• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Call of Duty: Ghosts min specs: x64 OS, 6GB RAM, 550Ti DX11, 50GB HDD. Recom: GTX780

Has anyone suggested yet this is IW purposefully failing to optimise the code so as to artificially create the impression of a hardware-demanding title?
 

Durante

Member
PC ports have been excellent for the past 4 years and now by the looks of the 3 system specs we have seen in the last few days we've taken 10 steps back into the early 2000's again....damn thanks next gen!!!
I think PC ports have been terrible for the past 4 years and now we are finally taking a step forward again, like in the glorious early 2000s. Thanks next-gen!

(But sadly you'll win out in the end when we return to the status quo a year or so from now)
 
I've got the following at the moment:
Athlon II x4 640 3.00GHz CPU
8 gigs RAM
NVidia GTX 670 GPU

According to certain websites, my motherboard can take the AMD FX-8350 CPU (but only after I update the BIOS). At present, the most my motherboard will take will be the 8300.

What I would like to ask is whether the Athlon is worth sticking with for the foseeable future (6-12 months), or should I be looking to upgrade my CPU asap? Better yet, at what point should I be looking to build myself a new rig (more powerful components with more ram)?
 

Durante

Member
I've got the following at the moment:
Athlon II x4 640 3.00GHz CPU
8 gigs RAM
NVidia GTX 670 GPU

According to certain websites, my motherboard can take the AMD FX-8350 CPU (but only after I update the BIOS). At present, the most my motherboard will take will be the 8300.

What I would like to ask is whether the Athlon is worth sticking with for the foseeable future (6-12 months), or should I be looking to upgrade my CPU asap? Better yet, at what point should I be looking to build myself a new rig (more powerful components with more ram)?
For highly threaded games (like the upcoming console ports), a 8350 is a very cost-effective upgrade for you, considering that you don't need to buy anything else and that it's rather cheap. Whether or not to actually do the upgrade is a question of which games you want to play and if you're happy with your performance in those -- yeah, sorry, that's not particularly helpful :p.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
I'm surprised at the hate TXAA receives. It's the best solution this side of SSAA and manages to deliver image quality more in line with a pre-rendered film than a normal game. People seem obsessed with seeing pixels and perceive temporal and shading aliasing as "sharper" when, in reality, it's a flaw in the image.

That said, Ghosts really doesn't look much worse than Titanfall (in fact, I'd argue it looks more impressive in some areas). BF4 is the only game which is a clear step up as they have all but abandoned last generation consoles (as the beta demonstrates).

Is this shot really Ghosts, though? This one stands out to me as it looks more like Black Ops 2. Honestly, many of those shots really do look like Blops 2 to the point where I'm wondering if they really ARE Ghosts shots.

t6sp20121112203455506n1s5o.png

I think PC ports have been terrible for the past 4 years and now we are finally taking a step forward again, like in the glorious early 2000s. Thanks next-gen!
Wait, console to PC ports were awful in the early 2000s. That's not even subjective right there.
 

Durante

Member
I'm surprised at the hate TXAA receives. It's the best solution this side of SSAA and manages to deliver image quality more in line with a pre-rendered film than a normal game. People seem obsessed with seeing pixels and perceive temporal and shading aliasing as "sharper" when, in reality, it's a flaw in the image.
I agree. I think it's because people are used to judging AA from pictures only. The advantages of TXAA are primarily in the absence of flickering induced by temporal aliasing in motion -- you only really notice how detrimental that is to graphics feeling solid when it's gone.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
I agree. I think it's because people are used to judging AA from pictures only. The advantages of TXAA are primarily in the absence of flickering induced by temporal aliasing in motion -- you only really notice how detrimental that is to graphics feeling solid when it's gone.
Exactly. The improvements are dramatic in motion and really improve finer details (such as power lines, fences, and foliage). When offered it's my preferred method of AA (SSAA is tops but still too demanding for my setup).
 
