Call of Duty Ghosts PC specs released......another 64 bit title

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DeadFred

Platinum Member
Jun 4, 2011
2,740
29
91
Anyone else still love the first modern warfare, Cod4:MW?

That game was magnificent and redefined the shooter genre.

I still play it.

and BF2 for that matter.

:colbert:
I do, my son and I still play it quite a bit together.

I loved cod 1, cod 2, and MW 1. After that, things went downhill fast.
Yep, MW2 and IWNET was a big middle finger in your face to PC gamers. Treyarch at least gave us limited dedicated servers with BO and BO2 but little else.
 

skipsneeky2

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
5,035
1
71
Played the demo for COD4, it was plenty of fun and i have no idea why i never bought it but compared to the newer cod games even the demo felt better then any of the newer games.

Hoping ghosts somehow brings them up to speed with the latest graphics but its unlikely to happen.

Is COD4 still worth buying off steam these days?
 

Blitzvogel

Platinum Member
Oct 17, 2010
2,012
23
81
Is COD4 still worth buying off steam these days?

I would say so, as plenty of people still play it. Lots of mods for it too. Every now and then I create a new character and make a leveling run for the hell of it. It will be interesting seeing screenshot comparisons of CoD4 and Ghosts just to see how far things have progressed, though I'm quite surprised by the very high system requirements.

Unless there are few graphics options, I don't see a Radeon 5870 being necessary for minimum specs at even a lower res like 720p. Infinity Ward likely meant that the 5870 is the oldest AMD card with the necessary amount of tessellation capability and GFLOPS they would say meets the performance requirements. However I'm not convinced that a 5770 wouldn't be able to run the game, but it sure looks like they are trying to confuse or discourage people from buying the PC version.
 
Last edited:

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
What about 64-bit Windows XP? :(

Lol. I hope this isn't a serious question. :D
XP is finally being phased out after all these years. Next April IIRC, then no more security updates. Lot of folks freaking out over that.
 

skipsneeky2

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
5,035
1
71
Lol. I hope this isn't a serious question. :D
XP is finally being phased out after all these years. Next April IIRC, then no more security updates. Lot of folks freaking out over that.

Well for the non gamer who just uses their tower for emailing,youtube and facebook windows xp is still all they need and it sucks the updates will be ended.Xp will be missed.

Is it possible that a good anti virus could be the answer to security threats when microsoft drops support for updates for xp?Been in the pc scene since 2006 and this would be the first time i have seen a os i used to use get dropped.
 

skipsneeky2

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
5,035
1
71

Vista by the time windows 7 came out actually was fine and this is coming from a guy who freaking hated vista when it first debuted and decided to sit on xp just a bit longer which was actually till 7 beta came out.

I would use vista in a emergency if i had to over xp that is for sure as Vista has matured from many updates and a few service packs.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Windows XP deserves to die.

Well, I have an old athlon 2600+ machine with win XP and it think it is just fine. The only weakness is security, and I dont really know if that is a problem or not. Otherwise, it does everything fine that I need it to do. I have a newer machine running Win 7, but if that machine were out of use for a while, I would have no problem at all using the XP one. In fact I really hate the search function in Win 7, and find the advanced search function much more intuitive in Win XP.
 

boomshard

Member
Oct 14, 2013
36
0
0
Yeah I couldn't believe the GTX 780 being the recommended card. Seems to me like NVIDIA is paying them some serious cash. I bet this game will run just fine on high settings even on my GTX 570.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
The only real problem with vista was the driver model, and stupid hardware vendors who couldn't be bothered to update their drivers when vista launched. I never had any problems with vista, UAC be damned.

Vista was rather resource intensive. It is fine for gamers because they aren't running 1gb of ram and a Pentium 4, but for the tons of barely faster than Atom laptops OEMs shoved Vista on, it bogged it down considerably.
 

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,835
37
91
Welcome to the age of ever worse optimization to sell ever more powerful hardware for the same or worse graphics. I hope everyone involved in this trend bloody crashes Atari style.

Well the past half decade of console ports always had higher requirements from the PC than the consoles actually had. Seems logical that developing focus on the new consoles would have ports that require far higher specs now. Which in a couple or so years won't seem that bad but I mentioned over a year ago that I thought next gen ports to PC would have crazy requirements, at least initially.
Consoles actually aid developers in optimizations for PC and has been mentioned by several of them including Rockstar. I don't think optimizing is the issue, each engine just does things a little different, I think the difference is just how they can code to the metal for consoles and porting it to PC isn't going to yield the same result even if both are x86 especially once you include higher res textures and so forth.
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
I do, my son and I still play it quite a bit together.


