Call of Duty 4: MW
| Call of Duty 4: MW (high-end) 1,680x1,050 4xAA 16xAF | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GTX 260 FreezerX2 896MB | XFX HD 4890 1,024MB | XFX HD 4870 1,024MB | Inno3D GTX 275 896MB | Sapphire HD 4770 XF 1,024MB | XFX HD 4870 512MB |
| 76.5 | 85.3 | 78.44 | 87.75 | 117.2 | 78 |
| Call of Duty 4: MW (high-end) 1,920x1,200 4xAA 16xAF | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GTX 260 FreezerX2 896MB | XFX HD 4890 1,024MB | XFX HD 4870 1,024MB | Inno3D GTX 275 896MB | Sapphire HD 4770 XF 1,024MB | XFX HD 4870 512MB |
| 65.55 | 72.55 | 66.15 | 75.8 | 100.1 | 66.45 |
| Call of Duty 4: MW (high-end) 2,560x1,600 4xAA 16xAF | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inno3D GTX 260 FreezerX2 896MB | XFX HD 4890 1,024MB | XFX HD 4870 1,024MB | Inno3D GTX 275 896MB | Sapphire HD 4770 XF 1,024MB | XFX HD 4870 512MB |
| 44.65 | 47.95 | 43.75 | 52.65 | 65.55 | 42.1 |
The number we're really interested in is the 1,920x1,200 result, which translates to running a 24in monitor at its native resolution.
Inno3D's card matches the Radeon HD 4870's performance, and an average 65fps is good. Thinking of pricing, the GTX 275 is around 45 per cent more expensive than the Inno3D GTX 260 yet performs only 15 per cent better.
