Skip to main content

Performance Analysis: World of Tanks enCore, Tested on 10 GPUs

Graphics & Rendering Settings

Graphics & Rendering Settings

While the game engine seems to take into account a number of graphics settings, such as texture quality, lighting, terrain, water, vegetation, and even shadows, it is not possible to set these individually within the benchmark. You'll have to make do with three presets for now: Minimum, Medium, or Ultra. It is still possible to specify a resolution and anti-aliasing mode (deactivated, TSSAA LQ, or TSSAA HQ).

Image 1 of 3

Image 2 of 3

Image 3 of 3

Medium/Ultra

The main differences between Medium and Ultra include shadow, lighting, and texture detail; the complexity and number of decorative elements (particularly the vegetation); lighting effects; and anti-aliasing quality. Medium looks significantly better than the existing game's equivalent, and we definitely expect it to satisfy gamers with mainstream DirectX 11-compatible platforms.

Minimum/Ultra

At its lowest-quality preset, World of Tanks enCore looks a lot like the game's current implementation. Skip this setting unless you're playing with 10-year-old hardware.


MORE: Project CARS 2 Performance Review

MORE: Star Wars Battlefront II Performance Review

MORE: Wolfenstein II Performance Review

World of Tanks enCoreView Deal
  • Gadhar
    They are still trying to catch up to War Thunder and WT has the new Drago engine upgrade releasing soon with the 1.77 update. I would love to see that tested in the same fashion.
    Reply
  • Domaldel
    Hum, there's a lot of multi-core low end CPUs out there, especially from AMD.
    For those the lack of utilization of more then 4 threads is bad news, not good news with this title.
    It's more important that the workload *on* those threads is low as that would both allow CPUs with fewer cores to more easily keep up with the ones with many cores as well as allow those with slow cores to keep up with those with fewer faster ones.
    As is this thing is optimized for the i5 and i3 CPUs from Intel...

    Now granted, one argument for optimizing for fewer cores is that there's some overhead involved with increasing the thread count.
    But still, this is 2018, surely they can do 6 threads with a low workload on each...
    That would increase the performance on CPUs such as the FX series 8350 and 6300 as well as older CPUs such as the 1090T.
    And those optimizations could be carried on with the next round of engine upgrades as we now have hex core processors both on AMD and Intels side that's actually *good*.
    Reply
  • Gadhar
    "Quad-core CPUs are installed in more than two-thirds of surveyed systems (70%, to be exact)." That is the reason the game is optimized for fewer cores.
    Reply
  • Domaldel
    20737464 said:
    "Quad-core CPUs are installed in more than two-thirds of surveyed systems (70%, to be exact)." That is the reason the game is optimized for fewer cores.

    I know...
    My point is just that in the article they suggest that the game only utilizing 4 cores is a good thing for *low end* CPUs.
    The term "low end" and the term "quad core" might overlap, but they're not identical...
    Those 30% of processors that do not have 4 cores include a lot of low end CPUs, some of them might actually have the potential throughput to handle this game if all of their cores are permitted to help out.
    They choose not to do so, for better and worse.
    They've already gone with some multi-threading so a bit of the overhead involved with that is already there...
    The difference between making the game n-threaded instead of 4-threaded wouldn't have been *that* great...
    And as long as they'd use a quad core as reference system to test how much resource they can afford using it would still run just fine on a quad core.
    All while *also* have some benefit for those of us with more cores.
    Thankfully I'm on a modern R7 1700 now so it's not a major issue anymore for me.
    But back in the day when I was on a FX 8350 it was a pain to run games from WarGaming.
    They'd only use 4 of the 8 cores, just the right number to *really* trigger the the turbo of my CPU making it hotter then when running pretty much anything else.
    Each module running as fast as it could go both in frequency and single-threaded performance.
    It ran, but it ran tosty on my system...
    I never felt comfortable with playing their games for that reason...
    Reply
  • snidely196
    I've been playing the crap out of this on the test server with a i5 3570 with a 1050 @ 1080p on ultra settings. Looks great and I'm getting a pretty steady 60 fps. My son's machine has the same proc. with a 750ti and he's getting between 100 and 110fps @ 720p on ultra. Nvidia's new driver is supposed to bump performance for this by up to 10%.
    Reply
  • mischon123
    There is nothing wrong with a slight cartoonish appearance. Its immersive but at the same its one step removed from a scenario that appears to real otherwise.

    I run Wot on a B350/1800x/32GB/1080/960Evo. Framerate is 120 on a 4k running 2.5 Res. There is no 4k mode or super high res tex.

    Enjoy the game immensely.
    Reply