Trending

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

By

CPU, RAM & VRAM Resources

Processor Utilization

Wargaming.net's World of Tanks enCore FAQ assures us that a simple dual-core host processor is adequate for the benchmark, at least using its lowest settings.

1080p

Image 1 of 4

Image 2 of 4

Image 3 of 4

Image 4 of 4

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.

1440p

Image 1 of 4

Image 2 of 4

Image 3 of 4

Image 4 of 4

The same can be said at 2560x1440, where only two or three cores show activity. Again, World of Tanks uses the physical cores, rather than those enabled by AMD's SMT technology.

System and Video Memory Utilization

Our memory utilization measurements are for exhibition, since World of Tanks enCore is a sneak peak at upcoming engine technology, rather than the revamped version of the game. Still, we note a very slight increase in memory use transitioning from 1080p to 1440p. Radeon-based configurations use a little less memory than platforms with a GeForce card installed.

It's also no surprise that higher resolutions tie up more graphics memory.


MORE: Project CARS 2 Performance Review

MORE: Star Wars Battlefront II Performance Review

MORE: Wolfenstein II Performance Review

World of Tanks enCoreView Deal
6 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Gadhar 23 February 2018 21:07
    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 24 February 2018 09:33
    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 24 February 2018 12:15
    "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 25 February 2018 03:56
    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 26 February 2018 21:20
    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 04 March 2018 19:51
    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