A tool that could help evaluate BOB COD objectively

[nearmiss]

The reason I thought the Win7 performance test would help...

Because it describes the hardware and gives a score with related system information.

This performance description along with the score can be a rough evaluation.

The 3DBenchmark is fine, but it is just a raw score with no data about the respective system specs.

A previous poster indicated he got passable performance with COD with a 5.9 score and better at 6+. The one final base score is not that helpful, but the subscores are.

The subscores are good information, because others reading his posting may realize from looking at his hardware a new video card may be all that separates them from a more playable COD.
After reviewing subscores from other users it may be easy to determine if your system is comparable, and possibly adequate based on that information.

In my on situation all my subscores are greater than 7 and my HDD data transfer rate is rated 5.9, therefore I know I will probably be fine with my system. I may need to change my HDD or get a virtual HDD.

I think there is value from the Vista Win7 performance tool when we compare our own scores with other users, and their system hardware. Especially, if their performance with BOB COD is competent.

Yes, I do believe there may be better tools. This is one most of us can access and share quickly.

[Ze-Jamz]

Ok 2 things:

I understand your point but this isn't just about an issue with 'what do I need to run this game properly' so everyone can see what they need to upgrade, it's also and mainly about performance of the actual game and the fact through their own admission isn't optimised so until we all know that IS the case I'm not sure how it would benefit anyone?

Put it this way, if by looking at someone score/setup etc I then determine and 'think' it's the HD5770 1gig i need to get my game running like 'his' THEN they decide to patch it which sorts out a massive issue/leak which would of seen my old GFX card work ok...id be a Lil pi**ed off.

Let's just hope they sort out that issue then further threads and ideas like this would be alot 'more' helpful to the community...the idea would be sound if the game was running how it is supposed to be and were trying to get an idea on what hardware everyone needs to run it to XX level but this isn't the case....yet

Also appologies to Orpheus while im posting...didn't mean to tell you to shut up dude, was having a bad night, week, actualy.....month come to think of it

*shakes the hand*

S

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

Ok 2 things:

I understand your point but this isn't just about an issue with 'what do I need to run this game properly' so everyone can see what they need to upgrade, it's also and mainly about performance of the actual game and the fact through their own admission isn't optimised so until we all know that IS the case I'm not sure how it would benefit anyone?

Put it this way, if by looking at someone score/setup etc I then determine and 'think' it's the HD5770 1gig i need to get my game running like 'his' THEN they decide to patch it which sorts out a massive issue/leak which would of seen my old GFX card work ok...id be a Lil pi**ed off.

Let's just hope they sort out that issue then further threads and ideas like this would be alot 'more' helpful to the community...the idea would be sound if the game was running how it is supposed to be and were trying to get an idea on what hardware everyone needs to run it to XX level but this isn't the case....yet

Also appologies to Orpheus while im posting...didn't mean to tell you to shut up dude, was having a bad night, week, actualy.....month come to think of it

*shakes the hand*

S

I appreciate having the information. I can make my own choices about what to do about it. That's one of the things I have a brain for... to evaluate information.

It's just a simple tool that might help someone get a feel for what they need, and provide some feedback to the dev that certain systems are lousy with the latest release or vs v.

In my own case, since I have a base score of 5.9 and all my subscores are above 7. I will probably first look into raising the one low subscore item, which is my HDD data transfer rate. In fact, I may do that without any preconceived notion of improving the BOB COD performance, but just the overall improvement of my system.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Please... It's 2011...

Do like Half-Life: self benchmark tool with upload of hardware specs over internet to the devs... Isn't so hard to do.

Or look at Resident Evil 5 benchmark... We have fixed and variable benchmark tools...

This topic, sorry to say, is near useless. This sim still in beta stage. Maybe it's time do devs assume that and invest some time in benchmark tools and uploading of user specs.

We are all beta testers now. And we pay to be beta testers, we are crazy. Give us good tools to do our job, not some poor fixed topic to report bugs.

[Orpheus]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

Ok 2 things:

I understand your point but this isn't just about an issue with 'what do I need to run this game properly' so everyone can see what they need to upgrade, it's also and mainly about performance of the actual game and the fact through their own admission isn't optimised so until we all know that IS the case I'm not sure how it would benefit anyone?

Put it this way, if by looking at someone score/setup etc I then determine and 'think' it's the HD5770 1gig i need to get my game running like 'his' THEN they decide to patch it which sorts out a massive issue/leak which would of seen my old GFX card work ok...id be a Lil pi**ed off.

Let's just hope they sort out that issue then further threads and ideas like this would be alot 'more' helpful to the community...the idea would be sound if the game was running how it is supposed to be and were trying to get an idea on what hardware everyone needs to run it to XX level but this isn't the case....yet

Also appologies to Orpheus while im posting...didn't mean to tell you to shut up dude, was having a bad night, week, actualy.....month come to think of it

*shakes the hand*

S

That's quite alright mate, was a bit frustrated last night myself. Water under the bridge - we both want to help, just differ in our methods. Appreciate you taking the time to apologise, and for what it's worth I'm sorry too.

