[Guru3d]Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare PC graphics benchmark review

[PontiacGTX]

Call of Duty (2016) is a first-person shooter video game developed by Infinity Ward. It was first announced in 2014 when Activision announced that Infinity Ward, Treyarch, and Sledgehammer would all be developing Call of Duty games on a three year cycle instead of two as with previous installments. In this article we'll examine COD in our usual manners. We'll test the game on the PC platform relative towards graphics card performance with the latest AMD/NVIDIA graphics card drivers. Multiple graphics cards are being tested and bench-marked with the latest cards such as the GeForce GTX 10 series included as well as Radeon RX series 400 cards.

Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare is a title series that is both loved and hated. Many have been waiting for, and from the looks of it, the game will definitely deliver in a nice single player experience and multi-player awesomeness. As always the title is based on a dated rendering engine that is tweaked and tweaked with each year that passes. You are going to need a reasonably modern PC with at least a mainstream graphics card to run the game nicely. We test with the game based on the release from this week, all patched up combined with latest AMD Radeon Software Crimson drivers and for Nvidia drivers. This article will cover benchmarks in the sense of average framerates, we'll look at all popular resolutions scaling from Full HD (1920x1080/1200), WQHD (2560x1440) and of course Ultra HD. UHDTV (2160p) is 3840 pixels wide by 2160 pixels tall (8.29 megapixels), which is four times as many pixels as 1920x1080 (2.07 megapixels) and also 5k Ultra HD at 5120x2880 (!).

Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare is a first-person shooter video game developed by Infinity Ward and published by Activision. It is the thirteenth primary installment in the Call of Duty series and is set to be released for Microsoft Windows on November 4, 2016. And this year .. we're going into space.

Spoiler: GPU Benchmark

Spoiler: 1920x1080

Spoiler: 2560x1440

Spoiler: 3840x2160

Spoiler: 5120x2880

Spoiler: VRAM

[IMG ALT]http://i.imgur.com/37nga8i.png[/IMG]

Spoiler: CPU Benchmark

Spoiler: RX480

Spoiler: GTX 1070

Source

 

[SlickR12345]

Another amazing win for the RX series graphics, this is the 5th clear cut and easy win for AMD, but the writing has been on the wall for quite some time now and we are going to be seeing more and more wins for the RX series, especially as DX12 titles become more prominent and DX12 is the primary development and not an afterthought.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Fury X beating 1070 @ 4K and 5K wow
RX480 really took off
Look at Titan X (Pascal) simply amazing, damn

Those are the 3 cards that stand out IMO

Honorable mention: King Kepler beating 970, not bad

 

[Abwx]

Computerbase.de review, apparently at higher settings than G3D..

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-11...rk/2/#diagramm-cod-infinite-warfare-2560-1440

 

[freeskier93]

Holy cow, the 480 is ahead of the Fury by a decent amount at 1080p.

 

[Glo.]

Is this Gaming Evolved title?

 

[dogen1]

Holy cow, the 480 is ahead of the Fury by a decent amount at 1080p.

Makes sense. Higher geometry performance will be more apparent at lower resolutions.

 

[Erenhardt]

When will nv release game ready drivers for 970? Both reviews show it at Tonga level of performance

 

[freeskier93]

Makes sense. Higher geometry performance will be more apparent at lower resolutions.

Right, the Fury and Fury X have always suffered a bit at 1080p, but I don't think I've seen a benchmark where the 480 is neck and neck, let alone ahead by a good bit.

 

[Head1985]

Haha Nv paying for cutdown GTX1070 so much.Furyx is faster.If nv cut 1070 like normal card GTX1070 would still be faster by atleast 10%.
The gap is again mega Huge GTX1080 is 30% faster in 4k and 26% in 1440p than 1070.

 

[PontiacGTX]

Right, the Fury and Fury X have always suffered a bit at 1080p, but I don't think I've seen a benchmark where the 480 is neck and neck, let alone ahead by a good bit.

