Call of Duty Modern Warfare Benchmark Test, RTX & Performance Analysis

[W1zzard]

Modern Warfare is the latest iteration in the Call of Duty series. It pairs amazing graphics with captivating gameplay and has NVIDIA RTX support from day one. We take a closer look at performance, comparing 23 graphics cards at three resolutions. In a separate section, we compare RTX on vs. off and look at its FPS cost, too.

Show full review

 

[londiste]

One of the best, if not the best RT inclusion in the game so far. RT shadows (and these are from point-lights only) are minor but occasionally noticeable effect in the game for a sizable but acceptable performance hit. COD:MW being otherwise optimized to an absolutely excellent degree helps as well.

 

[TKnockers]

it looks like nvidia is slowly degrading gtx 1080 ti performance...

 

[W1zzard]

it looks like nvidia is slowly degrading gtx 1080 ti performance...

It rather looks like they very much optimized the game for Turing concurrent FP+Int

 

[TKnockers]

...in other words didn't care much about older gpus.... rx580 quite solid compared to gtx 1070 @ 1080p

 

[Theliel]

I believe it's all faked by nvidia. This was probably a paid promotion.

 

[claylomax]

I believe it's all faked by nvidia. This was probably a paid promotion.

Your comment says a lot about you.

 

[B-Real]

Good to see AMD destroying their equal costing NV counterparts (RX 5700 - 2060, 5700 XT - 2060S) in an NV supported title. 350$ RX 5700 = 400$ 2060S, 400$ RX 5700 XT = 500$ 2070S.

 

[ShurikN]

One of the best, if not the best RT inclusion in the game so far.

Really?
The shadows look nicer, but the entire game looks soft and blurry with RTX ON.

 

[EarthDog]

Good to see AMD destroying their equal costing NV counterparts (RX 5700 - 2060, 5700 XT - 2060S) in an NV supported title. 350$ RX 5700 = 400$ 2060S, 400$ RX 5700 XT = 500$ 2070S.

Performance appears to be similar with 5700 and 2060s as well as the xt and 2070s. Like always (as of late), AMD takes the price to performance crown, loses in power to performance.

 

[Mescalamba]

Really?
The shadows look nicer, but the entire game looks soft and blurry with RTX ON.

Result of game being rendered at a lot lower resolution. Its only way to have some sort of ray tracing in real time. Regular ray tracing would be frames per hour, not second. Still looks okay and saves for AA.

It rather looks like they very much optimized the game for Turing concurrent FP+Int

Which also makes it very good for AMD with computation heavy GPUs. Not so good for old regular GPUs.

 

[tfdsaf]

Performance appears to be similar with 5700 and 2060s as well as the xt and 2070s. Like always (as of late), AMD takes the price to performance crown, loses in power to performance.

Hardly, the RX 5700 actually consumes a tad bit lower than the RTX 2060, the fact that it performs about 15% higher means its destroying the 2060 by 15% in performance per watt.

The RX 5700XT is a tad bit more power hungry than the RTX 2060s, about 10-15W, but the fact its destroying it by 15% in performance, means its also winning in the performance per watt metric as well.

 

[EarthDog]

Hardly, the RX 5700 actually consumes a tad bit lower than the RTX 2060, the fact that it performs about 15% higher means its destroying the 2060 by 15% in performance per watt.

The RX 5700XT is a tad bit more power hungry than the RTX 2060s, about 10-15W, but the fact its destroying it by 15% in performance, means its also winning in the performance per watt metric as well.

Yes, power use is close with the Nv cards eeking it out for what little that is worth.

I wouldn't call a ~25% difference in power use "a bit more power hungry" (225W vs 175W). With that, it isn't winning the performance /W metric either... or am I math challenged this morning?

 

[W1zzard]

The shadows look nicer, but the entire game looks soft and blurry with RTX ON.

not sure i'm seeing it. do these two images look sharp? (direct links, without our comparison viewer)

https://tpucdn.com/review/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/images/rtx-1-on.jpg

https://tpucdn.com/review/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/images/rtx-1-off.jpg

 

[tfdsaf]

Yes, power use is close with the Nv cards eeking it out for what little that is worth.

I wouldn't call a ~25% difference in power use "a bit more power hungry" (225W vs 175W). With that, it isn't winning the performance /W metric either... or am I math challenged this morning?

I mean sure, but realistically in various reviews of custom AIB cards the 2060s usually consumes in the 200W region, even the 2060s reference design consumed about 5-10W more than advertised, while the RX 5700xt consumed about 5W less than advertised.

