[geRV]

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3145019&did=1

This is worth looking over as well.

[quote:2c1f5]Beauty, but at what cost?
So exactly what does it take to get Call of Duty running in your house the way it looks in the screenshots? Here at the office our combination of a 4000+ Athlon 64, 1 GB RAM and a 7800 GTX get the job done maintaining a smooth framerate at 1280x1024. But that can fall off quickly. On a 3200+ Athlon 64 with the same amount of RAM but a plain 6800 no amount of reducing settings would smooth things out, and without the anistropic filtering and high texture detail much of the game's effect was diminished. More troublesome were the technical issues that cropped up on our high-end machine. While it powered through DOD: Source and F.E.A.R. with nary a hiccup, Call of Duty 2 had a nasty habit of dropping to the desktop, and, at times, causing a full stop error complete with the blue screen of death. Typically these signs are indicative of a driver issue, but on such high-end equipment they are troubling nonetheless. [/quote:2c1f5]

Remember the demo came with "normal" settings and not hi res textures or anything.


IGN review added

http://pc.ign.com/articles/661/661230p1.html



6 cd's oOo: And according to ign the performance is better on the retail version, which contradicts the 1up review, then again ign said the same about fear and from what ive seen it still runs like a turd.

And possibly the most retarded thing of the lot, in multiplayer your health regenerates like it does in single player. oOo: