Call of Duty 4 on T5270 / 8600m GT

I've heard some very mixed feedback on how Call of Duty 4 will run on my laptop. When I asked on the official Call of Duty forums, I was told by several people that it would not run very good at anything over low settings, and I would experience nasty lag in multiplayer. However, I've also heard people that say that I should be able to play on medium-high / high settings without much trouble.

Can anyone clarify for this for me? Thanks.

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T5270 (1.4GHz/800Mhz FSB/2MB cache)
Genuine Windows® XP Home Edition
15.4 inch Wide Screen XGA LCD Display with TrueLife™
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz, 2 DIMM
160GB 5400RPM Hard Drive
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8600M GT

 

Should work just fine on your specs , about medium at native res .

D/L and test the demo if you are concerned about it .

 

If you have the DDR3 version of that card you should be fine at everything medium-high... or at least that's what www.canyourunit.com tells me.

 

The problem is, your CPU might be a big bottleneck.

While your GPU is up to par with running everything on at least a Medium, your CPU might not be fast enough... But again, download the demo and see for yourself.

 

yeah also try www.systemrequirementslab.com and do a test and it will see how well it goes.

 

Bleh, I wanted to upgrade the CPU, but it was another $100 and I figured I'd be fine without it. Fortunately, I'm mostly looking forwards to revisting older games that'll run fine, but I was really hoping to get CoD4 running at good settings. =[

 

dont worry about the CPU being that much of a bottleneck.. check this thread http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=197603

its kind of a flame war but its worth reading, especially the posts of the user AKA Pulp

 

I have the same exactly specced notebook as yours and I can run COD4 demo just fine. I had to turn off AA though, so you should be ok.

 

it's a good article for check if you want to buy a new cpu,,but there is no conclusion there.

 

I run CoD4 at 1680x1050, maxed settings...4x AF at a comfortable FPS, 20 min, 40 max. However...my CPU steps all over yours. Personal preference I guess.

 

you also have more vRam which CAN help with large texture transfers...

 

Hey, Im new here and I was loking at posts in wich you were talking about performance in games at laptops.
I just bought a new laptop:
Acer Aspire 9920 @ Vista
-Intel Centrino Duo T7700, 2,4GHz, 800MHz FSB, 4MB L2 Cache
-GeForce 8600M GT 512MB Turbo Cache up to 1280MB
-2GB DDR2
-2*250GB HDD
...

And Im wondering ziggo0, do you really play COD4 at 1680×1050 and you have comfortable FPS? I don't know if is this normaly, but i have only 30FPS at same resolution and AA on 0×. If I switch on 1200×800 is a litle bit batter but not much. For only, like 20fps? :S
In COD2 i have 250FPS but at directX7. Anyone knows whats wrong?

 

I too see you having trouble running at 1650x1080 because I cant even run the game at native res for my 17" monitor (1440x900) without it being VERY slow and my system runs circles around yours.

 

Yeah, I really do play it at 1680x1050. It is comfortable but when there is a TON of action going on, it drops to the low 20's and in the teens its when it gets uncomfortable. My biggest problem with playing at a lower res is its not native and the image is stretched out. If I play without scaling, the screen is tiny lol. Its a sacrifice I'm willing to make. I also run Windows XP Pro SP2 with a completely tweaked out setup, mainly for gaming heh.

What drivers are you running on that 7950?

 

,I can vouch for him. I did the same with my c90. with the gpu overclocked.

 

On the original topic ,

I just installed the game exactly the same setup , only with 1.5 C2D .

Its works just fine on native res 1200X800 , however when I starfe I get wierd lag . Its hard to explain but static objects shake left to right . It doesn't happen when moving forward .

The reported FPS are in the 70+ on med+ setting , maxxed out I get 50ish .

Tried 162.18 modded driver ( XP SP2 ) , anyone got any idea ?

I wish I had tested it on vista first .

 

Screen tearing mabey

Try turning vsync on

 

Thanks tried it already but it didn't help .

Btw I tested the same game on a 9300 pentium M and it doesn't happen , though the FPS rate is lower on the older machine .