For highly threaded games (like the upcoming console ports), a 8350 is a very cost-effective upgrade for you, considering that you don't need to buy anything else and that it's rather cheap. Whether or not to actually do the upgrade is a question of which games you want to play and if you're happy with your performance in those -- yeah, sorry, that's not particularly helpful :p.
Cheers for that. I was actually looking to maybe upgrade my CPU around November/December. It's either that, or buying a Vita/3DS.

The only reason is because the launch titles for the PS4 look rather lacklustre, and I'm not convinced that there will be anything worth owning on next gen consoles for at least a year - which is when I'd be looking to buy one. I guess next gen still needs it's own killer app - and that will come in time when MGS and FF XV launch (allegedly next year).
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
I bet they're taking advantage of bluray to fill the single player campaign with 1080p bink movies.
Or better still, non-Bink movies. I'm so sick of that codec.

It uses very little resources during playback but the results are just awful. The files are huge, compression artifacts everywhere, and PC playback tends to suffer from micro-stuttering.
 
This is 2013. Every PC gamer downloads games from Steam or other services and disc drives are even getting rare in modern computers.

Haha, this is the case I have. Brilliant. Admittedly I have a external disc drive for my grilfriend, so she can put her sims 3 on.

As far as the specs go, I'm happy as long as we get the goods in exchange.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Foliage examination...

Another Ghosts shot that was floating around. The second shot really does look like a Blops 2 shot to me (though I can't be sure).

call-of-duty-ghosts-screenshot-ME3050139356_2.jpg


vs

t6sp20121112203455506n1s5o.png
 
So if this runs on the 360 and PS3 with just 512MB of memory what excuse do they have? Agreed that it wont look as good as the PC version, but still doesn't warrant needing another 5.5GB of memory??

And no 32 bit support for OS??

PC ports have been excellent for the past 4 years and now by the looks of the 3 system specs we have seen in the last few days we've taken 10 steps back into the early 2000's again....damn thanks next gen!!!

It was inevitable. Next gen pushes the low bar up. Engines are up to date and multiplatform capable as well, so there's less ports from 360 to pc and more games made for PC alongside consoles instead of on consoles and then to PC.
 

Nabs

Member
I'm surprised at the hate TXAA receives. It's the best solution this side of SSAA and manages to deliver image quality more in line with a pre-rendered film than a normal game. People seem obsessed with seeing pixels and perceive temporal and shading aliasing as "sharper" when, in reality, it's a flaw in the image.

That said, Ghosts really doesn't look much worse than Titanfall (in fact, I'd argue it looks more impressive in some areas). BF4 is the only game which is a clear step up as they have all but abandoned last generation consoles (as the beta demonstrates).

Is this shot really Ghosts, though? This one stands out to me as it looks more like Black Ops 2. Honestly, many of those shots really do look like Blops 2 to the point where I'm wondering if they really ARE Ghosts shots.




Wait, console to PC ports were awful in the early 2000s. That's not even subjective right there.

That's Blops 2.
 

Bittercup

Member
The 50GB thing is probably dummy data or bloated files to discourage piracy
Do pirates have slower internet connections than normal customers? Else this would be a pretty double edged plan making the digital download version less attractive to customers. Especially since no one is stopping pirates to just rip the dummy date from the release and having a smaller version to download.

I'm not surprised about the big jump in game size for next gen. Games have been kept artificially small due to the limited DVD size with compromises like horrible compression or cut content as a result. I'm happy when developers are less limited and use the additional space for their games.
 

FourMyle

Member
Suddenly there are a lot of performance/hardware experts here :)

I will say it again, nvidia exclusive features are performance eaters. If you put all of them into a highly modified old core engine, the problem will be bigger.

There is another recent game running over a highly modified engine and using nvidia feautures; Splinter Cell BlackList.

That game uses nvidia HBAO+ and TXAA and hardware tessellation in modified Unreal Engine 2.5. Can you run maxed Blacklist at 60 fps?. Maybe, if you have a GTX780 or higher gpu.








