What Patch 9.0 did to FPS

Posted on by

Source: http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/world-of-tanks-9-0-test-gpu.html via Wotleaks VK community

Hello everyone,

the abovelinked Russian site made an article about the changes in graphics in 9.0 – and how the FPS changed on the same settings. The differences are… impressive. The resolution measured is 1920 * 1080, the configuration of the computer is Intel i7-3970X 4,9 GHz, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD.

TkAUoc8-9Bo

92 thoughts on “What Patch 9.0 did to FPS”

    • I have none of those but I was able to up my settings and get slightly better fps. No freezes. No cashes after resetting the preferences file and updating drivers. Only issue now is an occasional graphics driver crash, and that’s less than 1x per 50 matches.

    • Even though the FPS became worse for me, the game is still playable. Hell, I even play from Europe on the US server with 130 ping, no problems I have ever encountered.

      • Hi, i have the GeForce 670, i play with max settings and i have like 10 fps more than 8.11. I just get some black screen when I go back to the garage with XVM. I just play without and all is fine.

    • Not necessarily. I’ve a GTX 780ti and my frame rate has dropped quite significantly since the update. I am however playing across 3 x 1920×1080 monitors which might be why…

  2. I never wanted WoT to go HD, even more realistic physics yes, gearbox yes, realistic suspension yes, destructible building yes, Havoc yes but the more ‘advanced’ the render becomes the shittier the game actually looks and more problems appear.

    so to sum it up

    OLD RENDER = BEST RENDER

      • For some reason, my framerate is exactly the same no matter what settings it’s on as long as I don’t set it to something ridiculously high, standard or improved be damned.

        • Well, my fps doubled :) AND I got to run on significantly higher settings. In fact, fps got better as I increased the settings by several notches. I am using a GeForce GT 740M and an i7-3632QM CPU.

          • Before patch 9.0, I had minimum preset, plus highest render range and improved settings, and my FPS is barely 30.
            After the patch, I had minimum preset, plus highest render range and improved settings, and specifically turned EVERYTHING to MINIMUM, and my FPS is below 20 on the move.
            Farewell my tier 7+ vehicles (except artillery). You WERE at least PLAYABLE before the patch.

            BTW, I have AMD APU A8 processor in my laptop and graphic card never mattered, coz the integrated GPU has never been used to its full extent due to shitty CPU single core perfomance and WoT leaving the other three cores mostly idle. Perhaps I’d wait till summer when WG decide to support multi-core.

    • Just stop. How much do you want to bet that if I go digging through update comments, I will find you saying something along the lines of: “WG can’t even make a game, the gameplay sucks, the graphics suck…” etc.
      I have seen so much whine about bad graphics and now so much whine about the HD models.
      Stop changing with the wind, get a spine and an opinion. People like you are the worst, you’re never sincere.
      If you ask me, I’ll defend the new HD graphics and WG. And I always have and you can’t change that. But you on the other hand can be changed easily.
      Don’t let people influence you.

      • What did you not understand when exonut said
        “I never wanted WoT to go HD”
        That means that he hadn’t changed his opinion. That was always his opinion.
        Talk about quick to judge.

        • Exactly, I never said that I wanted Gfx to improve in WoT, physics yes, but not the gfx such as lighting, shadows and special effects.

          • Still doesn’t change the fact that graphics were one of the most common complains about WoT.

      • Ok, so if you change opinions, you don’t have a spine? What if new information presents itself? What if a new perspective on old information shines a new light on a situation? Changing opinions is fact of life. I think you’re confusing opinions and values.

        • No, I am not. If you are are so pro something and then INSTANTLY completely against it (just like everyone else), then you’re not changing your opinion due to the new information but just going with the crowd.
          I, for example, am pro-HD (lol, new political movement), but that doesn’t mean I am blind to the flaws. I too notice bugs and everything and my opinion might slowly change over time if it gets worse, but I’m far from instalntly saying “old render best render”.
          Instant change of opinion shows that the opinion itself is weak, which means the person doesn’t deeply care about it and for me not caring about it means not whining about it. But some people do and it’s getting annoying.
          Or I’m just not informed enough on what everyone else thinks, but this is the only way I can explain the sudden change in whine.

