9.3 vs 9.4 CT1 Benchmark Video

Hello everyone,

this is rather interesting. Leovincent made a comparative video for a replay between 9.3 and 9.4, showing the increase in FPS, for his PC configuration anyway.


49 thoughts on “9.3 vs 9.4 CT1 Benchmark Video

    • As long as you will run it without mods. I always wondered why CT versions run at 30-40 on medium settings and 60-90 on low, when normal version runs at 25-35 FPS on low. XVM has great negative impact and some crosshairs/hitlogs smaller. :-(

      • I dont even get the purpose of mods…
        I mean, there is plenty of crosshairs in the game to choose from.. and the one you can see in many videos on youtube, looks terrible.. covers half of the screen, looks like from starcraft…

        regarding XVM… pointless. whats the point of knowing someones score ? everyone can have a good game and bad game… I’ve seen tomatoes scoring 9 kills as well as very good players having so little luck in rng they coundnt hit a thing…
        XVM is only frustrating, its not forcing you to try harder when you got bad team, it’s just making you not to even try… Not mentioning taht 75% win chance can end up with loss 15:0 and vice versa.

        • -server cross from wg is terrible
          -i have stats to see who is playing with me, because usually tomato never do “i get myself shot and then we both burst him down”, better players so this almost every time
          -i have win chance disabled

          • well Im using that circle and dot crosshair and Im pretty satisfied.
            I usually dont rely on my teammates too much.. even a good player can do mistakes. But you got the point. But I hate all the colorful icons .. looks like someone went crazy with crayons. It’s disturbing , at least for me.

  1. Everything above the the rate of what the display can show is pointless anyway, but it might help for people with low spec PCs

      • becasue CS1.6 is using modified Quake 2 engine. Yes, thats right, its a half life mod, and half life was running on modified quake engine. That was until the source version was released.

        btw. you can feel the difference in responsiveness. You cannot see it however, you see only 60 fps on a 60hz panel.

  2. Random configurations showing random results, in general people will have a frame drop due to the new shadow system SS does not talk about because he’s too busy looking for stuff to trash talk about WG rather than stuff about the game itself.

  3. Do not get too excited. There were cases in the past, that improved performance from the test server did not transfer to the public one… Why? Who knows. So, the only worthy statements may be made after the publix release.

    • yeah, seems to me that Test client always runs smoother… don’t know why, could be that i only had mods on the normal version. But then again i don’t think the mods should take up so much resources… and i played without mods on the normal client as well, sometimes…

  4. addidionally, why did that idiot chose the Steppes map for the test? Come on, this is like the most FPS friendly map in the game (maybe only El Haluf is better). Chose one with lots, and lots of vegetations (trees, bushes – main reason for perfomance loss etc.), and/or buildings (less them, more all that little destructible shit around). Not to mention, that this is even not close to a proper test procedure…

    • my thoughts…
      they are realistic, but it takes away the atmosphere and fun.. at least for me.
      E-100′s 15cm scary KA-BOOOOM echoing blast changed to BB-gun with silencer. Seriously ?

  5. I did a specific Kharkov replay in my IS-6 the other day and noticed a significant performance boost on my PC…..indeed might be possible to go for improved again, but don’t get your hopes up: it won’t be the first time there are significant performance differences between test- and live server…

  6. Kharkov is the map that needs to be tested…also, any other map with large outdoors and lots of buildings visible in the distance.

    • I ‘ve tried to bench on Windstorm and Kharov, but replays got bug and caused lag spikes. This make benchmark result not correct.

    • kharkov is the living proof that some (if not all) WG developers are under-qualified for their jobs. you can’t create a premium game with second-hand employees. plain and simple.

  7. hope thy return the fps of 9.2 i think..it was great for me i have amd 2 x2phenom not the bestest comp but i’m ok as long as it don’t sttuter when i go to sniper mode and out and those micro lags when tanks are spoted etc…now in 9.3 it’s little worse but playable hope they get it wright for us who don’t have the best comps

  8. this guy must be 12 years old. comparing 9.4 CT with live 9.3 proves that he knows nothing about WoT.
    every time on CT, the game runs perfectly, but then on live version fatality happens, you always must be prepared for a huge-FPS-drop-surprise.

    • I know him and he knows what he’s doing. You must have not seen his video series and a bunch of pictures that FTR posted few days ago and even before. Dont you have better stuff to do ;)

      • you can’t be serious. why on earth someone would compare CT with the live version?
        one of the dumbest things i’ve ever seen, when it comes to WoT.

        • because no one have done that, so he did the job. he made quite a lot videos about changes so why shouldn’t he do it this time too? i cant see why.

          • yes but he could as well compare fps between world of tanks 9.4 CT and Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 or Need for Speed.

            Compeltely different games. just like WoT live and WoT test. We have seen this in 9.0 test and 9.0 live.

            Yes its nice he did a comparison.. the thing is, its pointless.

  9. Optimiza … what ??? got a NSA pc config (R2 290X 1.1ghz, i5 3570K 4.7ghz) and sometime fall under 60 fps

    • It’s mostly content patches (or basic principle changes) which break replays, because the newer version can’t handle something which only existed in the old one.
      With 9.4 nothing would really change these aspects, so yea.

  10. intel xeon…ewww
    16gb-nerd stats, ur never going to use even half that (unless u really bored and turn everything on at once)
    meh, tbh fps increase should only be focused on weaker pcs since many people play WoT on underperforming pcs