Jump to content


FPS on large Screen (2560 x 1440) - Intel vs. AMD

FPS 2560 x 1440 Intel AMD

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

Schmacht #1 Posted 10 October 2013 - 08:58 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 20008 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    10-15-2012
Hey,
here is a little recent experience for those interested.
I changed mainboard + CPU from AMD Quadcore to Intel Dual Core to improve FPS on my monitor.
Both CPU have roughly the same performance in other games. Also the costs is about equal (including mainboard)
General System specs:
Ram: 8 GB DDR3
Graphic Card: Radeon 6950, 2 Gbyte Ram
Hard Drive: 128 GB SSD
Screen resolution: 2560 x 1440
Mainboard + CPU before:
Asrock Socket AM3
AMD Athlon II 615e, Quadcore 2,5 Ghz
Mainboard + CPU now:
Asrock Socket 1155
Intel G2120, Dual Core 3,1 Ghz
With the old setup I played mostly with minimum graphic due to low FPS.
With new setup I play mostly maximum graphics.
FPS before:
19-36 (avg. 23) on AMD
FPS now:
26-45 (avg. 35) on Intel
That is a huge improvement for the buck. Suddenly I have grass all over the place :)
Cheers, Schmacht

Edited by Schmacht, 10 October 2013 - 10:05 AM.


Treborn #2 Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:06 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 15038 battles
  • 2,044
  • Member since:
    12-15-2011
WoT currently relies very much on processor, so those 600mhz makes a difference.
In imediat future WoT will relly on graphic card (for some enhanced graphic) and second core processor (for HAVOK engine) more.

Edited by Treborn, 10 October 2013 - 09:07 AM.


Bratapult #3 Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:08 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 22016 battles
  • 455
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012
da IPC is stronk in Intel, expect 30% more effi compared to an amd hertz

Lord_Dominator #4 Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:15 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 9986 battles
  • 435
  • Member since:
    10-18-2010
You play WoT on (mostly) maximum settings at 2560 x 1440 with that rig and you get an average 35 fps?

I highly doubt it to be honest.

lbr #5 Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:16 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16117 battles
  • 311
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostTreborn, on 10 October 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

WoT currently relies very much on processor, so those 600mhz makes a difference.
In imediat future WoT will relly on graphic card (for some enhanced graphic) and second core processor (for HAVOK engine) more.

Not just additional mhz, in general Intel CPUs are faster than AMD CPUs per one core. And since WOT relies mostly on one core, Intel CPUs will generally perform better.
Btw, new enhanced graphics will indeed put more load on the GPU, but it will be mostly post processing effects, which could be turned off. The same with havoc - will load additional cores, but also could be turned off. So basically baseline WOT performance will stay the same, at least thats what SerB says on ru-forum.

Mextli #6 Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:29 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 41932 battles
  • 2,553
  • Member since:
    11-01-2011
Wasn't the Rad 9650 a total crap card, even when it was realeased in 2005? I have my doubts that this card can handle 2560 x 1440 with smooth frames regardless of the proz.

rusuradustefan #7 Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:33 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31067 battles
  • 226
  • Member since:
    05-31-2012
Yep. We have multi core CPU from since when? 2004? 2005?
Really WG wake up and do some programming there. Also take a look at DX. Guess what. They have 11 already
It was reasonable to think you implement DX9 game and dont care about multicore if the goal was for WOT to run NICE and SMOOTH also on older platforms. This is not the case. This game even very nice and fun to play lacks in optimisation and runs crappy even on older but not that obsolete p0latform (say Wolfdale , Kentsfield architectures)
Also the pair with windows is another minus. Windows is a BAD OS from every single tehnical aspect. Their multicore implementation is a absolute joke if you compare cu what Unix based systems have I wont even dive into security etc etc
This game needs no SF tanks like 112 , T 34 3 whatever . This game needs a new and optimised engine . I know  that gaming and multi core / multi cpu dont glue always that easy but if they try they can improve greatly
Also it can be useful to start thinking WG about a Linux / OpenGL port (not WINE like it is now- if you want to play under Linux)

lbr #8 Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:34 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16117 battles
  • 311
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostMextli, on 10 October 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

Wasn't the Rad 9650 a total crap card, even when it was realeased in 2005? I have my doubts that this card can handle 2560 x 1440 with smooth frames regardless of the proz.

