“How to Get More FPS in WoT” Video

Posted on by

Hello everyone,

Wargaming RU posted a video, in which they explain, what the PC hardware does when it comes to World of Tanks and how to increase your FPS. Unfortunately, it’s only in Russian (no FPS for you, capitalists!) – but, let’s face it… they need it more :) In any case, here are a few points said in the video, that you might find interesting or helpful.

 

 

- regarding the GPU, the minimum detail requirement is 256 MB VRAM, but for maximum details the requirement is 2GB VRAM
- GPU calculates the scene graphics, while the CPU (processor) is responsible for various calculations, like physical model, shell trajectory, client-server communication, sound, HD model track movement etc.
- regarding RAM, you need at least 2GB, but if you want to play comfortably, you need 4 GB and more
- technically it’s possible to play even with 1GB, but then you’ll get freezes, caused by loading of data from the HDD

There is a “recommended settings” button in the setting. It launches two tests: one is testing the processing speed of geometry (CPU), the other the processing speed of textures (GPU). As a result one of five profiles will be selected automatically based on the data recieved.

- if the game runs on less than 60 FPS, it’s better not to enable V-sync and Tripple Buffering (in general graphics tab) at all, as both can cause performance loss
- some settings have no effect on FPS whatsoever, like the gamma setting, colour filter and its intensity, colorblind mode
- theoretically, in fullscreen mode, FPS should be a bit higher (because in window mode the GPU has to render the desktop as well), but in praxis this does not always happen, it really depends on the PC configuration
- decreasing game render resolution does increase FPS, try this using (rshift+plus) or (rshift+minus)
- the most radical way of increasing FPS is enabling standard graphics (“old render”), which lacks many features of the new (“improved”) one, for example the new render can process up to 1000 light sources, while the old one has only one (the sun), there are differences in anti-aliasing as well, where the old render “smoothens” the entire image (MSAA, CSAA methods) while the new render uses Nvidia technology to smoothen the separate object edges, which is more GPU-requiring. In the future, there will be yet another (better) render implemented – Temporal Anti Aliasing
- Field of view influences performance, as the higher it is, the more objects have to be rendered in a frame. Regular human FOV is cca 95 degrees. Large FOV gives you the effect of the tank moving faster, as the objects move faster at the edges of the screen. It’s possible to set minimal and maximal FOV depending on zoom.
- regarding texture quality, the highest texture setting is available only in improved render and in 64bit systems, but of course requires more video memory
- the best way to optimize shadows is not to switch them off, but to put them on minimal enabled setting (“low”), as they render very effectively that way without performance loss
- grass in sniper mode influences both gameplay and performance, cybersports players always disable it
- removing additional graphics effects (upper right corner of the advanced graphic settings tab) can improve performance (it removes the quality of explosions and such, you will only see “sparks” and tracers), but it’s better to set them on “low”, so you see the explosions (which help your situational awareness). The real difference between “disabled” and “low” is only several FPS.
- vegetation settings regulate the presence of grass and such – on maximum settings, there’s 12 times more grass than on low settings
- post-processing handles the post-effects after death, “hot air” shimmering effects and such, this is not recommended for weak computers
- track effects deal with mud and water flying off from the tracks, this influences performance only a little
- landscape quality sets the distance, at which the quality of landscape gets simplified. On minimal settings, there is a noticeable difference between server and client perception of landscape (basically, you don’t see a terrain feature while it is there), which can lead to you firing and the shell hitting the terrain. Maximum settings do stress the CPU. It is recommended to use at least medium settings.
- water quality changes the water render (waves in water and such), decal quality influences the display of “decals”, which are small objects that make the map look realistic, specifically the distance their render at and their quality
- object quality setting influences the LOD (level of detail) the objects in the game use – objects in the game have various quality levels (details and such), buildings have 3, tanks have 5. Using the best quality model all the time is not possible, that would influence the performance a lot. Therefore, the further you are from an object, the simplier (lower LOD) object is used. With the maximum setting, the quality models will appear at higher distance, on low settings you will get low LOD at short distances
- the same principle applies to tree settings (various LOD, distance at which they display changes)
- disabling the leaf render of bushes at short distances (lower left corner) might improve FPS a bit on weak computers
- the “render range” setting does NOT influence vehicles – those are always displayed, but it influences less important things, like small objects, trees and such
- motion blur is not recommended for weak computers and for PC’s with 30 average FPS or lower
- dynamic effects does help in battles with a lot of shit blowing up around you, it just simplifies the effects and sets lower LOD when the FPS drops too low (below 30 FPS), below 10 FPS it disables the effects altogether

