Friday, October 11th 2019

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare System Requirements Revealed

Ahead of its October 25 release, NVIDIA got hold of the system requirements for "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare," the month's hottest AAA release. NVIDIA is an extensive technical partner for the game's development, and the game is expected to feature NVIDIA RTX real-time ray-tracing at launch, along with support for NVIDIA Highlights and Ansel, although there's no mention of DLSS from NVIDIA. The game supports Windows 7, and isn't restricted to Windows 10. It calls for a whopping 175 GB of disk space. The bare minimum system requirements for a 1080p experience includes 8 GB of RAM, Intel Core i3-4130 or AMD FX-6300 processors, and GeForce GTX 670 or current-gen GTX 1650 graphics.

The recommended system requirements for 1080p 60 FPS without ray-tracing are Core i5-2500K or Ryzen 5 1600X processor, 12 GB of RAM, and either GTX 970 or current-gen GTX 1660 graphics. For 1080p 60 FPS with ray-tracing, the requirements climb up to RTX 2060 graphics. At the same resolution with 144 FPS frame-rate, "High" preset, and "competitive" performance that won't let you down in an online MP situation, you'll need at least a GeForce RTX 2070 Super, 16 GB of system RAM, and either Core i7-8700K or Ryzen 7 1800X processor. For 4K 60 FPS with ray-tracing, a high-end experience, you'll need at least an RTX 2080 Super graphics card, and either Core i7-9700K or Ryzen 7 2700X processor. The NVIDIA article doesn't mention AMD Radeon graphics cards. In the absence of ray-tracing, you can probably use an RX 590 for 1080p 60 FPS, RX 5700 for 1080p 144 FPS or 1440p 60 FPS.
Add your own comment

34 Comments on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare System Requirements Revealed

#1
3rold
Where are the AMD GPUs?
Posted on Reply
#3
TheLostSwede
Based on the beta, this game is NOT going to get you 60fps at 4k with any current card...
Well, ok, maybe a Titan RTX...

Also, the console-esque UI is utterly crap with a mouse and keyboard, especially as I couldn't find a way to zoom out to see the whole progression tree, as it has too many options.
Posted on Reply
#4
Ferrum Master
High FPS setup has weaker CPU than the 4K.... sure...
Posted on Reply
#5
TheLostSwede
Ferrum Master, post: 4131318, member: 90058"
High FPS setup has weaker CPU than the 4K.... sure...
One with, one without raytracing.
Posted on Reply
#6
Ferrum Master
TheLostSwede, post: 4131320, member: 3382"
One with, one without raytracing.
The 144Hz that gets the highest toll on the CPU to get such speed...
Posted on Reply
#7
64K
The game will feature real time ray-tracing but only for the shadows is what I read. We've got a ways to go before a mainstream card that is affordable will be able to handle full real time ray-tracing even at 1080p much less at 4K. Just a guess but probably 2 generations from now and by that time Developers will be taxing the GPUs even more so it might not happen then. The more performance GPUs make the more the Developers try to use.
Posted on Reply
#8
Vayra86
3rold, post: 4131308, member: 71604"
Where are the AMD GPUs?
Take note of the typical Nvidia house style layout of the graph, and then take note of how this article starts with how Nvidia got hold of the requirements for this game.

;)
Posted on Reply
#9
Varsos
So i guess 1440p 144fps needs 2080 Super?
Posted on Reply
#10
jmcslob
Without RTX in MP a 8700k/1070ti is well over 100fps @2560x1440.
RTX is worthless at this point
Posted on Reply
#11
Crowley
I still can't get over 175GB for the base game and what they expect for DLC? Rest of the specs I don't care about but space is becoming a premium in my current system
Posted on Reply
#12
64K
Crowley, post: 4131452, member: 182412"
I still can't get over 175GB for the base game and what they expect for DLC? Rest of the specs I don't care about but space is becoming a premium in my current system
These games just keep getting more and more demanding on storage space. It seems like it wasn't that long ago that 50 GB to 75 GB seemed huge. It won't be too much longer before they break through to 200 GB and more.
Posted on Reply
#13
Crowley
64K, post: 4131459, member: 148270"
These games just keep getting more and more demanding on storage space. It seems like it wasn't that long ago that 50 GB to 75 GB seemed huge. It won't be too much longer before they break through to 200 GB and more.
Very true. Looking at Assassin's Creed Odyssey with all of the DLC on my PC, and that is only taking up 99GB. I have been waiting for the 2TB SSD or NVMe drives to drop further in price. I understand that spinning drives are very cheap but it's hard to go back to that once you start using SSD
Posted on Reply
#14
jmcslob
Crowley, post: 4131452, member: 182412"
I still can't get over 175GB for the base game and what they expect for DLC? Rest of the specs I don't care about but space is becoming a premium in my current system
175gb is what the game will be with all DLC
The initial game will be smaller.
Posted on Reply
#15
DeathtoGnomes
jmcslob, post: 4131490, member: 67555"
175gb is what the game will be with all DLC
The initial game will be smaller.
whats your source for that info? I didnt see that in the OP write up.
Posted on Reply
#16
FranciscoCL
TheLostSwede, post: 4131320, member: 3382"
One with, one without raytracing.
Since Raytracing does not change the recommended CPU in 1080p60, I think that variable is irrelevant.
Posted on Reply
#17
TheLostSwede
FranciscoCL, post: 4131506, member: 177770"
Since Raytracing does not change the recommended CPU in 1080p60, I think that variable is irrelevant.
Eh? It changed going from 60 to 144Hz, so of course it's relevant moving from 1080p to 4K...
Posted on Reply
#18
Agent_D
Ferrum Master, post: 4131318, member: 90058"
High FPS setup has weaker CPU than the 4K.... sure...
Weaker how? Thread count? The 9700k has higher performance than the 8700k at essentially everything, even multi-core tasks with 4 less threads.

