Jump to content


New hardware specifically for WoT


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20 replies to this topic

Lily_Move #1 Posted 07 September 2013 - 03:58 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 4908 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    04-02-2012
Hi fellas,
I will be moving to the UK in less than 2 weeks and i will be buyin a new machine.
While I am at it, why not obtain one that will allow me run the game at full details?

Sadly, I am out of technology news for ~10 years now.
So, my question is as follows.
What hardware specs will allow me play the game at full settings with minimum 50FPS's for the lowest price possible?


Ty for you help mates, I just want to know at what to aim  :playing:

tigerstreak #2 Posted 07 September 2013 - 04:36 AM

    Colonel

  • Beta Tester
  • 23228 battles
  • 3,546
  • [BL33T] BL33T
  • Member since:
    12-23-2010
the game runs on one core, so spend more cash on the graphics card

Rasz_pl #3 Posted 07 September 2013 - 06:04 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 51410 battles
  • 319
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011
intel cpu, one of older i5 2400K overclocked to 5GHz works best

Scilya #4 Posted 07 September 2013 - 08:24 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 6029 battles
  • 187
  • Member since:
    11-16-2010
iuf you tell me your buget i will tell you a great build you can get a pc that will be more than fine for 400ish

Daroo_PL #5 Posted 07 September 2013 - 08:53 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 28785 battles
  • 46
  • [_E] _E
  • Member since:
    03-21-2012
This game is CPU based. You need a strong CPU, doesnt matter how many cores, it will use only one of them. Best choice is some Intel i5/i7 "K" family CPU overclocked as much as you can. Graphic card is less important, when you reach some level of performace for example HD7770 or gtx650Ti boost furher upgrading graphic card will not help you much.

I run WOT smoothly with my i5 2500K@ 4.6 GHz with HD 7870 GHz Edition @OC smooth and 8 Gigs of ram 1833 MHz full HD maxed average about 80-120 FPS, so do I with Pentium G860 3.0Ghz, HD 6770 and 4 Gigs RAM 1333Mhz full HD on "internet PC" about 70-90 FPS.

Tamosius #6 Posted 07 September 2013 - 09:15 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15468 battles
  • 165
  • [ORT] ORT
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011
First of all - there is no components to run this game on max details and keep above 50fps at all times. Game is not optimised, it doesn't support multiple cores, neither CrossFire, neither proper SLI. SLI gives you 20% gain, when normally it should be about 80%.
To reach 50-60 in high settings only possible in small resolution displays.
Get lowest priced intel I7 cpu, or average I5.
Get most powerful single core graphics card you can afford. Other components are not so important. If you have spare £ get SSD hard disk at least 100GB  size, may be older model with slow write speed and average to high reading speed and install game together with OS to this disk. This will speed up game loading tremendously. Get quality mouse, and enjoy.

T3azz #7 Posted 07 September 2013 - 11:20 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 41633 battles
  • 1,497
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013
True, tha game is a joke, even people with high end systems get far less fps than they would get on big games like bf3, crysis, etc. How ever getting a decent PC is never wrong if you can afford it. Multicore cpu, 8gb ram, a 7950 or a gtx 760, ssd, you cant go wrong with these.

Lily_Move #8 Posted 09 September 2013 - 06:46 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 4908 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    04-02-2012
My buged doesn't matter, as I need a target to earn moneyz to :)

Many of you has writen here that Intel CPU, why not AMD based? When I was leaving "informatic scene" single core AMD CPU's were the best on the market.

Tamosius #9 Posted 09 September 2013 - 06:56 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15468 battles
  • 165
  • [ORT] ORT
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011
They were never best on market. They were good for the price, but no more than that.
BTW Today's fastest is not Ivy bridge, because it is not overclocable because of heat dissipation issue. Older sandy bridge may look 10% slower on paper, but it overclocks 20% so becomes faster.

Edited by Tamosius, 09 September 2013 - 07:01 AM.


Lily_Move #10 Posted 09 September 2013 - 07:53 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 4908 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    04-02-2012
Well, price does matter, and comparing i5 (3,4Ghz) to A10 (4,4Ghz) where AMD based gear is cheaper.
I am tempted by AMD..

Anyway, how many FPS's I could get on these specs:

  • AMD A10-6800K Quad Core APU (4,4Ghz)
  • Radeon HD7870 (2Gb)
  • 8GB Dual-DDR3 1600Mhz RAM

VS

  • Quad i5-4670K (3,4Hgz)
  • GTX650Ti
  • 8GB Dual-DDR3 1600Mhz RAM

Also, HDD space shouldn't matter right?

K_A #11 Posted 09 September 2013 - 08:11 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13577 battles
  • 4,666
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013
Intel processors are preferred because they are multi-threaded, meaning that one physical core "acts" as two separate ones. So even when the game runs on just one core, you get almost dual-core performance out of it. I play WoT on my cheap ultrabook laptop, Intel i3 @ 1,8GHz and Geforce GT635M, and I'm perfectly capable of getting 30-50 fps with 1366x768 resolution (albeit on low settings).

basin79 #12 Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:25 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 15351 battles
  • 8,613
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012
Don't waste your money on an i-7 processor. The only difference between that and an i-5 is the 7 supports hyper-threading. Hyper-threading isn't utilised in games. Put the money towards a better graphics card. My system cost me £1300 all in, 23" monitor etc. It's an i-5 overclocked to 4.8ghz, 16gb ram (overkill), Nvidia GT680 graphics card, 2tb hdd and a 128gb ssd. It runs WoT highest settings vsync to 60fps. It runs Borderlands 2, BF3 all at the highest settings with vsync locked to 60fps.I got it made by Chillblast. They'll make you a pc to suit your budget. They even optimised a cheaper pc for me just to run WoT. Type chillblast into google and have a play.I priced up all the components as I was going to build it myself. However it was cheaper to get it made. Madness.

Edited by basin79, 09 September 2013 - 11:34 AM.


Tamosius #13 Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:30 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15468 battles
  • 165
  • [ORT] ORT
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011
The most important component for wot is gpu.
Get the fastest you can afford.
GTX650Ti is not powerfull enough even for moderate settings in 1920x1080.
And yes, i5 is faster than A10, just google some tests and compare.


Tamosius #14 Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:34 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15468 battles
  • 165
  • [ORT] ORT
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011

View Postbasin79, on 09 September 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

Don't waste your money on an i-7 processor. The only difference between that and an i-5 is the 7 supports hyper-threading. Hyper-threading isn't utilised in games. Put the money towards a better graphics card. My system cost me £1300 all in, 23" monitor etc. It's an i-5 overclocked to 4.8ghz, 16gb ram (overkill), Nvidia GT680 graphics card, 2tb hdd and a 128gb ssd. It runs WoT highest settings vsync to 60fps. It runs Borderlands 2, BF3 all at the highest settings with vsync locked to 60fps.I got it made by Chilliblast. They'll make you a pc to suit your budget. They even optimised a cheaper pc for me just to run WoT. Type chilliblast into google and have a play.I priced up all the components as I was going to build it myself. However it was cheaper to get it made. Madness.
I have got similar rig but 27" monitor with 2560x1440 resolution, and to reach 60 fps at all times, setings need to be on moderate, not high.

Tamosius #15 Posted 09 September 2013 - 09:46 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15468 battles
  • 165
  • [ORT] ORT
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011
For the 1920x1080 I would suggest at least GTX660ti.
For the 2560x1440 you need GTX680.

basin79 #16 Posted 09 September 2013 - 10:02 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 15351 battles
  • 8,613
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012

View PostTamosius, on 09 September 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

I have got similar rig but 27" monitor with 2560x1440 resolution, and to reach 60 fps at all times, setings need to be on moderate, not high.

1980 res on my little 23" monitor allow me to play full whack. How does your game look? Better on moderate settings with the higher res or full settings at the native 23" res of 1980?

Scilya #17 Posted 09 September 2013 - 10:03 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 6029 battles
  • 187
  • Member since:
    11-16-2010

View PostTamosius, on 07 September 2013 - 09:15 AM, said:

First of all - there is no components to run this game on max details and keep above 50fps at all times. Game is not optimised, it doesn't support multiple cores, neither CrossFire, neither proper SLI. SLI gives you 20% gain, when normally it should be about 80%.
To reach 50-60 in high settings only possible in small resolution displays.
Get lowest priced intel I7 cpu, or average I5.
Get most powerful single core graphics card you can afford. Other components are not so important. If you have spare £ get SSD hard disk at least 100GB size, may be older model with slow write speed and average to high reading speed and install game together with OS to this disk. This will speed up game loading tremendously. Get quality mouse, and enjoy.
you Sir need to go learn the subject your talking about before saying somethjing that makes you look stupid.
i run wopt on highest settings high resoloution and well over that, its not hard with a half decent pc
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=I4veleVK2LI
and this one
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=mqhIkg6akXc
as you can see the fps is over 50 now go away.

