Jump to content


Call of Duty 2 Demo Released


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#21 1up

1up

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 01 July 2006 - 03:59 AM

Tried it,and I'm very dissapointed.I get 3!-20 frames on high quality.Normal runs great,but normal looks indeed like a 2 year old game,like another person mentioned.
(Doom3 runs well here with all settings up)
The patch should fix some,but we know a smp patch mostly only handles the sound.If we get 10-15 fps extra that would  be great,but not enough I'm afraid.
Quad 4000ram 7800....
Who knows maybe,maybe a super-patch will come ;)
I like the way the guns fire though,for what I've tried.

#22 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 01 July 2006 - 04:16 AM

Not true, the SMP patch alleviates any CPU limitations, some games (not SMP) put the audio onto a 2nd CPU, but SMP splits all the code between the processors, letting the GPU run more freely...

You say you are getting 3-20 frames on a Quad G5 with 7800? on high quality? now that is pretty low. Im actually surprised at how low that is, and i expect that you are being CPU limited, as the 7800 would be able to handle anything that CoD2 throws at it. I expect you might manage to double your.

in the mean time try it on highest quality, but lower the texture detail manually.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#23 Riko

Riko

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts
  • Location:Wang-Bang-Rotterdam

Posted 01 July 2006 - 05:37 AM

View Postteflon, on July 1st 2006, 10:47 AM, said:

can we get some system run downs here?? CPU, RAM, GPU, System, QT version. GO!


  Machine Model: PowerMac3,6
  CPU Type: PowerPC G4  (2.1)
  Number Of CPUs: 2
  CPU Speed: 1 GHz
  L2 Cache (per CPU): 256 KB
  L3 Cache (per CPU): 1 MB
  Memory: 1 GB
  Bus Speed: 167 MHz
  Chipset Model: GeForce4 Ti 4600
  Type: Display
  Bus: AGP
  Slot: SLOT-1
  VRAM (Total): 128 MB
  Vendor: nVIDIA (0x10de)
  Device ID: 0x0250
  Revision ID: 0x00a3
  ROM Revision: 1105
  Displays:
  Cinema HD Display:
  Display Type: LCD
  Resolution: 1920 x 1200
  Depth: 32-bit Color
  Core Image: Not Supported
  Main Display: Yes
  Mirror: Off
  Online: Yes
  Quartz Extreme: Supported
  QT 7.x, Tiger 4.3
Thats it I think, only my creditcard number left, but don't think it wise to display that here.
;)

#24 1up

1up

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 01 July 2006 - 06:25 AM

HM didn't know that about the SMP,good info.
Nevertheless can someone with a quad confirm?
When I play the demo driving to the city,it even stutters 1-3 fps.
indoors about 20 fps.I think this game is very demanding on the system.
Compared how my computer handles UT2004 and Doom3.
Yup,I could lower the settings,but personally I think that spoils 50% the fun.
When you shoot indoor on high quality it illuminates the room,really nice!
I sorta looks medal of honor  if you lower the settings...
But we'll see what the SMP patch brings.

#25 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 01 July 2006 - 07:29 AM

View PostRiko, on July 1st 2006, 12:37 PM, said:


  Chipset Model: GeForce4 Ti 4600

Thats it I think, only my creditcard number left, but don't think it wise to display that here.
;)

You can PM me your credit card details if you want Riko... $300 wasnt it? ;)

I got ERROR: FS_handleforfiles: none free. myself today on the iBook, and i think that it is the result of 3 things coming together. Having a Graphics card which is below the min spec in terms of shaders supported, dieing a bit too much, and also maybe the game having just saved it.

For example, on the first run through the demo, i put it on easy, and didnt die at all, as I was just trying to see how it ran. The go today had me put it on normal, and I let my recklessness get the better of me, dieing a bit too much, possibly thanks to the abysmal frame rate (average was 16FPS). It was when I came up to the beach of big guns that i got the error, the game had just saved, and i ran out and got the error...

To solve it all i had to do was quit the game and restart it. This cleared out the memory that had been set to it, and also the VRAM on the card, letting it get on with business. A more permanent solution would be to get a graphics card on that list of those supported. For a G4, a legit 9800 is the best, but a flashed 6800GT would be the most cost effective.

