Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'gpu'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General Posting Place
    • News and Announcements
    • Newbie Palace and New Users Introductions
    • Shenanigans
    • Patron Plaza
    • Ask Me Anything
  • Purple Player Interaction Centre
    • Casual Purple
    • Ask a Purple Poaster
    • Purple Poaster Replay Place
  • Serious-Face Enabled Discussions
    • Core Skills & Mechanics Discussion
    • Metagame Discussion
    • People, Platoons and Pwning
    • Vehicles
    • Upcoming Changes Discussion
    • Mathematics Corner
  • Improvement and Study
    • Mentor Meet-up
    • Tape Study
    • Articles
    • Tanks Media
  • Clam Rivalry and Posturing
    • Clam Wars Recruitment
    • [NA] The Drama Llama says: WTF Subversions?
    • [EU] Professional Pro Gamering: stronk tenks and stronk taktiks
    • [SEA] Low Server Population Clam Wars Edition
  • Related Games
    • World of Warships
    • World of Warplanes
    • World of Tanks Console
    • World of Tanks Blitz
    • Armored Warfare
    • War Thunder
  • The Archive

Blogs

  • Never's Blog
  • Melol's Blog
  • Melol's Blog
  • bjshnog's Game Dev Blog
  • TayTay's Diary
  • DROPLET'S SHITPOAST LAND OF OBJ.140 AND PADDING/CANCER
  • Noobs corner
  • Evelyn's Biting Corner
  • Dire's Blog
  • Constie's Awesome Adventures
  • Deft Penk Hidey Hole
  • blerg
  • Mundane Things
  • Majestic's Blog
  • WoTLabs Blog
  • German fanboy sperg blog thingy
  • A cheesy blog
  • Kuroi's Clubhouse
  • B-log
  • Ollie Tabooger's House Of Buttpiracy
  • vonblogger
  • _Clickers Blog of Rando Things
  • Blog name *
  • The_Illusi0nist's Blog
  • Shitposting With Skittles
  • rojo180's Blog
  • Tomhwk's Titillating Teal Time
  • how do i use a Kv2 effectively when teamates refuse to help me in WOT?
  • my blob
  • my blog
  • Shoe's Blog
  • Grumpy fail purple siema player is here
  • No Bullshit Reviews
  • The Journey
  • Sigh...
  • TEST
  • Reports of a beginner
  • CSI: Chinese Server Insanity
  • Hallo1994: Simply, Me
  • Wanderjar's Notebook blog
  • My journey to being a better player

Categories

  • World of Tanks
    • Tank Reviews
    • Strategies
    • Videos
    • Mods
  • Game Theory

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 9 results

  1. I watched the Nvidia webcast on Twitch tonight. So it looks like we learned a a few things about the new GTX 1080: Available May 27th $599 MSRP $699 founders Edition(Overclocking version) 2.1 GHz GPU on air cooling. 8GB of GDDR5X memory 65 degrees C on air cooling at 2.1 GHz 180 Watts power draw GTX 1080 is faster than a TItan X or 980 SLI. Nvidia's chart showed the GTX 1080 being about 20-25% faster than a Titan X with a lot lower power draw The GTX 1080 has the ability to do corrected view angles on 3+ monitors and 16 different view ports. Its called Simultaneous Multi Projection. This also means they can do 3D VR with correct viewing angles for each eye to make the 3D Image without distortion by doing 4+ panels per eye at 90+ FPS. The GTX 1080 has Twice the performance of a Titan X in VR GTX 1070: Faster than Titan X $379 MSRP $449 Founders Edition(Overclocking version) Other new Nvidia Stuff: The new Pascal GPUs had a 2+ Billion dollar R&D budget. In Game Camera system. Port in game 3D world to your Android phone. Acoustic Simulation in 3D. Open Source VR engine
  2. So last night my GPU started overheating and turning off and I realized my fans are not spinning. (I have a GTX 980ti G1 Gaming). The "silent mode" lights are on and the fans turn off as soon as windows 10 boots up. Even when I'm playing graphically intensive games the fans wont turn on. I tried reinstalling the drivers and it didn't work. I'm clueless when it comes to computers please help. Update: I got my fans working but for some reason it still crashes. I don't know what the hell is going on with my pc.
  3. World of Tanks 9.15 GPU Comparison and Analysis Introduction: World of Tanks updated to version 9.15 which added new technology to the game. Now the game supports multi core CPUs and is not dependent on single threaded CPU performance. This should allow for an increase in frames per second with the same hardware compared to earlier versions of World of Tanks. For smooth game play you want to keep your minimum FPS(Frames per Second) above 30 FPS. Games can start looking like a slide show below 30 FPS. Games tend to look smoother and are easier to play when you keep your minimum frame rates higher. Generally 50-60 FPS is where games start to look much smoother to most gamers. Some people with 60 Hz monitors prefer to have their minimum FPS never drop below 60 FPS then enable V-sync to reduce the visual effect called screen tearing. Other players have monitors that are capable of 75 Hz, 100 Hz, 120 Hz, 144 Hz, or faster refresh rates and want higher average FPS in game. Minimum and average frame per second are a matter of both game play quality and personal preference and can be limited by the hardware. Maximum FPS isn't as important for game play as minimum FPS and average FPS. There is a myth that the human eye can't distinguish any difference above 30 frames per second, so that having more than 30 FPS is useless. In scientific testing, it has been proven that the human eye may be able to see differences in frame rate at over 200 frames per second. One United States military test of pilots showed that they can be shown an image of an aircraft for 1/220th of a second and they can accurately and reliably tell what type of aircraft it is. Other tests have shown that computer gamers can see a difference between 30 frames per second, 60 frames per second, and 100+ frames per second while playing computer games on newer monitors that have the capability of using refresh rates above 100 Hz. The difference is noticed more by gamers who have previously played on 100 Hz and faster refresh rate monitors. Also, some people say that television and movies are shown at approximately 30 FPS, so more than 30 FPS isn't necessary. However movies and television shows often use motion blur to hide what would seem to be jerky movement due to being played at 30 FPS. Another advantage of higher frame rates is less input lag and less game lag. You may have a great ping and no packet loss, but if you are averaging 30 FPS it may feel that you have higher ping when you play because there is more lag in the game itself. For example, if you play at 30 FPS, each frame is about 0.0333 seconds. If you play at 60 FPS, each frame is 0.0167 seconds. If you play at 100 FPS, each frame is 0.0100 seconds. To many players, having higher frame rates feels and acts like having a better in game ping. Some players feel that higher FPS in a game makes it easier to hit moving targets in game and to hit smaller targets in game. Methods: Replays: I downloaded a replay from WoTReplays.com that had a combination of close range fighting around buildings and longer range and close range fighting around hills and trees. Its a T-54 replay on Murovanka. The replay is available here: http://wotreplays.com/site/2713913 Computer systems used: Desktop: i7 6700K overclocked to 4.6 GHz and water cooled. 32 GB DDR 4 RAM (8GB x 4 sticks) 1 TB Samsung EVO 850 SSD Seasonic 650 Watt power supply Windows 10 Pro The overclocked i7-6700K was used to reduce any limitations of the CPU performance in frame rates of the replays. Also the i7-6700K allows adjustment of CPU speed to see what effect CPU speed has on frame rate. Graphics cards tested in the Desktop, the manufacturer's part numbers, and additional information: GTX 1070: 900-1G411-2520-001 - The GTX 1070 is a new GPU from Nvidia. Currently graphics cards with this GPU currently sell for $400-$500. GTX 960 (02G-P4-2968-KR) - A new GTX 960 equipped graphics card currently sells for $160-$240 in the U.S. You can expect prices to drop soon with the release of the GTX 1060 and other newer GPUs. GTX 660 ti (02G-P4-3664-KR) - The GTX 660 ti was released almost 4 years ago in August of 2012. Currently, used GTX 660 ti graphics cards sell for $60-$100 on eBay. Occasionally, you can find a pair of them sold together for SLI for $120-$140 GTX 750 ti (02G-P4-3751-KR) - A new GTX 750 ti equipped graphics card currently sells for $95-$130 in the U.S. You can expect prices to drop soon with the release of the GTX 1060 and other newer GPUs. R7 370 (R7-370B-CDFR) - A new R7 370 equipped graphics card currently sells for $130-$170 in the U.S. With new AMD GPUs being recently released, expect the price to drop in coming months. R7 360 (GV-R736OC-2GD) - A new R7 360 equipped graphics card currently sells for $95-$130 in the U.S. With new AMD GPUs being recently released, expect the price to drop in coming months. 