PCGH: CoD Black Ops III Benchmarks

[DarkKnightDude]

Yeah performance is a lot better since the patch.

 

[RussianSensation]

Yesterday's patch fixed the 6-8 core Hyperthreading issue I was having. Game is running slick now. It's a load of fun as well, to early to tell but I think this may replace Black Ops 1 as my favorite in the COD series, just a blast.

Gameplay/fun aside, come on now - you have a $1000 CPU and almost $3000 in GPU setup -- this game should be running at 200 fps. It really pisses me off how since Crysis 1/Warhead and Metro 2033 days, besides Metro LL and Crysis 3, we keep getting these new FPS games that don't look any better and require 2015 GPUs to max them out. What's the industry coming to?

I would totally be pumped up for a game that uses 6-8GB of VRAM if it had mind-blowing 4K textures everywhere but whoever coded & optimized BO3 messed up royally:

Are you experiencing this?
"Black Ops 3 "Performance" Patch Downgrades Textures"

Again, gameplay/fun aside, I am shocked at the level of performance/optimizations vs. graphics output in many recent games like AC Unity, Black Ops 3, Fallout 4, Anno 2205. No one expects every game to look like Crysis 3/4 but at least if the game looks like a 2010 title, it better run perfectly on mid-range $250 graphics cards and an i5 3570K and yet it doesn't.

And then we see SW:BF that runs well on low-end hardware and looks great. I am starting to think either some firms cannot optimize game code for the life of them or certain franchisees needs to abandon their game engines and try CryEngine or Frostbite or license/create a totally new engine.

 

[YBS1]

Gameplay/fun aside, come on now - you have a $1000 CPU and almost $3000 in GPU setup -- this game should be running at 200 fps. It really pisses me off how since Crysis 1/Warhead and Metro 2033 days, besides Metro LL and Crysis 3, we keep getting these new FPS games that don't look any better and require 2015 GPUs to max them out. What's the industry coming to?

I would totally be pumped up for a game that uses 6-8GB of VRAM if it had mind-blowing 4K textures everywhere but whoever coded & optimized BO3 messed up royally:

Are you experiencing this?
"Black Ops 3 "Performance" Patch Downgrades Textures"

Again, gameplay/fun aside, I am shocked at the level of performance/optimizations vs. graphics output in many recent games like AC Unity, Black Ops 3, Fallout 4, Anno 2205. No one expects every game to look like Crysis 3/4 but at least if the game looks like a 2010 title, it better run perfectly on mid-range $250 graphics cards and an i5 3570K and yet it doesn't.

And then we see SW:BF that runs well on low-end hardware and looks great. I am starting to think either some firms cannot optimize game code for the life of them or certain franchisees needs to abandon their game engines and try CryEngine or Frostbite or license/create a totally new engine.

Well, my performance issues were an obvious bug, likely introduced by the day one patch to fix performance on the i5's. As for your point, it does make you wonder where all this CPU and GPU power is going with most modern titles. The requirements keep going up, yet we're not seeing much in the way of visual improvements. To be fair to this title though, I ran it briefly on my A10-7850K / GTX 760 combo (not exactly a powerhouse) and it ran very well with a mix of high-medium settings.

I didn't notice a downgrade in texture quality after the patch, but perhaps I'm just not very observant or I was focused on the Hyper threading issue I was having instead. I did observe a behavior a few times that I had not previously though, blurry textures right at the beginning of a new map for a couple of seconds before better ones loaded in.

 

[tential]

Well, my performance issues were an obvious bug, likely introduced by the day one patch to fix performance on the i5's. As for your point, it does make you wonder where all this CPU and GPU power is going with most modern titles. The requirements keep going up, yet we're not seeing much in the way of visual improvements. To be fair to this title though, I ran it briefly on my A10-7850K / GTX 760 combo (not exactly a powerhouse) and it ran very well with a mix of high-medium settings.

I didn't notice a downgrade in texture quality after the patch, but perhaps I'm just not very observant or I was focused on the Hyper threading issue I was having instead. I did observe a behavior a few times that I had not previously though, blurry textures right at the beginning of a new map for a couple of seconds before better ones loaded in.

It discourages me from buying high end GPU setups, since I'll still be stuck at the same graphics level as previous years.

Instead, I've gone back now, and played through all of the games I missed (which are a lot), while I played Dota2/CS/MMOs for the last god knows how long years.

I'll wait for the next node shrink now before trying any of the released titles in 4K in hopes that the new nodeshrink/architectures can brute force these games that have been coming out.

 

[guskline]

Yesterday's patch fixed the 6-8 core Hyperthreading issue I was having. Game is running slick now. It's a load of fun as well, to early to tell but I think this may replace Black Ops 1 as my favorite in the COD series, just a blast.

Good news! I'm having fun with it in both of my rigs.
YBS1, just a request, please. In the advanced video section, could you check the enable fps section and post the fps you are getting with 3 HOF GTX980TI's? It must be super fast.
:thumbsup:

I have my settings at Extreme for a single GTX980TI SC and the frame rates on 2560x1440 are in the 70s 80s. Fast for me.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Lower texture quality a setting or two,drop shadows and a 1gb gtx650 plays Black Ops 2 at 1080p with well over 80+fps.A 770 for BO2 is overkill without msaa applied at 1080p.

What the hell is happening with this title?

 

[RaulF]

I just tried this game with eyefinity 8040x1440 and Quad R9 290x.

Result: This game is complete garbage.

For what is worth, AMD xfire and COD games just don't go together. Support from AMD and Activision is pathetic, another reason i went Nvidia.

