Armored Warfare Requirements Published – Higher Than WoT

Posted on by

Hello everyone,

on Russian server, minimum requirements were published for Armored Warfare. They are as such:

Minimum:

GPU: GeForce 8600 GTS
RAM: 2GB
CPU: Intel Core 2 duo., 2 – 2,1 GHz (model 2010-2011)
System: Windows XP x86 / Windows 7 x64 / Windows 7 x86

Recommended:

GPU: GeForce GTS 250
RAM: 4GB
CPU: Intel i5 2-core, 2,9 – 3,0 GHz (model 2012-2013)
System: Windows 7 x64 / Windows 7 x86 / Windows 8 x64

The minimal configuration for World of Tanks currently is:

GPU: GeForce 6800 with 256 MB RAM / ATI X1800 with 256 MB RAM
RAM: 1,5 GB
CPU: 2,2 GHz supporting SSE2
System: Windows XP/Vista/7/8

Well… looks like the minimal configuration is higher for AW than for WoT, but not by THAT much. Surprising actually, I expected the requirements to be significantly higher, Cryengine and all that. But they say it’s just preliminary, so we’ll just have to see, won’t we.

86 thoughts on “Armored Warfare Requirements Published – Higher Than WoT”

  3. Well, we all know that those minimal requirements really aren´t enough for fluid gameplay… Will see how the optimization will work.

    Have you guys seen Kingdom Come: Deliverence?
    Its on cryengine aswell, and it looks STUNNING, and runs on my PC with ultra high details at 60fps. Wot on Ultra High? About 25fps…

    • Sigh… Hopefully WarGaming gets of their lazy ass and finish the multi-core support.

        • the way they keep further ruining WoT I doubt they will ever get the multi core right. I am hoping the AW folks get the game play similar to WoT with out all that stupid rng crap. I would also love to see less power creep but devs like to do that for more fleecing of stupid players (aka myself9I spent waaay too much on WG))

          • Luckily I *only* spent about $20 on their game, but since the start of the WZ mission it’s unplayable for me, not fun at all, hope it changes, though won’t spend a dime more.

  4. Well, it is a lot higher… If you compare only the two. But you can’t really buy PCs that are weaker than the min requirement for AW, so yeah, not that high

    • You assume people buy new computers when the old one isn’t broken, and that all gamers use desktop systems. One thing that surprises me when I see people list the specs on their system is how many people still run Core2 or older systems; I thought my i3-530 was old!
      More importantly, a lot of casual gamers don’t get why their integrated graphics aren’t enough for actual gaming. This is especially common amongst those who value compact/portable systems over graphical prowess; in other words, laptop users.
      Still , the small difference in requirements compared to the performance calls the antique engine WG insists on re-using into question.

  5. Hm, most players don’t even look at the requirements. How many WoT Players are playing on too bad systems? IIRC about 80%?
    BTW War Thunder is placed right between them but as you know it looks MUCH better than WoT and is running on more FPS… the bigworld engine is just a obsolete piece of crap…

    • Don’t worry. They’ll add multicore support and possible try to change the engine. Hopefully it will come in 2050.

    • I get the same fps on WTGF as on WoT, same graphics settings, so no, stop overrating the fps.

  6. “Well… looks like the minimal configuration is higher for AW than for WoT, but not by THAT much. Surprising actually, I expected the requirements to be significantly higher, Cryengine and all that. But they say it’s just preliminary, so we’ll just have to see, won’t we.”

    SS, please, when will you understand that CryEngine is MORE optimized then BigWorld.

    If we are to use same texture quality and model detail, a CryeEngine game WILL WORK better then BigWorld. Simple as.

    4A engine, Serious Engine 4, FrostBite and CryEngine are not only incredibly good looking, they ALSO run well. Even on WEAK PCs.

    Where did you get the idea that it would be very demanding?

      • It’s specially developed to run on low end embedded systems to reduce manufacturing costs, it’s obviously highly optimized

        :D

    • But BigWorld runs maybe better than cry on older(older=not always weaker)

      For example i cleaned and updated windows, some old benchmarks show that my performance went down, while more modern ones show increase in performance. There are just different sets of instructions.

      • If you get much older than my i3-530, you have issues. I think it safe to say that, if you run a system more than about five years old, you shouldn’t expect to run recent software, especially not games.

  7. Well, I remember playing Crysis on my 8600 GS, and that used the unoptimized (less optimizer) Cryengine, compared to the newer version, that had to be optimized to bring games to consoles

    • ANd I played many of the newer games on worse then minimum requirements:

      Watch Dogs minimum RAM 6 GB : I played it on 4 and a 5770 on medium 900p
      Dishonored minimum wants 5850 ATI : 5770 ATI, Ultra settings 1650×1080
      Shadow of Mordor- same thing, medium settings on all bar textures.

      Yeah :P

  9. GTS 250? I had that card…5 years ago. OMG, wish those people stopped playing on calculators.

      • I bought a GTX465 a little over 3 years ago. It was ~$100, so we’re talking around $30 a year. Right now, a Radeon R7 260 can get you about the same performance I get for $90. Buy carefullly though, as the R7 250 is $5 cheaper but only half as powerful.

        The great thing about cards around $100-ish is that they tend to be powerful enough to remain relevant for years without emptying your wallet the way the high-end cards do.

        The only ones that need to replace their GPU more than once every few years are those that are so determined to remain on the cutting edge that they would sell their mother for an extra 0.3 FPS, or those that have a nasty habit of overheating their systems and frying their cards.

  10. GPU: GeForce 6800 with 256 MB RAM / ATI X1800 with 256 MB RAM
    RAM: 1,5 GB
    CPU: 2,2 GHz supporting SSE2
    System: Windows XP/Vista/7/8

    Those “WERE” minimum system requirements back in the 8.0 patch ffs.
    Try running WoT on system like that, I believe you won’t even have usable garage with minimum settings.

    • And yet those are the min specs officially listed on the WG website. Pretty sure that means you can get the game to run usably on those specs, even if not well or pretty.

      • The minimal configuration for World of Tanks currently is:

        GPU: GeForce 6800 with 256 MB RAM / ATI X1800 with 256 MB RAM
        RAM: 1,5 GB
        CPU: 2,2 GHz supporting SSE2
        even if you instal 3% texture mod with no gras and tree leaves it woud still be 5 -10 fps on minimal when battle start up to 1 -2 fps when anythink hapend
        so yea i think actualy wot woud have 10 fps on minimum setings even on aw minimum requirements

        • ? i have pretty much that and have a pretty fps hungry modpack. i run at around 12-20 fps

          • 12-20 is shit anything below 30fps you really notice the video lag/choppy video.

    • I also think so but can not check it.
      I bet you will have to run 800×600 with such hardware.

    • Ive run WOT on a machine with a Pentium 4, 2GB of RAM and a 9600GT.

      Minimal settings ran at about 30 fps with drops to 20 in certain areas of certain maps.

      • At 640*480 maybe. I’ve tried on more powerful systems and couldn’t hit 10 FPS at 1366*768.

  12. 32 bit windows is the x86
    CryEngine can’t run on that configuration. or even a slightly better one, already tested.
    BigWorld engine is less demanding, but have one big flaw … Multi-core support.
    They told us that ground forces is nicer. but in high setting It make me sick and I can’t concentrate (and I can play WOT on high settings without a problem). and it’s not even balanced (the reason I play wot is the diversity of game-play between tanks.
    I saw on the latest video of AW that tanks didn’t step on destructed walls and things. I think the engine physics wasn’t complete, and they were lying to us in the face.

  15. Well… don´t know what to make of this. The requirements just seem to be too low. I don`t trust that cake. :-/
    It looks like the struggle between a *potentially* bigger playerbase (revenue) and a stunning but hardware demanding gaming experience was once more decided by the factor $_$.

  18. System: Windows XP x86 / Windows 7 x64 / Windows 7 x86

    WTF? XP support ended April last year. Isn’t it time already to drop DX9 and start supporting DX11?

    • CryEngines always supportted DirectX9 plus the most up to date DirectX version. Design for eg DX11 and the engine optimises the raw data automatically at start in the best way if it detects that you have a lower DX GPU.

  20. Only natural. AW does look much better than WoT. Hopefully my new i5 and 16 Gigs of RAM will be enough.

  21. Actually the CryEngine always was very efficient and speedy in relation to the visual quality it delivers. German engineering ^^

    At the other side….WoT is running perfectly at 60-110fps in 1920×1200 with maxed out details, so it isn’t that bad either.

