PCGH: CoD Black Ops III Benchmarks

[csbin]

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-3-Spiel-55478/Specials/Test-Benchmarks-1176980/


Geforce 358.87 WHQL

Catalyst 15.11 Beta


1080p

1440p

2160p

 

[96Firebird]

760 matching Fury X?

Obviously GameWorks. ()

 

[desprado]

Game has memory leak problem.Wait for the patch for actual benchmark.
Fury X and GTX 980 Ti performance will go up after the patch.

 

[ShintaiDK]

760 matching Fury X?

Obviously GameWorks. ()

LOL.

That testing seems unserious honestly.

If Fury/980TI can work, so can Fury X/Titan X and so on.

 

[guskline]

Played it this morning on both of my rigs below at 2560 X 1440P AND IT IS fast!

 

[Mondozei]

A 290 beating a 980 at 1080p(NV typically being stronger at lower res)?

Okay, this is the second AAA fps title after Battlefront to have somekind of pro-AMD bias. Interesting. Maybe just better AMD driver implementation as for now, rather than a structural engine reason like in the case of Battlefield.

 

[thesmokingman]

Game has memory leak problem.Wait for the patch for actual benchmark.
Fury X and GTX 980 Ti performance will go up after the patch.

This.

Question, how do you release a new somewhat anticipated game with a serious memory leak??

The standards for being a game developer have seriously been lowered these last few years.

 

[Techhog]

2015: Year of the terrible PC ports.


Speaking of which, only 2 more weeks until Assassin's Creed: Syndicate!

 

[tential]

This.

Question, how do you release a new somewhat anticipated game with a serious memory leak??

The standards for being a game developer have seriously been lowered these last few years.

The way I see it. Publishers issue games on release date irregardless of the state of the game.

 

[dogen1]

A 290 beating a 980 at 1080p(NV typically being stronger at lower res)?

Okay, this is the second AAA fps title after Battlefront to have somekind of pro-AMD bias. Interesting. Maybe just better AMD driver implementation as for now, rather than a structural engine reason like in the case of Battlefield.

CoD games are designed for high performance, so I'd imagine that their engine is tuned to run well on gcn.

 

[boozzer]

LOL.

That testing seems unserious honestly.

If Fury/980TI can work, so can Fury X/Titan X and so on.

not a serious question, but do you guys coordinate?

oh and 760 match a titan x, I am shocked, shocked I tell you

 

[monstercameron]

2015: Year of the terrible PC ports.


Speaking of which, only 2 more weeks until Assassin's Creed: Syndicate!

Do you think people still really care about that franchise?

 

[96Firebird]

Do you think people still really care about that franchise?

I was wondering if people on PC still cared about this franchise...

 

[Mondozei]

2015: Year of the terrible PC ports.


Speaking of which, only 2 more weeks until Assassin's Creed: Syndicate!

Fallout 4 is the Big White Whale. I'll laugh if all the people who pre-ordered it(and then tried to justify it) rage on reddit and elsewhere.

 

[ShintaiDK]

not a serious question, but do you guys coordinate?

oh and 760 match a titan x, I am shocked, shocked I tell you

Did I miss something? Or did you ignore to read the actual post?

 

[ShintaiDK]

I know 3 people playing it all day tho. And they dont seem to have encountered any issues at all. So it may be hit and miss.

 

[Techhog]

I know 3 people playing it all day tho. And they dont seem to have encountered any issues at all. So it may be hit and miss.

It usually ends up like that with these broken games. Referencing AK again I get great performance other than 0.1% of frame times going over 33ms with an average frame rate of 59.7, while it's still unplayable for others. There were also people who didn't have issues with Unity. It's one of the oddities of these unoptimized pieces of crap.

 

[railven]

760 matching Fury X?

Obviously GameWorks. ()

I had to do a double check, and then realize what you meant. Haha.

Nice one! :thumbsup:

EDIT: On topic: what the hell happened to this game? Them results are ATROCIOUS!!! And I actually was thinking of buying this game sans-Steams Sale. Not anymore.