Yep, MW2 and IWNET was a big middle finger in your face to PC gamers. Treyarch at least gave us limited dedicated servers with BO and BO2 but little else.

The dedicated servers were a mess in Bo2. They're completely synthesized and scripted to the point that any benefit of "dedication" are marginalized. Ping and network connection means nothing now that most of the lag is artificially created to try to make the game as less accurate as possible or Activations concept of "leveling the playing field", the match making system sucks, and a few players with 100+ pings can ruin your experience in a second. There is no buffering anymore, and trying to shoot someone while they warp in and out of time is frustrating as hell. I would actually take IwNet over BO2 servers any day because at least you knew what you were shooting at and it was consistent. Consistent being important, because if I am going to lag like a sumofbitch at least it is consistent and I can adjust to it.
 
Last edited:

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
Well, I have an old athlon 2600+ machine with win XP and it think it is just fine. The only weakness is security, and I dont really know if that is a problem or not. Otherwise, it does everything fine that I need it to do. I have a newer machine running Win 7, but if that machine were out of use for a while, I would have no problem at all using the XP one. In fact I really hate the search function in Win 7, and find the advanced search function much more intuitive in Win XP.



The issues with security and XP are pretty significant.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/security...of-running-windows-xp-after-support-ends.aspx

I highly recommend you read through this and make at least an informed decision on what OS you choose going forward. :)
 

DeadFred

Platinum Member
Jun 4, 2011
2,740
29
91
The dedicated servers were a mess in Bo2. They're completely synthesized and scripted to the point that any benefit of "dedication" are marginalized. Ping and network connection means nothing now that most of the lag is artificially created to try to make the game as less accurate as possible or Activations concept of "leveling the playing field", the match making system sucks, and a few players with 100+ pings can ruin your experience in a second. There is no buffering anymore, and trying to shoot someone while they warp in and out of time is frustrating as hell. I would actually take IwNet over BO2 servers any day because at least you knew what you were shooting at and it was consistent. Consistent being important, because if I am going to lag like a sumofbitch at least it is consistent and I can adjust to it.
The servers in BO and BO2 are far from perfect but they are so far ahead of IWNET's matchmaking it isnt even funny. IWNET was the worst online gaming experience I have ever had. If you enjoyed it you must have always been the host with the huge advantage over everyone else.
 

pcmax

Senior member
Jun 17, 2001
677
1
81
The servers in BO and BO2 are far from perfect but they are so far ahead of IWNET's matchmaking it isnt even funny. IWNET was the worst online gaming experience I have ever had. If you enjoyed it you must have always been the host with the huge advantage over everyone else.

Totally agree! I actually enjoyed MW2 quite a bit but the IWNET completely ruined it and then when US players stopped playing and there were only international players hosting it was completely unplayable. Still playing BO2 until Ghosts comes out. I notice a definite disadvantage above 100 ping in firing reaction but at least it's not like a randomly speeding up slowing down slow motion movie.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
The issues with security and XP are pretty significant.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/security...of-running-windows-xp-after-support-ends.aspx

I highly recommend you read through this and make at least an informed decision on what OS you choose going forward. :)

I did not say I planned to use or am using XP. I am using Win 7 actually. All I was trying to say is that XP is still a very easy to use platform, and I still find some functions in XP actually more intuitive to use than in Win 7.
 

futurefields

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2012
6,470
32
91
I think for Next-Gen games, when they figure the Recommended specs they are not figuring for basic 1080p 60fps

Recommended specs at this point would be more like 1440p @ 120hz + 3D. I think this is the reason why the GTX 780 is there.

If the game requires a GTX 780 to run 1080p @ 60fps then that would be insane, considering it's running on Xbox 360 and PS3 and COD games run @ 60fps on those usually.
 

desprado

Golden Member
Jul 16, 2013
1,645
0
0
I have pro load COD Ghost they are not joking at only COD Ghost SP is about 28.3 GB i have havent pre load MP yet no space left on C drive.
 

futurefields

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2012
6,470
32
91
It looks like next gen games will have ridiculous install sizes due to hi-res textures. I think what developers should do is make the texture packs seperate downloads for people that don't need them. On a game like COD: Ghosts, which I wont play, but if I did, I might not even want to install the hi-res textures if I am playing competitively. And then I could skip like 20gb of install data that I don't need.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
I did not say I planned to use or am using XP. I am using Win 7 actually. All I was trying to say is that XP is still a very easy to use platform, and I still find some functions in XP actually more intuitive to use than in Win 7.

I think a lot of people share that sentiment. The catch is that the only redeeming factor of XP today is the interface. Virtually everything under the hood is disadvantageous compared to current OS technology.