System Requirements (Call of Duty: Black Ops 3)
here we write who launched what configuration and how things are with optimization).jpg)
.jpg)
Source: http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/call-of-duty-black-ops-iii-test-gpu.html
Lagov did not notice. Works smartly, like the last Batman. Naturally, everything is at max + max anti-aliasing. It does not drop below 100 frames. I can't believe that 980 is slowing someone down - the graph is somehow not impressive. Perhaps, if only by hand in cfg to trick. Comp in profile. And yes - the memory is eaten.
My bucket i3 (3220), 8gb ram, gtx 660, all settings high, cinematic t2x anti-aliasing, all options are enabled. I play in a resolution of 1920x1080, the third level, so far the number of fps on my bucket ranges from 35-55
HoganHog
In short, many have problems! And for many streamers, everything flies (YouTube to help)! Few people have problems, so why is this? A rhetorical question! Well, the game is not worth bothering with! Who does not plow and do not bother, if not a fan of the series, of course, for just some kind of slag!
It is possible that those who complain are pirates! Most likely a clumsy pill. I ran litsuha and everything works fine!
vvvjust
It is possible that those who complain have pirates!
No. In Steam, the reviews are full of complaints. And only those who have the game on their account can write reviews.
tynnikov1978
CPU load at 100% (i5 2300) minimum
Excellent, so it will fly for me. I have a simple beast processor, I have a lot of RAM and more. Batman was the last to fly even in the release version. Campaign here is also a problem in the RAM and the process.
HoganHog
Azazaz !!! It's just that the era of multithreading is coming, in which Intel sucks, and AMD has seen ahead of time what will happen with game development. So all Intel owners will be quietly sucking until they release the company's powerful multi-threaded processes. Here's another comment from 2014 from the formums: "An excellent example of the fact that games do not improve nifiga under 8 cores. If they improved under 8, then FX would break many i5s. And as if the developers are bastards and scum who only need cunning - we get what "And the developers of the sorcery campaign this time decided to use multithreading, where amd is fierce.
PS The FX 8350 itself has no problems, only the card fails the gtx 770 by 2 g. And, unfortunately, the 980 cannot be opened on fx8300, 8320, 8350, as well as on i5. Even 970 is questionable, but most likely not. (i5 will open, but preferably 4670k or 4690k, even very good)
wise-sokol
No need to mislead people, who told you that the I5 generation processors with the letter "K" will not reveal the 980 !? 3570K overclocked 4.5 MHz without straining reveals 970.980 ... Where do you get such conclusions from? But as you say, the FX ruler really "sucks" the top solutions with their multithreading ...
_Norton_
from 9.17 see. And yes, 3570k will come up to 970, but not to 980.
But as you say, the FX line really "sucks" at top solutions with its multithreading ... The series does not end on fx 8350 and the release date is 2012, but now we recall the prices for amd against intel. And finally I did not understand this sentence. What are the top solutions? I don't see a moment where FX REALLY sucks, I just said that unfortunately the FX series will not reveal the latest generation of video cards until 2012. Ie a bunch of 8300,8320,8350 with 970 is still permissible, but with 980 it is complete nonsense. And just the same, within the framework of the topic about COD BO 3, the entire elite of Intel, except for i7, SOSES. Because this spell uses my 8 cores and gives me an edge over the i5. Compare comments in incentive and vidos PlayJokeGround (here, in this thread)
wise-sokol
From the video I understood only what he recommends for the top and pre-top video cards I5 2500K, 3570K ... from 9.37
On my system: FX 6300, 8GB, 260x 2GB after starting the game, it goes at high in full hd 45-60 FPS with landings up to 35-40, but after five minutes the slideshow starts 5-10 FPS
_Norton_
C 9.26 he reports that gtx 980 needs a more powerful percentage than i5. What follows is really about top-end and pre-top, maybe he was mistaken or not quite right (completely) formulated.
for top and pre-top video cards I5 2500K, 3570K ... from 9.37 and 4670k or 4690k
wise-sokol
The 3570K processor is also 2012, but unlike 8300,8320,8350, it works great in conjunction with the 980, that's just what I meant when I talked about "sucking" :) PS (Hotfix) came out for i5 processors, let's see what changed ...
Why does she need a full load?
Well, I Fx 8350 (4.6) and 980 zotac geforce gtx ti amp extreme edition
Spoylerhttp: //pcnews.ru/articles/videouskoritel_zotac_geforce_gtx_980_ti_amp_extreme_edition_samoe_bystroe_odnoprocessornoe_resenie_igrovogo_klassa-641199.html
Well, not everything loaded on the full and that? Works great in games!
Here is an example shot with a load and 60 fps almost always (even in difficult scenes, min 50-55), and so in all games!
LOOK ONLY BY DOWNLOADING on the desktop, otherwise you will not feel the smoothness of the picture!
Spoilerhttps: //yadi.sk/i/yIzOicqDkHbvn
So I don't care about i5! Moreover, the FX8350 produces many non-gaming solutions faster!
And what nonsense, actually AMD FX-Series ended in 2011 on FX-9590 with its 5000 MHz which will give no more than overclocked 8350! So, the conclusion .... Like who has prots from AMD, then it makes no sense for you to take the gtx 980 tI? So what? Nonsense, and I proved it by my example! Although with my card, there are solutions in it that are not in other gtx 980 ti, maybe that's why everything flies like that !?
Lisstoman is
another iron pro) FX pulls out r9 390 as well, I don’t know about GTX 980ti, but it will just wear out 980
wise-sokol
i7 is already considered not game, not of course schoolchildren put them, but what's the point?
yfgjnnvcg
Well, everything is logical - the average man pulls the average. 980 with FX is a waste of money.