Call of Duty: Modern Warfare System Requirements Revealed

[FranciscoCL]

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:

High FPS setup has weaker CPU than the 4K.... sure...

 

[Mescalamba]

Competitive gaming = looks like crap and runs fast. Anyone taking this seriously will have game like that at 144 FPS with even lower HW than needed. I know my original MW didnt look nice, but it did run really fast.

 

[Agent_D]

Basically where I said anything else. The high FPS needs the 9700k not the 4K one.

You're right, I misread the original; sorry about that!

 

[Deleted member 67555]

whats your source for that info? I didnt see that in the OP write up.

Took me a minute... Originally seen it in a Activision blog post....

Modern Warfare PC Specifications Revealed – Update - Charlie INTEL

UPDATE: Activision Blog has confirmed the PC Specifications for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare in a new post, and they have provided an update as to the

charlieintel.com

 

[TheLostSwede]

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:

You clearly didn't play the beta...

 

[Renald]

Patch day One : probably 60GB ... prepare not to play it Day one
Seriously, 175GB is pure madness

 

[Vayra86]

Here is a tip, just avoid this junk. Saves you 175GB

 

[holyprof]

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.

I have the same problem. Using 20/1 Mbps ADSL (the best I can get where I live, there is 1Gbps fiber on the next street but my provider cba to extend the cables). After buying new Ryzen PC, i had to reinstall all games (20 steam games + WoW, StarCraft2, Heroes of The Storm + League of Legends). Took me 5 days 24h /day to finish . Now imagine i had 20 x 175GB games. No I couldn't, my poor 1GB SSD would explode

 

[64K]

@jmcslob is right Activision has clarified that the 175 GB requirement is for the game and future DLC. I don't know how large the game itself will be. I have read that Red Dead Redemption 2 will require 150 GB of storage space.

 

[Th3pwn3r]

Isn't this supposed to have a good single player? It came with my 2080ti but I haven't even tried to play it yet. I might not even have the storage space to run the game...it's getting to the point of where these games need to come pre-loaded on an external SSD with how much F'ing space they take up Shadow Of War took 90gb years ago and I thought that was crazy but to me it was worth it, this game...I don't know if it is.