101 thoughts on ““How to Get More FPS in WoT” Video”

  1. Better advice: don’t get AMD CPU.

    As far as I have seen, most people complaining about how their “high end gaming rig” can’t run WoT at above 60fps consistently post their specs that have AMD cpu in it. AMD = low ipc, low singlecore performance.

    • Hehe, you are an idiot, the game runs fine with my insanely weak Phenom II X4 955… although it is runing on 3,6 ghz instead of 3,2… Don’t talk shit dude, just don’t

          • Yeah I have G3258 overclocket at 4.7GHZ and its rocks on single core, it is faster than my brother i4 4760k @4.4Ghz.

            But in multitasking tasks like compile and render it sucks, my old AMD 6800k@ 5GHz is better.

        • Losing the FPU per core doesn’t make a core a half-core.

          I have a Fx8320 at 4,6ghz, lets compare performance wot vs modern games and you can easily see is a wot multi-core support problem.

      • Had and amd FX 4100 cpu and couldnt get more than 35 fps…now with I5 i dont get bellow 45 on max settings…Those FX cpu are just bad when it comes to single core performance and we know WOT is using one core only.

        • I had one of those as well, but I was just fine on 18-35 FPS. I ran the game with a GTX 660 from MSi.

          Now I upgraded my system:
          Intel Core i5 4460 4 x 3,2 GHz
          8 GB RAM
          EVGA GeForce GTX 970
          128 GB SSD

          That GTX 970 does the job: 60-90 FPS make playing this game a great joy, while running max graphics.

          My old FX-4100 PC runs just fine as a second Minecraft-server PC in stead of being a gaming PC xD

    • so you’re saying that my octo-core amd CPU with 4.4 gHz has a low single core processing speed ;)

      and no no need to take that seriously, I agree that usually amd has a low processing speed per core i just got an exception ;p

      • A 4.4gHz AMD CPU is comparable to a 2.7gHz Intel CPU at single thread performance. How does that make you have an exception?

        • How? I have a 3.4 intel dual core, and my friends FX8350 will blow it out of the water on WoT. That’s an exception.

          • when you go to http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Desktop-CPUs-best-Single-Threaded-Performance-4310942 you can compare CPUs based on single thread performance.
            When you scroll down and then scroll down some more and even more you finally find some AMD CPUs.
            When you compare the A10 6800k you can see it has a turbo of 4.4ghz so it can run a single thread on 4.4ghz. Then there’s the celeron G1620 which runs on 2.7ghz and has a higher single thread score.

            http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Celeron-G1620-vs-AMD-A10-6800K

            WoT kind of maxes out 1 core and has other stuff running on seperate cores. So when you have 3 or more cores you will have much less performance getting wasted on background processes.

            Also the older your processor is, the less optimized the IPC will be and therefore with an old intel processor 4ghz can be comparable with 4ghz on amd. Besides that the GPU of your system could be inferior to his and the game isn’t only about the CPU.

      • Want a good AMD octo-core? Don’t get the FX-series. Get the A8 or A10, which have newer and much better technologies.

        Everything that runs on socket AM3+ is outdated, FM2+ is the future of AMD, making better gaming CPU’s.

        • I don’t think AMD apu are octocore, last time I checked, A10 are 28nm quadcore + 8 gpu core.

    • Can somewhat confirm this, my FX-6300 rarely hits 60fps with most settings on max, although it doesn’t really help that i only have a gtx-650 midrange gpu :/
      Edit : Not on stock 3.5ghz, OCed a bit to 3.8ghz

      • An overclocked fx 6300 and fx 8350 is sufficient for wot I think. As long as you get close to 60 fps and no serious fps drops I see no issues. But buying new you better get an i5 because its much better even stock. I would only fet a fx if I would buy used parts for a low end budget wot build.