I think it's pretty funny how they list the 970 and 1660 together, the 1660 is considerably higher performance than the 970 (~20-30% in most cases) and then listing the 1080 with the 2070 Super which is also considerably higher performance than the 1080.
Posted on Reply
#19
Jism
Are'nt these devs using any form of compression? Do you people remember the crazybytes CD's where coders would parse, pack and compress games that initially where over 900MB or so to barely 100MB?

175GB is just crazy. I mean i have a 512GB NVME SSD here but it's a big pacman bite on available resources. Red dead redemption is also another consumer of roughly 150GB of space.
Posted on Reply
#20
64K
Agent_D, post: 4131528, member: 12941"
I think it's pretty funny how they list the 970 and 1660 together, the 1660 is considerably higher performance than the 970 (~20-30% in most cases) and then listing the 1080 with the 2070 Super which is also considerably higher performance than the 1080.
True. One would think that Nvidia was familiar with their own GPUs. Maybe it was the Developer that supplied the recommendations but Nvidia is passing them off as appropriate.
Posted on Reply
#22
Agent_D
Jism, post: 4131535, member: 91255"
Are'nt these devs using any form of compression? Do you people remember the crazybytes CD's where coders would parse, pack and compress games that initially where over 900MB or so to barely 100MB?

175GB is just crazy. I mean i have a 512GB NVME SSD here but it's a big pacman bite on available resources. Red dead redemption is also another consumer of roughly 150GB of space.
Today's standards for high quality textures/audio is a big part of it. Storage media is quite cheap these days though, regularly see 8-10TB drives for 150-200 and platter drives today are fairly speedy compared to 10 years ago; my 6TB WD Black is as fast as first gen SSDs regularly running 220-260MB/s read and slightly lower writes. There may be a time in the future where the game detects hardware at install and shrinks install size by using compressed or lower quality textures/etc, but it seems a bit impractical to do that.
Posted on Reply
#23
Ferrum Master
Agent_D, post: 4131528, member: 12941"
Weaker how? Thread count? The 9700k has higher performance than the 8700k at essentially everything, even multi-core tasks with 4 less threads.

I think it's pretty funny how they list the 970 and 1660 together, the 1660 is considerably higher performance than the 970 (~20-30% in most cases) and then listing the 1080 with the 2070 Super which is also considerably higher performance than the 1080.
Basically where I said anything else. The high FPS needs the 9700k not the 4K one.
Posted on Reply
#24
Jism
Agent_D, post: 4131550, member: 12941"
Today's standards for high quality textures/audio is a big part of it. Storage media is quite cheap these days though, regularly see 8-10TB drives for 150-200 and platter drives today are fairly speedy compared to 10 years ago; my 6TB WD Black is as fast as first gen SSDs regularly running 220-260MB/s read and slightly lower writes. There may be a time in the future where the game detects hardware at install and shrinks install size by using compressed or lower quality textures/etc, but it seems a bit impractical to do that.
Big textures is being overruled by both AMD and NVidia for applying texture compression to save on bandwidth happening within the memory bus. Nvidia does apply it a bit more stronger then AMD, but still. 175GB for a game is extreme dude. I recall having a PS4 being hooked to a 10/1mbit adsl line, since the area did'nt had any better. But it was a pain in the ass to even download a 5GB update. Imagine a 175GB for people over a 10mbit line lol.

But still; you dont tell me that the package of 175GB cannot be smaller. I think it's just alot of bloat inside a package.
Posted on Reply
#25
FranciscoCL
TheLostSwede, post: 4131524, member: 3382"
Eh? It changed going from 60 to 144Hz, so of course it's relevant moving from 1080p to 4K...
The "Raytracing" variable is irrelevant to CPU requirements, that's why CPU don't change between 1080p60 with or without Raytracing.
However, 1080p144 is a more demanding task for CPU than 4k60 (with or without Raytracing), and it is curious that they recommend better CPUs for the latter.

That's why I agree with this post:
Ferrum Master, post: 4131318, member: 90058"
High FPS setup has weaker CPU than the 4K.... sure...
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment