Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Enthusiast Zone > Gaming > Video card requirements for Call of Duty 2

Video card requirements for Call of Duty 2
Thread Tools
sokukodo
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Georgetown, sc, usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2006, 10:07 PM
 
I have pre-ordered CoD 2; what I'm wondering, looking at the requirements for the system, I see that an ATI Radeon X600 is supported; I have the X800 XT ... are these requirements minimum for what's needed to play?
Richard T.
1st generation G5 Dual 2Ghz w/ 8 Gigs of RAM;
ATI Radeon X800 XT
20" Cinema Display
     
2009059
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2006, 08:57 AM
 
I think they are recommended requirements. I don't see an X800 as being the bare minimum to run a game.
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2006, 11:54 PM
 
The minimum is the single 1.8 G5 as it shipped, with a GeForceFX 5200.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 28, 2006, 01:25 AM
 
A G5 is required?

wow....ROFL


My kids are gonna be pissed. I have the only G5 in the house.
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 03:35 AM
 
Wonder if/how it would run on a 1.8GHz G4 w/ GeForce3

UO runs on it at full detail.
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 29, 2006, 03:39 AM
 
xxx
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
imaxxedout
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 30, 2006, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kristoff
Wonder if/how it would run on a 1.8GHz G4 w/ GeForce3

UO runs on it at full detail.
Like crap. If you got a 9800 or something it might run okay...
     
zeebe
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Circle Pines, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kristoff
Wonder if/how it would run on a 1.8GHz G4 w/ GeForce3

UO runs on it at full detail.
It probably won't run at all, my friend brought over his copy, I have a G4 iMac, 1GHz with a GeForce 4MX and it wouldn't even start. It said my video card or it's drivers does not have the right shading for the game. Then it quit. So it looks like I need to update to play! Thank god I didn't buy it!

Support a charity as you search the Internet - Use GoodSearch - I support Sacred Heart School.
     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2006, 07:09 PM
 
ouch.....I was afraid of that.

I have a DP 800 with a 9600xt 128 and a DP 2.0 G5 with a 9800 Pro 256

I wonder if it will run on those?
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
Thinine
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2006, 07:58 PM
 
It'll run on the G5 for sure. If it checks CPU at launch, the G4 won't. I don't see why you'd want to play on that machine any way.
     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2006, 01:41 AM
 
ah, it's my kid's machine....he loved CoD and UO.

I wonder if a upgrading it to a DP 1.8 and a newer vid card would be worth it?
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
zeebe
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Circle Pines, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2006, 12:47 PM
 
I have heard of people getting it working on G4s, but it won't on mine because of the video card.

Support a charity as you search the Internet - Use GoodSearch - I support Sacred Heart School.
     
i5works
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2006, 01:14 PM
 
You should be okay with a fast DP G4 and a good video card, especially if all you're interested in is multiplayer.
     
sokukodo  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Georgetown, sc, usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2006, 08:23 AM
 
It plays just fine w/ the X800 XT on a G5 Dualie; I'd like to know what the optimum settings are for playing. Right now, it's a little jerky when the action gets intense. If I go with what the app assigns optimum settings, it gives me an 800x600 display, and on a 20" cinema display, it looks sucky; if I start playing around with the resolution, it starts getting more difficult to control movement. The jury is still out as to whether this is better that the 1st CoD/UO ... it doesn't seem as polished to me, or maybe it seems a little rushed, somethings not quite right. Again, maybe it's just my settings.
Richard T.
1st generation G5 Dual 2Ghz w/ 8 Gigs of RAM;
ATI Radeon X800 XT
20" Cinema Display
     
zeebe
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Circle Pines, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2006, 08:28 AM
 
I have only played it once at my friends house, single player only and only for about 10 minutes. I loved single player. From what my friend says, multiplayer is WORSE then COD, let alone UO. He has never given me exact answers, he just says it's different and not a good different.