    • I have an AMD FX-6300. Works great for me. 6 cores at 3.5Ghz which can turbo boost up to 4.1 as standard (if you don’t OC, which AMD chips are great at, world clock speed record is on AMD).
      They aren’t terrible, they are actually fairly good, provided that the builders of a game give them a chance to get up and run. If the devs build a game based around a single core then yeah even a pentium will beat an 8300 heck probably even a 9590 with its 5Ghz clock. But if a dev builds a game that gives a pc with multiple cores the space to get up and run with its 6 cores, then AMD has excellent performace, especially when you take into account the price of the chips.
      Comparing an FX-6300 with the best i3 which is 1.5 times the price the 6300 still performs better. Comparing it with a pentium (competing price) it still wins in terms of performance and price to performance. This is provided all 6 cores are fully used. And the FX-6300 was launched 2 years before the latest i3 (which it is compared to) or the latest pentium (which it is compared to).
      I am not saying AMD>Intel I would like to make that clear. Intel is at the moment undoubtedly better in single core performance and at the high end of things.
      Heck the latest i7 kicks the heck out of the latest and greatest AMD, though the AMD is still better in price to performance.
      If you have the excess cash then yes. Buy an Intel you won’t regret it. If you only play world of tanks and are building a pc, yes build with Intel. If you want to play other games and you are on a budget, then it becomes more of a toss-up.

    • I’m running WoT on an AMD 860k @ 4.5 ghz and stay at around 60 FPS with a 7850. I do have the random drop to 30 occasionally, but otherwise its fine.

    • Spot on – i got a way better graphics card and it still recommended medium graphics – AMD

    • WOT run perfectly on my box, more or less. My box is overspecced for WOT, but even at max settings I get 60 fps.

      Then again I got dual 980′s, 32 Gb RAM and a six core 3.5 GHz i7.

      WOT is also installed on my main SSD.

    • People complain because multi-core support is ridiculous on WOT, amd has lower IPC’s but you have weak intel procesors too what are suffering from framedrops, and even the new intel ones cant stay on 100fps even overclocked.

      “- if the game runs on less than 60 FPS, it’s better not to enable V-sync and Tripple Buffering (in general graphics tab) at all, as both can cause performance loss”

      Yeah, but what about the tearing? playing less than 60fps with intense tearing is bullshit.

    • your advice is very stupid
      the overall game performance depends on multiple things, from GPU speed, GPU RAM size and speed, common RAM size & speed, the kind of drive you’re using (SSD or HDD or w/e), the background processes & services you’re running… and the list goes on (not mentioning the graphic stettings you have ingame and your internet connection). so it is NOT just the CPU….

  2. or u can always use setting the game on low and unchecking everything but leave the fov to 100 or 110 and object lod and draw distance to max :) in my opinion in this game you don`t need to see the water glowing and the trees waving; because u`ll be dead in the first 2 min :)) or u`ll team will destroy anything and u`ll win without doing the dmg that u needed => shit wn8

    and also as comp specs ( i3 => i7 cpu, graphic card amd radeon 6000 + or gtx 260 +, 8gb ram, a decent power supply ( 650+) and a freaking ssd ) and there u can play most of the games on med or high details (BUT NOT WOT) shit gaming engine but in bf4 u can do it on max ( 1900*1200 ) [24" display]

    • You don’t really need an SSD, that won’t increase your FPS at all, only thing that the SSD improves is loading times, but that’s all

      • well since i got SSD i got rid of those anoying lagspikes when ennemy tanks were spoted for first time. It really helps with that.

        • ^this

          SSD improves load times a fair bit (not particularly useful most of the time – you just get stuck waiting for the countdown to start.. and then another 30 seconds for the countdown itself), but the real improvement comes from the elimination of stutter caused by the game loading tank models and effects from disk.

      • i agree with u on this terms but i since i bought mine.. i can`t imagine a gaming computer without an OS on ssd :)

      • I’ve found some utility in the SSD for crashes as well. Every once in a blue moon I crash on battle start. With an SSD, I can reload the client and load into battle with a couple seconds left on the timer.

        I can’t say I have ever noticed the game stutter when object loading, even on my older system I used to play this game on (which didn’t have an SSD).

  4. ughhhh pc master race my ass…
    whine about not getting 60fps when the human eye cant even see that many frames per second….

        • 60fps is just an arbitrary number; IIRC it’s for earlier monitors running on 60hz AC 120V electricity in America.

          http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
          Human eyes can see a lot higher and WILL benefit from them(Pro gamers use 144hz monitors, not just because they get them for free).

          • even if 60 fps for the human eye is an “arbitrary number”, most LCDs run at 60hz so anything higher won’t even show on your screen. It’s useless, it overheats the gpu, so it’s always better to set v-sync on, unless you want to do a benchmark or something.

    • The human eye needs to see 24 frame per second to see something fluid, but you can most definitely see if a video has more fps, to a limit of course.

      How about a little test?
      Play the game on 24fps, then on 100. See if it’s as fluid. If your human eye can’t detect it.
      If you cant, either you are lying to make a point, or your eyes and brain have received traumatic damage and you need to seek medical attenion.

    • That’s just a myth as the nerves from the eye to the brain fire at a rate of 300 to 1000 times per second. Technically if your monitor would allow (most don’t cause of a refresh rate cap) you could play a game with 1000 fps and your brain would be able to translate the images with ease.

      IRC if you are able to set your frame rate at constant lets say 60 fps and played like that for a good while and then changed it down to 30 fps you would definitely be able to notice a huge difference. With that said not everyone is the same so what one person can easily see will not be the same for another.

    • The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to “see” the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS. IN OTHER WORDS : the human eye can see ABOVE 60 fps

    • What Western Console Fanboy Bull are you sprouting here???

      The human eye will always benefit from more FPS. Just cause you are used to a low, barely playable number does not mean it is good or the limit.

  5. I got 2 PC’s… One can run WoT at High settings with 30-40 fps. The other one is a complete potato that struggles to keep the game over 20fps on Low.

    I’d say out of all the things that decrease fps particle rendering is the worst. Large ammounts of particles can drop the framerate a lot.

  7. We did some research on this on my team (we do mobile games). The difference between 30 fps and 60 fps was substantial. All 20 test persons could clearly tell the difference but strangely enough not all felt that 60 was better than 30 since 60 seemed to “move quicker”.

    As a consequence all iOS devices was set to run as many fps as possible, as is standard on Androids. The perceived difficulty was increased but things ran smoother.

  8. Nice, I just got new PC so I can enjoy the game more and what the shit… The game would not even start. All installed as per the troubleshooting page, submitted ticket with all info and surprise, got the same stock answer as the one I have googled out before submitting the ticket. Real support service.

      • Problem was when clicked Play in the launcher (or when run the WoT directly) there was just shadow of window for a millisecond and then nothing. Eventually WG came with proper reply to my ticket and it looks like that the problem was with DirecX, despite the newest installed it had required some version from 2010 to work… But what a change, max details and 90FPS…

  9. still freezes in SLI cards. i have lenovo y510P and cannot use SLI. freezes every 5-10 battles. sometimes 3 times in same battle.
    may be it’s nvidia’s fault. because every time a window appears and says sth like: “graphic drivers stopped running and recovered.”
    actually it happens in War Thunder too but it’s rare in WT.

      • do you have an idea about lenovo y510p and what cpu it has?
        and i should not expect a pc game not to crash because i’m using a laptop?
        and finally wot is crashig because i’m using a “laptop”?

        just one question for you: is your real name sergei burkatovsky?

        • I dont care. Most laptops dont even have the same cpus as desktop i.e a i7 on a laptop is not remotely as powerfull as an desktop i5. Also you have sli and wot dont support it. Only suckers game on laptops anyways. They suffer from heating issues while gaming and other bullshit problems due to default apps installed by factory.

          • Guess that makes me a proud sucker then :-D WoT runs as smooth as a baby’s bot on my Alienware M17x, and I don’t even have one of the newer editions. This is revision 3 and it’s about 4 years old now. AMD6990M graphics does the job together with a good CPU and 16GB of RAM.