Exclusives features used as a coat of paint can't transform a "current gen" engine (in fact, previous gen :p) in a full next gen game, but that point doesn't reduce requeriments.




Call of Duty Ghosts adds Physx to the ecuation. Usually, physx gpu needs and additional dedicated gpu to run complex effects smoothly (Mirror's Edge in his year, Mafia 2 in his year, Dark Void, Batman, Alice, Borderlands 2, HawKen, PlanetSide 2, etc).

We don't know how Ghosts physx effects will be, but obviously that will affect performance.


The fun of pc games is that the bigger range of graphic possibilities, the better.

And if you can live without HBAO+, TXAA and physx effects, you don't need a GTX780 to play Ghosts at 1080p and 60 fps. Battlefield 3 and 4 doesn't have any of those effects. Features and graphics effects don't establish the final graphic quality of a game, but surely can determine hardware requeriments.

This honestly looks like an Xbox 1 game.
 

Goku

Banned
Watch_Dogs also has pretty rediculous requirements and I think it's because they want to make Xbox One/PS4 look more interesting and powerful to mask that they're actually underpowered. It would be shameful to see that PS runs next-gen equivalents of games on much cheaper and older hardware. Solution? Ramp up the requirements.
 
For highly threaded games (like the upcoming console ports), a 8350 is a very cost-effective upgrade for you, considering that you don't need to buy anything else and that it's rather cheap. Whether or not to actually do the upgrade is a question of which games you want to play and if you're happy with your performance in those -- yeah, sorry, that's not particularly helpful :p.
Just found out that my motherboard can't take the 8350 after all - confirmed it with Gigabyte. Can only have the 8300. Is it worth upgrading the CPU to 8300 from the Athlon II x4 640, or would you recommend that I wait a year, and then upgrade my motherboard and CPU at the same time?
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Watch_Dogs also has pretty rediculous requirements and I think it's because they want to make Xbox One/PS4 look more interesting and powerful to mask that they're actually underpowered. It would be shameful to see that PS runs next-gen equivalents of games on much cheaper and older hardware. Solution? Ramp up the requirements.
Yeah, it's all one big conspiracy.
 

Sentenza

Member
Watch_Dogs also has pretty rediculous requirements and I think it's because they want to make Xbox One/PS4 look more interesting and powerful to mask that they're actually underpowered. It would be shameful to see that PS runs next-gen equivalents of games on much cheaper and older hardware. Solution? Ramp up the requirements.
I still don't get this outrage with WD requirements.
And I'm not even interested in the game (which I have this gut feeling is going to be as dull and boring as any Assassin's Creed).
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
I don't know if you're beeing sarcastic, but I geniounly think it's a conspiracy.
Then you're being a bit silly. The requirements will not remain the same for games designed with new consoles in mind. Plain and simple.
 
I don't know if you're beeing sarcastic, but I geniounly think it's a conspiracy.

At least this thread will be educational for some people. I'm surprised that it isn't general knowledge that most PC games were made with 2005/2006 consoles in mind and eventually the bar will be raised.
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Watch_Dogs also has pretty rediculous requirements and I think it's because they want to make Xbox One/PS4 look more interesting and powerful to mask that they're actually underpowered. It would be shameful to see that PS runs next-gen equivalents of games on much cheaper and older hardware. Solution? Ramp up the requirements.
This assumes that console gamers give a damn about how many megahurtz PC games require. That's a pretty outlandish assumption.
 

demolitio

Member
Honestly, why would anyone be shocked by these games' requirements? It's basically following the same trend as the last generation transition where they screw over PC gamers in the beginning by releasing unoptimized games that just brute force through the game and then we come back to reality 2 years later and start getting really good ports and then get to the point where most gaming PC's will run the PC games better than the consoles again. It's the same cycle and I remember being mad that my awesome PC at the time couldn't play certain 360/PS3 ports at a decent framerate just because they never focused on the PC for one bit.

I'm just glad to hear these aren't official but they're kidding themselves if they think their game warrants these specs.
 
Top Bottom