Mon, Sep 03, 2012 | 05:39 BST
Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 minimum PC specs revealed, XP users out of luck
Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 may require you to upgrade your computer, if you haven’t upgraded it since 2006.
Treyarch has officially released the system requirements for the PC verion of Black Ops, and they’re reasonably modest. That said, Windows XP is officially unsupported, so that’s bad news for a number of hold-outs stubbornly refusing to upgrade.
For those whose worries are hardware related, Treyarch wrote on the Call of Duty community site that it has “tested extensively on a variety of hardware” and is “very confident in the performance even at the minimum specs”.
The developer is quite proud of the PC version despite reusing the same engine as the original Black Ops, boasting of “significant improvements” to performance.
“We’ve improved the way the engine handles multiple threads. Additionally, we moved the engine from DX9 to DX11. The DX11 API is leaner than DX9 and requires less CPU time to do the same amount of work. It is important to point out that this benefits the entire range of supported GPUs, not just DX11 hardware. We have also added more ‘quality vs performance’ options than ever before so you can customize your experience to either run faster or to satisfy your taste in eye candy,” it said.
“Black Ops II PC features enhanced lighting, shadows, antialiasing, bloom, depth of field, ambient occlusion, and other enhanced effects that are still in the works. And the game can run at higher resolutions and higher framerates on the PC.”
Additionally, there’s no frame rate cap. At all. You’ll have to set it yourself if you must.
Black Ops 2 hits PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in November. Full minimum specs below.
- OS: Windows Vista SP2 or Windows 7
- CPU: Intel Core2 Duo E8200 2.66 GHz or AMD Phenom X3 8750 2.4 GHz
- Memory: 2GB for 32-bit OS or 4GB for 64-bit OS
- Video Card: Nvidia GeForce 8800GT 512 MB or ATI Radeon HD 3870 512 MB
Thanks, games.on.net.
20 
Posted in: Activision Blizzard, PC, Shooter
Tags: black ops 2, call of duty, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, treyarch
20 comments
#1
Virginityrocks
03/09/12, 6:01 am
I work in tech, and I have to say, XP is a piece of shit and no one should be using it. I honestly would rather work with Windows Vista than XP. It’s a nightmare and a terrible operating system.
#2
Lounds
03/09/12, 6:34 am
XP is just old and anyone using after using vista or 7 will realise how old it is, it is after all a reskined version of windows 2000/NT. The last 2 Versions have been designed to be quicker for the user to navigate, shame the same can’t be said for windows 8.
#3
Talkar
03/09/12, 7:05 am
@2
It can…
#4
Keivz
03/09/12, 7:15 am
Although I have Vista, I still use XP for most games. I use Vista as my main OS but only because I was forced to. I’ve tried Win 8 and it has impressed me thus far but I won’t get it if they don’t bring the start menu back as an option.
#5
Talkar
03/09/12, 7:25 am
@4
Why not? The OS is very easy to navigate and use without the start button. What do you need it for?
#6
Maximum Payne
03/09/12, 7:31 am
@4 I think you won’t get better then this
Looks amazing !
http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/
P.S. I am so glad that developers are ditching XP
#7
Omelette
03/09/12, 7:35 am
Why bother buying Windows 8 anyway? It is clearly designed for mobile tech.
Looking forward to see the improvements in Black Ops 2.
#8
Talkar
03/09/12, 7:45 am
@7
Perhaps because of the improved FPS in pretty much any game?
The much much much faster boot time and shutdown time.
The better support for multi CPU and GPU computers.
The better support for multimonitors.
The better utilization of the RAM.
And in general the better handling of all of your system resources.
There are plenty of reasons why Windows 8 is clearly better than Windows 7. People are just stuck on the start menu, and are afraid of change. Granted it isn’t that functional on a desktop, but really. All i used the start button for in Windows 7 was to search. Now the difference is just that the search is fullscreen with room for way more results. But sure, Gaben went out and said he didn’t like Win8 so let us all follow him as mindless drones!
#9
JimFear-666
03/09/12, 7:53 am
if you need to compare your graphic card with the minimum requirement for the graphic card of black ops 2 go here : http://www.hwcompare.com
#10
roadkill
03/09/12, 8:09 am
Why not use a similar metro interface on Windows 7? Like this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/u9rwzhvkia5pb6j/26-08-2012_12-56.jpg. It’s Windows 7 running Rainmeter with the Omnimo skin pack. Pretty cool eh?
#11
Da Man
03/09/12, 10:31 am
Vista was the worst Windows since ME..
#12
Talkar
03/09/12, 10:54 am
@11
So we are just ignoring that Windows XP actually had more problems than Vista?
#13
Da Man
03/09/12, 11:04 am
In all fairness, I haven’t used Windows for more than an hour on occasion since XP, but Vista struck me as the clumsiest one.
Do you mean the original XP or the one with all the service packs? Because everyone I know complained when switching to Vista.
#14
Maximum Payne
03/09/12, 11:08 am
Vista now with service pack 2 is practically identical to win 7 IMO.
#15
G1GAHURTZ
03/09/12, 11:40 am
I’ve been using Vista for about the last 4 years or so, and it’s never been a problem until recently, when it’s kept filling up my HD with phantom data.
Other than that, it’s been the best Windows I’ve ever had.
Looking forward to Windows 8, but I don’t think it’s really worth getting without a touchscreen.
Since I’ve been using my iPad, I can’t seem to use a laptop or desktop without trying to press buttons with my finger instead of the mouse.
I’m also looking forward to plugging my iPad into the MS Surface that I want to get. I think two tablets connected together is gonna look weird…
#16
Keivz
03/09/12, 2:10 pm
@6
I’ll give it a whirl! Thanks!
@4
–I feel handicapped without a recent documents/programs tab.
–Without the start menu, many things take an extra step to perform.
–On a desktop, the metro style looks rather ugly.
Innovation should take a step forward not a step back. If they’re changing the interface it should at least provide parity. Why fix what isn’t broken in the first place?
#17
Da Man
03/09/12, 2:46 pm
If I was a dsb I’d cite thousands of search engine results as the reason why Vista is bad, but since I’m not I guess I’ll go right ahead and say I was probably wrong.
#18
aseddon130
03/09/12, 3:25 pm
@1 – truth spoken, well done!
XP is a horrible OS, I had never had a stable version of Windows until I got to Vista, Vista may have been a tad slow after a few months but the fact I could get more than 1 week before needing to format because of an XP error or absolute meltdown thanks to a virus or something. XP was a joke, it has always been bad.
#19
TMRNetShark
03/09/12, 5:39 pm
What’s with all this XP hate? At SP2, XP was as stable if not more than what Windows 98 was.
And people supporting Vista now? Are we in topsy turvy town? XD
#20
Da Man
03/09/12, 5:45 pm
We need some individuals to post a few one liners about Windows 95 being superior, while calling the rest trolls. When asked why is that, we need them to copy paste a random techie website article.
Come on now, help people evolve.