Russian player Dibie benchmarked the 0.9.7 performance on his PC (high-end i5, GTX 780) on a replay. The blue line represents the 0.9.6 client, the yellow line represents 0.9.7 client with minimap turned on and the red line represents the 0.9.7 client with minimap turned off. Left bar represents FPS, below is the time line of the replay.
As you can see, not only there is a drop in FPS compared to 0.9.6, but the minimap influences the FPS as well (positively). This FPS drop between patches is unexpected and Storm promised he'd investigate.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlmost counter-intuitive that the mini-map would affect the FPS beneficially. I will admit I can barely spell PC but to an old chap like me that is just weird...
ReplyDeletePossibly due to not having to render what is covered by the minimap
DeleteMan's got a point you know :D
Deletenot at all, all WoT's GUI elements are made in Adobe Scaleform (basically flash)
DeleteSo they are overlayed over the standard render? Oh well..
DeleteI dont get why people are suprised. More HD tanks the more the cpu is getting taxed because we all know that it is just a myth that better graphics just increase the demand from the gpu. WOT as a whole is still very cpu dependant.
ReplyDeleteAlso just a note, what is a "high end i5"? Even with a pretty highly clocked i5, the person would still be very cpu limited because game only use one core. You could use a cpu with 6ghz clock speed, you would still be cpu limited in WOT. In this case the gpu (gtx 780) has little impact, I got pretty much 0 fps increase going from a 7970 to a r9 290 in WOT.
And yes fps is lower in 9.7 than in 9.6
Yet only your own HD tank gets loaded, so that has absolutely no influence at all.
DeleteThe game runs on multiple cores actually, but they didn't announce it because of what a shit job they did with it's implementation. Go search the forums. You'll be surprised.
DeleteI said more "features" as well and this includes various changes that tax the cpu more. Also the game is not multicore, it is still single threaded, how ever some processes run on additional cores but that has been possible for ages. This is not the real defenition of multicore apps where all processes are run on all cores at the same time. The "main" game so to say still use 70-100% of one core the others use alot less. Opposed to battlefield where all 4 cores are used as much at the same time. This is the differance between a true multicore game engine and a fake one a la big world and other engines that mmos use. Even the ancient WOW can use more then one core but game is still single threaded coded.
DeleteAlso in the 9.7 Q/A it said the person used a "i5 3470" and that is hardly an high end cpu to beginn with. It has 3.2ghz stock speed and can turbo to 3.6ghz and that is not really game changing in WOT. Keep in mind I have played on both a 4.8ghz i5 3570k and now a 4.5ghz i7 4930k, still cpu limited at 1080p when turning on graphics settings to high and max.
ReplyDeletePretty much all mmo and mmorpg games these days make the cpu bottleneck the gpu because they are based on old school single threaded (dual thread if lucky) game engines. Just like bigworld.
It is also funny that when ever wg is trying to tweak bigworld to get better performance, the real performance decrese by every patch. But as I said, the more features and content in the game the lower fps you get because the game use more cpu resources. Multiplayer games are extremely cpu dependant and gpus these days are so fast compared to cpus that cpus are almost always the bottleneck in games using less than 4 cores.
Maybe he tested it both on a 9.6 replay and the 9.7 client is likely to be less well optimized for running the older version.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing it has to make extra calculations in order for the backward compatibility to work.
Everybody always assumes the worst. There's likely a simple and logical explanation and not "WG is shit and incompetent."
Maybe they were 2 different replays in which case this benchmark is completely void.
"Maybe they were 2 different replays in which case this benchmark is completely void."
Deletelooks like the same replay... look at the fps peaks - always on the same time stamp.
Fair enough. In that case i believe my first point might be a valid explanation
DeleteI also experiance that overall fps is lower in 9.7 test than in 9.6 when playing.
ReplyDeletedrops to 50fps on a desktop GTX780 ?? WTF
ReplyDeletewhat resolution ?
I have never seen a drop below 60fps on a mobile GTX970M (equal to desktop GTX680 ) on 1920x1200 all maxed out. Strange.
btw. there's no yellow line Rita :)
I have i5 2500K OC + GTX 970 + 16GB DDR (and installed of SSD) and WoT can't keep the stable 60fps. It can drop to about 40fps. Thanks WG!
DeleteWG can say what ever they wanna, since they introduced the "new" render with more eye candy graphics in 9.0, the fps decreased alot because the cpu load increased. Also a while ago WG decided to decrease the gpu load just because people were complaining their gpus worked too much and got burned. LOL, you would want as much gpu usage as possible.
DeleteOMG!!!! The magic line who's colour is different for different people. Is it yellow or is it green???!!!! :O
DeleteThis guy just broke the internet :O
Still believe the fps is highly dependant on the GPU in wot?
ReplyDeleteLemme get this straight, Storm and the WG Dev team waited until someone did this test for them to act? The devs did not test these out themselves?
ReplyDeletethere is only so much testing that can be done ,not every GPU CPU and OS combo can be tested.
DeleteYou don't have to test the game on every GPU CPU and OS combo to figure out that something is wrong. It's not rocket science. WG is just terrible at this, they still invest in the bigworld and trying to do tricks like having havoc run on the second core. And just look when they did with HD models, they made them and then POMF, suddely they realized that their "perfect" bigworld cannot run the game with many HD models so they decided that the only the player tank will be displayed in the HD. How long it took for them to just change the flat positon (the encounter and assault modes)? Or the complete fiasco of the historical battles? :D Have you watched the discovery document on wargaming? :D Or how Storm said that WT tanks looks like shit, and then they started to make own HD tank models and now they make models like Mauschen with all that welding marks.
Deletetl;dr it's WG, of course they must fuck up something
As well all know bigworld is a shit engine ,as such this is bound to happen, people need to stop moaning about this stuff and move on , as far as i'm concerned there are much bigger problems with the game.
DeleteYep, there are many more problems with WoT (and others games :D) but still you would get mad if you finally got a good GPU like GTX 970 and WoT can't still keep the stable 60fps... Do I need a NASA PC to run it for 60fps? And others more CPU/GPU consuming games runns perfectly OK, yet the only "perfect" wot on bigworld makes problems. Thanks WG!
Deletemy gtx970 is simply bored and gets nothing to work on. The fps are just depending on ur cpu. Put the game to ur unused cores thats all u can do.
ReplyDeleteThat is correct, the gpu usage on the higher end gpus are choppy and not satisfactory at all. Cpu is bottlenecking the gpus, as I have said many times. With the same cpu, there is little differance in fps using a 7970 and a gtx 980 at 1080p. On higher resolution though a better gpu will be beneficial as usual. But how many here are playing at 1440p or bigger? Pfft.
ReplyDeleteYes, it's true that CPU may bottleneck, but in the WoT case it's just that bigworld dosen't support multicores properly and slappy WG programming (and their adding more and more stuff to the old bigworld technology).There are many better looking games that require more CPU/GPU resources that WoT yet they run better than WoT, coincidence?
DeleteWG has the money to develop their own engine or they can buy new one with a proper one, but no, WG is focusing everything on the bigworld. They even scraped the idea of SD/HD client (but for some reason they made it in WoWp).
whats worse than the fps drop is how I load late all the time now
ReplyDeleteThose numbers are from a really crappy PC anyway, no one west of the Oder use a PC like that for gaming. Who puts a i5 3470 in a gaming PC? I mean the step from 3470 to f:ex a 4670k. If you gonna invest in a GTX780 why not also invest in a little better processor and maybe also step from ivy bridge to haswell!?
ReplyDelete