I've tested the WoT Encore Ray Tracing benchmark/Demo on several computers with a variety of settings. I used MSI Afterburner to record Average FPS, minimum FPS, 1% low FPS, and 01.% low FPS when the 3 minute test was running. For every setting I tested, I recorded the score the benchmark gives and the average FPS. I figured out that if you take your WoT Encore RT score and divide it by 170 that gives you a number very close to your average FPS for the test.
For example, I got a score of 15,213 on one of the tests. You take that 15,213 and divide that by 170 you get 89.488. MSI Afterburner said the average FPS was 88.9 FPS. That was a difference of less than 1 FPS.
To put it simply:
Score/170 = FPS
Also, Wargaming is calling very low FPS a "Good" result. I know a person who's scores were 6,798 with RT shadows off and 4,058 with RT shadows on. He did similar testing for average FPS and the score/170 method gave FPS results similar to what MSI Afterburner measured for his average FPS.
6798/170 = 39.988
4058/170 = 23.87 FPS
Both said the results were "Good" on the score screen. 23.87 FPS is "Good" game performance? Most gamers consider sub 25 FPS to be poor performance and the equivalent of a slide show. I think Wargaming needs to be more realistic with what they call "Good" results.