Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 impresses with great graphics. The YouTube channel RandomGaminginHD has now conducted an experiment to show how Battle Royale would look completely without a graphics card, and the result is … interesting. All information can be found in this article.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and its integrated Warzone 2.0 delight fans worldwide with its high level of detail and how realistic it looks.
Recently, however, the YouTube channel RandomGaminginHD released a video showing how Battle Royale looks without a graphics card. The YouTuber has nearly 500,000 subscribers and is known for his informative tech content. In the past, he has conducted similar experiments with other games.
The video about Warzone 2.0 provides some interesting insights that we will show you in this article.
Here you can watch the video from RandomGaminginHD yourself:
This is how Warzone 2.0 runs even without a graphics card
How did the experiment from RandomGaminginHD go? Instead of a dedicated GPU, the YouTuber chose a CPU with integrated graphics – the AMD Athlon 3000G Radeon with Vega 3 Graphics. Although this processor from 2019 is not designed as a gaming CPU, Warzone 2.0 is not the only game that runs on it.
With the Ryzen 5 5600G, you get a significantly better iGPU and CPU currently at a good price.
| Preview | Product | Rating | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G Prozessor (intergrierte Radeon Grafik, 6 Kerne /12 Threads, 65W TDP, AM4 Sockel,... | Zu Amazon |
*Affiliate-Links. Wir erhalten bei einem Kauf eine kleine Provision von Amazon. Vielen Dank für Eure Unterstützung!
For the best performance under these conditions, RandomGaminginHD set all possible graphics settings to the lowest level and also selected the lowest available resolution of 710×400. In addition, the YouTuber initially ignored any upscaling options; however, image sharpening was eventually done through the integrated “FidelityFX CAS Sharpening”.
FidelityFX is AMD’s alternative to NVIDIA’s DLSS and an image quality toolkit that enables this upscaling.
The result strongly resembles the visuals of the old CoD titles on the PS2, but it can still be somewhat impressive.
But not only the fact that he got Warzone 2.0 to run without a graphics card surprised RandomGaminginHD.
No less surprising is that for the Battle Royale, even under these conditions, a solid frame rate could still be achieved. During the experiment, the game ran most of the time consistently at FPS between 30 and 40. In the Gulag – where there is much less action than on the regular Al Mazrah map – even better values could be achieved.
If you want to know how to achieve more FPS in Warzone 2.0 instead, take a look at this article:
Are there any other insights from the experiment? RandomGaminginHD was able to prove that Warzone 2.0 is not too hard to run. For a “free to play” multiplayer game, as Battle Royale is, this is of course incredibly important.
And the YouTuber also thinks: “The more inclusive the game is to the potential player base, the better. This is a free game, and it is desired that as many players as possible play it – and the more that can do so with a low-end PC, the better.”
If you are unsure whether the game runs on your PC, you can check the system requirements in this article.
The community is heavily impressed by how well Warzone 2.0 runs on weak hardware
That the game – despite the demake visuals and not really high FPS for a competitive shooter – still appears very solid is also the opinion of some commentators under RandomGaminginHD’s YouTube video:
Another commentator cannot believe that the AMD Athlon 3000G Radeon is capable of such performance, describing it subsequently as “once again divine”.
Now it’s your turn: What do you think of the visuals and performance of Warzone 2.0 with a CPU instead of a GPU? Could you play under such conditions?
We also want to know which assault rifle in Warzone 2.0 is at the top of your list. For the evaluation, we will then provide you with a big ranking of setups: Which assault rifle in CoD Warzone 2 is the best? You decide