8800 GTS 512MB (512-P3-N841-A3 512MB) - The 8800 GTS 512 is an old GPU from 2007 that was tested to see how well older GPUs compare to the graphics built into desktop processors. Intel's integrated HD graphics on the i7-6700K processor The Nvidia GPUs were all tested with driver version 368.22 except for the 8800 GTS 512 which was tested with the latest driver for that GPU which is version 341.92 Laptop: MSI GT60 i7-3630QM GeForce GTX 680M 4GB DDR5: The GTX 680M is a 4 year old mobile GPU released in June of 2012. It is not currently available on new notebook computers. The GTX 680M has benchmarks results similar to the GTX 960M in many games. 12 GB RAM 500 GB Samsung 840 SSD Windows 10 Measurements: I used the Fraps program to record minimum, maximum, and average FPS. Each replay was measured by FRAPS for 3 minutes and 30 seconds. Measurement of the frames per second started when the countdown timer reached 00:00. The replays were measured three times in a row and the averages of the three replays with the same settings were used. Each replay was run three times to be sure there were no unusual reading of the FPS measurements and to ensure consistent and accurate results. No game mods were installed for the test. The results were very consistent for most of the GPUs with the usual variation of average and minimum FPS being 1 FPS or less. To do testing on your own computer, you can purchase Fraps here: http://www.fraps.com/ I used MSi Afterburner to measure GPU memory usage and system memory usage. MSI Afterburner was not run when the benchmark tests were run and MSi Afterburner was run separately on replays after the benchmark tests were done. You can download MSi Afterburner here: https://gaming.msi.com/features/afterburner In addition to the effect of different GPUs on frame rate, different graphics options and different CPU speeds were tested for their effect on frame rate to determine what options have the highest effect on frame rate. Test Results: Memory Usage: MSi Afterburner was run to monitor system memory usage and graphics card memory usage. 1920x1080 Resolution: GPU memory usage stayed under 1900 MB. System memory stayed usage under 5300 MB. 3440x1440 Resolution: GPU memory usage stayed under 2400 MB. System memory usage stayed under 5300 MB. From this we can learn that at 1920x1080 resolution a graphics card with 2 GB of RAM is adequate for World of Tanks and a graphics card with 3 GB of RAM is adequate for World of Tanks with resolutions up to 3440x1440. When mods were installed(XVM, crosshair, OTM reload, etc...) and the test was run again at the same resolutions the GPU memory usage did not increase. One important thing to remember, if you play other modern games, you may require graphics card with more graphics memory than is required to run World of Tanks. GPUs at 1920x1080: GTX 680M issue: You may notice a lack of results for the GTX 680M below at some graphics settings. With the World of Tanks 9.15 update, the laptop with the GTX 680M would not go above 60 FPS in World of Tanks 9.15. Both the in game FPS meter and Fraps reported a maximum of 60 FPS. The replay spend large amounts of time at 60 FPS. Due to this accurate performance measurements could not be recorded. Vsync was turned off in the game. Vsync was confirmed to be off in the preferences.xml file. Vsync was off in the Nvidia control Panel's global settings and the World of Tanks specific settings. In the GeForce Experience app both recommend optimal settings is off and automatically apply optimal settings is off. External monitors that support 75 Hz and 100 Hz refresh rates were connected to the laptop and the game would still only display a maximum of 60 FPS in World of Tanks 9.15. Multiple driver versions were tried. Wargaming support was not able to resolve the issue. After multiple attempts to resolve the issue with Wargaming's support, Wargaming support's official reply was that as long as the game client is able to perform above 30 FPS it is out of their scope of support. In an attempt to troubleshoot the issue, a copy of World of Tanks 9.14 was downloaded form a site that archived older versions of World of Tanks. Playing replays with World of Tanks 9.14 showed that version 9.14 was able to sustain 70-90 FPS in various replays with both the built in display panel and external monitors. This confirmed that the 60 FPS cap is a World of Tanks 9.15 specific issue. All other DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 games installed on the laptop were able to achieve and maintain greater than 60 FPS at 1920x1080 resolution with both the built in display panel and external monitors. If Wargaming provides a solution to the issue, the results will be updated. Full Maximum: Full Maximum is every graphics detail option turned on or all the way up including TSAA-HQ. In WoT 9.15 the "Ultra" setting was added under shadows. This adds more details to shadows and also makes the frame rates lower than WoT 9.14 with shadows on the "Maximum" setting. Dynamic Adjustment and Dynamic Changes of Effect Quality are off. GTX 960: The GTX 960 was able to average above 60 FPS at this setting. The minimum FPS was 47. If you play with V-sync enabled, the GTX 960 will allow you to maintain 60 FPS most of the time at the Full Maximum setting. GTX 660 ti: The GTX 660 ti was able to maintain a minimum FPS above 30, however it was not able to maintain an average FPS of 60. . GTX 750 ti: The GTX 750 ti, a recent favorite budget priced graphics card, was able to maintain an average FPS above 30 at this setting. However the minimum frame rate was below 30 FPS. I wouldn't recommend using this graphics setting if you have a GTX 750 ti. GTX 680M: The GTX 680M performed similarly to the GTX 750 ti. The GTX 680 M was able to maintain an average FPS above 30 at this setting. However the minimum frame rate was below 30 FPS. I wouldn't recommend using this graphics setting if you have a GTX 680M in your laptop. R7 370: The R7 370 had similar performance to the GTX 660 ti at this graphics setting. Its minimum FPS was higher than the GTX 660 ti. However the R7 370's average FPS was lower at this setting. R7 360: The R7 360 was comparable to the GTX 750 ti and GTX 680M at this graphics setting. I wouldn't recommend using this graphics setting if you have a R7 360. Maximum: Maximum is the preset maximum setting with antialiasing off and Dynamic Adjustment and Dynamic Changes of Effect Quality are off. GTX 960: The GTX 690 was able to average above 100 FPS at this setting. The minimum FPS was 72. Using a G-Sync monitor would be useful at this graphics setting. GTX 660 ti: The GTX 660 ti was able to maintain a minimum FPS of 50 and an average FPS of almost 85. You could play with Vsync enabled and keep your FPS above 60 most of the time with the GTX 660 ti at this graphics setting. GTX 750 ti: The GTX 750 ti was able to maintain a minimum FPS of 37 and average just under 60 FPS. Game play would be smooth with the GTX 750 ti at this setting for most players. GTX 680M: As mentioned above, World of Tanks 9.15 will not run higher than 60 FPS with the GTX 680M. If the issue is resolved, the article will be updated with GTX 680M results at this setting. R7 370: The R7 370 was able to maintain a minimum FPS of 50 and an average FPS of almost 80. You could play with Vsync enabled and keep your FPS above 60 most of the time with the R7 370 at this graphics setting. R7 360: The R7 360 was able to maintain a minimum FPS of 33 and an average FPS of 52. The minimum FPS was barely above the recommended minimum of 30 FPS. For smooth game play I'd recommend a lower graphics detail setting for the R7 370. High: High is the preset High setting with antialiasing off and Dynamic Adjustment and Dynamic Changes of Effect Quality are off. GTX 960: The GTX 960 was able to maintain a minimum of 85 FPS and average 116 FPS. At this setting, the GTX 960 would benefit from a G-Sync monitor. GTX 660 ti: The GTX 660 ti was able to maintain a minimum FPS of just under 60 FPS and an average of 106 FPS at this graphics setting. Playing with Vsync enabled would be possible because the minimum FPS would rarely drop before 60 FPS. At this setting, the GTX 660 ti would benefit form a G-Sync monitor. GTX 750 ti: The GTX 750 ti was able to maintain a minimum FPS of 44 and average of 74 FPS. Game play would be smooth with the GTX 750 ti at this setting for most players. The minimum FPS still doesn't allow for enabling Vsync and maintaining a minimum of 60 FPS. GTX 680M: As mentioned above, World of Tanks 9.15 will not run higher than 60 FPS