Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!


Discussion on Article:
Contemporary Graphics Cards in Call of Duty: World at War

Started by: Havok | Date 02/09/09 10:26:40 AM
Comments: 48 | Last Comment:  09/02/16 04:03:01 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads


Total crap. You got it all terribly wrong in the "Performance-Mainstream Category" especially. Theres no way that the 9800GTX+ can be the fastest card here. What the hell, are you guys anti ATi or what. Ive seen many reviews on CoD WAW and none show the 4870 1G and 4850 to be so much slower than the Nvidia cards. This is the second time i spotted a very inacurate review fom you guys. Maybe you should get me to come to the testing, seriously!!
0 0 [Posted by: Havok  | Date: 02/09/09 10:26:40 AM]

what is wrong with the reviewer? why are old drivers (catalyst 8.12) being used?

you risk losing your credibility...if you do not explain why (at least in the article) this is the case.

thank you for writing the article, anyhow. I'm sure you have your reasons and exercising them is your prerogative.
0 0 [Posted by: whazzupfukazz  | Date: 02/09/09 02:17:55 PM]
- collapse thread

This article was written prior to Catalyst 9.1 release, but, unfortunately, it's publication was delayed. Of course, we will use 9.1 in our new articles.
0 0 [Posted by: Vader@Xbit  | Date: 02/09/09 04:03:40 PM]

Good review but as stated by the post above mine...why using the older catalyst drivers?
0 0 [Posted by: digitalrurouni  | Date: 02/09/09 03:30:12 PM]

Yeah there is a newer version out for a few weeks now. Still i dont think thats the problem. If you look at other reviews i found the 4870 1G is a few frames behind the GTX260 Core216, and really the 4850 i better than that. i get 40-60 FPS most of the time on my 4850 with all the settings maxed 4XAA and full AF.
Here th
0 0 [Posted by: Havok  | Date: 02/09/09 11:07:27 PM]

Dammit i posted before i was finished. oops. Anyway, my point is that the 4870 is shown to be close to the 280 in that review. Here is onother one
0 0 [Posted by: Havok  | Date: 02/09/09 11:13:39 PM]

um now i noticed something wrong with your posting system...when i click on "url" the box comes up, but when i clicked it again the message posted for some reason. Really annoing!!

Anyway, heres the link to the other review i found ...
0 0 [Posted by: Havok  | Date: 02/09/09 11:17:25 PM]
- collapse thread

um now i noticed something wrong with your posting system...when i click on "url" the box comes up, but when i clicked it again the message posted for some reason. Really annoing!!

Sorry about it. We will fix it soon.
0 0 [Posted by: Gavric  | Date: 02/10/09 10:06:01 AM]

The biggest mistake is to show the 9800GTX+ to be faster than the GTX260 and the 4870 in this game. Thats definitely not right. Oh and the resolution i play is 1680x1050. As i say i get more frames than your bench on my 4850 and i only have a dual core E8200 with 2G value RAM and P35 MB. Now im done with your crappy reviews!!
0 0 [Posted by: Havok  | Date: 02/09/09 11:25:26 PM]

just ran my bench ... got min 31, max 90, avg 53.36 on my 4850 with all the same settings and on the same level of the game you tested @ 1680x1050. Your bench was done with a Core i7 as well with DDR3 memory as well. No offense guys, but i don't think this review is well polished. Enough Said!
0 0 [Posted by: Havok  | Date: 02/09/09 11:58:27 PM]

umm ya 8.12 is a little old for driver
considering we're at 9.1 now for ati drivers

however...catalyst "drivers" are at version 8.12
so hope that clears some thing sup for ppl

to fix the "ceiling" limit for cod : waw
(also works for cod 4, cod 2, cod 1)

open the console and type in /com_maxfps 0

it'll unlock the cap, the frame rate is capped at 90 fps
otherwise, hence your "ceiling"
0 0 [Posted by: ultimaone  | Date: 02/11/09 05:38:52 PM]
- collapse thread

Thanks for advice, we'll surely try this method. But, anyway, i really think, that ordinary gamer wants to (and has the right to) play, not mess with console/super secret hidden commands, etc. (:
0 0 [Posted by: Vader@Xbit  | Date: 02/11/09 07:02:34 PM]

i also have to say something weird is going on in the review

the 4870 and gtx 280 have almost identical frame rate scores

and the 4830 and 4670 are almost the same
when the 4830 should be preforming closer to a 4850

0 0 [Posted by: ultimaone  | Date: 02/11/09 06:05:03 PM]
- collapse thread

Hmm, at 1920x1200 GTX 280 has 66.9 fps, while HD 4870 has 51.4. Definitely, lattes is slower. HD 4670 has a way higher GPU frequency, than HD 4830 (750 vs. 575 MHz), and, hence, higher fillrate and ALU speed.
0 0 [Posted by: Vader@Xbit  | Date: 02/11/09 07:28:45 PM]
Most harwdare sites are sponsored by INTEL and ....N-vidia.But i think Xbitlabs is a unbiased sites.Still, my Toxic 4870 with the new CCC 9.1 driver gets 50-90 fps at 1920 res. with 4x/16x filters.

Most sites are biased toward Nvidia....unfortunately.
0 0 [Posted by: Vlad  | Date: 02/11/09 08:22:42 PM]

As many have commented, there is a great deal of weirdness going on in this review. Most of the data does not make sense. This is disappointing that a publication that claims to be HW technical site is overlooking a true interpretation of the data and doesn't stop to ask 'does this make sense, did I do something wrong'.

They ran the benchmarks completely absurdly, and the data is not correct. Take nothing away from this, it should never have been published.

Disappointing, Xbitlabs typically is higher quality than this.
0 0 [Posted by: JerryA  | Date: 02/16/09 11:50:04 PM]


Back to the Article

Add your Comment