Most custom 5700xt are consuming about 235W, about 10W more than reference, with Nvidia cards generally consuming more due to higher clock profiles on those cards and better coolers. So its about 35W difference realistically, if you look at total system power consumption that number is usually a tad bit lower as well, and with the RX 5700xt being on average 7% faster at 1440p it does end up in a tie in terms of performance per watt.

Now we can take extremes where the 5700xt is 25% faster than the 2060s and count only that, or we might take extremes where the 2060s is 7-8% faster and count only that and the performance per watt will look completely different, but overall across a range of 30+ games on average the RX 5700xt is pretty much equal in terms of performance per watt to the 2060s. Maybe a tad bit weaker depending on the games, but on the other hand it's a much better performance per value.

Ultimately on this game though it seems as the RX 5700xt is beating the 2060s in terms of performance per watt.

not sure i'm seeing it. do these two images look sharp? (direct links, without our comparison viewer)

https://tpucdn.com/review/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/images/rtx-1-on.jpg

https://tpucdn.com/review/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/images/rtx-1-off.jpg

RTX on does seem blurrier and softer for sure. I'm not sure how noticeable it is in game, but you can easily spot it in the images.

 

[fancucker]

Great write up

So essentially you're missing out on an important technical feature by buying AMD, and the best Ray tracing implementation so far. And the 2060 super on other sites has already been proven to be plenty for 1440p RTX gameplay.

 

[ShurikN]

not sure i'm seeing it. do these two images look sharp? (direct links, without our comparison viewer)

https://tpucdn.com/review/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/images/rtx-1-on.jpg

https://tpucdn.com/review/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-benchmark-test-performance-analysis/images/rtx-1-off.jpg

On those images not so much, but:

Image 3: Body and the yellow lines around it
Image 4: Text under the fire extinguisher
Image 6: Mostly ashtray, but a lot of stuff around it too
Image 7: Poster on the wall, texture of the door on the ground
Image 8: Hookah, textures of tables, tapestry, tho to a lesser extent
Image 9: Coffee pot
Image 10: Every single texture on the screen. Guns and the big bag on the table are the biggest offenders
Image 11: Brick textures on the right
Image 13: Blue cans on the shelf in the back

 

[Cheeseball]

Whats funny is if you're going to play multiplayer competitively (to rank up and unlock upgrades), you would most likely reduce the graphics settings to hit that sweet 144 Hz and 240 Hz goodness.

The single player campaign looks gorgeous with all the settings on max though.

 

[EarthDog]

Great write up

So essentially you're missing out on an important technical feature by buying AMD, and the best Ray tracing implementation so far. And the 2060 super on other sites has already been proven to be plenty for 1440p RTX gameplay.

HGH..... studies show!

 

[sutyi]

Hmm... the only note worthy difference I can see is that softshadows and a good ambient occlusion implementation go out the window wherever that magical RTX Logo appears.

Also with DLSS enabled it's enhanced vaseline graphics.

it looks like nvidia is slowly degrading gtx 1080 ti performance...

Just Pascal uarch showing its age and its shortcomings.

 

[Lionheart]

Great write up

So essentially you're missing out on an important technical feature by buying AMD, and the best Ray tracing implementation so far. And the 2060 super on other sites has already been proven to be plenty for 1440p RTX gameplay.

Your opinion & existence on this site in a nutshell...

 

[W1zzard]

Also with DLSS enabled it's enhanced vaseline graphics.

Modern Warfare does not support DLSS?

Mostly ashtray, but a lot of stuff around it too

there is literally no difference between ashtray left and right of the separator, except for the shadow up top that's correct now?

 

[the54thvoid]

It's amazing how people put on their special 'bias' vision (either shade) and spout a whole heap of crap. The RT is very good; it's subtle but you get solidity. RT does not affect the 'blurryness'. That's those 'bias' spectacles folk have on. Likewise, it's not a killer effect, not yet. Certainly not something that will ruin the game for AMD. Jeez, peeps, go and get frenzied over a sporting conflict instead.

 

[Xuper]

Omg , Vram : 8842mb?!!! I still play The Outer Worlds and MSI afterburner Overlay reports :6685mb !!

 

[mouacyk]

It rather looks like they very much optimized the game for Turing concurrent FP+Int

This is the first time an x60 SKU managed to match performance with an x80 TI of the previous gen. 960 was 50% behind 780 Ti and 1060 was 30% behind the 980 Ti. It was about time for the intersection to happen. It's probably time for the x80 Ti SKU to die.