I bet op accidentally swapped 9 and 6 ; )

ToasterHunter #9 Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:36 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 38463 battles
  • 16
  • [T4K3] T4K3
  • Member since:
    05-09-2013
It can be bad xvm config or some mods. Delete all from resmods folder. My frien take best graphics, he standard play on low graphics, and he can not go into garage same like you.

eXterminuss #10 Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:38 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 52105 battles
  • 860
  • [PHT3M] PHT3M
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
@OP: u sure you are playing with that card at that resolution?
@OP2: either you are [edited] us or you have no idea.
No way in hell a 9650 radeon can run wot on that resolution, even on minimum!
mfg eXterminus

Edited by Neilloss46, 10 October 2013 - 03:39 PM.
This post has been edited by a member of the Moderation Team, due to inappropriate content. An official notification has also been sent. Neilloss46


rusuradustefan #11 Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:47 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31067 battles
  • 226
  • Member since:
    05-31-2012

View PosteXterminus, on 10 October 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

@OP: u sure you are playing with that card at that resolution?
@OP2: either you are [edited] us or you have no idea.
No way in hell a 9650 radeon can run wot on that resolution, even on minimum!
mfg eXterminus
this game runs crap on q6600 with 8800 gts. so 9650?:) really?
i have like 50 fps on i53210 mobile with 660 gtx mobile on some asus 46V ROG laptop. Really? a dx9 game with single cpu implementation runs like THAT on some rather modern laptop?
for a Dx 9 game like WOT you expect 150 fps on ivy bridge
so
1. you make it look dx11 and we do our upgrades
2. you stay dx9 with current graphics (not that bad looking anyway) but you manage to make it run 50 fps even on some E8400 machine

eXterminuss #12 Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:52 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 52105 battles
  • 860
  • [PHT3M] PHT3M
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View Postrusuradustefan, on 10 October 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

this game runs crap on q6600 with 8800 gts.
CPU Ghz are what matters in that point OP is right!
but a minimum on graphiccardpower is needed. The Radeon 9650 does not have that minimum Graphiccardpower(what is the correct term here?)

rusuradustefan #13 Posted 10 October 2013 - 10:03 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31067 battles
  • 226
  • Member since:
    05-31-2012

View PosteXterminus, on 10 October 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

CPU Ghz are what matters in that point OP is right!
but a minimum on graphiccardpower is needed. The Radeon 9650 does not have that minimum Graphiccardpower(what is the correct term here?)
well NO
arhitecture counts
a 6 Ghz pentium 3 will run this game crap
a haswell at 1 Ghz will run this game rather ok
maybe you talk about a combination of both. that is another thing

eXterminuss #14 Posted 10 October 2013 - 10:30 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 52105 battles
  • 860
  • [PHT3M] PHT3M
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View Postrusuradustefan, on 10 October 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

well NO
arhitecture counts
a 6 Ghz pentium 3 will run this game crap
a haswell at 1 Ghz will run this game rather ok
maybe you talk about a combination of both. that is another thing
i really don't think so.
yes better Architecture improves frames,
but pls go ahead and try wot on 1Ghz Haswell.... it is not going to be pretty!.
pitty that there is no way i can get a PIII up to 6ghz and prove you wrong.
How come i belive Ghz is most importan thing in wot?
Go ahead and underclock your current CPU by 20% (aka if u have 4Ghz now go down to 3.3ghz) you will see a frame rate drop.
Works other way round with Ocing, huge framerate improvment for smal oc, but since my mummy always told me that oc might dmg my Cpu i don'
t recommend it to anybody.
mfg eXterminus
PS: actually i can prove my theory by getting a a haswell down to 1ghz and if it doesn't run the game at all....

rusuradustefan #15 Posted 10 October 2013 - 11:49 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31067 battles
  • 226
  • Member since:
    05-31-2012
it was an extreme example
my 2.4 Q6600 puts some 25 fps
my 2.5 ivy bridge core i5 puts 60 fps
i will try also my amd 6300 in the future
same video card.

i dont think my OC Q6600 can put 60 fps under any circumstances. but it will get something substantial over default 6600 most likely
so. WOT favours arh with good single thread perf (like any core i  model), and than pure speed (things equal in arch speed will be the delimiting factor)
why i want to point is that this game looks 2007- 2008 and eats more resources than a 2012 title - or if you like..has the FPS in the range of a eyecandy 2012 game.
they really need to rework the very core of the game and deliver some good performance gains in the next patches

Ver7igo #16 Posted 10 October 2013 - 12:15 PM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 6718 battles
  • 147
  • Member since:
    08-16-2010

View PostTreborn, on 10 October 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

WoT currently relies very much on processor, so those 600mhz makes a difference.
In imediat future WoT will relly on graphic card (for some enhanced graphic) and second core processor (for HAVOK engine) more.

What's HAVOK? a different physics engine?

Omegaice #17 Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:11 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6553 battles
  • 353
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

View Postrusuradustefan, on 10 October 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

Yep. We have multi core CPU from since when? 2004? 2005?
Really WG wake up and do some programming there. Also take a look at DX. Guess what. They have 11 already
It was reasonable to think you implement DX9 game and dont care about multicore if the goal was for WOT to run NICE and SMOOTH also on older platforms. This is not the case. This game even very nice and fun to play lacks in optimisation and runs crappy even on older but not that obsolete p0latform (say Wolfdale , Kentsfield architectures)
Also the pair with windows is another minus. Windows is a BAD OS from every single tehnical aspect. Their multicore implementation is a absolute joke if you compare cu what Unix based systems have I wont even dive into security etc etc
This game needs no SF tanks like 112 , T 34 3 whatever . This game needs a new and optimised engine . I know  that gaming and multi core / multi cpu dont glue always that easy but if they try they can improve greatly
Also it can be useful to start thinking WG about a Linux / OpenGL port (not WINE like it is now- if you want to play under Linux)
Direct X 9 is used because anything above stops anyone using windows XP from playing the game at all. Also, going from DirectX 9 to 11 wont necessarily make the game faster unless the features added can be used to make it faster, along with the fact that if they program the game for DX11 then they need to write effectively 3 versions of all of the graphics code to make sure that people using old graphics cards can still play the game. This is not a simple task.
Similarly, parallel programming is difficult. Some things are impossible to parallelize, others are very complex. Parallelism can also slow things down if done wrong. This is one of the most difficult programming problems at the moment.
None of this matters of course because they bought a license for a game engine when they created the game, which makes the game restricted by that game engine unless they rewrite it, and they will not likely buy a new one as it would require rewriting the game.

Edited by Omegaice, 10 October 2013 - 09:42 PM.


lbr #18 Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:27 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16117 battles
  • 311
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostOmegaice, on 10 October 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

Direct X 9 is used because anything above stops anyone using windows XP from playing the game at all. Also, going from DirectX 9 to 11 wont necessarily make the game faster unless the features added can be used to make it faster, along with the fact that if they program the game for DX11 then they need to write effectively 3 versions of all of the graphics code to make sure that people using old graphics cards can still play the game. This is not a simple task.
Similarly, parallel programming is difficult. Some things are impossible to parallelize, others are very complex. Parallelism can also slow things down if done wrong. This is one of the most difficult programming problems at the moment.
None of this matters of course because they bought a license for a game engine when they created the game, which makes the game restricted by that game engine unless they rewrite it, and they will not likely buy a new one as it would require rewriting the game.

And now they own BigWorld. SerB says that soon almost nothing will be left from the original BigWorld engine.
Also SerB says, that by statistics most WOT players have 1 or 2 cores and large amount uses XP.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users