 

and pigs can fly...
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/605/9/
and don't forget check system config., because that CPU steps all over yours:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/605/2/

 

He said 4xAF not AA. Yes a 8600m ddr2 can do that when overclocked. If hes claiming that he can do that stock then I don't agree with him. Check the numbers in my review thread.

 

I check your numbers when you reach 10 000 points in 3DMark06 ( Radeon HD 3850):
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/605/10/

 

Yes my 8600m GT is overclocked. Its the only way I can play it comfortably at my settings. I run 560/1275/475 for now. I'm ordering the GDDR3 version when retailers get them back in stock.

 

What the heck does your link prove? What the heck does 10,000 points in 3DMark06 mean? Let me tell you: Nothing. It doesn't relate to any in-game performance. It's a synthetic benchmark.

Why don't you check out some real-life benchies? The 8600M GT DDR2, when OC'd, can run this game at 1680 x 1050 at an average of 30FPS with 2x AA.

Here, since you're too lazy to click on links, let me QUOTE it for you:

.

 

And just to clarify, I'm running 0x AA and 4xAF, hell I can run 8xAF and put up with it. But the game is so detailed and moves so quickly in battle that you don't have time to notice the pretties.

Oh, you want to not believe me about something else? I can run Unreal Tournament 3 with the same res, max settings, 4xAF as well and you know what LOL, 20 min, maybe dips into the teens and around 30 ~ 40 pending the map. The waterfall on Gateway hurts the FPS but other than that.

 

Yeah, AF takes substantially LESS processing power than AA, so 4x AF is definitely possible if 2x AA still averages 30FPS.

 

i have t7100 1.8 1gb ram and a 256mb 8600m gt which plays call of duty 4 on high settings without a problem so yours should be fine playing it

 

By real you mean-where you can write whatever you want

Then i wanna congratulate you for owning such a powerful "special edition Vostro1500", which can keep up with gaming rig equipped with Core 2 Quad QX9650, 4GB RAM, and Radeon HD 3850 (669MHz/1.658GHz GDDR3.):
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/605/9/
LOL.

 

Whats with all the hate?? Just a little envy that we can play CoD4 at decent specs? or just a little thick headed that you cant see that AA is off when we play, where its 4x AA in your link, that you seem to live by. If they turned AA off, there fps would be insanely high....and btw, if your going to high-jack a thread, at least make an attempt to answer the maker's question.

Yes you should be able to run it alright, id say maybe maybe medium/high would be comfortable (turn off AA). You have the ram, vid car, cpu is a tad low, but its still close to recommended. Also, the game looks good still in 800x600 too, so no matter what it'll still look good.

Btw Ifrin, hardware doesnt account for all, I'm on Vista, allot say its sluggish, uses more ram and cant play games too well. I can any game better in vista then XP, becuase vista uses a a better ram based system management and dx10. If you tweak it just right, anything can be played on max settings good. I play at the same settings as the other c90s, when I benchmark via fraps its always around 41 avg. That also includes good fps in crysis.

 

LOL. I guess you can't read either, eh?

Who said I was playing CoD4 at 1680 x 1050 with MY specs? The person who did the benching was The Forerunner. I simply quoted his results since you were too lazy to click on his review link .

Heck, if you could read, you'd have seen my resolution in my sig: WXGA. That means 1280 x 800.

But go ahead, go live in your little dream bubble--I don't care . Just don't cry to us when our 8600M GT can play at 1680 x 1050 and you can't.

The fact that you actually think a QUAD CORE CPU increase game performance is laughable, and just shows your lack of knoweldge .

 

I'm sorry to flame on more but do you not understand the difference between AA - Anti-Aliasing and AF - Aniscopic Filtering? AA takes a HELL of a lot more processing power and AF on todays higher end cards are basically free. The hit in performance is minimal, even on a 8600m running CoD4 @ 1680x1050. You know what, if I turned up the AA to 4x with my card, I'd get like maybe 5fps average. You turn the AA to 0x on that HD 3850, and it will probably have double the FPS. Just because there is a comparison in FPS between the 2 cards at different settings means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THEY DO NOT PERFORM THE SAME. Please get this into your head.

This needs to be quoted for truth. Infact, I don't know of any games off the top of my head that are coded to make use of 4 cores. Game coders are just now starting to get into multi threading to make use of the 2 cores that are in most rigs now. Granted a q6600 would kick ass vs. a e6600 doesn't mean your going to get 50 million more FPS.