with the GTX 680M. If the issue is resolved, the article will be updated with GTX 680M results at this setting. R7 370: The R7 370 was able to maintain a minimum FPS of 60 FPS and an average of 97 FPS at this graphics setting. Playing with Vsync enabled would be possible because the minimum FPS would rarely drop before 60 FPS. At this setting, the R7 370 would benefit form a FreeSync monitor. R7 360: The R7 360 was able to maintain a minimum FPS of 38 and average of just under 66 FPS. Gameplay would be smooth for most players at this graphics setting. Medium: Medium is the preset medium setting with antialiasing off and Dynamic Adjustment and Dynamic Changes of Effect Quality are off. GTX 960: The GTX 960 spent large parts of the replay at the game's max of 120 FPS at this graphics setting. At this setting, the GTX 960 would benefit form a G-Sync monitor. Using a higher graphics setting is recommended for the GTX 960. GTX 660 ti: The GTX 660 ti was able to maintain a minimum of 85 FPS and average 116 FPS. For some parts of the replay the game was at the maximum of 120 FPS. At this setting, the GTX 660 ti would benefit from a G-Sync monitor. GTX 750 ti: The GTX 750 ti was able to maintain a minimum FPS of just udner 60 and an average FPS of 91. You could play with Vsync enabled and keep your FPS above 60 most of the time with the GTX 750 ti at this graphics setting. You may see a benefit to using a G-Sync monitor at this setting with the GTX 750 ti. GTX 680M: As mentioned above, World of Tanks 9.15 will not run higher than 60 FPS with the GTX 680M. If the issue is resolved, the article will be updated with GTX 680M results at this setting. R7 370: The R7 370 was able to maintain a minimum of 75 FPS and average almost 109 FPS. For some parts of the replay the game was at the maximum of 120 FPS. At this setting, the R7 370 would benefit from a FreeSync monitor. R7 360: The R7 360 was able to maintain a minimum FPS of 44 and average of 75 FPS. Gameplay would be smooth for most players at this graphics setting. You might see a benefit from using a FreeSync monitor with the R7 360 at this graphics setting. 8800 GTS 512: The 8800 GTS 512 was not able to maintain an average of 30 FPS at this setting. Gameplay is not recommended at this setting with the 8800 GTX 512. Low or Minimum graphics would be recommended. HD 530: The Intel HD 530 integrated graphics was not able to maintain an average of 30 FPS at this setting and was barely over 23 FPS at this setting. Gameplay is not recommended at this setting with the Intel HD 530 integrated graphics. Low or Minimum graphics would be recommended. Effects of resolution on FPS: With monitor resolutions above 1920x1080 becoming more popular among gamers and computer users in general, I tested the same replay on different graphics settings at multiple resolutions to see the effect on higher resolutions. To put it simply, at higher resolutions, the GPU has to process more pixels, which requires more memory, memory speed, and processing power. Here is a list of common monitor resolutions and their pixel count. 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels 2560x1080 = 2,764,800 pixels 2560x1440 = 3,686,400 pixels 3440x1440 = 4,953,600 pixels Full maximum: At this graphics setting, each increase in resolution yields about a 10 FPS drop in average FPS. Maximum: At this graphics setting, each increase in resolution yields a smaller drop average FPS. The game is almost capable of maintaining above 60 FPS with the GTX 960 at 2560x1080 resolution with he minimum FPS being about 54. High: At this graphics setting, each increase in resolution yields a smaller drop average FPS. The game is capable of maintaining above 60 FPS with the GTX 960 at 2560x1080 resolution. Medium: At the medium setting at 1920x1080 and 2560x1080, the game is hitting the 120 FPS maximum for large parts of the replay. The game is capable of maintaining above 60 FPS with the GTX 960 at 2560x1440 resolution. Effects of CPU speed on FPS: With World of Tanks update 9.15, Wargaming enabled multi core support. Many players who had AMD CPUs in their computers noticed a large frame rate increase. This is because the game no longer depends on single threaded CPU performance. To see how the CPU performance effects frame rate, I tried under clocking the i7-6700K to 2.0 GHz and 1.5 GHz and running the same benchmarks. The i7-6700K at 1.5 GHz has similar multi threaded performance in benchmarks as older AMD CPUs. Here are the benchmark results of the i7-6700K at 2.0 GHz and CPUs with similar results: i7-6700K @ 2.0 GHz: Passmark 5921 AMD A10-7890K: Passmark 5987 Intel Core i5-4430S: Passmark 5914 Intel Core i7-960: Passmark 5911 AMD FX-8100: Passmark 6092 Intel Core i5-3340: Passmark 5982 Here are the benchmark results of the i7-6700K at 1.5 GHz nd CPUs with similar results: i7-6700K @ 1.5 GHz: Passmark 4457 Intel Core i3-3250: Passmark 4442 AMD Phenom II X4 970: Passmark 4427 AMD A8-6500 APU: Passmark 4393 Intel Core i3-4330T: Passmark 4487 You can find the Passmark CPU benchmark list at: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html Something else to consider is that an older computer with a slower CPU may also have other components that are slower. For example, the memory, hard drive, and the PCI Express slot may all be slower and have a lower data transfer rate. Therefore, you may still get a lower FPS than the results I achieved with an underclocked i7 processor. GTX 750 ti: The results of the GTX 750 ti at multiple CPU speeds: As you can see, the CPU speed has very little effect on FPS at most graphics settings. The only significant difference was the average FPS at the medium graphics setting. At the medium setting, the faster CPU allowed for higher average FPS, but had no significant change in minimum FPS. The GTX 750 ti isn't effected much by CPU speed in World of Tanks. R7 370: The results of the R7 370 at two different CPU speeds, 4.6 GHz and 1.5 GHz with the Maximum graphics setting. The difference in CPU speed caused about a 3 FPS difference. The R7 370 isn't effected much by CPU speed in World of Tanks. R7 360: I tried a different approach to the CPU speed question and used a low priced modern graphics card in a PC with a processor and motherboard from 2008. I wanted to see if its cost effective to install a newer graphics card in a older PC for World of Tanks gameplay. If you have an older dual core PC, spending $100 on a faster graphics card can limit your World of Tanks game performance due to the CPU. Both the Medium and High graphics settings yielded the same FPS with the E8400 CPU. Either a quad core processor upgrade(if available) or a whole computer upgrade would be recommended if you have a computer with a single core or dual core processor that is over 8 years old. GTX 1070: The newest graphics cards with the latest GPUs are not severely hindered by a slower CPU in World of Tanks even at 3440x1440 resolution. The decrease in CPU speed and CPU performance didn't have much of an effect in FPS with the GTX 1070. Effect of a separate Nvidia PhysX processor on FPS: The Bigworld version 2.0 and newer versions of the game engine support Nvidia PhysX. I tested adding a second graphics card to the computer and dedicating the second graphics card as an Nvidia Physx processor in the Nvidia Control Panel. Adding a GTX 750 ti and specifying it as a dedicated PhysX processor did not have a significant in the framerate in World of Tanks. Conclusion: World of Tanks 9.15 added multi core support. This is a major step forward in the game. Previously, many people who played the game were limited in game performance by their CPU. Now with the game not being dependent on single threaded performance, players are limited by their GPU. In older versions of World of Tanks, a computer with an Intel CPU could provide higher FPS than a computer with a faster graphics card and an AMD CPU. For example, in earlier versions of World of Tanks, a computer with an Intel CPU and a GTX 960 graphics card often provided similar FPS to a computer with an AMD CPU and a GTX 970 graphics card. Now, with the game supporting multiple CPU cores, most players of this game are limited by their graphics card and not by their processor's single threaded performance. This provides an increase in the quality of game play for many players of the game. There are no significant game engine changes planned for World of Tanks update 9.15.1. Game performance between 9.15 and 9.15.1 are very similar overall with the same hardware. My own tests showed less than a 1 FPS difference between update 9.15 and update 9.15.1 with the same graphics settings and same hardware.
  4. Hey guys, I got a laptop over a month ago and I noticed that my fps in games was lower then it should be. After looking in MSI afterburner and GPU-Z I noticed that my gpu does not have a clock speed higher than 400 and a memory speed higher than 900. This GPU is supposed to have a 925 clock and 1000 for the memory. My laptop is a Lenovo Y40-80, specs are : CPU: Intel core i7 4510 (hyperthreaded dual core) Clocked at 2ghz stock and 3.1ghz turbo GPU: AMD r9 m275x 2gb gddr3 clocked at 925/1000 ( it is just below a gtx860m and higher then the 950m) It is a desktop 7770 slightly downclocked 8gb gddr3 1600 500GB SSHD All power settings are set to the highest performance and the temperatures are around 50-60 degrees under load. It is not a CPU bottleneck as i have tried throttlestop and it did nothing. I have uninstalled and reinstalled all drivers and it again did nothing I tried to force voltage and it did nothing
  5. Introduction: For how popular of a game as World of Tanks is, I haven't seen many benchmarks comparing different graphics cards/GPUs to the game performance. You might see one popping up every year or two with limited info about testing methods. When I read that 9.14 was going to move the sound processing to another CPU core, I decided that after 9.14 was released, it would be a good time to compare different GPUs. I'm going through the process of using different GPUs with the same replays to compare their performance. For smooth game play you want to keep your minimum FPS(Frames per Second) above 30 FPS. Games can start looking like a slide show below 30 FPS. Games tend to look smoother and are easier to play when you keep your minimum frame rates higher. Generally 50-60 FPS is where games start to look much smoother to most gamers. Some people with 60 Hz monitors prefer to have their minimum FPS never drop below 60 FPS then enable V-sync to reduce the visual effect called screen tearing. Other players have monitors that are capable of 75, 100, 120, or 144 Hz refresh rates and want higher average FPS in game. Minimum and average frame per second are a matter of both game play quality and personal preference and can be limited by the hardware. Maximum FPS isn't as important for game play as minimum FPS and average FPS. There is a myth that the human eye can't distinguish any difference above 30 frames per second, so that having more than 30 FPS is useless. In scientific testing, it has been proven that the human eye may be able to see differences in frame rate at over 200 frames per second. Other tests have shown that computer gamers can see a difference between 30 frames per second, 60 frames per second, and 100+ frames per second while playing computer games on newer monitors that have the capability of using refresh rates above 100 Hz. Also, some people say that television and movies are shown at approximately 30 FPS, so more than 30 FPS isn't necessary. However movies and television shows often use motion blur to hide what would seem to be jerky movement due to being played at 30 FPS. Another advantage of higher frame rates is less input lag and less game lag. You may have a great ping and no packet loss, but if you are averaging 30 FPS it may feel that you have higher ping when you play because there is more lag in the game itself. For example, if you play at 30 FPS, each frame is about 0.0333 seconds. If you play at 60 FPS, each frame is 0.0167 seconds. If you play at 100 FPS, each frame is 0.0100 seconds. To many players, having higher frame rates feels and acts like having a better in game ping. Some players feel that higher FPS in a game makes it easier to hit moving targets in game and to hit smaller targets in game. Methods: Replays: I downloaded quite a few replays from WoTReplays.com and found a few to find what I was looking for. I ended up using three different replays that I downloaded from WoTReplays.com. Two replays were used more than the third replay. The first replay is a Comet on Serene Coast. Link: http://wotreplays.com/site/2546813 The second replay is a Type 64 on Abbey. Link: http://wotreplays.com/site/2536214 The third replay is an IS-6 on Kharkov Link: http://wotreplays.com/site/2544611. I used the Comet replay because a large part of the battle occurs near the water, has tanks driving through water, and it is a good replay to see how the water quality settings affect game performance. The Type 64 replay was used because it has a wide variety of game play events, game environments, and was stressful to even higher end GPUs giving the lowest average frames per second and lowest minimum frames per second of all the different replays I tried. I also used the IS-6 replay because I wanted to see how stressful on the graphics heavy tank play is around buildings. It ended up that heavy tank play in the city is not very stressful on the GPU for most mid and high end GPUs. Several other replays of heavy tank play on city maps showed that it seems to be less stressful and yielded higher FPS than other types of replays. The IS-6 replay is more of a best case scenario instead of an average or demanding replay. Because of this I didn't use the IS-6 replay to test many of the GPUs. Computer systems used: Desktop: i7 3770K overclocked to 4.4 GHz and water cooled. 32 GB RAM (8GB x 4 sticks) 1 TB Samsung EVO 850 SSD Seasonic 650 Watt power supply Windows 10 Pro The overclocked i7-3770K was used to reduce any limitations of the CPU performance in frame rates of the replays. Also the 3770K allows adjustment of CPU speed to see what effect CPU speed has on frame rate. Graphics cards tested in the Desktop and their manufacturer's part numbers: GTX 970* (04G-P4-3979-KB) GTX 960 (02G-P4-2968-KR) GTX 660 ti (02G-P4-3664-KR) GTX 750 ti (02G-P4-3751-KR) R7 370 (R7-370B-CDFR) R7 360 (GV-R736OC-2GD) 8800 GTS 512MB (512-P3-N841-A3 512MB) Intel's HD 4000 integrated graphics on the i7 processor *The GTX 970 was borrowed and returned to its owner. Testing time was limited. The Nvidia GPUs were all tested with driver version 364.51 except for the 8800 GTS 512 which was tested with the latest driver for that GPU which is version 341.92 Laptop: MSI GT60 i7-3630QM GeForce GTX 680M 4GB DDR5 12 GB RAM 500 GB Samsung 840 SSD Windows 10 I used the Fraps program to record minimum, maximum, and average FPS. Each replay was measured by FRAPS for 3 minutes and 30 seconds. Measurement of the frames per second started when the countdown timer reached 00:00. The replays were measured three times in a row and the averages of the three replays with the same settings were used. Each replay was run three times to be sure there were no unusual reading of the FPS measurements and to ensure consistent and accurate results. No game mods were installed for the test. The results were very consistent for most of the GPUs with the usual variation of average and minimum FPS being 1 FPS or less. I noticed when comparing to previous tests of GPUs I performed using FRAPS and replays on the GTX 680M and the 8800 GTS 512MB that the minimum FPS results were less consistent in patch 9.14 than they were in patch 9.13 and earlier. However the minimum FPS rarely varied more than 3 FPS on the GTX 680M and 8800 GTS 512MB when running the same replay three times in a row or when running the same replay on different days to see if I'd get the same results. To do testing on your own computer, you can purchase Fraps here: Fraps Web Page In addition to the effect of different GPUs on frame rate, different graphics options and different CPU speeds were tested for their effect on frame rate to determine what options have the highest effect on frame rate. Test Results: Effect of CPU speed on FPS: Even though sound processing was moved to another core, World of Tanks still depends on single threaded performance to determine FPS. However, less of the CPU's single threaded performance is used for sound. I tested WoT at "Full Maximum" graphics and varied the CPU speed. As you can see, there is a point where increasing the CPU speed doesn't yield much better frame rates. This is most likely the limit of the graphics card if increasing the CPU speed doesn't have a significant increase in FPS. I'll be doing further testing with other GPUs to determine if the CPU speed that no longer makes a difference is FPS is similar or if it varies on different GPUs. On lower graphics settings there is also an issue where the average FPS and minimum FPS seem to vary little between GPUs because many of the GPUs spend a large part of time at the game maximum of 120 FPS. Effect of Nvidia PhysX on FPS: The Bigworld Game engine is listed as one of the game engines that support Nvidia PhysX. I've seen players ask, "When I upgrade my video card, should I save my old one and use it for a dedicated PhysX card for World of Tanks?" I put the GTX 750 ti in the second PCI Express 3.0 x16 slot in my motherboard and went into the Nvidia Control Panel and set the GTX 750 ti as a dedicated PhysX card. Then I reran the benchmarks for the GTX 960 on the Abbey and Serene Coast replays. The results are below. You can see there was no significant improvement in minimum or average frame rate by using a second Nvidia GPU as a dedicated PhysX card. It looked liek the average FPS was actually slightly higher in both replays by not having a dedicated PhysX GPU. However, the slightly higher frame rate is well within the margin of error. If you are interested in more detailed FPS info with the Type 64 replay on the Abbey map, you can click the link below. More detailed info PhysX vs No PhysX. In summary, it looks like World of Tanks does not benefit from a dedicated Nvidia PhysX GPU. Full Maximum Graphics Benchmarks: The in game "Maximum" graphics setting does not turn all the graphics sliders all the way up. Also, the in game "Maximum" graphics setting does not enable AA. For the first benchmark comparison, I turned all the sliders all the way up, enabled TSAA-HQ, set the FOV to 95 degrees, set 3D Render Resolution to 100%, and turned off Dynamic Adjustment and Dynamic Changes of Effects. This increases graphics and effects quality and is more demanding on the GPU than the in game "Maximum" setting. Screenshots of the settings used are below. Results of the currently tested GPUs at 1920x1080 resolution and full maximum graphics: At 1920x1080 resolution, all the the GPUs tested with full maximum graphics settings used between 1.7 GB and 1.9 GB of graphics memory according to MSI Afterburner. The 4 GB memory GPUs did not use more than 1.9 GB of graphics memory at either resolution. MSI Afterburner was run separately to the FPS benchmark tests to see the graphics memory used. GTX 970: For players who don't want their FPS to drop below 60 FPS in game at 1920x1080 resolution at this graphics setting, the GTX 970 works very well. It was the only GPU tested that was able to maintain a minimum FPS greater than 60. Because of the high minimum and average FPS the GTX 970 is capable of, it offers very smooth game play at this graphics setting. You can see that the GTX 960 did similar in minimum frame rates as the GTX 970. However the GTX 970 had much higher average frame rates at this graphics setting. The GTX 970 Graphics cards with similar specs to the one used here currently sell for $295-$380 in the US market. GTX 960: If you play with V-sync enabled on a 60Hz refresh rate monitor and no game mods or minimal game mods, the GTX 960 will be adequate for most game situations at 1920x1080 resolution with this graphics setting and offer very smooth game play. The GTX 960 costs over $100 less than the GTX 970 at current US market prices and has a minimum FPS that is only slightly below 60 FPS. The GTX 960's with similar specs to the one used here sell for $165-$185 in the US market. One thing to consider with the GTX 960 is if you play other games that require more graphics memory, a GTX 960 with 4 GB of graphics memory and similar GPU speed to the one tested here currently sell for $185-210 in the US market. GTX 660 ti: Considering that the GTX 660 ti is a GPU released in the summer of 2012, its performance is still very good in World of Tanks. With an average FPS greater than 60 and a minimum frame rate slightly less than 50 FPS the GTX 660 ti can offer smooth game play at this graphics setting. Also, fully functional GTX 660 ti graphics cards are selling for $65-100 on eBay in the US depending on the model and included accessories. The GTX 660 ti s a very good deal for World of Tanks if you have under $100 to spend on a graphics card. However, a four year old, used GPU usually doesn't have a warranty if that is a concern to you. R7 370: The R7 370 couldn't hit an average of 60 FPS in game at these settings. However, the minimum FPS stayed above 40 which would allow for mostly smooth game play at this graphics setting without game mods installed. The R7 370 I used was a factory overclocked model and is one of the highest overclocked R7 370 graphics cards on the market at 1050 MHz. There are a few R7 360 models with slightly higher clock speeds available. I tried this R7 370 overclocked to 1100 MHz and the FPS results were almost the same as the factory overclock of 1050 MHz. The factory overclocked R7 370 models with similar speeds all currently sell for $125 to $160 in the US market. GTX 750 ti: The GTX 750 ti was able to maintain a minimum of over 30 FPS at this graphics setting. While the game play wouldn't be as smooth as a GPU capable of 60 FPS minimum, the game is playable if the minimum FPS doesn't drop below 30 FPS. I could see a difference between the GTX 750 ti and the GTX 960 while playing the game with both GPUs back to back. If you install game mods, your minimum FPS will likely be below 30 FPS and that will be noticeable. The GTX 750 ti used in this test is a model that uses power from the PCI Express x16 slot. It does not require external power. You can buy half height GTX 750 ti video cards that can be used in slim and small form factor computers. There are faster GTX 750 ti models that use a 6 pin external power connector and are overclocked well above factory specs. I did not have one available for testing. The overclocked GTX 750 ti graphics cards that require 6 pin external power currently sell for about $130 in the US. At $130 you can buy a video card with a faster GPU. The GTX 750 ti graphics cards that don't require external power sell for $95-$110 in the US market at this time. GTX 680M: The GTX 680M is a mobile GPU that was released in the summer of 2012. The GTX 680M on the laptop still maintained a minimum FPS of about 30. This allowed for the game play to be smooth, but I could see a difference between the GTX 680M and the GTX 960 while playing the game. If you install mods, the GTX 680M will most likely need lower graphics settings to maintain a minimum of 30 FPS in game. The GTX 750 ti and GTX 680M offered similar performance with the GTX 750 ti having a slightly higher minimum frame rate while the GTX 680M had a slightly higher average frame rate at this graphics setting. Both the GTX 680M and GTX 750 ti use different methods of achieving similar results. The GTX 750 ti relies on faster clock speeds, while the GTX 680M relies on a higher throughput due to more processing cores. R7 360: The R7 360 couldn't maintain a minimum of 30 FPS and struggles to maintain 25 FPS at this graphics setting. During the replay and while playing the game with the R7 360, the game didn't appear to be smooth in many occasions. I noticed instances of the slide show effect and my mouse movements making the aim point move where I didn't want it to be. I wouldn't recommend the R7 360 at this graphics setting for smooth game play. The R7 360 graphics cards sell for $90-$130 in the US at this time. If you are playing World of Tanks without mods or maybe with minimal mods and using the "Full Maximum" setting described above, the two GPUs that will allow for truly smooth game play are the GTX 860 and GTX 970. The GTX 660 ti is a close runner up with an average FPS of almost 64 FPS. The R7 370, GTX 750 ti, and GTX 680M were playable and maintained above 30 FPS. I would not recommend the R7 360 at this graphics setting. If you only had $100 to spend on a graphics card for World of Tanks and were not interested in buying a used graphics card, I'd recommend the GTX 750 ti over the R7 360 based on the results of these tests.. Maximum Graphics Benchmarks: The game preset "Maximum" was selected. Other setting included, AA was turned off, FoV was set to 95 degrees, set 3D Render Resolution to 100%, and turned off Dynamic Adjustment and Dynamic Changes of Effects. No game mods were installed. Results of the tested GPUs at 1920x1080 resolution and maximum graphics: GTX 970: For players who don't want their FPS to drop below 60 FPS in game at 1920x1080 resolution at this graphics setting, the GTX 970 works very well. The GTX 970 averaged over 100 FPS and its minimum frame rate was slightly below 70 FPS at the Maximum graphics setting. The GTX 970 will likely keep the minimum frame rate above 60 FPS with a few minor mods installed such as XVM and cross hair. GTX 960: The GTX 960 offered a minimum frame rate that was only slightly below that of the GTX 970. However its average frame rate was slightly above 90 FOS instead of 100 FPS. The GTX 960 has more than enough performance for playing World of Tanks with no mods if you want to never drop below 60 FPS. At this graphics setting the GTX 960 might even keep the minimum FPS around or above 60 FPS with a few game mods installed such as a basic XVM config and cross hair. GTX 660 ti: The GTX 660 ti continued to perform well for an older GPU. At this graphics setting the average frame rate was above 70 FPS and the minimum framerate was 55 FPS. Overall, this GPU is capable of keeping the FPS above 60 most of the time, so that playing with V-sync enabled and not dropping below 60 FPS often is possible. R7 370: The R7 370 performed similar to the GTX 660 ti at this graphics setting. The average FPS was slightly higher than the GXT 660 ti. However, the minimum FPS of the R7 370 was lower than the GTX 660 ti. This is another GPU is capable of keeping the FPS above 60 most of the time, so that playing with V-sync enabled and not dropping below 60 FPS often is possible. GTX 680M: The GTX 680M continued to perform well for an older mobile GPU. The average frame rate was just below 60 FPS and the minimum frame rate was above 40 FPS. Overall game play was smooth with this GPU. Installing game mods might bring the minimum frame rate close to 30 fps depending on what game mods you install. Adding XVM and cross hair might allow the minimum frame rate to stay above 30 FPS. GTX 750 ti: The GTX 750 ti was still smooth and playable at this graphics setting. The average frame rate was 55 FPS and the minimum frame rate was a little below 40 FPS. Just like the GTX 680M, installing game mods might bring the minimum frame rate close to or below 30 FPS depending on what game mods you install. Adding XVM and cross hair might allow the minimum frame rate to stay above 30 FPS. R7 360: The R7 360 managed an average frame rate just above 50 FPS and barely managed to keep the minimum frame rate above 30 FPS at this graphics setting. Installing mods and using this graphics setting will make the minimum frame rate drop below 30 FPS and have an effect on game play. Based on the results above, both the GTX 970 and GTX 960 work well for a player who wants to keep the minimum frame rate above 60 FPS. The GTX 660 ti and R7 370 also both worked well for players wanting smooth game play with their minimum frame rates being around 55 FPS. The GTX 660 ti continued to be a good value for a used GPU for World of Tanks. Again, I'd recommend the GTX 750 ti over the R7 360 if you only had $100 to spend on a new GPU for World of Tanks. High Graphics Benchmarks: The game preset "High" was selected. Other setting included, AA was turned off, FoV was set to 95 degrees, set 3D Render Resolution to 100%, and turned off Dynamic Adjustment and Dynamic Changes of Effects. No game mods were installed. Results of the tested GPUs at 1920x1080 resolution and High graphics: With the graphics at the "High" preset, the GTX 970, GTX 960, GTX 660 ti, and R7 370 all were able to keep a minimum FPS above 60 FPS at 1920x1080 resolution. If maintaining a minimum of 60 FPS at 1920x1080 resolution is important to you, then all three of these cards will get that done as long as you don't play with game mods installed. Even on the "High" graphics setting we are starting to see similar minimum FPS and average FPS results from several GPUs. Both the GTX 970 and GTX 960 were hitting 120 FPS in several areas of the replay. Both the GTX 660 ti and R7 370 were hitting a maximum FPS of just under 120 FPS in several areas of the replay. GTX 970: The GTX 970 started to hit the frame rate limit in World of Tanks at this setting with parts of the replay were capped at 120 FPS. At the High graphs setting, the GTX 970 should be more than capable of maintaining a minimum frame above 60 FPS even with some mods installed. GTX 960: The GTX 960 was occasionally hitting the frame rate limit in World of Tanks at this setting. The minimum frame rate was slightly below that of the GTX 970. However the average frame rate was about 5 FPS less than the GTX 970. That might not be an accurate representation of the performance difference between the GTX 970 and GTX 960 because of the GTX 970 being capped at 120 FPS for larger parts of the replay. The GTX 960 should be able to maintain a minimum of 60 FPS at this graphics setting with soem mods installed. GTX 660 ti: The GTX 660 ti again showed itself as being a good value in a used GPU for World of Tanks. The minimum frame rate was similar to that of the GTX 960. The GTX 660 ti should be able to maintain a minimum of 60 FPS at this graphics setting with some mods installed. R7 370: The R7 370 had a similar average FPS to that of the GTX 660 ti. However it minimum frame rate was consistently a little lower. The R7 370 continued to be a good value for a GPU in World of Tanks. The R7 370 should be able to maintain a minimum of 60 FPS at this graphics setting with some mods installed. GTX 750 ti: The GTX 750 ti performed well at this graphics setting. Overall it offered smooth game play with its average frame rate being close to 75 FPS and its minimum frame rate being a little less than 55 FPS. If you play with no mods installed and want your frame rate to stay above 60 FPS most of the time the GTX 750 ti will do that at this graphics setting. With mods installed, the average frame rate will probably stay above 60 FPS. GTX 680M: The GTX 680M offered smooth game play at this graphics setting and did well for an older mobile GPU. The average frame rate stayed above 60 FPS and the minimum frame rate was just under 48 FPS which allows for smooth game play. With some game mods installed the GTX 680M should be easily capable of keeping the minimum frame rate above 30 FPS at this graphics setting. R7 360: The R7 360 was able to maintain an average frame rate equal to the GTX 680M. However, its minimum frame rate was lower than the GTX 680M at 41 FPS. Overall, game play at this setting should be smooth at this graphics setting. With some game mods installed the R7 360 should be easily capable of keeping the minimum frame rate above 30 FPS at this graphics