Jump to content


Is this game CPU or GPU intensive?


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

NOR_Leopard_2A7 #1 Posted 16 April 2018 - 07:51 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 6918 battles
  • 67
  • Member since:
    08-05-2013

Which part does this game use the most? CPU or GPU? I have a weak CPU but a fairly strong GPU and I wonder which this game demand the most. I play at 1080p. My specs are:

 

*Monitor: ASUS 24" 144 Hz 1920x1080

*CPU: AMD FX-8350 @ 4 GHz

*GPU: nvidia GTX 1070 FE

*RAM: 16 GB DDR3 @ 2 GHz

*Storage: Regular 2 TB HDD

 

Is my CPU bottlenecking the game? Thanks.



Pansenmann #2 Posted 16 April 2018 - 08:01 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 34078 battles
  • 12,613
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012

short answer: yes

 

would be nice to know what chipset your mainboard has and if you use 2x8 GB or 4x4GB of RAM,

and the timings


Edited by Pansenmann, 16 April 2018 - 08:02 PM.


lifelessgamer #3 Posted 16 April 2018 - 08:18 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5156 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    02-27-2014

GPU

 

http://www.tomshardw...marks,5474.html

 

Block Quote

 Between two and three cores appear to be active, with an affinity shown to physical cores (rather than logical ones). The Core engine seems content with relatively low core counts, even with its quality settings set to maximum. This should be welcome news for gamers with lower-end configurations.

 

 

 

I wouldn't worry to much about it.  I have a Ryzen 5 1600 and GTX 1080.  On maximum setting I see fps drop to 70-80 in some maps (otherwise it is locked at 120.)  I'm running 1080p (it would be a great 1440p machine if I bought monitors.)  When I see it drops to 80 fps I know there is some map optimization needed.


Edited by lifelessgamer, 16 April 2018 - 08:23 PM.


NOR_Leopard_2A7 #4 Posted 16 April 2018 - 08:23 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 6918 battles
  • 67
  • Member since:
    08-05-2013
I have 2x8 GB RAM. Yeah, on Erlenberg I drop down to 45 FPS on max :amazed:  But my CPU is weak on single core performance, it's better for me if the game use all 8 cores instead of just two as my IPC is way worse than say 8700k.

lifelessgamer #5 Posted 16 April 2018 - 08:31 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5156 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    02-27-2014

View PostNOR_Leopard_2A7, on 16 April 2018 - 01:23 PM, said:

I have 2x8 GB RAM. Yeah, on Erlenberg I drop down to 45 FPS on max :amazed:  But my CPU is weak on single core performance, it's better for me if the game use all 8 cores instead of just two as my IPC is way worse than say 8700k.

What is fps normally at?  70-80?



NOR_Leopard_2A7 #6 Posted 16 April 2018 - 08:50 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 6918 battles
  • 67
  • Member since:
    08-05-2013
yes, around that. So it's definitely playable. Would love above 100 with everything at max tho, with dips not under 70.

_Flagada_Jones_ #7 Posted 16 April 2018 - 08:58 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32572 battles
  • 1,273
  • [OMGR] OMGR
  • Member since:
    03-20-2012
i play 4K windowed 60fps all time.

But i bet it is more GPU than CPU. Since my CPU is used at...14% with ALL my software running (tons of chrome things, stream, music, making coffee... uh wait... )
Ram is 55%

(R7 1800x 1080Ti ftw3 16GB 3200 trident Z)

BTW, WoT 1.0 ask a lot to your hard drive, go for SSD if you can!

Edited by _Flagada_Jones_, 16 April 2018 - 08:58 PM.


NOR_Leopard_2A7 #8 Posted 16 April 2018 - 09:17 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 6918 battles
  • 67
  • Member since:
    08-05-2013
Yes I'm thinking of buying an M.2 drive one day.

TsundereWaffle #9 Posted 16 April 2018 - 09:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27161 battles
  • 11,015
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013
Upgrading that cpu will do wonders.

NOR_Leopard_2A7 #10 Posted 16 April 2018 - 09:44 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 6918 battles
  • 67
  • Member since:
    08-05-2013
Yeah but then I need a new mobo too

lifelessgamer #11 Posted 16 April 2018 - 10:02 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5156 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    02-27-2014

View PostNOR_Leopard_2A7, on 16 April 2018 - 01:50 PM, said:

yes, around that. So it's definitely playable. Would love above 100 with everything at max tho, with dips not under 70.

 

What you want all I could recommend would be a better cpu/mobo/memory.  

 

You can OC the 8350 but OC gains are not huge (4-9 fps?).  8350 boosts to 4.2 or 4.8 ghz on the first core by itself I think, so you will gain almost nothing (and to full time OC it you may need a better cooler or it will turn into a space heater.)

 

Your money.  Memory (16gb ddr4) $150, mobo $80-150, and cpu (Ryzen 2600 will be $200 4.3 ghz, or i5 8400 is $180 or i7 8700k is $350 but need a better mobo and a good cooler.)  If you OC the Ryzen it will be better that the 8400, if you leave things stock the 8400 is better for gaming (I would still get a better cooler for either one for $20-35.) 8700K is great but it will cost +60% over  Ryzen or 8400 systems when you figure in a really good cooler/mobo.

