Is a 7800GT enough for Call of Duty 2?

[davidos]

Originally posted by: munky
I tried the COD2 demo on my OC'd x800 256mb, and at 1024x768 with 4xAA everything max it runs like crap, about 25-30 fps, so dont tell me a 6600gt will handle it, unless by "handle" you mean turn off AA and put the settings to medium. Rumor has it that this game requires 512mb of video mem for optimal performance, and if this is true, then even a 7800gtx is not enough until a 512mb version is available.

I hope it doesn't require 512mb video cards.... that would be an expensive upgrade and not worth it.... imho

 

[route66]

Is it a sin to decrease the AA or AF?

That seems to be the impression I get from people here.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo

Originally posted by: 1Dark1Sharigan1

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

I'm happy when the minimum frame rate is above 60.

LOL 7800GTX can't even do that with F.E.A.R. @ 12x10 4xAA/8xAF, hell not even SLI if you're talking about MINIMUM FPS of 60 is F.E.A.R lol . . .

Exactly. If you're waiting for a card that can do 60 f/s minimum in the new games, you'll never buy another card. If I can stay between 40-50 f/s most of the time, that's good enough for me.

I'm sure the next generation will handle it just fine. The 7800 doesn't meet my expectations, so obviously I'm not going to buy one and waste my money on something that doesn't satisfy me.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: route66
Is it a sin to decrease the AA or AF?

That seems to be the impression I get from people here.

Some of us spend the money that we do on hardware so that we can use those features to enhance image quality. I paid $375 for my 6800GT so I can play Counter-Strike Source at 1024x768 with 4XAA and 16XAF and never drop below 60 fps. If AA and AF didn't matter, I would have spent $200 on a 6600 instead.

Turning off those image quality enhancements is an option, but I enjoy them. I keep them on if at all possible because they increase the overall quality of the gaming experience for me. If I have to turn them off, it decreases the enjoyment I get from the game.

I know a lot of people will say graphics don't make a game good... blah blah blah. A game with mediocre gameplay and great graphics is a good game. A game with great gameplay and mediocre graphics is a good game. What makes a truely great game is great graphics and great gameplay. Stumbling along at 30 frames per second with jagged edges on railings and stairs and blurry textures on walls and floors is not quality gaming in my opinion.

*EDIT* I am happy F.E.A.R. is this demanding though. They're pushing the hardware and using my $375 to it's full potential. Now I have a reason to upgrade, and when there's hardware available for a reasonable price that will run the game at it's full potential, I'll upgrade. But I don't know that even a 7800GTX would make me happy and allow me to play F.E.A.R. at the settings and frame rates I'd like to have... so there's no reason for me to upgrade since either way I won't be completely satisfied with how the game runs.

 

[Matt2]

System in sig, no OC on the X800XL, I played COD2 Demo 1280x1024 2x/16x AA/AF and I didnt experience a slow down.

When does the game actually come out?

Oh and isnt Quake 4 supposed to be out?

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Originally posted by: Matt2
System in sig, no OC on the X800XL, I played COD2 Demo 1280x1024 2x/16x AA/AF and I didnt experience a slow down.

When does the game actually come out?

Oh and isnt Quake 4 supposed to be out?

COD2 comes out on the 25th . . . and yes Quake 4 came out on the 18th . . .

The fact that you could play COD2 on your system with an XL proves that the 2GB of ram is a big factor (probably the ram) because I could NOT play it @ 12x10 2xAA/16xAF wihtout slow downs even with my XL OC to 460/1150, my CPU @ 2.48GHz and my ram at 620MHz!

 

[pontifex]

i played the demo fine on a plain 6800

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: pontifex
i played the demo fine on a plain 6800

Gah... that's too subjective. What is "fine?" Didn't even say what resolution! That's like this guy I know who says his XP2800 with 384 MB of RAM and a GeForce4 MX400 plays Counter-Strike: Source "fine." :| I need sleep...

 

[govtcheez75]

I don't know if the retail version of this game will be that much different than the demo, but even 30-35FPS was surprisingly smooth and playable. That's the framerate I was getting on my laptop with a 64mb 9700 at 1280x800 resolution.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: route66
Is it a sin to decrease the AA or AF?

That seems to be the impression I get from people here.

Some of us spend the money that we do on hardware so that we can use those features to enhance image quality. I paid $375 for my 6800GT so I can play Counter-Strike Source at 1024x768 with 4XAA and 16XAF and never drop below 60 fps. If AA and AF didn't matter, I would have spent $200 on a 6600 instead.

Turning off those image quality enhancements is an option, but I enjoy them. I keep them on if at all possible because they increase the overall quality of the gaming experience for me. If I have to turn them off, it decreases the enjoyment I get from the game.

I know a lot of people will say graphics don't make a game good... blah blah blah. A game with mediocre gameplay and great graphics is a good game. A game with great gameplay and mediocre graphics is a good game. What makes a truely great game is great graphics and great gameplay. Stumbling along at 30 frames per second with jagged edges on railings and stairs and blurry textures on walls and floors is not quality gaming in my opinion.