  3. with standard graphic the game was unplayable for me in 8.10-11…in 9.0 the Fps is much better as the overall game performance…

    anyway i play on 3years old laptop with 1gb 310m, so any fps numbers like 50-60 are pure gold for me =)

    • *sigh* I have icore7 intel and GeForce 555m , the old render goes around 70-110 fps at average, the 8.10 improved render was working around 30-40 and 9.0 HD render is just bullshit 13-30 at best. It’s just absurd.

      • I have a Intel i7-2630QM @ 2.0 GHz, 16GB RAM and a GTX 460M, and I went from ~40 frames on medium settings, to ~38-50 frames on a mix of medium/high settings. Overall, I got a general performance increase.

    • 770 2GB here… but I have to say I don’t suffer -22% FPS. Play on max settings and highest res. FPS are the same to me as before 9.0. 40-60, fluctuating like shit, depending on map and how much is going on on the screen. Even though new render had no negative impact, this was and still is an absolutely shitty value IMO (i7-4770k @ 3,5; 16GB) and that average 69 FPS they talk about in that table there I call bullshit. At least I don’t get ‘em and never got ‘em, neither before 9.0 nor after.

      • Yeah, same for me in 560 1G actually. Which is interesting as I get the same FPS with a weaker setup as you (i5 gtx560) on the same settings, so it’s really system-dependent.

  10. Can anybody tell me how they did the test? would be nice to know more about it.
    Not like they can simply run 8.11 again….

  11. mhh somehow my 6950 does way more Fps than the mentioned (And i only have 8 gb ram and an i5 2500k at 4ghz)

  12. so only 780ti survived.

    -100% on gtx590 is expected, since that card is basically SLI 580 IIRC.. same for 690

    I’ve got 770M, which is equivalent to underclocked desktop 660, but I didnt notice any fps decrease…
    But the game looks like shit.. lights were better in quake 2 and all tanks looks like rubber/plastic toys…

  13. Intel Core 2 3GHz with Radeon HD4600 here, running on low settings with fair 60-70fps but the drops are killing me.

  15. This table must make any person capable of thinking cry. How can one be so dumb to write sth like -175 % FPS? That would be negative FPS.

    • Was just about to ask that. Either I am missing something, or there is some seriously stronk math goig on in the % columns.

      • However wrote this crap seems to have taken the 9.0 FPS, then calculated the increase if going back to 8.10 (plain stupid) and then he just flipped the sign (even more stupid).

        Because when 100 – 10 % is 90, then 90 +10% is 100, not 99…

        • Just wrote a new post about it but I’ll copy it here:
          -175% makes my eyes bleed… Childs reasoning: If 60 FPS is 100% MORE than 30, then 30 FPS must be 100% less than 60. Because losing half my FPS must mean it got sliced by 100%! STRONK MATH SKILLS!

          The actual way of putting it would be FPS dropped by 60% or that it dropped to 40% of its old value.

          • Well, the math isn’t necessarily incorrect. They just made a poor choice of denominator. That’s why I hate things expressed in %. The fact that they used a difference instead of absolute values makes it even worse. This is less of a math issue, and more of a problem of not using the right representation of data or not following conventional calculations.

    • The R9 270 is the new name for the R7870. They both use the same amount of Video memory (except for the sapphire 4gb model) and they both use the Pitcairn chip. the performance will be the same.

  17. -175% makes my eyes bleed… Childs reasoning: If 60 FPS is 100% MORE than 30, then 30 FPS must be 100% less than 60. Because losing half my FPS must mean it got sliced by 100%! STRONK MATH SKILLS!

    The actual way of putting it would be FPS dropped by 60% or that it dropped to 40% of its old value.

  18. Yet another reason why this garbage legacy deprecated Big World engine should be ditched in favour of something that actually works.

  19. Actually got the Radeon HD 7770 1GB overclock version and intel pentium G3420 processor.(3,2 Ghz at 2 cores haswell contstruction)

    Before 0.9.0->~60 FPS
    After 0.9.0->~40 FPS and drops

  21. So it seems to prove what we all knew, that almost every case shows a framerate drop. They should test it on an AMD system and see what the result is there.

