Jump to content


WoT HD Maps - Let's talk CPU Power


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

4TankersAndDog_US #1 Posted 04 November 2017 - 07:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 251 battles
  • 720
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

The recent Sandbox Server, with it's new 3D rendering engine and HD maps, showed in my last test video to possibly use substantially more CPU power than the old version of WoT. 

Let's dig into that issue with much more detail, closely comparing 15v15, 30v30, and SandBox HD, so you can plan ahead for your holiday season PC upgrades:

 

ps, long story short, while WoT HD uses just a bit more CPU power (about 15%), that pushes WoT for the first time to over 2 CPU cores. 

If you currently have a 2-core PC for playing WoT, the new WoT HD will probably perform about the same as the standard WoT,

but there is extra FPS performance waiting to be unlocked when you upgrade to a quad-core system.



ZlatanArKung #2 Posted 04 November 2017 - 08:20 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View Post4TankersAndDog_US, on 04 November 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

The recent Sandbox Server, with it's new 3D rendering engine and HD maps, showed in my last test video to possibly use substantially more CPU power than the old version of WoT. 

Let's dig into that issue with much more detail, closely comparing 15v15, 30v30, and SandBox HD, so you can plan ahead for your holiday season PC upgrades:

 

ps, long story short, while WoT HD uses just a bit more CPU power (about 15%), that pushes WoT for the first time to over 2 CPU cores. 

If you currently have a 2-core PC for playing WoT, the new WoT HD will probably perform about the same as the standard WoT,

but there is extra FPS performance waiting to be unlocked when you upgrade to a quad-core system.

Good to hear. Then my 7-8 year old quad core doesn't have to be replaced.



HugSeal #3 Posted 04 November 2017 - 08:26 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 22717 battles
  • 2,010
  • [SWEC] SWEC
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012
2500k @4,5GHz still going strong :)

jack_timber #4 Posted 05 November 2017 - 10:10 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32492 battles
  • 1,896
  • Member since:
    07-26-2014

When I started playing had a laptop, I3 and Intel HD graphics, soon found this lacking with low FPS, around about 20. 

So upgraded to an I7 laptop, 4 core with 840m graphics. This served me well for the last 3 years managing to maintain about 40fps on fairly low settings but in the main playable.

Just last week upgraded again, gave old laptop to grandson to play Minecraft, and bought a desktop with a 6 core Ryzen and a 1060 graphics card.

Now got settings maxed out and get consistently 118 FPS.

So whiles your CPU may be powerful enough is your GPU up to the job? 

Intel HD will struggle, 840m did work but again using same lowish settings was getting about 30 FPS when I tried it on sandbox. 

So the moral of my story is if I had bought a desktop initially probably the I3 would have been powerful enough and just upgraded the GPU. But a laptop well you are kind of stuck with what you bought. 

Did consider trying out an external GPU on laptop but after having a look around the cost was well expensive and no guarantee it would work.



Aikl #5 Posted 05 November 2017 - 10:39 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

Two cores? Does this mean that I have to replace my 2004-vintage Athlon 64 desktop? :P

 

Anyone with a potato computer can always compress the textures if they don't get enough performance. Yes, there are more options than 'total potato'. 50% compression is not bad at all. 



Homer_J #6 Posted 05 November 2017 - 11:18 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

I'll do the short version.

 

Q: Do I need to upgrade for HD maps?

A: No.



Dava_117 #7 Posted 05 November 2017 - 11:22 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18578 battles
  • 2,761
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014
So my octa-core should get more fps? That would be nice! :)

StrikeFIN #8 Posted 05 November 2017 - 11:48 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6152 battles
  • 797
  • [FIPDR] FIPDR
  • Member since:
    03-05-2014

WoT uses nicely GPU power, no problems there... but CPU usage is pretty bad (currently uses "around" 2 cores, before summer 2016 update were around 1 and half cores)

 

And now some z8700 etc CPUs play around 30fps even on 720p (video were with medium settings, for some reason? lol), and Vsync off (which cause even more stuttering), but for some reason newer CPUs such as N3450 and N4200 seem to get worse fps even on lowest settings (even they have improved turbo clocks and newer + better GPU), Gemini Lake prosessors might fix problems with Apollo Lake ones (x2 L2 cache, 4-wide -> 10-15% boost, improved turbo clocks, same GPU but higher clocks maybe? and uses DDR4 2400 -> compared to Apollo Lake DDR3 1600/1866, should be also noticeable boost :D)

 

 

GPD Win (variant on the video is no more on sale? with Z8700, all units have now Z8750) cost around 300 euro (Z8750 + 4GB + 64GB eMMC, 5.5-inch screen)

 

GPD Pocket (Z8750 + 8GB RAM + 128GB SSD, 7-inch IPS screen) now on sale for around 410 euro.

 

But yeah better save more money and buy better laptop at once, such as Acer Nitro 5 (8250U + MX 150 GPU + 8GB dual channel RAM + 256Gb PCie SSD, 15.6inch IPS FHD) cost around 800 euro, depending on model and country. 8250U prosessor is very interesting one, it's benchmarks and scores show it's better than 7 generation prosessor that were more expensive (7500U) and scores better than on 7 generation 4 core processor (7300HQ), which is usually used with GTX 1050 on gaming laptops.

 


Edited by StrikeFIN, 05 November 2017 - 12:24 PM.


SCOLANATOR #9 Posted 06 November 2017 - 03:40 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 20431 battles
  • 162
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    09-15-2010

View Post4TankersAndDog_US, on 04 November 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

The recent Sandbox Server, with it's new 3D rendering engine and HD maps, showed in my last test video to possibly use substantially more CPU power than the old version of WoT. 

Let's dig into that issue with much more detail, closely comparing 15v15, 30v30, and SandBox HD, so you can plan ahead for your holiday season PC upgrades:

 

ps, long story short, while WoT HD uses just a bit more CPU power (about 15%), that pushes WoT for the first time to over 2 CPU cores. 

If you currently have a 2-core PC for playing WoT, the new WoT HD will probably perform about the same as the standard WoT,

but there is extra FPS performance waiting to be unlocked when you upgrade to a quad-core system.

 

 

6700k @ 4.6GHz + GTX 1080 @ 1974MHz on a 1440p 165Hz monitor. Currently the game runs maxed out at a solid 120fps (won't go any higher as the engine is locked to that for some reason). The sandbox on ultra was getting up to 160fps at some points.

Overall there were only two maps that I saw bad fps drops but I think that was due to bugs and optimisation issues. The rest of the time I was getting 120-160fps so I'm very happy, new graphics, physics, sounds AND better fps, can't complain.



CaptinKatyusha #10 Posted 06 November 2017 - 06:54 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9955 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    02-04-2015
Sheeet! Currently im running it on a potato laptop .. Intel HD with an I5-3337 1.8GHz
And im running it at the lowest graphics to make it a bit playable

I can build a new PC with a Intel I5-7400 and gtx 1060 but the problems is the prices !
In this year the prices went up 100%

Sooo... yeah dark days r coming :S

MrClark56 #11 Posted 06 November 2017 - 11:26 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 5880 battles
  • 2,342
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-17-2013
WIll my Q6600 survive? probably... its my refurbished mobo which probably will set sail to Valhala soon enough...

Aikl #12 Posted 06 November 2017 - 11:38 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostCaptinKatyusha, on 06 November 2017 - 05:54 AM, said:

(...)
Sooo... yeah dark potato days r coming :S

 

FTFY. :)

 


Edited by Aikl, 06 November 2017 - 11:38 AM.