Now i did use to run a single 290 non X and ran Advanced Warfare awesome.

 

[Headfoot]

Instead of buying a sloppily ported, dated looking rehash of a rehash (CoD Blops 3); I'll wait a week and buy the extremely good looking, extremely well running Battlefront and get a game in the same multiplayer shooter genre that is better in every other way.

 

[YBS1]

Good news! I'm having fun with it in both of my rigs.
YBS1, just a request, please. In the advanced video section, could you check the enable fps section and post the fps you are getting with 3 HOF GTX980TI's? It must be super fast.
:thumbsup:

I have my settings at Extreme for a single GTX980TI SC and the frame rates on 2560x1440 are in the 70s 80s. Fast for me.

This is with everything in game as high as it will go, 1920x1080. My AA settings are limited though as they restrict you to just FXAA or SMAAx1 with SLI. Cards at default clocks.

 

[RussianSensation]

Support from AMD and Activision is pathetic, another reason i went Nvidia.

Now i did use to run a single 290 non X and ran Advanced Warfare awesome.

Ironically this game runs faster on AMD. 390 is 25% faster than a 970 at 1440P, and Fury X beats 980Ti at 1440P. I wouldn't consider that "pathetic" support from AMD.
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-11/...-test/3/#diagramm-cod-black-ops-iii-2560-1440

Fact of the matter is Tri-SLI/Tri-Fire and especially Quad-Fire and Quad-SLI have a lot of issues in many games, not just BO3. That's why most people try to not recommend anyone going beyond 2 flagship cards for SLI/CF as the chances of micro-stutter, glitches/issues and diminishing returns in performance increase.

For single GPUs, AMD cards are flying in this game.

I just tried this game with eyefinity 8040x1440 and Quad R9 290x.

Result: This game is complete garbage.

What happens if you try 2x 290s and 3x290s?

This is with everything in game as high as it will go, 1920x1080. My AA settings are limited though as they restrict you to just FXAA or SMAAx1 with SLI. Cards at default clocks.

:thumbsup:

Out of curiosity, how does a single 980Ti OC compare to 980Ti SLi vs. 980Ti Tri-SLI? I would expect a single 980Ti OC to max this game out easily at 1080P, no?

 

[monstercameron]

Instead of buying a sloppily ported, dated looking rehash of a rehash (CoD Blops 3); I'll wait a week and buy the extremely good looking, extremely well running Battlefront and get a game in the same multiplayer shooter genre that is better in every other way.

I find this funny, especially based on the critical reception.

 

[Headfoot]

battlefront basically feels like Star Wars COD in gameplay terms, plus some vehicles that feel mostly like power ups and less like tactical choices a la BF4. It's a good time, and it looks awesome. Not a fan of the fact that "deluxe edition" buyers got to unlock the most expensive in game unlocks right away. Really cheap tactic

 

[aaksheytalwar]

I don't have any issues with COD BO III.

I'm playing at 1080p Max without AA. Mostly capped at 60. Occasional 50s and rare 40s.

However, if I switch to 1440p it isn't playable regardless of the setting I use. Runs like crap even at medium at 1440p.

No micro stuttering or stuttering. Though I do have 16gb ram.

@RS, as long as you disable AA, a single 290/X or 980 OC should max out the game at 1440p.

 

[RussianSensation]

@RS, as long as you disable AA, a single 290/X or 980 OC should max out the game at 1440p.

Ya I know. PCGameshardware updated their test after patches and R9 290 is at 59 fps at 1440P. This is nice, not the turd performance of Anno 2205 or AC Syndicate. :sneaky:

 

[Arachnotronic]

Instead of buying a sloppily ported, dated looking rehash of a rehash (CoD Blops 3); I'll wait a week and buy the extremely good looking, extremely well running Battlefront and get a game in the same multiplayer shooter genre that is better in every other way.

Battlefront looks pretty but it sucks. BO3 is quite a blast, easily the best CoD game I've ever played and one of the best MP shooters I've ever played.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Battlefront looks pretty but it sucks. BO3 is quite a blast, easily the best CoD game I've ever played and one of the best MP shooters I've ever played.

True that. The last campaign shooter so good was Fear. Fear was better though.

 

[Mondozei]

Battlefront is actually a really fun game, but it lacks content. Had they shipped with more maps and gave people earlier access to must-have items like jetpack, I think the game would be in a better state. Some people will blindly hate on it regardless but those people can be ignored.

What I see is that people who liked the beta, are now saying the game is too thin on content, which it is. Still a great, fun game. But it'll probably be like Titanfall. Dead in 2-3 months. Both games have/had similar problems.

Also, invoking what you said about F.E.A.R., we need a new game in that series. The first one was absolutely amazing

 

[tential]

Battlefront is actually a really fun game, but it lacks content. Had they shipped with more maps and gave people earlier access to must-have items like jetpack, I think the game would be in a better state. Some people will blindly hate on it regardless but those people can be ignored.

What I see is that people who liked the beta, are now saying the game is too thin on content, which it is. Still a great, fun game. But it'll probably be like Titanfall. Dead in 2-3 months. Both games have/had similar problems.

Also, invoking what you said about F.E.A.R., we need a new game in that series. The first one was absolutely amazing

I'm pretty upset with ow that game turned out since I played the previous one and it was so fun. I expected a lot more content/ideas, instead, it seems like they didn't just play it safe, they decided to simply not include much at all and be boring.

 

[happy medium]

All settings high @ 1080p locked at 60 fps for me. Game is good so far.