    I just use standard graphics, looks good enough for me. I remember the old days and how bad games used to look, I’m glad it looks as good as it does.

  24. From a little “Benchmarking” I can broadely concur with the GTX 660 numbers. Though on a much weaker CPU (i5-3570) and not on the SSD.

    But with the average FPS very much high enough, there’s simply no way for me to actually see a difference. [and if they're honest, neither can most "critics"]

    From experience I can say that, wiredly enough, internet speed seems to have a certain impact on FPS, especially with the “jitter” business of sometimes extremely low temporary FPS. On my Brother’s 6mbit line I got these “jitters” a couple of times, on my home 16mbit I’ve never had issues.

    • Exactly, because the server handles a lot of calculating. So if there’s no data from the server there’s nothing for the client to display so it may be skipping frames (I may be very wrong).

      • All in all WoT seems to be heavily connection dependent anyways. With “all these” people with good PCs complaining about joining games after they started, and so on…

  25. Sadly, much whining about graphics not as good as WT put this at higher priority than all the other things that would have actually made the game better.

    Unfortunately, better graphics is something people say they want, until they actually get it, then realize it was better gameplay they actually wanted all along.

    Minecraft didn’t become a huge success due to graphics. Better graphics is only good for marketing the game. it gets attention, but people will not keep playing only for the graphics if there are no other merits.

    A good article about replayabiity of video games. You won’t see much references to graphics.
    http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-051711-130604/unrestricted/Replayability_of_Video_Games_2011.pdf

  26. Dark Souls 2 (infamous for its bad PC port) runs me at constant 60 FPS at maximum settings even with SweetFX and with WoT I get barely 30 FPS on mines with high settings WITH THE STANDARD RENDER. Truly piece of shit of software you got there Wargaming.

  27. Im wondering if the number of active players dropped significantly after 9.0. I stopped playing as my old laptop couldnt handle wot anymore and im sure i wasnt the only one

  28. hmm.. i have ATI RADEON HD 6850 2gb, 256bit and i have a slight increase in FPS. The problem is that when i fire or when i turn around a corner really fast… micro fucking LAG is killing me. Sometimes just out of the blue.. the game micro freezees.. and i’m fucking annoyed by that.
    I run on 1280×899 resolution on HIGH details.

  29. And then there’s me with Intel Celeron E3400 2.6 GHz, 4GB RAM and Radeon HD5570 getting 25 avg FPS with 10 min FPS..

  30. On a worse configuration with my HD7770 i get avg 45 fps so this guy is wrong in every way possible…

  31. They said its ”year of graphics”. More like ”we fucked up test server good graphics, but fuck you all and we will keep introducing new HD tanks to lower FPS and crashes”.

    Lets see if 9.1 fixes stuff.

    Betting 5€ for fucking up even more :D

    • I’ll take that bet. How do we adjudicate? Average FPS increase/decrease between our systems? Just so you know, I had a 10-15 FPS increase with 9.0.

    • Well, AFAIK Storm said that in 9.1 there will be no new HD tanks, so this one might not be a fuckup as usual. 9.3 or 9.4, that will be the shit.

  32. Hi all,

    My system is this.

    Intel I7 970 ( 6 Cores running at 3.2 Ghz)
    Windows 7 X64
    Nvidia 580
    12 GB Ram running at 1333 Mhz
    Asus 24 inch running at 120 Hz refresh rate

    Game is at standard setting with almost all low setting because on improved settings the game fuck up. Is there a way to remove the fucking HD shit? In last patch it ran on almost all max settings.

    I did try the game at improved settings but there is a bug/hanging/freeze when I shot or when tanks blow up or are being detected. Any idea how I can remove this HD stuff?

    Thanks

  33. From what I can see, the game has become unstable. When I have my settings on improved with some high some max settings, I have FPS at 60-85 but then suddenly it drops to 10 and screen is freezing. This can’t be normal. Guys any help?

