Jump to content


PC Hardware for WoT (Geek Talk)


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

TooFast4Radar #1 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 06:59

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 10446 battles
  • 92
  • [HAPPY] HAPPY
  • Member since:
    04-19-2014

I had to send my Gigabyte X370 Gaming K7 motherboard back for RMA so I'm on my secondary computer.  It's Ryzen 1700X on on an ASRock B450 F1tality motherboard.  Specs are 16GB DDR4 3000 and a Gigabyte RX570 4GB.  This system ran fine on a 2560x1440 monitor, but I had to turn down a couple settings to keep it at/above 60fps and running smoothly.

 

I have a Microcenter nearby which means I have to get something when I stop in.  They happened to have an AMD 200GE (open box) for $31.99 and I thought it might be fun to play around with it since I have extra drives, memory, power supplies, motherboard, etc.  I decided to see how it would run in WoT so I pulled out the 1700X (@ 3.5ghz) and replace it with the 200GE.  Using an AMD Wraith Prism cooler from the 1700X I decided to see how far it would clock and managed to boot into Windows and WoT at 4.0ghz at 1.4v, but it locked up on Cinebench.  I backed it down to 3.9ghz and it ran without any problem.  So I launched WoT and to my surprise it played it just as well as the 1700X.  In fact it seemed like I might have been getting better frame rates, pushing 80 on the top end and dipping into the mid/upper 60's.  I then changed every graphics setting to ultra and as expected with the 1700X it took a performance hit bottoming out around 45fps and hitting upwards of 60fps at times.  I then lowered the clock speed to 3.5ghz and the results seem to be roughly the same.  The strange thing is the 200GE actually seems smoother than the 1700X when the settings are all on Ultra.  At slightly lower settings I can't tell the difference.

 

Has anyone with a Zen CPU switched to a Zen+ and noticed any difference?  The 200GE has less cache and 2 cores/4 threads vs 8 cores/16 threads.  I'm really shocked by the results because at least in WoT it seems to be running as good if not better now.   In virtually every aspect beyond core frequency when pushed to the limits the 200GE is far inferior.

 

I didn't think I would say this, but from the results I've seen I would actually suggest picking one of these up if you have a dedicated graphics card and want a really low budget gaming PC for WoT.  Not bad for a $32 CPU...



WaywardChild #2 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 07:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 37614 battles
  • 1,196
  • [_RUF_] _RUF_
  • Member since:
    11-27-2013
I wish I had a clue what you are typing about, I really do.

TastyPastry #3 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 07:57

    Captain

  • Players
  • 28973 battles
  • 1,440
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013
What's the usage on the 1700X vs 200GE? If WoT can only saturate 4 threads, it wouldn't surprise me the performance is close. 

strats4ever #4 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 09:49

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 43013 battles
  • 67
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012
Recently upgraded my rig and found that WOT uses (on ultra)  under 5 gig of ram on the video card and under 3 gig of pc memory. If your video card goes over 5 gig, there isn't much else wot needs.

SquishySupreme #5 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 10:37

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3382 battles
  • 597
  • Member since:
    10-29-2018
WoT runs fine on 2 threads if there isn't a ton of other junk running as well.  It's really a very old engine and even laptops can run it.
Well, aside from the graphics.  That requires a bit of extra power.  But yes, you could run almost any processor with a good video card and hardly see any FPS drop.

jsn87xi76slk92mc802d7sk1 #6 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 11:25

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 3929 battles
  • 757
  • Member since:
    11-30-2017
a toaster runs this game

crasta #7 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 13:07

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7445 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    05-22-2015

Your voltage of 1.4v  is a bit high for 3.9GHZ all core OC.

I have been running my 1700 at 3.9 using around 1.35 since first release. It a custom water cooled but only a 240 rad with fans on push (no fans on pull side).

 

I would drop your voltage a little and stress test  while monitoring temps. I would also invest in a slightly better cooler. There are cheap air coolers that are more efficeint than the wraith prism. But if its keeping your temps cool enough for your OC then it don't matter. WOT does not need much to run anyway.

 

I use HWInfo for monitoring BTW.

 



crasta #8 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 13:19

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7445 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    05-22-2015

I guess I missed the point.

You overclocked the Athlon and were surprised at the results.

 

I am not. WOT does not need much to run. My son runs WOT on an FX8320e clocked at 4.3GHZ (cheap ASUS board and a cheap $30 cooler). It runs GTA 5 fine at 1080p.

The Athlon has better single core than the FX chips if I remember correctly. 

 

I presume you are running at 1080p. So yeah I would expect the Athlon to be more than fine for WOT. The internet connection is about the most important thing to play this game.

 

However it it runs smoother than your 1700x then you need to back and look at your OC. That does not make sense.  Did you run stability tests.


Edited by crasta, Aug 14 2019 - 13:23.


Tiberianblitz #9 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 13:47

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16928 battles
  • 87
  • [E-N-D] E-N-D
  • Member since:
    05-03-2011

View PostTastyPastry, on Aug 14 2019 - 00:57, said:

What's the usage on the 1700X vs 200GE? If WoT can only saturate 4 threads, it wouldn't surprise me the performance is close. 

what year u living in? this game actually can run on 12 -16threads of a 8core 16thread cpu ...small percents of it but thats how they made this new engine...  i run 1700 and 2700 amd  


Edited by Tiberianblitz, Aug 14 2019 - 13:51.


Tiberianblitz #10 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 13:54

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16928 battles
  • 87
  • [E-N-D] E-N-D
  • Member since:
    05-03-2011

this was to upgrade for all the new cpu's that were out dosnt anyone ever pay attention to news?


Edited by Tiberianblitz, Aug 14 2019 - 13:55.


redjkent #11 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 14:15

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 92802 battles
  • 1,118
  • [Y2KBB] Y2KBB
  • Member since:
    07-24-2014
i wish i had the money to spend on building my own pc, i have to make do with what i got

Tiberianblitz #12 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 14:18

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16928 battles
  • 87
  • [E-N-D] E-N-D
  • Member since:
    05-03-2011
computer parts are cheap now a days. I thought about doing a cpu give away on my you tube channel but havnt yet.. my old fx rig and r9 card 200 series still runs this game 60fps at almost maxed settings still and that ancient. my wife runs the 1700 i built first when it was released in 2017 with a r9 card gets close to 100fps sometimes... some cases u dont need to upgrade gpu but having a good cpu is somtimes all u need with a decent gpu  even if its old 6+ year gpu arch. My main rig runs the 2700 i run different overclocks using ryzen master dependin if i stream or just game for the day and has a 1070ti. I felt bad buying the 1070ti but after 6years on a gpu i felt it was time to upgrade for myself

Edited by Tiberianblitz, Aug 14 2019 - 14:22.


highex #13 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 14:58

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 23481 battles
  • 126
  • [HLBL] HLBL
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011
after a 18 months or so of acquiring on piece at a time, i was finally able to frankenstein a computer together that runs games beautifully. my biggest problem was the modular power supply had single sockets fitting single pins without clear instruction. 

_Red_Saaryn_ #14 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 15:14

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 21561 battles
  • 1,231
  • [-IKR-] -IKR-
  • Member since:
    08-09-2015
Pff. Casuals. Before wot 1.0 I used to play with a win me SE with 500mb ram, 16mb video and the game ran at 25 fps then 1.0 came and it ran at 9fps with gawdful graphics. To think old wot ran better in low end PC's and new wot ran almost the same but it felt like that the guy that made the painting called "the scream" was in charge of the textures. I changed PC and it runs at 45fps in low. My PC has 4 cores, 8gb ram, windows 8.1(cause it doesn't support windows 7 and windows 10 that was the one that came with the PC, just updated and killed itself) also have 1gb of vram

Edited by _Red_Saaryn_, Aug 14 2019 - 15:14.


crasta #15 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 15:42

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7445 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    05-22-2015

View PostTiberianblitz, on Aug 14 2019 - 13:47, said:

what year u living in? this game actually can run on 12 -16threads of a 8core 16thread cpu ...small percents of it but thats how they made this new engine...  i run 1700 and 2700 amd  

Did you find much of a difference going upto the 2700 from 1700?

What resolution?

what clocks are you are you hitting?

I am thinking of purchasing a 3700 but the low price on the 2700 is very tempting now at the moment. Big savings but maybe not a worthwhile upgrade? :amazed:

 



crasta #16 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 15:51

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7445 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    05-22-2015

View PostTiberianblitz, on Aug 14 2019 - 13:54, said:

 

this was to upgrade for all the new cpu's that were out dosnt anyone ever pay attention to news?

 

I have to be honest at the time I thought it was hilarious that they made a video to announce that they had implemented threading into their application. I am still laughing as I type this. :teethhappy:  I know its just marketing. But can you imagine every programmer getting an award and a pay rise for adding a bit of threading to their apps. Nope!:teethhappy:

 

 



Tiberianblitz #17 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 15:54

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16928 battles
  • 87
  • [E-N-D] E-N-D
  • Member since:
    05-03-2011
i did memory latency is what i noticed even though both run 3200 on the ram... the 2700 is just better all around and just slowly sips on power . Depending what u want the chip can hit 4200+ on all cores but i stay around 4025 on all cores on the 2700 since i use the encoder on the cpu .. dosnt ever get hot at all. I also play at 1080 but u will exceed over 144fps but with a good board on the the monitor there wont be any tearing .

Edited by Tiberianblitz, Aug 14 2019 - 15:57.


crasta #18 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 16:06

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7445 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    05-22-2015

yeah the power efficiency is a good point too.

I run memory at 3466 CL15 but maybe I could get tighter timings with the 2700 too.

 

Is that your Command and Conquer channel? Cool!

 

 



TooFast4Radar #19 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 18:10

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 10446 battles
  • 92
  • [HAPPY] HAPPY
  • Member since:
    04-19-2014

View Postcrasta, on Aug 14 2019 - 06:19, said:

I guess I missed the point.

You overclocked the Athlon and were surprised at the results.

 

I am not. WOT does not need much to run. My son runs WOT on an FX8320e clocked at 4.3GHZ (cheap ASUS board and a cheap $30 cooler). It runs GTA 5 fine at 1080p.

The Athlon has better single core than the FX chips if I remember correctly. 

 

I presume you are running at 1080p. So yeah I would expect the Athlon to be more than fine for WOT. The internet connection is about the most important thing to play this game.

 

However it it runs smoother than your 1700x then you need to back and look at your OC. That does not make sense.  Did you run stability tests.

 

I'm actually running at 1440p.  At 1080p with every setting maxed out it's not an issue, but I liked the higher resolution and max field of view.  I noticed some tearing on the 1700X @ 3.5ghz on the RX570 4GB but not on the 200GE (frame rates were about the same).  Something to note, the 1700X with an RX580 8GB doesn't have tearing at the same resolution and can run ultra on 1440p and hit 65-70fps.



Smoked_Maple_Bacon #20 Posted Aug 14 2019 - 20:10

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15570 battles
  • 225
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

View Postcrasta, on Aug 14 2019 - 15:42, said:

Did you find much of a difference going upto the 2700 from 1700?

What resolution?

what clocks are you are you hitting?

I am thinking of purchasing a 3700 but the low price on the 2700 is very tempting now at the moment. Big savings but maybe not a worthwhile upgrade? :amazed:

 

I have been playing that game my self, go with 3700 / x570 mobo or just get a cheaper system with the discounted 2700 / x470/ b450 boards


Edited by Smoked_Maple_Bacon, Aug 14 2019 - 20:31.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users