*EDIT* I am happy F.E.A.R. is this demanding though. They're pushing the hardware and using my $375 to it's full potential. Now I have a reason to upgrade, and when there's hardware available for a reasonable price that will run the game at it's full potential, I'll upgrade. But I don't know that even a 7800GTX would make me happy and allow me to play F.E.A.R. at the settings and frame rates I'd like to have... so there's no reason for me to upgrade since either way I won't be completely satisfied with how the game runs.

i completely agree with you. after all it is called a "graphics card" not a "gameplay" card. lol. making the game look great adds to the immersive feel of the game. of course if the game really sucks then the best graphics in the world wont make up for that. it takes both gameplay and cool graphics to be fun for me too.

 

[Nextman916]

The COD2 engine runs incredibley smooth on low fps's. I dont notice much choppyness until it is under 15 fps, 20 is still pretty playable.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: 1Dark1Sharigan1

Originally posted by: Matt2
System in sig, no OC on the X800XL, I played COD2 Demo 1280x1024 2x/16x AA/AF and I didnt experience a slow down.

When does the game actually come out?

Oh and isnt Quake 4 supposed to be out?

COD2 comes out on the 25th . . . and yes Quake 4 came out on the 18th . . .

The fact that you could play COD2 on your system with an XL proves that the 2GB of ram is a big factor (probably the ram) because I could NOT play it @ 12x10 2xAA/16xAF wihtout slow downs even with my XL OC to 460/1150, my CPU @ 2.48GHz and my ram at 620MHz!

How the hell did u get your XL to clock so high? Did the Silencer really make that much difference?? 430/545 is about as high as mine will go with the stock cooling

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Come on guys, if I could have a guaranteed 30fps MINIMUM that would be great!

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: pontifex
i played the demo fine on a plain 6800

Gah... that's too subjective. What is "fine?" Didn't even say what resolution! That's like this guy I know who says his XP2800 with 384 MB of RAM and a GeForce4 MX400 plays Counter-Strike: Source "fine." :| I need sleep...

1280x1024 resolution

 

[superHARD]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
You guys must have low expectations. I'm not happy with how my 6800GT runs FEAR or CoD2 at 1024x768. CoD2 runs at almost acceptable rates with AA off... but... I don't want AA off... I like AA. The last game I was able to run with the detail level that I like was HL2. Everything after that hasn't run smooth enough for me. I'm about ready to upgrade... but I'm waiting for ATI to get their ass in gear and start making some damn cards so I can see if I want a 7800 or x1800 this time around.

What cpu/ram you using?

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Originally posted by: Matt2
How the hell did u get your XL to clock so high? Did the Silencer really make that much difference?? 430/545 is about as high as mine will go with the stock cooling

Yeah the stock cooler is quite the s**t . . . on stock I could barely keep it @ 432/1100 and had to decrease to 425/1080 for some games and even then it was loading in the high 70s and peaking at the low to mid EIGHTIES!! After I stuck in the silencer 460/1150 was about my max and was stable in all my games (well cept for a few very picky game such as AOE3 which I had to use 452/1148) and temps never got above 54C . . .

The COD2 engine runs incredibley smooth on low fps's. I dont notice much choppyness until it is under 15 fps, 20 is still pretty playable.

Yeah that much is true as I've found that even when I was getting min FPS of 25 or so the game still ran fine and yeah it never stuttered. This is good news considering its not even the final build. Here's hoping the final release will be even better . . .

 

[mrza]

With all settings maxed and x4AA I get around 35-45 fps @ 1600x1200. When I change from DirectX 9 to DirectX 7, I get almost a constant 90fps.

 

[kamranziadar]

It is more than enough.

 

[roguerower]

Runs perfectly fine on my laptop with a Quadro gfx card. Of course im only running at 800x600 w/ everything on medium, but it works

 

[PsychoUnit]

Will Call of Duty 2 work well on an x1800xt at 1920x1200 resolution, with 16xAF and no AA?

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: PsychoUnit
Will Call of Duty 2 work well on an x1800xt at 1920x1200 resolution, with 16xAF and no AA?

I'll bet it would. Especially with no AA.

 

[BFG10K]

Will Call of Duty 2 work well on an x1800xt at 1920x1200 resolution, with 16xAF and no AA?

I doubt that very much.

 

[destrekor]

Um, I have an Athlon64 3700 (SanDiego) and a 7800gt... running 1280x1024 (lcd) with nearly max settings (cant even afford max settings), no AA and cannot remember if I enabled AF (may of had it on low, not sure) and I am not even getting 40fps on the opening level, maybe slight hints of 40fps but mostly around 35. When I am in firefights I dont necessarily notice slowdowns but no time to look at the framerate.
it can play it, but I am not necessarily happy that my brand new, current generation videocard can't even properly handle a game at top settings.
Benchmarks put the 7800gtx, with max settings, at right around 40fps.
Perfectly plausible.
It sounds as if no one messes with the details and just increases resolution and AA/AF settings. I go for all the details (secular maps, texture size, etc etc, tucked away from the main video configuration page).
Maybe I should try optimized settings and increasing res to the native (1280x1024) and adding AA/AF there and seeing how it plays.
I'm afraid to see what Unreal Engine 3 will do to this card. Think it's gonna slaughter it.

 

[VIAN]

nm

 

[JPB]

I run COD 2 on a X800 Pro at 1280 with graphic setting's maxed....