Call Of Duty Advanced Warfare PC Benchmark Performance Nikolas Nikolaou November 4, 2014 Benchmarks Call of Duty Advanced Warfare is out, and our PC benchmark performance analysis is ready on Day Zero. This year’s version is the 11th installment in the Call of Duty series which has been developed by Sledgehammer and published by Activision. COD: AW is the first to have a three year development cycle and is a multiplatform release (PC, Xbox One and PS4) while the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions will be added later and developed by High Moon Studios. With all the multiplatform releases PC gamers get the bad end of the stick with the PC port problems that plague us on most of the “next-gen” titles. If you remember last year (something unforgettable IMO) where we analyzed the performance of COD: Ghosts , it had a plethora of optimization issues as well as subpar graphics even though it was labeled “next-gen”. Before we dive into the benchmark data we wanted to point out a few unique features and a few strange things we noted while playing both the single and multiplayer. Single and Multiplayer Features The new added features are an Exoskeleton suit (“Advanced” Warfare), which has a jetpack effect (that reminds me of Titanfall) and a few other Crysis like Nanosuit abilities as well as sci-fi drones and hovercrafts. There’s a single player mode in addition to three multiplayer modes that consist of normal multiplayer with a handful of levels and maps, the EXO survival co-op mode, the Combat Readiness Program (a mix of bots and players to learn before getting into MP) as well as a paintball feature (for underage players and paintball fanatics). COD Weapon Variants Frame Rate Cap and FOV The single player mode has no frame rate cap while the multiplayer is capped at 94 FPS. There’s no FOV view in SP while there is in MP with a slider that ranges from 65 to a max of 90. System Requirements 6GB is a minimum for RAM, a DX11 compatible GPU and a Core i3-530 for your CPU. If any of these do not meet the requirements you WILL NOT be able to load and play the game. Testing Components COD Benchmark System CPU i7 3930K 4.3Ghz Motherboard Asus P9X79 Deluxe RAM Kingston Hyper-X 16GB 1600mhz HDD/SSD Crucial M550 256GB GPU Galax GTX970 EXOC 4GB , MSI R9-290 Gaming 4S Monitor Asus PB287Q 28″ 4K 60Hz 1MS PSU Corsair AX1200W OS Windows 8.1 Drivers Nvidia: 344.48 WHQL, AMD: Catalyst 14.9.2 Beta Benchmark Methodology As you know benchmarking anything other than the multiplayer would not be right. With players running around on the map as well as gunfire and explosions this was the best way to really stress out our configurations. On all the benchmarks I played a 12 player TDM on the Riot map and started recording a few seconds into the game for exactly 60 seconds. I only logged results that I didn’t die in so that kill cams didn’t skew the data. I want to point out that the benchmark results are an indicative reference point as there are too many variables to control, but after replicating the benchmarks a few times the differences seem to be negligible. We didn’t add any SLI and CrossfireX benchmarks as there aren’t any compatible drivers or profiles. Benchmark Performance Settings For the settings I maxed out everything but supersampling and turned cache sun and spot shadow maps off. Those two settings created a strange blur that caused inferior image quality on one of the graphic cards. COD Advanced Warfare 1920×1080 Benchmark We see the GTX970 running slightly better than the R9-290 at minimum frame rate , but all in all they are near identical and above 81 FPS throughout our 1920×1080 runs. Looking closer even though the R9-290 does lack a little in the minimum frame rate it does actually perform better in terms of frametimes giving a smoother feel to the game. Call of Duty AW HD Screenshot COD AW 2560×1440 Benchmark Again with the 2560×1440 results the R9-290 is behind the GTX970 in frame rate but better in terms of frametimes, both above 72 FPS. Call of Duty Advanced Warfare 2560×1440 Screenshot Call of Duty AW 4K Benchmark On the 4K resolution we see the R9-290 pulling ahead with a 15-20% difference on both average and minimum frame rate. Surprising to see both cards hold an average of close to 60 FPS and minimums of just over 45 FPS with all the settings dialled up. On both the GPUs we see that frametimes are within a playable range without any crazy variance. I didn’t feel any stutter or jerkiness on either of the graphics cards. COD Advanced Warfare 4K Screenshot CPU Usage Lowering the resolution to 1024×768 to monitor CPU usage we see all 12 threads of the Intel i7 3930K being utilized. At the 1080,1440 and 4K resolution we see very similar results. VRAM Usage Even on the highest AA setting and 4K resolution we see the maximum VRAM usage at 3575MB . For those using different GPUs and lower or higher VRAM the numbers might vary as the game utilizes as much as it can as seen on the HD resolution . System RAM Usage With the 16GB of Kingston RAM in the system we see usage at 5-5.3GB depending on the resolution. The minimum system requirements of 6GB are about right , but they should not have disallowed loading the game with less. Hopefully a patch will be released like on the previous version of the game. Conclusion The game seems to be miles better than COD: Ghosts and the data reflects a well-optimized port. I do have to admit that the netcode is pretty bad, I encountered numerous issues with bullets not registering (even though my ping was low). This, of course, is something that will occur on the first day of launch until the game is patched. There were various glitches while loading menus (due to animations), a few disconnects for no apparent reason as well as long lobby waits for the matchmaker. Image quality on weapons, characters and NPCs are polished and look great but building and terrain textures do seem somewhat dull. In terms of performance the game was silky smooth. For those that enjoy a fast paced action FPS this time around they did it pretty well. We will be waiting for a patch fix for the netcode as well as SLI/CFX to recommend the game. See Pricing If you have any questions about the benchmark please ask in the comment section below and I will be glad to answer.