Often current games are visually complex. PCGH tests how the top title Call of Duty 4 runs on slow hardware.
To see behind the curtain is what people should do more often. This is also true for PC games: If impressive optics are combined with a lousy game play, there won't be a lot of fun. Are low cost graphics cards, onboard GPUs and notebook chips able to deliver enough performance for the virtual adventure in between?
The test system could have originated from a typical HTPC: A Gigabyte MA78GM-S2H with an integrated 780G graphics unit and a frugal Athlon 64 X2 4450e are used. Those are the base for our comparison of low cost graphics cards. Among average and minimal fps we also offer tendencies for exemplification.
With our test setup Call of Duty 4 was playable with at least 36 fps down to the Geforce 8400 GS. The fastest onboard chipset, AMD's 780G, gets 25 fps if it is overclocked. The slowest candidate was the 8200 as an onboard solution, with 22 fps.
Call of Duty 4: With low details it is playable on slow hardware.