View Post1up , on July 1st 2006, 01:25 PM, said:

Nevertheless can someone with a quad confirm?

I think this game is very demanding on the system.

But we'll see what the SMP patch brings.


it isnt much of a looker unless you can power the high quality settings. High quality is the equivalent of DX9.0c, while normal is the fixed function set equivalent of DX7. So you lose out on bump mapping and other things like that.

this guy had the same results as you, on a pretty similar rig, so you are not alone. The SMP patch will definitely free things up a lot. its the same on the PC side. The only thing you could do if you want the graphics bells and whistles, is try it at a lower resolution, with AA and AF turned up. Lets say 1024x768?
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#26 ANTJedi

ANTJedi

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 13 posts
  • Location:Rochester

Posted 01 July 2006 - 02:59 PM

View Postteflon, on July 1st 2006, 10:16 AM, said:

Not true, the SMP patch alleviates any CPU limitations, some games (not SMP) put the audio onto a 2nd CPU, but SMP splits all the code between the processors, letting the GPU run more freely...

You say you are getting 3-20 frames on a Quad G5 with 7800? on high quality? now that is pretty low. Im actually surprised at how low that is, and i expect that you are being CPU limited, as the 7800 would be able to handle anything that CoD2 throws at it. I expect you might manage to double your.

in the mean time try it on highest quality, but lower the texture detail manually.

My Quad G5/7800 2.5GB RAM; I get the same really poor framerates if I set the textures to the 'extra' highest setting.  Also, if I set the AntiAliasing to 4x the video drops to 0 FPS; 'stuck' on one frame, and never updates (although the sound continues....

Bumping down the textures to 'high' and 2x AA, gives me around 30-40 FPS headed towards the city, and just inside, but slows down a bit much on HEAVY smoke.  I turned down renderer to 'normal' or 'automatic' from 'high quality' and get FPS pretty solid at 45-55FPS...

#27 FreeJet

FreeJet

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • Location:Newport News, VA

Posted 02 July 2006 - 10:02 AM

View Postjammy2049, on June 30th 2006, 08:06 AM, said:

nice, does COD2 really run on G4's though. It says it requires G5, but doesn't blake buck keep saying that it runs better than Q4 does on his 2 year old powerbook or summit?

Well I'm as surprised as anyone to report that CoD2 does indeed run on my dual 1GHz MDD G4 (2Gb RAM, GeForce4 Ti 4600 card with 128Gb VRAM, OS 10.4.7).  And it is indeed playable.  Sure there are slow downs in high activity areas and when smoke is involved but in only 2 or 3 small places in the entire game is it truly crawling.  I just plodded my way thru those small areas and came out the over side.  I ran the game at my 19 inch CRT monitor setting (1024 x 768, 85Hz), most of the graphics setting on high and anti-aliasing at 4X and I was very pleased with the gameplay.  In fact I played thru the whole game already.  It certainly played better than DOOM3 (but I managed to played thru that too) but Quake 4 is "stop motion animation" on my machine.
dual 1GHz MDD G4, 2Gb RAM, GeForce4 Ti 4600 (128Mb VRAM), OS 10.4.7

#28 Riko

Riko

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts
  • Location:Wang-Bang-Rotterdam

Posted 02 July 2006 - 10:40 AM

View PostFreeJet, on July 2nd 2006, 06:02 PM, said:

Well I'm as surprised as anyone to report that CoD2 does indeed run on my dual 1GHz MDD G4 (2Gb RAM, GeForce4 Ti 4600 card with 128Gb VRAM, OS 10.4.7).  And it is indeed playable.

It makes one think though?
RtCW (demo) was completely *unplayable* on my G3, hence I *had* to buy a G4, became the mentioned MDD with  specs as above.
Now CoD2 looks to be able to run "fairy well' on my by now ancient Mac. If I don't go for high tex etc. ??
But that was the same when Marathon came out.

Not?

And I had then what? I can't remember, was one of those licensed Mac's from 'power computing'?
before Apple, took back the
license, to create lower priced Mac models. A 7200 tower something.

What means 'playable' to you folks out there?
Everything maxed out, or do you just want to finish the game? Like you've played through 'Prince of Persia' and this (CoD2) on lowest
settings still looks better then it and is (can't be?) more fun?



@ Teflon, I'm still waiting for your first born you promised to me. ;)

#29 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 02 July 2006 - 12:25 PM

ah, nuts... i thought you might have forgotten :P

for me the graphics is a bonus. Ive adjusted myself to be able to play games at frame rates of around 20-25. anything lower than that and I really notice it, Im also not too fussy about graphics. The fact that ive never had a computer that can run everything maxed out helped me get there, and I suppose it means that i can enjoy games more with the detail lowered and the FpS middling...

On the whole, I think that that is how the mac community feels. On average, they keep their machines for longer, and as tBC said of Doom3, he was really happy with the performance on his MDD with 9800 in it, but now, hes really happy with the performance on his 2.7Ghz G5 with 6800... and he wont be going back...

playable to me means that I can get 20-25FPS out of the thing on lowest settings.
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#30 paulc

paulc

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 02 July 2006 - 01:07 PM

Is there a repeatable script/file/demo for benchmarks? Or is everyone just quoting a fps counter where they happen to be when they turn it on?

#31 Zorcky

Zorcky

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 30 posts
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 02 July 2006 - 03:03 PM

View Post1up , on July 1st 2006, 05:25 AM, said:

HM didn't know that about the SMP,good info.
Nevertheless can someone with a quad confirm?
When I play the demo driving to the city,it even stutters 1-3 fps.
indoors about 20 fps.I think this game is very demanding on the system.
Compared how my computer handles UT2004 and Doom3.
Yup,I could lower the settings,but personally I think that spoils 50% the fun.
When you shoot indoor on high quality it illuminates the room,really nice!
I sorta looks medal of honor  if you lower the settings...
But we'll see what the SMP patch brings.

I think you have a problem with your system?
I have the full version and i have played the Russian Campain out and this game just rocks on my system.
It runs better than Quake 4 with the latest update (q4 runs great too).

Now i play it on a Dual 2,5 Ghz G5/ 2,5 Gb Ram en GeForce 6800 DDL 256 Mb.

This is a two years old system and it performs this games realy great in high settings.
I have still not benchmarked it but when i did i realy want to post it here.
Hey Dutch Mac Gamers, take a look at here!

#32 1up

1up

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 31 posts
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 02 July 2006 - 04:10 PM

I don't think somethings wrong with the computer,since other people have had the same.
When you choose "rendering method preference" to high quality,and then texture settings to "high" instead of "extra" I get average 15-17 pfs,still low,but maybe with a patch it will go 30-40,and that would maybe be playable.
If I put everything on "low" in "high quality methode preference-texture settings" it gets me about 2 extra fps,so you can as well choose "high""Extra" seems not possible for now.
Going to auto or normal renders settings is not so nice ,but some won't mind ,it would then just be more united offensive,but no new graphics.
Maybe with a 512mb card?

#33 Janichsan

Janichsan

    Jugger Bugger

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8337 posts
  • Steam Name:Janichsan
  • Location:over there

Posted 04 July 2006 - 09:18 PM

Wow - when reducing the detail to the minimum, the demo is even quite playable on my tiny 12" Powerbook. Sure, the game does not look very impressive in 640x480 with almost no effects - but on the other hand there are no graphic glitches like some reported.

"We do what we must, because we can."
"Gaming on a Mac is like women on the internet." — "Highly common and totally awesome?"


#34 macgeek2005

macgeek2005

    Notorious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 05 July 2006 - 10:05 AM

View PostQuicksilver, on June 30th 2006, 10:08 AM, said:

Trust me, you need a G5, or maybe a dual-processor G4 with a Radeon 9800 Pro.  I think that Blake has lived in the land of 10-15 fps for so long that he thinks it's normal.  :lol:

(c'mon Blake . . . you don't have to take that from me!  ;))

I hope so. I'm getting a 9800 Pro for my G4 tower. I'll report how well it runs. I'm expecting to be able to play it on High textures at decent framerates. I mean come on, the 9800 Pro is a monster.

#35 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17567 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 05 July 2006 - 01:35 PM

How do you see FPS in this game?  I can load it up on my G4 with a 1Ghz CPU kit and a 9800 Mac Pro and give you an idea of what you will see.  I'll be running it on 10.3.9 however.  Tiger kernel panics on it.  Let me know if you are interested in seeing that data.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#36 teflon

teflon

    Bastard of the Popeye Analogy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9589 posts
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 05 July 2006 - 03:55 PM

you enable the console in the options, then in game you turn it on with the tilde (`) key, then type in "cg_drawfps 1", as usual without the speech marks. id be interested.

odd that tiger kernel panics on the machine... perhaps you could give it another go with 10.4.7? got all the firmware up to date and tried the usual diagnostic paths? bet youve gone over this countless times before and are sick of it by now ;)
Polytetrafluoroethylene to my friends.

Macbook Pro - C2D 2.4Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Geforce 8600M GT 256Mb / 15.4"
Cube - G4 1.7Ghz 7448 / 1.5GB RAM / Samsung Spinpoint 250GB / Geforce 6200 256Mb
Self-built PC - C2Q Q8300 2.5Ghz / 4GB RAM / Samsung 830 256GB SSD / Radeon 7850 OC 1GB / W7 x64
and a beautiful HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor

#37 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17567 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 05 July 2006 - 06:02 PM

Yeah, I'm sick of messing with it.  I'll try again when 10.5 comes out.  It hates the Tempo Trio and the 1Ghz upgrade CPU.  I'll load CoD2 up on the G4 and give you a shout out when I have something.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#38 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17567 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 06 July 2006 - 09:23 AM

OK here are my test results, by no means scientific or even well thought out.

My test machine is a G4/450 Sawtooth with a Sonnet 1Ghz CPU upgrade, OS10.3.9, 1.5Gb of memory, and a Radeon 9800 Mac Pro vid card.  My CRT has a native resolution of 1024x768 and the card has always worked best for me at the 85 refresh rate.  I played the very first mission in the game, the Russian training and short battle following.  I went to the options and clicked on the "Optimal System Settings" option which gave me:
Resolution - 640x480
Refresh rate - 60
Aspect ratio - Auto
Texture filter - Bilinear
Antialiasing - Off
Rendering Method - Auto
Sync every frame - No
Number of corpses - Small
Texture quality - Auto

With this setup I got about 15 FPS during training and 4-8 FPS during the battle.  The graphics not only looked like ass, they looked like wrinkly ass with zits.  I figured what the hey so I turned up the Resolution to 1024x768 and replayed the Russian training mission with the following battle.  My FPS improved by about 5 FPS and the graphics looked fairly decent.  I suppose this means the game is CPU bound.  I'm sure this can be tweaked even more with some deft tuning.  Tuning which I'd be clueless about and I'm willing to take directions for another test.  I am hampered by not having a timed run to use that would give me a number.  As it is, I'm eyeballing the FPS displayed in the upper right corner and giving you an estimate averaging what I was seeing. As such, I would be completely unaware of small improvements in frame rate so this effort would probably be a waste of time.

My guess is if you have a dual processor G4 and a 9800 Mac Pro vid card you will have a really nice shooter to play when the multiprocessor aware patch comes out for Cod2.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#39 Riko

Riko

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts
  • Location:Wang-Bang-Rotterdam

Posted 06 July 2006 - 11:35 AM

View Postthe Battle Cat, on July 6th 2006, 05:23 PM, said:


My guess is if you have a dual processor G4 and a 9800 Mac Pro vid card you will have a really nice shooter to play when the multiprocessor aware patch comes out for Cod2.

And the conclusion of that (might be) that Aspyr's Minimum requirements are way off!?
Heck I couldn't play RtCW on my 400 MHz, but TBC can run Cod2 on his 450Mhz???

WoW! And I don't mean world of.... just WoW!

#40 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17567 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 06 July 2006 - 01:30 PM

View PostRiko, on July 6th 2006, 10:35 AM, said:

but TBC can run Cod2 on his 450Mhz???
Don't forget I have a Sonnet 1Ghz CPU upgrade replacing that 450Mhz chip the Sawtooth shipped with.

I was able to have fun battles and do very well with the frame rate I was getting but I was not playing any of the heavier battles which I am sure would have brought it to its knees with its face bleeding from 100 cuts.  I don't think my setup will get a player through the entire game.
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat