Is a 7800GT enough for Call of Duty 2?

[destrekor]

with what framerate?

 

[Munky]

I seriously doubt any single card will run COD2 smothly at 1600x1200 max settings.

 

[Slitherythesnake]

Hopefully, the G71 or R580 will be able to run COD2 maxed with 4AA/8AF at 16x12. I'm just hoping those cards don't cost as much as the 7800GTX 512MB.

 

[CP5670]

The demo runs like trash for me except at very low resolutions. It's probably even worse than FEAR. Is the full game any better? In any case, I ordered two of those evga copper 7800GTs (couldn't resist at $300 each), which should be much faster.

 

[Sephy]

Dude, I have a 5900SE and I can run COD2 smoothly at 1680x1050. Everything not maxed mind you, but still pretty impressive.

 

[tuteja1986]

yeah.. the game itself has performance issue and you can't even get decent frame rate at some parts of game where it becomes totally crazy :!

 

[raystorm]

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.

I feel that way about AF. I can't play a game without AF..it makes such a big difference in image quality and it barely has any performance hit at all. As for AA..its subjective. I totally don't care much about AA only because I'm not "jaggy sensitive" like alot of folks. In fast moving games I don't notice jaggies at all. Its different with everyone. I'd rather just jack up the resolution to the highest I can put it as long as the fps is playable.


Also as for that acceptable fps talk I've seen in this thread. I find a constant 25fps on max details to be perfectly acceptable for any game but NOT satisfactory. There's a difference there.. I accept 25 fps in F.E.A.R but I am certainly not satisfied with that whatsoever. I want 60+ too but what can ya do really besides spend more cash on upgrades.

 

[solofly]

Originally posted by: davidos
I don't wanna drop $370 for a card that won't play this game well at 1280 x 1024... Any thoughts?

I'm playing that game at 1280x1024 with just a single 6800GT.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: solofly

Originally posted by: davidos
I don't wanna drop $370 for a card that won't play this game well at 1280 x 1024... Any thoughts?

I'm playing that game at 1280x1024 with just a single 6800GT.

Yeah, but at what settings? My little bro can also play it at 12x10 on a 6600gt, but he's using DX7 mode.

 

[kamranziadar]

I can play COD 2 at 1900x1200 on my 24" Dell ultra sharp, AA enable, with 7800GT

 

[PsychoUnit]

Originally posted by: kamranziadar
I can play COD 2 at 1900x1200 on my 24" Dell ultra sharp, AA enable, with 7800GT

With AA and AF?

 

[RussianSensation]

Ok, when I look at this benchmark:

Call of Duty 2 - 1024x768 4AA/16AF

I clearly see that no X800 or 6800 series of cards can handle Call of Duty 2 at 1024x768. Firingsquad shows 1024x768 4AA/4AF - Link. When people say they play at 1280x1024 with 6600GT, or 5900SE, I am assuming everything at lowest possible setting...

I know everyone's definition of playable is different. But when 6800Ultra barely breaks 25-30 frames average at 1024x768 4AA/16AF, what are the minimum framerates?

Also 7800GT seems to pull only 40 frames average at 1024x768 4AA/16AF - 7800GTX 512mb overclocked struggles

EDIT: OP, it seems you already have 1 7800GT? then if you add a 2nd one, then you'll get playbility at 1280x1024 with AA/AF => 7800GT SLI

 

[solofly]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: solofly

Originally posted by: davidos
I don't wanna drop $370 for a card that won't play this game well at 1280 x 1024... Any thoughts?

I'm playing that game at 1280x1024 with just a single 6800GT.

Yeah, but at what settings? My little bro can also play it at 12x10 on a 6600gt, but he's using DX7 mode.

I repeat, I'm using a 6800GT (not 6600) at 1280x1024 with medium to high in game settings and 2xAA. Single player plays fine...

 

[VIAN]

I have everything turned on at 1280x1024 except V-sync (learned to live without in on LCD's), and I get barely acceptable performance. Frame rates spend about half the time in the low 30's and the other half in the high 20's and in certain areas, they can go down to the low 20's. I didn't play that bad though, until it went down to the low 20's.