CaptinKatyusha #13 Posted 06 November 2017 - 12:13 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 9955 battles
  • 69
  • Member since:
    02-04-2015

View PostAikl, on 06 November 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

 

FTFY. :)

 

Lel . Yes indeed



Aikl #14 Posted 06 November 2017 - 12:24 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostCaptinKatyusha, on 06 November 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Lel . Yes indeed

 

Jokes aside, it doesn't have to be that bad. This is probably 5% compression (no, it's not my image); 50% is not bad at all - and a decent option if you want to change a bit of 'crispness' for the improved render engine.

 

Provided there'll be a texture compression option for the new graphics engine, it's a decent option if you can't upgrade instantly. Anyway, as noted by 4Tankers you should get by fine as long as your CPU isn't single-core. Optimization helps a lot, after all.



Homer_J #15 Posted 06 November 2017 - 01:18 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostCaptinKatyusha, on 06 November 2017 - 05:54 AM, said:

Sheeet! Currently im running it on a potato laptop .. Intel HD with an I5-3337 1.8GHz
And im running it at the lowest graphics to make it a bit playable
 

 

My laptop specs:

Intel® Celeron® CPU N3050 @ 1.60GHz

Intel HD

4GB RAM

 

Performance increased 50% with the HD maps sandbox client, even got into the realms of being able to play something other than arty.  Still on minimum settings though.  Yes it looks like a child's drawing which has been out in the rain and then walked on but it's still better than the current client on minimum.

 

Make sure you get updated video drivers though, I didn't expect there would be any so didn't bother at first and had lots of missing textures.  Surprisingly Windows update found much newer drivers.

 

My desktop:

Intel® Core™ i5-4690 CPU @ 3.50GHz

16GB RAM

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960

Ran on ultra settings with vsync on and capped at 60fps, same as current version does on Max.

 

So I don't think there is any reason for anyone to upgrade.

 

Besides, it could be 6 months away.



Penzijon3r_2017 #16 Posted 06 November 2017 - 02:22 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5689 battles
  • 234
  • Member since:
    07-19-2017
Newer CPU have higher IPC than older ones.. also his CPU has low frequency.. higher frequency -> more IPC.

nikolaink123 #17 Posted 06 November 2017 - 04:10 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 20753 battles
  • 151
  • [3V] 3V
  • Member since:
    04-21-2013

View PostSCOLANATOR, on 06 November 2017 - 02:40 AM, said:

 

 

6700k @ 4.6GHz + GTX 1080 @ 1974MHz on a 1440p 165Hz monitor. Currently the game runs maxed out at a solid 120fps (won't go any higher as the engine is locked to that for some reason). The sandbox on ultra was getting up to 160fps at some points.

Overall there were only two maps that I saw bad fps drops but I think that was due to bugs and optimisation issues. The rest of the time I was getting 120-160fps so I'm very happy, new graphics, physics, sounds AND better fps, can't complain.

 

Just so you know, there is actually a way to unlock the FPS.

Baldrickk #18 Posted 06 November 2017 - 05:25 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29530 battles
  • 13,766
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostSCOLANATOR, on 06 November 2017 - 03:40 AM, said:

 

 

6700k @ 4.6GHz + GTX 1080 @ 1974MHz on a 1440p 165Hz monitor. Currently the game runs maxed out at a solid 120fps (won't go any higher as the engine is locked to that for some reason). The sandbox on ultra was getting up to 160fps at some points.

Overall there were only two maps that I saw bad fps drops but I think that was due to bugs and optimisation issues. The rest of the time I was getting 120-160fps so I'm very happy, new graphics, physics, sounds AND better fps, can't complain.

6700k and 1080 and upto 160?

 

Same processor and 1070 and I was at 180fps+ almost all the time. (Some locations did reduce it a little).

 

Thermal throttling? Or just my very modest overclock?



Baldrickk #19 Posted 06 November 2017 - 05:26 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29530 battles
  • 13,766
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostAikl, on 06 November 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

 

FTFY. :)

 

Looks like team fortress with tonks. 



ExclamationMark #20 Posted 06 November 2017 - 05:41 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16679 battles
  • 3,727
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013
Will my Pentium T2080 do the job tho? :/




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users