Support a charity as you search the Internet - Use GoodSearch - I support Sacred Heart School.
     
sokukodo  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Georgetown, sc, usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2006, 09:03 AM
 
Single player is what I'm using; multiplayer is out of the question using dial-up.
Richard T.
1st generation G5 Dual 2Ghz w/ 8 Gigs of RAM;
ATI Radeon X800 XT
20" Cinema Display
     
i5works
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2006, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by sokukodo
It plays just fine w/ the X800 XT on a G5 Dualie; I'd like to know what the optimum settings are for playing. Right now, it's a little jerky when the action gets intense. If I go with what the app assigns optimum settings, it gives me an 800x600 display, and on a 20" cinema display, it looks sucky; if I start playing around with the resolution, it starts getting more difficult to control movement.
I'd say play around with the Texture Settings before increasing the resolution size. Turn off the "Automatic" Texture Quality and start bumping up the texture resolution options to see if that improves things.
     
sokukodo  (op)
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Georgetown, sc, usa
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2006, 02:34 PM
 
Thanks, i5 ... I'll experiment when I get home tonight!
Richard T.
1st generation G5 Dual 2Ghz w/ 8 Gigs of RAM;
ATI Radeon X800 XT
20" Cinema Display
     
discotronic
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Richmond,Va
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2006, 10:17 AM
 
I picked the game up this weekend and installed it on my PM G5 single 1.8 with 1.25GB RAM. It has the Radeon 9600XT 128MB.

The game runs okay but it does get a bit jumpy at times when the action gets intense. I have played around with the settings but that doesn't seem to help much. I don't play with the resolution over 1024x768. Going to 800x600 doesn't make much of a difference in play except to make it look like crap.

My question is this. If I upgraded to the 256MB 9800 Pro Mac Edition will I notice enough of a increase in playability to justify the $260 price? I don't want to spend more than that so another video card is out of the question.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2006, 10:59 PM
 
Ok, call me stupid, but what's UO?
     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2006, 02:56 AM
 
I had a 9600XT in my dual 2.0 and when I went to a 9800Pro with 256, it was a huge difference in that I could jack up UO to 1680x1050 with every thing jacked to high quality and all lighting and effects and suchlike on.

So, I would say that it would be worth it. You could always return it if it doesn't perform up to your expectations.
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
discotronic
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Richmond,Va
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2006, 10:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kristoff
I had a 9600XT in my dual 2.0 and when I went to a 9800Pro with 256, it was a huge difference in that I could jack up UO to 1680x1050 with every thing jacked to high quality and all lighting and effects and suchlike on.

So, I would say that it would be worth it. You could always return it if it doesn't perform up to your expectations.
Thanks for the response. That is exactly what I was looking for. Now, to find a good deal on one.
     
certmagic
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2006, 12:07 PM
 
Just bought it for my MBP. Runs grt on auto settings, but once I set ti Direcx 9 effects, it slows down noticeably.
     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2006, 03:40 AM
 
DirecX 9???

Wha????

Anyway....It runs great on my DP G5 2.0 w/ 9800 Pro (256) @ 1680x1050 with 2xAA and Trilinear filtering. Looks awesome.

Runs ok, (i.e. playable) on the DP 800 (g4) w/9600XT (128) @ 1024x768 with stuff turned down.
So, this whole "requires G5" stuff is bunk. I would honestly say that this game is GPU bound, not CPU bound. Though both CPUs do chug along during gameplay. I bet any G4 DP 800 or above or SP 1.25 or above will run fine if you have a good video card.
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
TiggerToo
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 06:35 PM
 
Bah!

played COD2 on a powerbook 1.42 with 768Mb and 64 of Vram, got choppy in parts but you could play it.

That 'G5' only stuff is bunk, Aspyr covering their butt.

DualG4 with a 9800 will do just fine
     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 07:43 PM
 
Yeah, my kid plays it on a DP 800 w/ 9600 XT and it's fine.

Maybe a hair sluggish in scenes with lots of smoke, fire, and shooting, but he played through it just fine.
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
Boochie
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2006, 08:05 PM
 
Call of Duty: United Offensive

It's an add-on pack to the original CoD game.

Originally Posted by Helmling
Ok, call me stupid, but what's UO?
     
Adam Betts
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North Hollywood, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 3, 2006, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kristoff
A G5 is required?

wow....ROFL

My kids are gonna be pissed. I have the only G5 in the house.
It's not required, you can play it on G4 without any problem. 1 GHz and above G4 should be able to play the game on medium setting.
     
stefanicotine
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2006, 09:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by zeebe
I have only played it once at my friends house, single player only and only for about 10 minutes. I loved single player. From what my friend says, multiplayer is WORSE then COD, let alone UO. He has never given me exact answers, he just says it's different and not a good different.
That's one man's opinion. I like it alot better then the original COD
 Certified AppleCare Technician
     
zeebe
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Circle Pines, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2006, 02:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by stefanicotine
That's one man's opinion. I like it alot better then the original COD
Glad to hear another side to it, I was hoping to hear from someone else on this forum about wether it is good or not.