View PostLily_Move, on 09 September 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

Well, price does matter, and comparing i5 (3,4Ghz) to A10 (4,4Ghz) where AMD based gear is cheaper.
I am tempted by AMD..
Anyway, how many FPS's I could get on these specs:
  • AMD A10-6800K Quad Core APU (4,4Ghz)
  • Radeon HD7870 (2Gb)
  • 8GB Dual-DDR3 1600Mhz RAM
VS
  • Quad i5-4670K (3,4Hgz)
  • GTX650Ti
  • 8GB Dual-DDR3 1600Mhz RAM
Also, HDD space shouldn't matter right?
do not get an A-10 the A-10 is low end with integrated graphics which you DONT NEED with a 7870 throw this in
http://www.dabs.com/...-48650000&src=3
and it will be great will last a while and you can easaly overclock it to 4.5Ghz, or get
http://www.dabs.com/...-48650000&src=3
cheaper 6 cores but can also overclock. also these use the am3 socket which is much more versitile and has a upgrade path than the FM2 socket
(i have the FX-8350 overclocked to to 5.2 Ghz its a nice cpu) alternitivly if you realy want intell then get this
http://www.dabs.com/...480500000&src=3
lowest cost latest gen i5 will work FINE dont listen to people who say outherwise and remember clock speed is not indicitive of overall performance.

View PostK_A, on 09 September 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Intel processors are preferred because they are multi-threaded, meaning that one physical core "acts" as two separate ones. So even when the game runs on just one core, you get almost dual-core performance out of it. I play WoT on my cheap ultrabook laptop, Intel i3 @ 1,8GHz and Geforce GT635M, and I'm perfectly capable of getting 30-50 fps with 1366x768 resolution (albeit on low settings).
Where did you get that rubbish from? that is completly wrong please be quiet.

Edited by Scilya, 09 September 2013 - 10:04 AM.


PrivateMonkeyz #18 Posted 09 September 2013 - 10:22 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3974 battles
  • 359
  • Member since:
    02-16-2013

View PostLily_Move, on 09 September 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

My buged doesn't matter, as I need a target to earn moneyz to :)

Many of you has writen here that Intel CPU, why not AMD based? When I was leaving "informatic scene" single core AMD CPU's were the best on the market.

AMD CPUs are better than Intel ones as a whole (assuming you use all 8/12/16 cores of the AMD CPU,equally), but games and programs these days use a max of 4 cores , with the first core being used the most every time. So that makes Intel better in games , but otherwise , AMD is good.

If you want to spend less money and be sure your PC is organised the way you want, built it yourself.

Also, a PC needs more than a GPU and CPU. Also your monitor resolution plays an important role.

Since money doesn't matter...

Asus GeForce GTX 770 DirectCU II OC 2GB DDR5 256-bit
SSD ADATA Premier Pro SP900 64GB SATA-III 2.5 inch (install OS here)
2 x Hard disk WD 500GB SATA-III 7200rpm 16MB Caviar Blue KX (Games / Media)
Processor Intel Core i5 4670K 3.4GHz box
Cooler Noctua NH-D14
CM Storm Scout Case
Corsair Enthusiast Series TX650 V2 PSU
Corsair Vengeance LP 8GB DDR3 1600MHz CL9 Dual Channel Kit Rev. A (but you can take any 8GB memory with a heatsink)
DVD-Writer LG GH24NS95
Asus Z87-PRO Motherboard

I took the newest Mobo because you might want to upgrade your PC after 2 or 3 years.

Tamosius #19 Posted 09 September 2013 - 11:42 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15468 battles
  • 165
  • [ORT] ORT
  • Member since:
    11-17-2011

View PostScilya, on 09 September 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

you Sir need to go learn the subject your talking about before saying somethjing that makes you look stupid.
First of all, no need calling names. Secondly, if you need attention, go ask your momma to brush you a hair.
And if you want to prove something, make a video with video settings and resolution visible first, then press battle, and show the result.
Then upload video, so that we could all see how high, your video settings are.

Edited by Tamosius, 09 September 2013 - 11:45 AM.


Lily_Move #20 Posted 09 September 2013 - 12:26 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 4908 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    04-02-2012
Unactual :)
How do I delete un-replied posts of myself?
I seem to fail at finding the "delete" button on these forums...

Edited by Lily_Move, 14 September 2013 - 04:54 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users