CPU or GPU is more important?

[acare84]

For this game which is more important? CPU or GPU? For example Microsoft Flight Simulator Series CPU is more important and better CPU's boost the FPS. But I think GPU is more important for CoD, so how will be the performance with Nvidia GTX 570 on Intel Core 2 Quad 3.0 GHZ, 4 GB RAM? Thanks.

[Space Communist]

Right now it seems that the only people getting really good performance have video cards with more than 1 gb of vram. I suspect this is a temporary situation though. Once the graphics are optimized, it will probably depend on the type of mission you are running. Like if you are just flying alone your fps would be limited by your video, but if you put in 50 aircraft your cpu would be the limiting factor most likely.

[666th_Lange]

I'm using a GTX480 with 1536MB/RAM (together with a i950 CPU and 6GB of RAM) and the performance is crappy. I don't want FPS, i'm looking for smooth gameplay and we are lightyears from that.

[Vonov]

Originally Posted by 666th_Lange

I'm using a GTX480 with 1536MB/RAM (together with a i950 CPU and 6GB of RAM) and the performance is crappy. I don't want FPS, i'm looking for smooth gameplay and we are lightyears from that.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but FPS, which stands for Frames Per Second, is DIRECTLY related to smooth gameplay. Full-motion video, or what the eye perceives as smooth, natural motion, is usually a minimum of 30 frames per second...in the early days of making motion pictures, it was found that the optimum speed of the picture frames moving between the camera/projector lens, and the light source, was about 30 per second, to produce full motion video. It gave the best balance between natural-looking motion, and cost of film and developing. The reason you see jerky motion in a lot of older films, particularly during the silent film/World War I era, is that this hadn't yet been standardized, and some cameras had no means for regulating the speed of film advance. Our brains 'fill in' the movement between the frames.
The same holds true when we play games on our computers. To render (draw) motion on your computer, the video card has to generate every single pixel you see on your screen, and if that doesn't happen at least 20-30 times per second, the motion you are seeing is perceived as jerky, or even a slideshow, making it frustrating, fatiguing to your eyes, and causing a subtle form of stress (your brain trying to fill the gaps in the motion). Sometimes things happening which appear to be network lag, are actually video issues caused by a bottleneck in your system, such as a CPU which can't keep up with the video card, like pairing one of the early AMD AthlonII Agena-series quad-core processors and DDR2 RAM, with an HD6970 video card. (Don't ask me how I know, lol.) I would even go so far as to be willing to bet that a large percentage of computer gaming-induced epileptic episodes are caused by photo-susceptible gamers trying to play games on machines which are not really capable.

[Kiwi_Bro]

I have an alienware notebook 17inch with a core i7 and dual 1GB ATI5870.With everything on extra high and at 1900/1080 resolution (1080i) with no aa . it is VERY laggy .
Swapped it to 1600 resolution , somewhat better with everything on extra high , still slightly jerky.. Might start playing with the settings to get to run smooth.

GPU is very important for this game visuals.

CPU good for game loading times and maybe controlling large amounts of AI vehicles/planes

[335th_GRAthos]

Three things are important:
1. GPU
2. GPU
3. GPU
4. anything else...


Long gone are the times you used to run a game at 3072x resolutions (I used to do).

Start with 640x resolution, if happy with no stutters, increase to 800x and then 1024x

The moment you start having stutters, you know the limit of your current GPU.

I do not know why you have so many stutters with your GPU, my fps and settings under 800x and 1024x resolutions (at the bottom of the thread)
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=19777&page=3

Future patches will definitively improve the situation
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...=20055&page=12

[kimosabi]

It's a bit early to state what's going to work best IMO. Luthier has stated that teh cpu opimization is being worked on, elbow grease style, so in a month or two we might see how the engine distributes resources like it should.

[etzi]

I have my i5-2500K @ 4.9GHz, but if only one core is supported, the vga card is much more important. The load of my GPU is @ 100%.

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by Vonov

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but FPS, which stands for Frames Per Second, is DIRECTLY related to smooth gameplay. Full-motion video, or what the eye perceives as smooth, natural motion, is usually a minimum of 30 frames per second...

Well... these famous 30 FPS are not really valid for CoD. This is not RPG or RTS game but flight simulator.

It is hardly possible to enjoy flying feeling (arial combat action) under 40 FPS...

Anyway, if lowering resolution, AA, AF, texures,... speeds up significantly your game -"bottleneck" is not CPU.

But guys - don't forget RAM in this discussion... Flying over London or 3D trees is certainly RAM intensive.

[kimosabi]

Originally Posted by sasha

well... These famous 30 fps are not really valid for cod. This is not rpg or rts game but flight simulator.

It is hardly possible to enjoy flying feeling (arial combat action) under 40 fps...

qft