      • Not all laptops are potatoes, i can play wot in my clevo with fps north of 60, no OC at all… vsync is active, no need to stress the components.

        Then again i need to clean the dust every few months or the GPU fans will go medieval on my ears :)

      • That’s a heating issue more than likely. That drivers crashed error message is literally the driver on your computer failing the ones you installed from nvidia. Try reinstalling your drivers fresh, and cleaning out your heatsinks. <3 the y510p. Hope this helps you out.

        • @dark666
          i have installed all drivers one by one and believe me it does not make difference. crashes with latest driver too. and i bought it 3 months ago, could it be overheating bcs of dust in this short time? also i use a good laptop pad with good cooling system.
          anyway i’ll try cleaning heatsinks. thx for advice.

  10. I have i5-2500k@4,8GHz, 8GB ram, Gtx 660 Ti oc 1189/3506(7012) and wot installed on ssd with many many mods and I game 1920*1080@80Hz all maxed out, fps capped to 80 (no vsync) from rivatuner and I very rearly got under 60, usually fps stays at steady 80. I also have quite fast internet 100/10 and ping usually stays 40-55ms.

  11. Oh and render distance one is wrong.

    Can’t find them now but images have been posted on forum to demonstrate.
    At extreme ranges, tank is not visible, OTM is though.

  12. “while the new render uses Nvidia technology to smoothen the separate object edges, which is more GPU-requiring.”

    New renderer has only FXAA
    it has almost zero impact on performance… less than msaa or csaa.
    but its uglier – blurs textures.

    • You benefit 0 from a gtx 980 in wot at 1080p dude because your cpu bottlenecks your gpu. I got 0 fps increase when I changed my 7970 to a r9 290 on my system and I had a i5 3570k at 4.8ghz.

  14. well i play from lap top and the problem is not the high fps but to run the game in low temps for my laptop lol xD (away from my home’s tower … )

  15. 2.6 dual core
    radeon 4600
    4 gb DDR2 ram….
    sata 2 hdd

    5-30 fps on all minimum settings

    will be getting a new rig this week:

    i5 4690k
    r9 280x MSI gaming
    samsung 120gb SSD
    8 gb ddr3 ram

    hoping that i can play this game like a normal person and not aim at light tanks while having 10 fps….
    16k battles i had to deal with this, the pain is real.

    • I played on a terrible laptop too before, now I play on one which is actually capable of playing pc games.
      AMD FX-6300 (not great for WoT but I like it for other games)
      Sapphire Tri-X R9 290 (they had sold out of decent R9 270X, R9 280, R9 280X, R9 285 when I ordered it)
      1Tb HDD (I don’t see the point of waiting any more than the 45 seconds I wait with this HDD and I need the space)
      16Gb DDR3 1600MHz Ram (Overkill but what the hey)
      And trust me. It gets so much better. You can actually aim at tanks properly, your accuracy goes up, your performance also increases I find because the game gives you slightly more information with the higher details, like shell craters and explosions in the distance.
      You might want to think about buying like a £20-30 HDD from a shop somewhere so you can store a ton of things on it, because I have a samsung laptop with 120Gb SSD, it actually only stores 90Gb, of which (with only office & ~500Mb of documents & chrome as additional programs & space used) only around 70Gb is actually available. So yeah, best be careful on that one, but you can get something cheap for mass data storage ofc. You can move stuff like your replays to it regularly and keep your SSD clean.

    • Hmm, 5 fps minimum? Must be annoying to play.

      My rig is following:
      i7 4930k
      Rampage IV extreme
      32GB ram
      2x 250GB SSD
      2x R9 290

      I think of removing my 2nd R9 290 because I have to disable it while playing wot and I only play wot now days because I dont have time to play other games.

  16. Pingback: Jak z WoT dostat vyšší FPS?

  17. Some comments on those tips:
    - Enabling triple buffering, increases the latency between was happened and was is displayed by additional frame. It also increases the memory usage on the graphics card. In most cases it does not help you, it makes thinks worse. With a good perception, you can feel the difference between triple buffering and double buffering (this is the default way).
    - Resolution change only helps you, if your graphics card is really old.

    “[....]
    the most radical way of increasing FPS is enabling standard graphics (“old render”), which lacks many features of the new (“improved”) one, for example the new render can process up to 1000 light sources, while the old one has only one (the sun), there are differences in anti-aliasing as well, where the old render “smoothens” the entire image (MSAA, CSAA methods) while the new render uses Nvidia technology to smoothen the separate object edges, which is more GPU-requiring. In the future, there will be yet another (better) render implemented – Temporal Anti Aliasing
    [...]”
    - I do not understand why they decided to use a rendering technique, that allows so many lights, especially when this comes with a huge margin of fixed cost, you pay every frame, regardless of the number of lights.
    - Temporal Anti Aliasing – It is TXAA an they told us a while ago, they wont use it because its shit… Or they try to use MultiFrame Temporal Anti Aliasing, a new thing from NVIDIA, which costs even more GPU performance, and the AA effect is questionable.

    “[... the best way to optimize shadows is not to switch them off, but to put them on minimal enabled setting (“low”), as they render very effectively that way without performance loss [...]”
    - Wait what? This makes no sence whats so ever…. Shadows cost always extra, even old blob shadows….

    “[...]motion blur is not recommended for weak computers and for PC’s with 30 average FPS or lower[...]”
    - Motion blur is the crappiest effect ever invented in computer graphics, it lets clear images look like shit….never use it it makes things worse.

  19. I play with most settings turned up pretty high while streaming twitch and listening to itunes. Wot runs 40-80fps depending on the map. Most of the time it is in the 50-65 fps range.

    I7 3770
    16gb ram
    7870 2gb gpu

  20. I have fairly balanced mainstream rig ..
    i5-4590
    8gb ram
    R 270x 2gb (Asus DC2T – 1120mhz pitcairn gpu)
    SSD (crucial M500) + HDD (WD Blue 1tb)
    game installed on HDD

    and everything runs ok – WoT from 50 to 100 fps at max details, getting slightly higher at average every patch
    also its futureproof for WoT as I have some extra perf. if they optimalize the game and for other games and it did not cost me fortune for this hardware …

    dont need to have game installed on SSD as i keep my PC at peak condition (no bullshit installed, CCleaner/defrag and so on) and i dont observe any microlags (and yes, i hate even smallest of them)

  21. For me I noticed a big difference coming from a little under 20fps to consistently around 30fps+. I’m on a budget due to a handicap (less income now) and upgraded my old 64×2 4400+ to a 5600+ combined with an affordable G7 2gb video card I can be much more efficient in the game. I think its easier on my eyes as well. I think low FPS is hard on the eyes. For a system that is around a decade old I think the game looks great. I should have bought that $26.00 chip 13000 battles ago….but I guess the moral to my story is that getting decent frame rate on a budget isn’t that tough if you are smart about it. It’s much easier to brawl when you don’t lag (note to self).

  22. I went through all the effects one by one and the “Lighting” setting had the biggest impact by far. Any moving one step up dropped FPS from 65 to 55 or less. I keep Lighting on the second step from the left. A lot of the other setting had comparatively little impact on performance.

  23. I’m running WOT on:

    AMD FX8350 @ 4.4GHz
    Radeon r9 270x
    8gb RAM

    The game runs on max details with 60 fps, only shadows are set to medium.

    However i’m not using pretty much any addons except for xvm(player stats).

  25. Ok, there’s a lot of argument over AMD vs Intel, While I get some of it, you guys fail to realize that AMD makes more “budget” CPUs while Intel pumps out CPUs intended for high end systems

    Also, if I get better performance on a system running Windows Vista with a single core AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (2.2 Ghz) and 1.5 GB of RAM then I do with Windows 7 system on a dual core Pentium 4 (2.1 Ghz) and 4 GB of RAM, I think we know which manufacturer has better hardware.

    My current laptop, running Windows 7 with an AMD APU E-300 (2 cores, 1.3 ghz) and 4 GB of RAM actually runs fairly better than the Intel laptop I had. Though the CPU does seem to bottleneck the GPU a bit. Funny because they’re on the same chip.