 

Let me quote for you one more time:
"The 8600M GT DDR2, when OC'd, can run this game at 1680 x 1050 at an average of 30FPS with 2x AA"
Did you notice difference between resolutions:
1280x1024 w/4AA(gamin rig) and 1680x1050 w/2AA (C90) running CoD4 at almost same pace?
Did you notice difference in configuration/performance between gaming rig (which is at least twice more powerful) and C90, or you need "real-life benches", because those from links are fabricated.
No need for MENSA membership to get right conclusion...

25% increase, that's enough for me:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=877&model2=1073&chart=421
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=877&model2=1073&chart=422

 

Ifrin, stop being annoying.

An overclocked 8600m GT is a savage beast. Even my stock-clocked 7900gs can run COD4 amazingly well, since the game is so highly optimized.


To the OP, your CPU is definately holding you back, since COD4 uses a lot of physics calculations, especially for bullet penetration.

For more performance, turn off the shadows. That will give you at least a 10-fps boost. You could also turn off AA, but I personally can't live without at least 2xAA.

Soft smoke edges and Specular Map settings will also suck up a lot of FPS.

 

Ifrin, stop arguing without FACTS.

Those two links you provided are for CPU TEST. Notice how both games are trying to test out the CPU? Supreme Commander is a CPU intensive game since you can have an unlimited amount of units, and in UT, the bot number is set to 16 to see which CPU can process 16 bots the FASTEST.

It has nothing to do with the CPU increasing GPU performance .

Here, I'll provide some BENCHMARK numbers with FPS Screenshots!
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2577932&postcount=659

Scroll down until you find CoD4 benchmark and look at the FPS on the top left of each screenshot.

With ALL settings turned on + 4x AA, it's still averaging 17FPS. By turning off 4x AA, the FPS will more than easily double.

Happy now? Go argue somewhere else.

 

Your quoting someone else and not me. And yes, a 8600m GT can run 30fps average at that resolution with 2xAA, also note he didn't say he was running max settings either.

There can be a difference between a gaming rig and a "gaming" laptop - but this is out of the question. My rig before was a single core Opteron 144 @ 3.2ghz, and a x1900XTX overclocked and I could run CoD4 @ 1680x1050 and much much higher fps with AA and all that JAZZ. But see that is not the point. The point of this thread is the OP wants to know how well CoD4 will run on THIS CPU with THIS VIDEO CARD. Not a HD 3850 or a desktop built for gaming.

Just because a lower end card can run a game at a high res, with max settings at an average FPS vs a higher end card doing the same thing with AA enabled doesn't mean jack ****. It means this card is better than that card. I can get a GF4 MX420 to run 100fps solid in CS:S meanwhile a 9800PRO or 6800GT can do the same thing at the same settings and so forth. Hell, even higher settings it can yield 100fps.

Ok, sure, you got me on those benchmarks. Who here if they could afford a quad core would run supreme commander at 1024x768? We all know low res = cpu dependant and high res = gpu dependant, right? Well lets crank up the res to 1680x1050 or maybe even 1900x1200 or whatever, the numbers WILL thin out.

 

My point being, my numbers from my review are not false and therefore ziggos are not either. Why are you bringing in specs from another gpu. If it was a nvidia card I would slightly see your point but mostly everyone knows that 3dmark is terrible comparison for nvidia vs ati.

 

You should be good, I can play it on highest on my computer and my processor is only (1.8GHz, not that much higher than yours).

 

Meh. I'm sure your laptop can play COD4. Mine plays at 30-40 FPS at 1024x768, shadows off (not all shadows, only self shadows), everything maxed (for some reason there's no 'high', just 'normal'. 'High' is probably for DX10 cards only), medium corpses, soften smoke edges no, 2xQ AA, no AF. And that's an old Geforce Go 6600 I'm talking about. Do yourself a favor and download the demo. I'm sure you'll get the game when you're done with it. =)

I can actually run at nicely at 1280x800, but the FPS dips down to 20 in places full of foilage, just like in the beginning of these two mission where you invade the Russian missile launching facility and the one where you extract Nikolai out. Tons of foilage = kills FPS.