Of topic question, does anyone know if they are going to make a universal binary for COD and COD: UO?

Support a charity as you search the Internet - Use GoodSearch - I support Sacred Heart School.
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2006, 02:10 PM
 
For the record, the demo runs on my single 1.8 G5 with an FX5200. I run it at 640x480 with some jerkiness when there's a lot of action.
The era of anthropomorphizing hardware is over.
     
Dopetrackalistic
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2006, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by zeebe
It probably won't run at all, my friend brought over his copy, I have a G4 iMac, 1GHz with a GeForce 4MX and it wouldn't even start. It said my video card or it's drivers does not have the right shading for the game. Then it quit. So it looks like I need to update to play! Thank god I didn't buy it!

That's because your video card is actually a geforce 2mx. It sucks. If it had a 5200 it might be a different story. The 5200 is the slowest card that has modern shaders needed for new games.
     
zeebe
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Circle Pines, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2006, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dopetrackalistic
That's because your video card is actually a geforce 2mx. It sucks. If it had a 5200 it might be a different story. The 5200 is the slowest card that has modern shaders needed for new games.
No, my video card is a geforce 4mx, not a 2mx, at least that is what system profiler says. it still won't run, so what is the difference.

Support a charity as you search the Internet - Use GoodSearch - I support Sacred Heart School.
     
Dopetrackalistic
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2006, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by zeebe
No, my video card is a geforce 4mx, not a 2mx, at least that is what system profiler says. it still won't run, so what is the difference.

>sigh<

The geforce 4mx is a geforce2mx with a new name. The geforce 3 is actually much much much faster than your card. Nvidea just renamed it 4mx in order to sell more of them, but under the hood it's a pile of crap that was extremely outdated when apple started using it.
     
zeebe
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Circle Pines, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2006, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dopetrackalistic
>sigh<

The geforce 4mx is a geforce2mx with a new name. The geforce 3 is actually much much much faster than your card. Nvidea just renamed it 4mx in order to sell more of them, but under the hood it's a pile of crap that was extremely outdated when apple started using it.
OK, sorry for not being an expert on video cards like you are.

Support a charity as you search the Internet - Use GoodSearch - I support Sacred Heart School.
     
Dopetrackalistic
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2006, 05:30 PM
 
I'm not an expert. The fact that the geforce4 sucks more than the geforce 3 is a well known fact.
     
jamil5454
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2006, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dopetrackalistic
I'm not an expert. The fact that the geforce4 sucks more than the geforce 3 is a well known fact.
More specifically, the geforce 4mx sucks more than the geforce 3. The geforce 4ti series blew the geforce 3 series away.
     
eddiecatflap
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: http://www.rotharmy.com
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2006, 05:39 AM
 
the call of duty 2 demo runs amazingly well on my imac 20" intel 256

it's the most amazing looking game i've ever seen

and that includes the consoles too
     
gnomexp
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2006, 12:00 PM
 
To be blunt, if you're on a stock iMac or a MacBook Pro, it'll run beautifully. I can't wait to see how it runs with 2GB of RAM though....

Call of Duty won't run on an 867MHz, even with a decent card. 1GHz and up should hopefully be able to handle it.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2006, 06:33 PM
 
Beg to differ, Call of Duty ran on my 800Mhz with a 32 Mb card and 768 RAM. I had all the settings set to low but the game was still playable and enjoyable.
     
badidea
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Hamburg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2006, 10:28 AM
 
I just played the Demo on my iMac G5 2.0GHz, 128MB X600something and it was very smooth - even with 1680x1050 (and a TV attached, so there should have only been 64MB available for the game!?!)!

***
     
gnomexp
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2006, 10:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling
Beg to differ, Call of Duty ran on my 800Mhz with a 32 Mb card and 768 RAM. I had all the settings set to low but the game was still playable and enjoyable.
I'll be darned.... maybe my issue runs with the fact that I have an original Alu 12incher, which is pretty crippled.

Good to know.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:45 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,