Probably a title could be optimized for GCN4 something the architecture allows and GCN3 doesnt or it is DX11 advantage 480 has

 

[amenx]

Call of Duty Infinite Warfare will NOT very likely make it into our regular benchmark suite for videocards. In the past we run into this as well, but there are things odd and off. As such we recommend you to look at the performance benchmarks as indicative performance. At one point the result set would be 50 FPS, and on the second similar path and execution 42 FPS and another 56 FPS. This means that the results shown today are indicative, not a precise measurement. Another problem was that some levels average out at say 40 FPS, yet there are a handful of scenes where the framerate will crumble down to say 25 FPS or where running a luxurious 60 FPS all of the sudden. That is the reality of this game engine.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page...e_warfare_pc_graphics_benchmark_review,9.html

 

[frozentundra123456]

Fury X beating 1070 @ 4K and 5K wow
RX480 really took off
Look at Titan X (Pascal) simply amazing, damn

Those are the 3 cards that stand out IMO

Honorable mention: King Kepler beating 970, not bad

Why dont you tell the whole story?? 1070 is 14% faster at 1080p, 9% faster at 1440. The Fury X "beats" it by a whopping 2% (seriously, 1 FPS, wow) at 4k, and by 2FPS at 5k where neither is really playable for a fast twitch shooter.

 

[Head1985]

Why dont you tell the whole story?? 1070 is 14% faster at 1080p, 9% faster at 1440. The Fury X "beats" it by a whopping 2% (seriously, 1 FPS, wow) at 4k, and by 2FPS at 5k where neither is really playable for a fast twitch shooter.

At max details its different...
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-11...rk/2/#diagramm-cod-infinite-warfare-2560-1440
Furyx i 4% faster at 1440p and 11% faster at 4k.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Why dont you tell the whole story?? 1070 is 14% faster at 1080p, 9% faster at 1440. The Fury X "beats" it by a whopping 2% (seriously, 1 FPS, wow) at 4k, and by 2FPS at 5k where neither is really playable for a fast twitch shooter.

What story, i just mentioned those two resolutions because Fury X with it's 4GB of memory is beating Pascoal 8GB. Why do you feel the urge to defend NV at all costs?
Retarded arguments like these start wars here. Just stop

 

[Carfax83]

Looks like another game where you need 8GB to enjoy the highest texture quality.. Anyway, here are PCGameshardware.de's benches. I prefer using them, since they actually use parts that people will be buying, rather than some reference clocked nonsense:

 

[Gikaseixas]

At max details its different...
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-11...rk/2/#diagramm-cod-infinite-warfare-2560-1440
Furyx i 4% faster at 1440p and 11% faster at 4k.

I'm surprised how a older gen 4GB card can trade blows and/or beat a fast pascal 8GB card, that's gotta be the wide bandwidth HBM setup

 

[littleg]

Decent performance across the board really with the exception of the 970. AMD need to get something out at the high end though, 1080 and Titan just killing it in every benchmark.

 

[Carfax83]

And GameGPU.

 

[littleg]

And GameGPU.

What's the deal with their 1070 cratering as the resolution increases?

 

[Glo.]

How come AMD GPUs with time appear to gain more and more performance?

 

[Glo.]

What's the deal with their 1070 cratering as the resolution increases?

256 bit memory bus.

 

[pcslookout]

256 bit memory bus.

That sucks what memory bus does the GTX 1080 and Titan X have ?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Benchmarks from game.gpu, here . Very different results.

1080 p: 1070 30% faster than Fury X, 480 and 1060 essentially tied.
1440 p: 1070 only 5% faster than Fury X, 480 and 1060 still essentially tied.
4K: Fury X 7% ahead, 480 about 10% ahead, but for a fast paced shooter, 480 and 1060 are not really fast enough.

And AMD cpus get utterly destroyed. Skylake i3 faster than 9590 and ancient Sandy Bridge i3 very close to 8350. They also note that AMD cards are much more demanding of cpu performance.

Edit: you beat me to it Carfax. Results are all over the place for different sites, but I dont see the huge win for AMD unless one cherry-picks the benchmarks.

 

[Carfax83]

What's the deal with their 1070 cratering as the resolution increases?

The GTX 1070 is bandwidth limited for sure, with only 256 GB/s. The GTX 1080 has GDDR5X, which gives it 25% more bandwidth for reference clocked parts.

Higher resolution also increases pressure on the shaders, as there are more pixels to shade and GTX 1080 has 33% more shaders.