  22. I have an I7-4790K with 16gigs of ram, MSI gtx 970 gaming card, ssd drive and to top it off Fios 100 meg speed. I still sometimes get super lags. Yet WG says it’s on my end.
    Working as intended.

    • Then you have a severe PC settings problem. I have an Intel Xeon 1230v3 (4 cores, 8 threads, 3,7 GHz), 16Gig RAM, ATI/AMD Sapphire 7970 Dual-X and 1.5TB SSD only storage with 160MBit/12ms connection (via AC1200 WLAN) to EU1….no lags (except during summer games).
      So yes, it is at your end, power saving settings or antivirus..

      • Then why only WOT. Other games fine maxed out.
        Don’t use power savings. Have it set for power user.
        Turn off antivirus when playing. Maybe I need to turn it on.
        Use reverse psychology on the PC.

  23. WoT has 1,5 GB RAM minimal required because it can only use that much…
    Oh yeah, and AW will run better than WoT on every PC 100%

  24. Quick question about AW to anyone who knows:

    On the beta testing (earliest stage possible to test it, not like the beta open to everyone who wants it) phase, will there be only a US server or will there be an EU server too? Did they say anything about it?

    • Sorry for not answering your question directly, but I just wanted to correct something:

      A game can be tested even from pre-alpha stage. Not sure about other software, though.

  26. So what only news on AW Russian Server, on English/US no update since get your commander… looks like another WG Type Company… :( WTF are Russian so hyped about tank game’s, it’s like Jesus Christ reborn for them or what? whats so special about the Russian Putin Dictatorship?

    • “whats so special about the Russian Putin Dictatorship?”
      That uneducated people call it a dictatorship. Really, the main thing that makes Putin special is how demonized he is. Putin and Obama have the same amount of control over their respective country.

  27. lol, SS, did you really just compare that mountain of absolute shit called BigWorld to CryEngine?
    AW will run thousand times better on medium and high-end PCs than WoT and it will actually look good.

  28. Meanwhile, in The Witcher 3 minimum requirements…

    Seriously, what the hell is this joke?
    From my point of view, starting from 2015 quad cores should be considered the bare minimum, along with DD3 RAM

    • Would you believe me if I told you, that the average number of cores of CPU-s in households are closer to 2, than 4 ?

      • Don’t think so.

        At least in EU & NA I’m pretty sure that most gamers have switched to 4 cores

  29. Cough cough bullshit cough cough

    These people really get imaginative when it comes to minimal hardware specification! I mean, yeah, you could probably play WoT on those specs on 800*600 resolution and ultra ultra ultra low details and 15 fps but god damn, what kind of deranged mazochist could play on that level of details??

    • I agree. I have tried to play WOT on quite more powerfull PC than the myn sys req above, but either I got a nice slideshow or the FPS was still unacceptably low and game looked like Tetris.

  30. What the fck? Cryengine and THAT IS JUST the requirements? That’s bullshit. They should have gone Bigworld too :P

    They’re just going to waste high end graphics card.

  31. May I remind you all that the system requirements etc. are irrelevant if the game is shit. So its too early to wank over who has what specs. We all know cryengine scales well, we all know BigWorld is utter crap when it comes to performance. No need to start the epeen competition just yet.

  32. Pingback: Zveřejněny minimální požadavky na Armored Warfare

  33. I’m glad my 5 year old CPU still exceeds the recommended requirements. But it says a lot about the near-halt in CPU performance we’ve had in that time. (i5-750 clocked at 3.33GHz)

  34. Yeah except wot cant run smooth on event stronger machines, its very badly optimized and even in 2015 its lacking some features that games has for years now. And game developers relations with players base and their deadlines it will be done when its done are by far the worst aspect of the game.

    I stopped paying for the game just for those reasons, they invent space tanks and not adresing real issues in the game.

  35. Well if wot will get static shadows as option then we can maaaaayyyybeee talk about optimization, but now its like:

    Xaxaxa you have to optimize your machine to run this game propertly and we will do nothing.

