Have before me to get the new CoD Modern Warfare, but I do not know if I can play it even liquid.
Would be glad if someone knew me could help.
To the hardware (laptop):
i5-6200U CPU 2.30 GHz
Nvidia GeForce GTX 950M
1TB SSD
8 GB Ram
(Windows 10 64 bit)
Ps: I know that the minimum requirements of the game are very low, but in other games, I have often had the experience that it is still lying. I would like to be able to play the game reasonably well, that's what I'm concerned about.
I can't quite understand the answers.
The minimum requirement is a GTX 1650, which is much faster than your GTX 950M!
https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/...7713vs4039
In Full HD you'll guess I'll get 20-30fps if you're lucky. In 720p you have only a little more. Accordingly, in my opinion, definitely not pleasant to play. And the CPU is of course not the best seller.
No will not be playable.
Minimum requirement is a GTX 1650
According to the benchmark, the GTX 1650 is only 199% faster than your 950m, so no chance.
https://eu.shop.battle.net/de-de/product/call-of-duty-modern-warfare
On the official page (below) is NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 670 / NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1650
I do not understand.
https://eu.shop.battle.net/de-de/product/call-of-duty-modern-warfare
But why do you have a NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 670 / NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1650 on the bottom?
I do not understand.
Well the GTX 670 is still 113% faster than a 950m… The 900 M (laptop) series was just up to the 980s rather a multimedia than a gaming card
Does not matter, even a GTX 670 is much stronger.
And these are the MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, usually means low settings and still bad FPS.
OK thanks for the answer. Confusing because of the numbers but well
All right, thank you
It all fits, GTX 670/1650 is the minimum requirement, and your 950M is just a good bit below the performance. So not really playable. Your graphics card was for notebooks at that time already only a starter card, and better is unfortunately no longer…
From what I've seen, you can play with it on the lowest settings in 1080p, but to stay consistently above 30fps you should not play any game modes with more than 12 players. At Groundwar, with more than 20 players, it's going to be superfluous. And it just looks like it's stupid.
The minimum requirements are at Modern Warfare for 1080p 60fps.
Yes, unfortunately very confusing of Nvidia. The GTX 950m / 960m technically corresponded only to the Geforce GTX 740/750 to GTX 750Ti-Series for desktop cards.
Most gaming system requirements also apply only to desktop components, not similar sized mobile components.
At Nvidia, only a Geforce GT 1030 / GTX 1050 / GTX 1050Ti is truly a desktop-equivalent product for graphics cards in the Notbook range.
Nvidia 900-Series and AMD komlett I leave out the simplicity to your question here. (Desktop vs. Notebook)
The GTX 950m does not really have anything to do with a GTX 950 desktop. This is a modified GTX 750 (Ti) GPU for notebooks.
Was before Nvidias Pascal series (Geforce GT [x] 1xxx - series in notebooks unfortunately usual, because technically not yet 1: 1 feasible.
The only true 1: 1 desktop performance solution from Nvidia's GTX 900 series was the notebook GTX 980 (not M).
Somewhat underclocked for extremely high - priced DTR solutions of their time.
At the beginning of your answer thread you are absolutely right. A normally clocked Geforce GTX 750Ti (desktop) was on average already about 20-30% below a GTX 660 (desktop) 👍
Oha, thought until now that a GTX 950M is the same as a GTX 950, except that one is just for the pc and the other for the laptop. What is that again for a logic of the numbers. Then I probably need a new graphics card.__.
But thanks for the enlightenment
Roughly simplified, the GTX 950 has 20% more execution units, 32 instead of 16 ROPs, and about 22% faster graphics memory than the GTX 750Ti. In return, the GTX 750 Ti gets by with 50% less TDP than the GTX 950. (Based on the respective desktop models)
In the notebook area, it was therefore much easier a GM 107 graphics chip (GTX 750Ti) for MXM - cards to a TDP of max. 50 to 60 watts downgrade than a GM 206 GPU GTX 950/960.
The rest has been simple marketing. (by the way, that's what AMD did at the time). It was not easy at the time, graphics chips with more than 50 to 60 watts TDP in relatively light and compact notebooks at market prices of the corresponding groups of buyers to place and then cool even relatively quiet.
On the other hand, today's Geforce GTX 1050Ti / 1650 can be integrated 1: 1 into a notebook (1: 1 = no significant clock throttling and disabled functional units despite MXM design), without the TDP limit of approx. 50-60 watts for small MXMs. To blast card modules. These cards still exceed the computing power of a GTX 950 (desktop).
Finally, an interesting example of AMD:
There used to be a Radeon HD 6990M for notebooks. On the desktop HD 6990 meant a dual GPU card from 2 × HD 6970; the laptop was a single HD 6870 graphics chip in the HD 6990m used. 😎 More was not in it with a maximum TDP limit of 110 watts for then MXM modules of the highest class.
No idea how you got the idea that I understand the first part of your comment, after obviously having no idea about graphics cards, but thanks anyway for taking your time
