Conclusion

Call of Duty is back, with the latest title Infinite Warfare taking you not only to terran warzones but also space. The single-player experience is epic and definitely more entertaining than the BF1 campaign. On the other hand, Battlefield is known for its excellent multiplayer gaming, which seems much more refined than what Call of Duty has to offer. Graphics-wise, Battlefield 1 is definitely better-looking than COD, but that fact didn't deteriorate my single-player experience at all (I've played about two hours into the campaign so far).

Graphics options are plentiful and should let you optimize the game's performance to work well on most graphics hardware. Unfortunately, the game does not use DirectX 12, which could also be a good thing. Nearly every single game released with DX12 has been plagued by severe issues. COD IW, on the other hand, uses a well-known DX11 engine which sprinkles in some minor improvements over the previous version of the engine. Overall performance is very good, with 4K 60 FPS gaming being in reach of today's high-end cards.

A massive surprise is how well the game runs on AMD cards (we used Catalyst 16.11.1 which was just released a few hours ago). At 4K, the aging Radeon R9 Fury X beats the GTX 1070 which should usually be 15% faster. The RX 480 makes short shrift of the GTX 1060 6 GB and sits roughly in the middle, between the GTX 1060 and GTX 1070 at a very playable 75 FPS at 1440p.

VRAM usage of Call of Duty Infinite Warfare is a curiosity. In the past, we've seen excessive video memory usage from Call of Duty and Infinite Warfare is no exception. Despite showing video RAM usage of up to 8 GB, cards like the GTX 1060 3 GB or RX 470 4 GB are delivering framerates that fall in line with their expected shading performance. This is definitely good news for people who - for economical reasons - bought cards with smaller memory amounts.