I do see your point re the actual game engine having issues that may or may not be solved with hardware replacement. The change in performance since release to current date exemplifies that side of your argument and I do agree that hardware is not the only issue affecting the game.

I think Nearmiss summed it up well. The subscores with attached hardware description are only a simple indication of rough performance, but even that is better than nothing and may help the devs - if it turns out that people with huge cpus are struggling while older cpus are doing fine, then it could indicate a problem in the way the game utilises multiple cores, or something like that. Either way, the information is useful. But the game engine itself needs a lot of improvement - hopefully this will help them do that.

@Timberwolf - the reason we both have 5.9 is simply that 5.9 is the highest hardware score for a non SSD hard disk, and the final score is always limited by the lowest rating. The final score is less relevant than the subscores (which only reach a theoretical maximum of 8, which explains why the jump from a GTX470 at 7.8 to a GTX 580 at 7.9, in mazex's case doesn't look like that big of a leap - the numbers just don't go any higher at the current time). It's not perfect, but it's a start, and because the hardware used is listed (in the complex view) we can at least get a rough idea of performance across a range of systems.

Good to see the thread calming down (mostly), and hopefully going back on topic.


This link from AARPRazorbacks has a little explanation in it, which might help:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...8&postcount=58

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Orpheus

You really are mental aren't you? This has nothing to do with MS's interest in hardware sales - are you seriously suggesting that we are all unwitting (or even willing!) participants in some Microsoft conspiracy to get us all to buy new OS with our new hardware via misleading benchmarks? Do you realise how paranoid/inane/messed up that sounds? What would be the point of even releasing a benchmark to the public that didn't work, let alone including it with all new operating systems? Do you think that your windows process manager lies to you about how much CPU is being used, or what programs you're running? Or maybe that's all part of the conspiracy too?

Clearly you know jack about marketing, or you'd realise that releasing a program across literally hundreds of thousands of users worldwide isn't good marketing - it's just dumb. All the Win Index is, is an attempt to simplify benchmarking processes so even the casual users can understand it - not just mouthbreathing neckbeards in rooms filled with Linux books and dirty tissues.



Given that it was a forum moderator that posted the OP, I figured it had a reasonable chance of helping Luthier & Co. I've said this several times now: Even if you lot think it's wrong, or an evil marketing tool, or you're convinced that your benchmarking program is so much better - save it for the other thread. Leave this one for people who actually want to contribute their settings and results, or you're just sh*tting it up for the rest of us.

Orpheus,it has been repeatedly demonstrated (by people who understand computer hardware) that the benchmark is flawed - in my case for instance, it gave two widely-differing results for the same hardware. But rather than deal with the issues, people keep pushing the benchmark as some sort of useful parameter when it comes to determining if CloD will run, and then abusing anyone who questions its utility. As I have already pointed out, the CloD specifications make no mention of the benchmark, and the developers have never given any indication that they consider it valid. Yes, Nearmiss is a moderator - but that is no indication of any particular knowledge or qualifications when it comes to the issue. I think he is wrong, and so do many other posters, and his personal opinion isn't automatically 'right' because he is a moderator.

As for whether the benchmark is a marketing tool, I can see little reason for it to be much else - it offers no useful advice apart from "buy new hardware" and as I've already pointed out, it is in Microsoft's interest to do this.

Finally, your offensive personal remarks are to me an indication of exactly what is wrong with this forum. The loud-mouthed and ignorant drown out the reasoned and logical. What CloD needs most as a 'marketing tool' is a forum where purchasers having difficulties with the sim can ask for help, without being given useless advice, and without having to wade through reams of off-topic waffle. The benchmark will tell nobody anything remotely relevant about hardware problems that isn't better dealt with by asking for proper hardware specs - the first step in almost every hardware-related problem-solving process.

[Orpheus]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

stuff..

Since Ze Jamz was decent enough to apologise, I will too - sorry if I offended you. However, the reasons for/against have been done to death in both this thread and the other one - we know you don't like it, and that's fair enough. Not everyone agrees with you, and your opinion is no more or less valid than any other - refusing to see the other side does you no service whatsoever.

I refuse to get into yet another argument over this, especially as this thread is taking a more positive turn, so let's just agree to disagree, and keep this thread on topic, ok? No need for any more

[nearmiss]

Link to Sisoft Sandra

http://www.sisoftware.net/

[Eckhart]

Can't get more than 20-25 FPS in COD with moderate settings...I mean I stopped playing around with it a month ago (get 60 FPS on average in ROF all maxed out)