 

Tough call.  As always look for the deal you want at a price you can't pass up....and then get what you want.

 

View PostNOR_Leopard_2A7, on 16 April 2018 - 02:17 PM, said:

Yes I'm thinking of buying an M.2 drive one day.

 

I was going to get an M.2 and what I found is they are not that much better than an SSD.  They are better than SSD but were talking fractions of a second only in games (if I see the countdown timer at max on an SSD M.2 won't be faster.)  500gb M.2 is $200 and a 1TB SSD is $200.  Bought the SSD knowing if an M.2 drive can make a huge difference in the future I will buy it too and then I still have a very good huge SSD.

RockyRoller #12 Posted 17 April 2018 - 12:52 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32289 battles
  • 1,240
  • [NR-NS] NR-NS
  • Member since:
    06-15-2016
without doubt the HDD is the bottleneck on the system

Indy_Bones #13 Posted 17 April 2018 - 08:09 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29852 battles
  • 1,525
  • [WHO] WHO
  • Member since:
    06-06-2011

I don't see how that setup could be bottlenecking the game, when I run an FX-6300 with a 7870xt and have no issues aside from occasionally longer load-in times (mainly due to HDD).

 

As already pointed out though, the biggest difference most players have found is whether they are using an HDD or SSD, and this would be my first upgrade choice rather than changing CPU/GPU as neither is an issue IMHO.



OneSock #14 Posted 17 April 2018 - 09:12 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34880 battles
  • 1,697
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    06-06-2011

Seems to me more CPU than GPU, I have a GTX 1060 and it still runs over 100fps. @ 1920x1080.

 

If you were going to go for UHD or 4k, then sure you'd need a better GPU, but for regular HD, better to have a good CPU and SSD or fast HD.  

 

I have a M.2 SSD which is instant loading.... in fact too fast I have to wait for the 30 sec countdown.



IZMIR_METRO #15 Posted 17 April 2018 - 09:31 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5525 battles
  • 81
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    12-18-2015

I was using FX 6100 with GTX1060, I was getting around 60FPS with 1.0, I switched to 1700x now I get average 110FPS. Bigworld engine demands strong single core performance. FX processors are definitely weak for WOT

 


Edited by IZMIR_METRO, 17 April 2018 - 09:31 AM.


snowy76 #16 Posted 17 April 2018 - 12:45 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 27191 battles
  • 40
  • [KTTP] KTTP
  • Member since:
    09-25-2014

I have noticed some maps cause frame rate drops, Erlenberg is the worst and can drop 20-30fps over other maps on my system.

 

 



NoobySkooby #17 Posted 17 April 2018 - 01:04 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 12996 battles
  • 2,771
  • [TFMB] TFMB
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011
I have no idea whatsoever but I am told by those that know, that just by seeing your tank in the garage in the nice wooded area, uses up more CPU usage then the gameplay itself, if this is true and i have no reason to suspect it isn't, could we not have an option at the very least that we could revert to the old static garage?

SABAOTH #18 Posted 17 April 2018 - 01:12 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 36793 battles
  • 2,914
  • [-133-] -133-
  • Member since:
    08-28-2011
My laptop can still farm around 20 fps, works good enough most of the time :girl:

TsundereWaffle #19 Posted 17 April 2018 - 02:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27161 battles
  • 11,015
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View Postlifelessgamer, on 16 April 2018 - 11:02 PM, said:

I was going to get an M.2 and what I found is they are not that much better than an SSD.  They are better than SSD but were talking fractions of a second only in games (if I see the countdown timer at max on an SSD M.2 won't be faster.)  500gb M.2 is $200 and a 1TB SSD is $200.  Bought the SSD knowing if an M.2 drive can make a huge difference in the future I will buy it too and then I still have a very good huge SSD.

 

There is no difference in price and speed between regular sata ssd's and m.2 sata ssd's, you'll start noticing difference in speed with m.2 nvme ssd's or pci-e ssd's which are really expensive.

a normal m.2 ssd would be a really good choice if you can actually use it as it's much smaller than a normal ssd and you're not working with extra cables. m.2 nvme however, waste of money when all you do is gaming.



lifelessgamer #20 Posted 17 April 2018 - 02:29 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5156 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    02-27-2014

View PostTsundereWaffle, on 17 April 2018 - 07:06 AM, said:

 

There is no difference in price and speed between regular sata ssd's and m.2 sata ssd's, you'll start noticing difference in speed with m.2 nvme ssd's or pci-e ssd's which are really expensive.

a normal m.2 ssd would be a really good choice if you can actually use it as it's much smaller than a normal ssd and you're not working with extra cables. m.2 nvme however, waste of money when all you do is gaming.

We are on a gaming forum.  I believe you are are correct I misspoke on the price/size, was like $250 for a 250gb NVME.  For gaming SSD is the way to go we agree.  Answer is more complex in other uses.

 

I would still go SSD over NVME at this time in non gaming too.  Price vs minimal gains.

 


Edited by lifelessgamer, 17 April 2018 - 02:34 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users