Without AA or AF, the framrates spend half the time in the low 40's and half the time in the mid 30's and in certain areas, can go down into the mid 20's.

There are certain areas in the game where lowering the resolution is the only way to get above the mid 20's. Which is probably a glitch in the game, since I'm inside a building in 2 out of 3 of those areas that I've found so far.

Originally posted by: 1Dark1Sharigan1
Hmm you GT should be able to do better than 1024x768 in COD2 or F.E.A.R. It should generally do better at stock than an X800XL in those games. Depending on your proc, a 6800GT should get around 35-40FPS in F.E.A.R. at 12x10 2xAA/8xAF with high settings (no soft shadows, etc.) and OC it should do better. COD2 is actually a bit more taxing than F.E.A.R. I believe as on my system the COD2 Demo has run slower than F.E.A.R. with similar settings (though F.E.A.R. has more slowdowns) though that could just be due to the unfinalized script . . .

I wish my GT got those fps in FEAR with those settings. I had to lower my res to 1024x768 to keep the high settings except soft shadows and still run playable. Although, I made sure there was never an area that gave me less than 30fps.

 

[VIAN]

look above.

 

[theslickvik]

Plenty of ware and tear

 

[xSeongminx]

*Sits down and stares at the 9800 XT sitting on the table...* You guys are hard-core... I won't be upgrading my computer for another year or two and here you guys are with the top 5 fastest cards in the world, contemplating... I can't even finish the sentance...

 

[alent1234]

I wasn't sure of the resolution, but I played Call of Duty 2 at CompUSA on an HP PC with an integrated ATI card in it and it was decent. The integrated ATI cards support T&L and aren't too bad.

 

[Crescent13]

My 6600GT runs COD2 at 1280x1024 with 16xAF @ ~ 15-20fps. Don't think a 7800GT should have much of a problem.

 

[destrekor]

just found this out:
all systems should turn on 'Optimize for SLI' for CoD2. Even a single card system, without an SLI chipset, should have that option turned on. I dont know why. But it definitly adds a performance increase for non-sli systems.

 

[IllSucubus]

I've noticed the same thing about turning on "Optimize SLI" for Call of Duty 2 in my system. My room mate is running a 7800GT in his P4 3.0GHz system pretty well. At medium settings and the res set at 1024 x 720 the game runs smoothly. I'm sure he could bump up a few of the settings and still be fine.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

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.

UIhh FEAR is insane. I'm not happy with my 7800GT 1024x768 4xAA 16xAF. 1280x1024 is quite not playable for me because I have high expectations.... 33 fps?? Ew?

 

[VIAN]

COD2 optimal settings are at 1024x768 with 4xAA, Bilinear Filtering (can't believe that's an option in a game), lighting at normal and smoke (whatever it's called) at world only.

Well, I did some changing of my own and set AF on. Left the rest as is. I didn't notice a difference in lighting or smoke, just the res change, which knocks my panel out of native. At least I get minimum fps of about 44.

 

[tvdang7]

ok guys.........jsut use direct x 7 and that bumps ur performance more than 100% looks a tad worse tho.......x800 xt here......dont know what to do........max settings direct x 9 with 40 frames or max with direct x 7 with 100+ frames

 

[destrekor]

well lower some settings and use DX9 mode

everyone is used to the past where you could expect top graphics with current hardware, and that idea is gone now. especially with the unoptimized CoD2 and FEAR
Unreal Engine 3.0 will run better and yet look way better too. But engines that are used once have that problem. They never go through serious refinements. They look nice, but dont look as nice given the hardware requirements.

so tvdang, I'd suggest using DX9 and just lowering some settings.
My current settings, I don't go below 30fps much. As long as its above 35fps most of the time, thats smooth enough for me to consider playable. 35-40 is enough for anyone to consider smooth. you dont need 60fps to have a game be playable.