  36. Riiiiiiiight…the problem is that the minimal requirements fro WOT are just a big BS, I played on double what the minimal config is and didn´t squeezed more than 15 fps after patch 8.2 on minimal settings. Not only that I got constant “disconnected from the server” because WOT can´t handle certain processors anymore. And the lovely guys from support will just tell you, that you need to buy a better PC, even though you have a lot more than minimal HW requirements.
    Course now I have new PC, so yea…WOT optimisation is still shit.

  37. Yay, my calculator of a laptop should be able to run this! Looks to be similar to WT in terms of requirements, and in flight I get around 30-50fps (tanks I get around 15-20…which you get used to after a while) playing on minimal settings. Now I just need to come up with the money to build a real computer….

  38. yay

    GPU: GeForce 8600 GTS
    RAM: 2GB
    CPU: Intel Core 2 duo., 2 – 2,1 GHz (model 2010-2011)
    System: Windows XP x86 / Windows 7 x64 / Windows 7 x86

    :D thanks …i will quit playing wot :D

  39. The level of these comments is lower than the skill level of the WoT global community…

    How the h did most of these people even manage to buy a PC, any kind of PC. You even have oblivious ones with PCs more than capable of running WoT at 120 fps without any frame drops and the term they did not yet learn since they aren’t of age, stutter, besides actual lag that can’t be helped some days, complaining that WoT doesn’t run great when it’s most likely their uselessness at managing their own PC.

    Even worse, people still think that multicore support will help their obsolete PCs run WoT better. To give you an idea of what obsolete means, oblivious people, obsolete is something like the 2nd generation i7, mainstream CPUs of the newest generation that are cheap can crush anything previously released at games and they also have no problems taking WoT up to 140 of constant frames per second when paired with a potent GPU, because yes despite the stupid comments around here, WoT does look fantastic even if not at the level of CryEngine 3 which even AW is far from reaching. You will not turn crap into gold with multicore support and you will have a close to 0% increase in performance even if they completely optimize it for multi core.

    • You obviously have no idea at all about World of Tanks and how un-optimized it is.

      It’s engine is terrible. It’s optimization is terible, it’s developers are terrbile, and that’s why you’ve ended up with the shit, which is World of tanks.

      There’s a reason why I can run BF4 at max, but no WoT. Because world of tanks is utter shite. End of. The developers haven’t even bothered to optimize the game at any point. With their excuse for not adding small new features being “technical problems”. Hmm… let me think, why is that? Ohh yeah, a shity dev team and a shity engine matched with even shitier servers.

      “the 2nd generation i7, mainstream CPUs of the newest generation that are cheap can crush anything previously released at games and they also have no problems taking WoT up to 140 of constant frames per second when paired with a potent GPU”. Lol biggest piece of crap i’ve ever heard. The CPU could Potentially take it up to 140fps, but you need more than a “Potent” GPU. You need a ridiculous GPU, to run it on Max. For the price you pay, i’d rather play something like Minecraft, which looks better. WoT doesn’t look fantastic at all. The HD models, maybe, but that’s about it, lmao.

      AW has already reached the graphical fedility considered “Great” in CryEngine 3. Go and watch a gameplay trailer, then maybe it will stop the shit pouring at of your mouth. Just maybe.

      “You will not turn crap into gold with multicore support and you will have a close to 0% increase in performance even if they completely optimize it for multi core.”
      I think you’ll find you’d see a huge performance boost if they added Multi-core support. Mainly because the game runs on a single core, which is ludicrous. Close to “0%” my ass. The Multi-core support is the main thing that is missing from the game, you ignorant fool. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Go educate yourself.

  40. All of you have to be kidding…. this game requirements are way too low if we compared the powerfull cryengine with the obsoleted pos bigcrap engine… a 8600gts? come on that vga have at least 7-8 years… a core 2 duo? really? its way too low… if you dont have money to upgrade your pc to at least a 500 usd pc, then work part time like many do and I did in the past, now at least I have a decent job, and I can afford a 2k usd pc, now I cant complain about pc requirements, but seriusly, gaming is not for all, if you can’t afford it, go to play outside with the trees.

  41. This is extremely low, considering CryEngine is quite demanding in most games. Taking into consideration, it has Multi-core support, probably tessellation etc. It’s gonna be great.

    Well, i’m not complaining at all. this will slaughter WoT as a game in terms of content and performance, and I can’t wait to see the looks on the Developers faces when they lose some of their fanbase.

    It will be hilarious.