    • INPUT “Lower the settings”
      IF “not working”
      OUTPUT “redo the settings”
      INPUT “get rid of mods”
      ELSE “stil not working”
      OUTPUT “don’t reinstall mods… they are malware…”
      INPUT “reinstall everything”
      ELSE “dude… it’s not working!”
      OUTPUT “drink vodka like we do”

  34. I got a 20-30% boost with my GTX 760 :)

    This was due to me Overclocking my AMD FX-6100 from 3.3GHz to 4.3Gz (air cooled with one fan), using the latest Beta drivers with Thread Optimization, and setting Core Affinity to use only Cores 3 & 5 plus using medium setting in “Nvidia Experience”

  35. Pathetic. Game looking like from 2005 or so is choking on one of the best PC configurations… WG stronk programmink, much skill.

    Fun fact: Since 9.0 I have more fps in Crysis on low-medium settings than in WoT on minimum settings.

  36. Since 9.0 on my PC (Core2 Quad Q6600, 4GB RAM, Nvidia GTS 250, 64 GB SSD, 1920×1080) i can now play only on Standard render on minimum details, with FPS ~40, dropping to 15-20 in sniper mode. Before 9.0 i played on medium details, enhanced render, with 30-40 FPS and the GPU temperature was around 80C. It barely reaches 60C now with much lower FPS, which means WoT does not use the full resources of the card.

    I thought this PC is garbage now until i got into War Thunder Ground Forces. High details at 60 FPS with beautiful and realistic graphics. Ammo rack explosions and fires just look gorgeous.

    Please, Wargaming, you’re going nowhere with your struggles. Do a general overhaul of the graphics engine.

  37. The 9.0 is just badly optimized. There must be some kind of bugs causing it to drop. The HD tanks isn’t that hard to render. The better optimized shader should more than compensate the consumption of new HD tanks. Let’s just wait for now.

  39. Strange thing is…. 9.0 actually increased my fps to 90 from 50 at the same, mostly high settings they were at letting me max a few more before getting back to 60 fps…. and I run a gtx 660 too……

    Its a budget build too…. AMD 6300 six core, 8 gigs of ram, and the gtx 660. I have a SSD for the OS but I don’t have the game on it, its on a regular HD.

    • How the hell can you say that? How can 9.0 make your fps higher? Maybe you changed settings to lower?

      THIS GAME is very bad build in the 9.0, I wish there was some mods that would remove these HD stuff.

      • So all reports against your preconception are obviously false? Hey, sometimes people have different results. No mods except for Locastan’s, and I got a 50-100% increase in FPS. Stock configuration Acer Aspire 5552G.

  40. SS, the original russian thread was deleted by its author because of an error in calculations.
    The table is meaningless, you better remove it while it isn’t too late. Fakes tend to spread fast.

  41. Core2Duo E6750 @2.67GHz, 4GB RAM, NVidia GTX 650 Ti Boost 1GB
    September when I bought new GPU: standard renderer low-med 50-70FPS. Now in 9.0.1 I tried it again, runs at 35-45 FPS.

    In 8.10 improved renderer mostly on mid settings was at 25-40FPS. In 8.11 there was slight drop to about 20-35fps when I restored 105deg viewfield to cancel so called frame rate optimization. In 9.0.1 i had to turn off light effects, vegetation and shadows (helps a lot), set other details from medium to low and I’m back to 20-35fps with some drops below 20fps – mostly when bunch of enemies is spotted and in close combats. Graphic looks much worse and colors on some maps (tundra, widepark) are weird without shadows – too bright. Actually some maps looks better with standard renderer.

  43. Well, at least in my case, the chart is wrong. I have a GT 680, running max on all graphics and my FPS has improved.

  44. Pingback: [Sammelthread] World of Tanks - Seite 3632

  45. Before the 9.0 I had 30~60 FPS on low settings with my 3 yr old laptop.

    Now, after the 9.0, I get something like 40 FPS max at lowest settings and it sometimes drops to around 10 FPS when it want to ruin my game. 30 FPS should be enough for playing the game, but the problem is it does not stay. It lags, freezes and stutters whenever it want to…which is fatal for game like this.

    I’ve simply given up playing the game until WG fixes this framerate drop issue.

  46. Would be interesting if we could have data on integrated graphic chips.
    My Intel HD3000 has noticeable improvement to framerates.
    I still can’t play at above medium settings, but the setup i had before 9.0 has at least 10 more frames.
    Bushes still kick my ass though.

  47. I’m not normally an apologist for WG, but they did *quite clearly* say that the new top settings are more intensive than the old ones. You cannot directly compare 8.11 and 9.0 at the same settings because 9.0 will render at a higher fidelity. I’m not sure if 9.0 minus one notch in the settings is equivalent to 8.11. Probably not. But it would make a good comparison to try it both ways.

    Honestly, all you have to do is actually read and comprehend sometimes.

    In my case, with a 660GTX, I did my usual thing of setting it all to high and then lowering a few things I don’t care for anyways. Pretty much the same frames as I got in 8.11. I’m still amazed that it’s claimed tank trails make a minor impact. For me, they make quite a difference. It’s not the tracks themselves, but the dust they kick up.

  48. The new graphics render in 9.0 is the worst decision WG have ever made. No-one wanted HD tank textures and the rest of the shit, it was just WG’s kneejerk reaction to War Thunder and now its backfired massively.

    I’m now in closed beta of WT: GF, like many I now are, and since WoT patch 9.0 I have no interest in playing WoT anymore. The longer this goes on the less likely I am to return, and that is coming from someone who has played WoT for 4+ years. The 9.0 patch has killed the game for me. I WILL NOT upgrade my computer for one game when everything else runs perfectly fine.

    WoT 8.11 looked great & ran silky smooth. There was no need to update the graphics. They should have just concentrated on the Havoc stuff and more physics. I want new tanks in the game, not just HD remakes of old ones. There is ZERO point in doing that. Waste of time and manpower. Spend that time and effort giving us more tanks for the French/British/Chinese/Japanese trees, or even the Euro Tech tree. Fuck HD tank textures.

    • “No-one wanted HD tank textures” – speak for yourself.

      “and the rest of the shit,” – they will improve it too, just not everything at once.

      “it was just WG’s kneejerk reaction to War Thunder and now its backfired massively.” – They had to do something when competition was so massively superior. Only problem is that they opted to keep an old, and horribly under-performing engine. War Thunder still looks better than WoT (especially if you’ll remember size of maps, details they have, and how non-linear WT maps are comparing to WoT 3-lanes design) while at the same time having higher and more stable FPS.

  49. Pretty much matches what happened to my GTX 660 (albeit with an i5 3470K CPU).

    Min frame rates in the 30s, never saw that before. Overall lost about 20 FPS.

    Hope they get their optimising finger out of their unoptimised arse.

  50. WG dig the hole deeper with every update…do you guys like the nervous looking pixels that the state of the art per-pixel shading produces? It gives me a warm feeling to remember the graphical style of Commanche vs Hokum…or was it Apache? I can’t remember clearly that far back, but it was very advanced in the day.

    So, how to spot a fanboi? Bitches be crazy and deny the graphics are worse after the update. I can’t play it any more because all the vibrating jagged lines that make up the game world messes with my head too much. Has anybody else flown towards the sun during a dawn/dusk battle in WT just to let your eyes swim in the digital glory that such a scene produces? Just glorious…

  51. I used the ancient GT 440 1Gb GDDR5 by Gainward. latest driver version for gpu… changed 1 or 2 settings on preferences.xml and engine_config.xml.

    Graphics Setting (In-Game):

    AA: 16XQAA
    3D: 100%
    All others set at the highest as it can be set. (except for Gamma and FoV ofc)

    Game running stable 40-60 FPS (map dependent)
    Lowest FPS sudden drop noticed was at 21-23 FPS
    No CTD encountered since
    No 100% CPU usage

    I find the game graphics on this setup/PC far better and more smooth compared to my main PC which has the 650Ti.
    Not too dark, Not too bright
    Sharpness and Crisp-ness of textures doesnt hurt my eyes.

    Just installed Historical Engine and Gun Sound Mod. (a little buggy but is working most of the time)

    Other Mods installed:

    Scope Shadow Mod
    Farplane
    Custom Damage Panel
    HD Minimap
    2-line Carousel
    Contour Tank Icon
    2 or 3 Garage Mod (for testing purposes)

    ***No Fresh install / Re-install of game was made.