 

[ShintaiDK]

EDIT: On topic: what the hell happened to this game? Them results are ATROCIOUS!!! And I actually was thinking of buying this game sans-Steams Sale. Not anymore.

From what I can tell from those playing it. Ignore these faulty benches and buy it. Or wait till after the first patch.

You can always refund on steam if it goes terrible wrong.

 

[railven]

From what I can tell from those playing it. Ignore these faulty benches and buy it. Or wait till after the first patch.

You can always refund on steam if it goes terrible wrong.

That's true, but if the issues are random, I'd hate to get stuck with a broken game after my 2hour Steam refund window closes.

Playing this one by ear.

 

[RussianSensation]

OP, you need to update those charts. The game has been re-tested again.
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-3-Spiel-55478/Specials/Test-Benchmarks-1176980/

This port's performance is all over the place. The game seems to love GPU memory bandwidth, VRAM and shader performance.

Some crazy wild swings between camps:

280X demolishes the 770 by 44-50%, and outperforms the 960 by almost 30%.
290X/390X/Fury are stomping all over 980's minimum FPS.
Shockingly, 980Ti's minimums at 1440P are basically double that of the 980! I've never seen anything like that.

980Ti is really the best card of this generation as it performs well no matter the game.

This game seems to stutter severely with 12GB of system memory. Damn.

760 matching Fury X?

Obviously GameWorks. ()

1440P
Fury X = 77 fps avg / 68 minumums
GTX760 = 21.8 avg / 18 fps minimums
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Call-of-Duty-Black-Ops-3-Spiel-55478/Specials/Test-Benchmarks-1176980/

I've been saying that 2GB cards are DOA when 285 came out and re-iterated the same when 960 2GB came out. Either more demanding games/engines or horribly optimized console to PC ports would make sure all 2GB cards are giant paperweights. This theme has continued in 2015 and it's only getting worse. In comparison to 760's 21.8 fps, 960 4GB delivers 36.4 fps, 380 4GB 39.9 fps, 280X 46.8 fps at the same 1440P resolution. At 1080P no card with 2GB of VRAM can even hope to approach 60 fps but 380 4GB and 960 4GB are almost there.

2015: Year of the terrible PC ports.

Speaking of which, only 2 more weeks until Assassin's Creed: Syndicate!

I don't know about 2015. It feels like that's been the theme of PC gaming since XB1/PS4 launched. The pairing of GWs + Ubisoft made those AAA games even worse. So many of these ports are being outsourced to some small 3rd party studio, often located in a foreign country. NV/AMD must be loving this since as gamers we basically just have 2 primary choices - GPU upgrades start to become more mandatory or we have to skip those poorly optimized games. But it's impossible to skip all poorly optimized AAA games since some of those are actually fun/good games. The irony is many of us thought x86 consoles would ensure well optimized PC console ports but that's not what we are seeing.

The graphics in BO3 are so **** for the GPU level of performance required.

Honestly, Crysis Warhead looks miles better than this game.

Not impressed.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

I'm curious about the game's OIT implementation ...

 

[Silverforce11]

How the heck do these guys with so much money, manage to release games with memory leaks? Stuttering on 12GB system ram setups is nuts for the scale of the game (level based).

Also, it is strange to see a COD that runs so well on AMD GPUs. What happened, it's not NV sponsored anymore?

1080p:

1440p:

Also good to see 780Ti still got some leg and keeping up with a 970.

The last COD AW2 ran horrendous on AMD, with terrible min fps.

 

[ShintaiDK]

How the heck do these guys with so much money, manage to release games with memory leaks? Stuttering on 12GB system ram setups is nuts for the scale of the game (level based).

Sounds exactly like the BF4 release.

Its the business method behind. Failtriggers, cashflow etc.

 

[Silverforce11]

Sounds exactly like the BF4 release.

Its the business method behind. Failtriggers, cashflow etc.

I don't understand it though, don't they get that gamers see the failness of it all and wait til its on sale? Instead of a smooth polished launch that attract players to buy it enmass at full price, they push out buggy crap and expect us to beta test the game for them.

I didn't buy BF4 until months later because of that. I'm not touching any AAA titles full price when they are buggy.