setting. Again, if your budget for a new GPU for World of Tanks is $100, I'd recommend the GTX 750 ti over the R7 360. Medium Graphics Benchmarks: The game preset "Medium" was selected. Other setting included, AA was turned off, FoV was set to 95 degrees, set 3D Render Resolution to 100%, and turned off Dynamic Adjustment and Dynamic Changes of Effects. No game mods were installed. Results of the tested GPUs at 1920x1080 resolution and Medium graphics: GTX 970: The GTX 970 was not completely tested under the "Medium" graphics setting. Under the "High" graphics setting, the GTX 970 spend parts of the replays at the game's limit of 120 FPS. There is a game engine limitation that doesn't allow faster frame rates than 120 FPS in World of Tanks. Testing the GTX 970 under "Medium" would not yield accurate results because the average FPS would be skewed by the game's limitation of 120 FPS. One test of both the Type 64 replaya nd Comet replay were done with the GTX 970 at the Medium graphics setting and the Fraps log file showed large parts of the replay's frame rate capped at the game's maximum of 120 FPS. GTX 960 GTX 660 ti R7 370: The GTX 960, GTX 660 ti and R7 370 all ran into the issue where they hit the cap of 120 FPS for portions of the replay using the "Medium" setting. This caused all three GPUs to yield similar results for average and minimum FPS. I'm not sure if its due to a CPU limitation or a game engine limitation due to the single threaded nature of the game or a combination of both. The GTX 960, GTX 660 ti, and R7 370 all have different pixel fill rates and texel fill rates according to benchmarks. Also, the GTX 960, GTX 660 ti, and R7 370 all give different benchmark result in WoT at other settings and in other games. Therefore, its probably not a GPU issue limiting the performance on the "Medium" setting. All of them also offered smooth game play at the "High" setting. Unless the use of mods decreases your frame rates significantly, I'd suggest using the GTX 960, GTX 660 ti, and R7 370 at the "High" preset. GTX 750 ti: The GTX 750 ti maintained a minimum frame rate of almost 73 FPS and an average frame rate of over 95 FPS at this graphics setting. This allows for very smooth game play and also would allow for some game mods to be installed without the frame rate dropping below 60 FPS. R7 360: The R7 360's minimum frame rate at this graphics setting was 59 FPS. That's more than adequate for players who want keep a their frame rate of 60 FPS. The actual amount of time the frame rate would be below 60 FPS is rather low. Of course installing mods would drop the frame rate below 60 FPS. Again, I'd recommend the GTX 750 ti over the R7 360 if you only had $100 to spend on a new GPU for World of Tanks. The difference of 12 FPS in the minimum frame rate between the GTX 750 ti abd R7 360 is a significant difference. GTX 680M: The GTX 680M should offer smooth game play at this graphics setting with an average frame rate close to 75 FPS and a minimum frame rate of 50 FPS. However, the GTX 680M didn't quite have the ability to keep the minimum frame rate close to 60 FPS at this graphics setting. 8800 GTS 512: The performance of the 8800 GTS 512 at the Medium graphics setting isn't adequate for good game play. It was definitely noticeable when the frame rate dropped and replay did spend significant portions of the battle below 30 FPS. If you are using an older GPU, you should either use the Low" graphics setting or play at a lower resolution. UPDATE 5/12/2016: To see if the limitation was due to single threaded performance or a game engine limitation, I used the same GTX 960 graphics card in a computer with an Intel i7-6700K overclocked to 4.6 GHz and compared the results to the previously tested i7 3700K over clocked to 4.4 GHz. As you can see, even an over clocked i7 from a couple years ago is still limited by single threaded performance in World of Tanks. The i7 3770K overclocked to 4.4 GHz had single threaded benchmark results that were comparable to an i7 4790 and i7 6700 at stock speed. The overclocked i7 6700K is among the the highest scoring desktop CPUs in single threaded benchmarks. The i7 6700K at medium settings was hitting the 120 FPS limitation of World of Tanks for large parts of the replay. This shows how single threaded performance of even high end CPUs is still a limiting factor in World of Tanks. Older GPU in World of Tanks: I was able to test World of Tanks with an 8800 GTS 512 and also compare its game performance to the Intel i7 integrated HD 4000 graphics. The test was conducted at 1920x1080 resolution. The 8800 GTS 512 offered poor performance using the in game "Medium" graphics setting at 1920x1080 resolution. The minimum FPS was consistently 25 FPS and the average FPS was below 40 FPS. The lack of smoothness was noticed while playing the game. If you are using an older GPU, I' suggest a resolution much lower than 1920x1080. At the "Low" setting the 8800 GTS 512 was very smooth and playable. The 8800 GTS 512 made high frame rates in World of Tanks at 1920x1080 resolution on the "Low" setting. I tried the 8800 GTS 512 at 1600x900 resolution and achieved a minimum of 35.33 FPS and an average of 49.49 FPS with the Type 64 replay. This frame rate is playable and won't give you the slide show effect when the frame rate drops below 30 FPS that will happen with this GPU at higher resolutions. With older/slower GPUs I'd recommend lower resolution settings if you don't want to use the "Low" or "Minimum" graphics. The 8800 GTS 512 is a GPU that was released in December 2007 and has 512 MB of video RAM. I was curious if it offered better performance in World of Tanks than the integrated HD 4000 graphics on the i7 processor on the in game "Low" setting. As you can see at the in game "Low" setting an older GPU is still an improvement over the Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. Effect of Graphics Options on FPS: Using the "Full Maximum" graphics option explained above, the graphics settings were tested with them being turned down to "Low" or "Off" to see if they had a significant change in frame rate. Most fo the settings had a minimal effect on minimum or average FPS in the game. However there were a few setting that when turned to "Low" or "Off" had a significant effect on frame rate across multiple GPUs. As you can see, turning shadows off consistently improved FPS among many different GPUs. Turning Lighting off also significantly improved FPS on most GPUs. For some unusual reason turning lighting off actually decreased the minimum FPS on the GTX 970 while increasing the average FPS. This was verified after the computer was rebooted and the replay's FPS was measured again with both the "Full Max" baseline settings and Lighting "Off" in graphics options.. Turning off Extra Effects Off in both regular mode and sniper mode had a significant improvement on FPS. Turning off Anti-aliasing (TSAA-HQ) improved the FPS on less powerful GPUs the most. On the GTX 970 and GTX 960, turning AA off didn't change minimum FPS. In testing the replay with the Comet on Serene Coast, turning the water quality to "Low" resulted in a 0 to 3 FPS improvement in minimum FPS and average FPS over water quality being set to "maximum" on all the GPUs tested. Using other benchmarks to predict World of Tanks GPU performance: As an experiment, I ran each GPU through a series of benchmarks after the World of Tanks FPS testing with each GPU to see if there was a correlation with any other benchmark and World of Tanks performance. I tried the following benchmarks to see if there was a good correlation between performance in those benchmarks and World of Tanks average FPS or minimum FPS. Passmark 3D GPU benchmark 3DMark Fire Strike 3DMark Sky Diver 3DMark Cloud Gate 3DMark 3D Mark 11 3DMark 3D Vantage 