settings, and a minimum of 16, I can't help but think you MUST be getting slowdowns since framerates in the teens on a FirstPersonShooter is considered "slowing down". So either:

--every single one of these websites I have linked to "mishandled numbers" or
--your XL somehow magically does not dip to the teens like a 512GTX, 256GTX, and XT or
--you are getting slowdowns and not considering them as slowdowns or
--your settings weren't exactly where you thought they were

Those are the only 4 situations this could possibly be, cuz there's no way you would lie about something as stupid as this.

 

[Stoneburner]

It was answer #4, ATI tool did not apply 8xAF. I freely admit my mistake. now move on with your life.

 

[kylebisme]

I'd wadger there is some of #3 in there as well, AF doesn't cause much of a hit on modren Radeons.

 

[MBrown]

I think my PC played COD2 better than the kiosk. But it was just a kiosk. But COD2 autoconfiged to run at 1024x768 withh 4aa and it hovers around 40 to 45 fps for most of the time. IMO the difference between 1280 and 1024 visually is unoticeable. rig in sig.

 

[JRW]

Some pics I took of COD2 w/ framerate counter if anyones curious how it runs on a 7800gtx 512mb, settings are 1280x800 / 4X AA / Anistropic enabled / All graphic settings maxed / COD2 dual core patch applied.

Link

 

[kylebisme]

Nice pics JRW, but no real heavy action in those shots. I'd guess that even on your beast of a rig it dips into the 30s at those settings and when there are masses of germans running out and fireing at you and throwing grenades, eh?

 

[BFG10K]

I thought 4XAA was mandatory on all Xbox 360 games. I thought it had a little dedicated piece of hardware to enable that on every game with zero performance impact.

That was the official party line but since launch reality has set in. I believe MS changed their position to 2xAA for free but some games don't even have that.

Yeah, I too am quite happy with the power of my 360, even in botched ports like CoD2.

I'd wager the PC's DX9 path is optimized far worse than the 360 version.