3DMark 3D Vantage Extreme Texel Fill Pixel Fill There was no strong correlation between relative performance in those benchmarks and relative performance in minimum FPS or average FPS in World of Tanks 9.14. Unfortunately, you can not use other benchmarks of GPU performance to estimate World of Tanks FPS performance of different GPUs. Conclusion: Using the different graphics settings can vastly improve game play performance in World of Tanks. You can customize the settings on most newer graphics cards, including ones that cost about $100 new, to achieve smooth game play. Overall, the faster the GPU, the higher the FPS will be in World of Tanks. However, you don't need to spend $600 on a GTX 980 ti for World of Tanks to get good performance in this game. Even a GPU form 2007 will play World of Tanks on Low settings or lower resolutions very well and integrated graphics on some newer CPUs will play World of Tanks at a playable level. If you play games other than World of Tanks, take a graphics card's performance in those other games into consideration in addition to World of tanks performance. Notes: I received no free hardware for testing or evaluation from any retailer or manufacturer of computer hardware for this comparison test. I previously purchased Fraps to test other games. I owned some of the GPUs used in the test, borrowed the GTX 970(and paid for overnight shipping to send it back to its owner), and purchased a few other GPUs for testing when I found them on sale for below average prices(Used, demo models sitting in a display case at a hardware shop, last one in inventory, etc...). I will be buying other GPUs to add to testing of World of Tanks version 9.15. If you appreciated my work and want to help support future World of Tanks hardware benchmarks, help me out in any of the several ways listed below: If you buy a Graphics Card or any other product made by EVGA please use use my EVGA affiliate code when you purchase from the EVGA.com web page and/or register the product.on EVGA.com. My EVGA affiliate code is: JW8SNWHOB4 If you would like to donate to fund future hardware testing you can use the link below: Donation Link This post has been promoted to an article
  6. I posted this on the NA forums a few days ago and forgot to post it here also. http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/470166-actual-video-memory-required-for-playing-world-of-tanks/ I was curious about how much video memory was actually required to run World of Tanks. So, I fired up MSI afterburner, enabled logging, and ran a pair of replays through multiple video settings. What I found is that a GPU with 2 GB of video memory should be adequate for playing World of Tanks at 1920x1080 resolution. The maximum memory used by the GPU was about 1.5 GB. Some notes: Maximum in the pre set settings isn't actually maximum. You can still turn up one slider higher and also enable TSSAA-HQ under AA settings to get a "true maximum" setting. My custom settings are the settings that work best for me on my computer as a mix of FPS and image quality. The Cromwell replay was a tier 6 stronghold replay. The Type 59 replay was a tier 8 battle. Both replays were on different maps(Serene Coast and Windstorm). I ran the replays multiple times and got the same results for the MB of GPU memory used. The system used for this was a gaming laptop with an Intel i7 CPU and a GTX 680M GPU I used the latest WHQL driver from Nvidia. I didn't have an AMD GPU to test. I'd expect similar results based on tests of other games with Nvidia and AMD GPUs. The results are below: Replay Setting Resolution AA Max Memory MB Mods Cromwell My Custom 1920x1080 OFF 1042 No Type 59 My Custom 1920x1080 OFF 1350 No Cromwell Maximum 1920x1080 OFF 1106 No Type 59 Maximum 1920x1080 OFF 1432 No Cromwell True Maximum 1920x1080 TSSAA-HQ 1205 No Type 59 True Maximum 1920x1080 TSSAA-HQ 1534 No Cromwell High 1920x1080 OFF 787 No Type 59 High 1920x1080 OFF 923 No Cromwell Medium 1920x1080 OFF 752 No Type 59 Medium 1920x1080 OFF 879 No Cromwell My Custom 1920x1080 OFF 1042 No Apparently copying and pasting from Excel doesn't work as well as it use to. Here is a screenshot from the spreadsheet. What does this mean? If you play mostly World of Tanks and don't play above 1920x1080 resolution, you probably don't need more than 2 GB of video memory since the game doesn't use much more than 1.5 GB of video memory with all of the detail settings turned up. Other more modern games do use more than 2GB of video memory at 1920x1080. You have to consider that if you are getting a new GPU and play other games.
  7. BREAKING NEWS: Just found my PC specs (don't ask why it's a factory made PoS). Here is the PC I currently own (and bought in 2010). http://support.hp.com/us-en/product/HP-Pavilion-Elite-HPE-Desktop-PC-series/4269972/model/4324610/document/c02504610/ So, I've decided that the computer that I own needs an upgrade. Primarily looking at the GPU (maybe a RAM stick but they're cheap). I've taken a look (not considering my slot type yet because I'm not near my PC) at these two GPUs: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8899411&CatId=11972 http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=9088213&csid=_61 the GT 740 looks like the better buy. But I looked at this (http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/index.php)and it said that the 2 GB one was superior to the GT 740. So yeah, I'd like an opinion on which is the better buy and just say if you guys have any suggestions for a GPU. My price is up to $200. Thanks! Edit: In response to Folterknecht, my native resolution is 1920 x 1080 (holy shit my monitor is huge, I love it except the PC is some factory pre-made crap) and I'm not sure about the PSU model since I'm on vacation and can't look at it.
  8. Edit: price reduced for quick sale! Hi tech peeps. I'm gonna ask here first since I'd rather to sell it to someone cool rather than a random stranger online. So as some of you may know, I upgraded my PC a couple months ago. Before doing enough research, ended up buying an R9 280. Turns out it isn't as much as I was hoping for, so I then upgraded to a 970 (regrets are still had, 390 is apparently better, But oh well, I plan on SLI'ing in the future anyways). Tl;dr: Selling (slightly) used Sapphire 280, still in excellent condition (no OC done), will be shipped to anywhere in the lower 48 US, asking price is $130 (I will cover shipping). These funds will probably go towards me getting a new gaming chair and stop killing my back every weekend on the crappy one I have now. Pics for proof: Sry for using tinypic, imgur is down for some reason. ;; Also ignore the MSI port coverings, I will be sending it in the box that my 970 came in cause I got rid of the 280 one. (The 970 one has a lot more protection though). Link to original card: http://www.amazon.com/Sapphire-Radeon-PCI-Express-Graphics-11230-00-20G/dp/B00IZXOW80
  9. So I wanted to get into overclocking my graphics card to see what I could get up to in terms of stable OCs. Watched some vids on youtube and decided to try it out. I have a EVGA GTX 660 with the reference design cooler and stock clocks (not OCed or SCed from factory). Here are my reuslts so far: I wanted to know what you guys were getting in terms of OCing with specifically the GTX 660, if you guys have it... Can I get it higher? If you guys see me doing something wrong I'm all ears for some pointers as this is my first time. Note: Since this is the internet, everybody's gonna scrutinize the photo, so before anyone says it/points it out: yes I have a 3570k and no it is not OCed yet. Just haven't had the time to do it since it can take a while to get it right so please lets try to focus on the graphics card first please. Thank you for your time.
×
×
  • Create New...