Sandbox FPS Benchmarks


With the upcoming high quality maps being previewed in videos and tested on Sandbox, many World of Tanks players wonder if the better graphics will make their gameplay experience worse due to lower frame rates in game.

I luckily had the opportunity to compare WoT 9.20 and Sandbox.  I had a replay of a battle on the Mines(Hills) map from the south spawn that I recently watched, then I played a battle this morning on the same map from the same spawn on Sandbox.

This game me a unique opportunity.  In the Sandbox battle, I could drive to similar locations during the battle on sandbox that were used in the WoT 9.20 replay and use it as a comparison for FPS in game.  Due to RNG and player movements, I can’t say its an exact comparison.  However the battles both progressed similarly.  I first drove my medium tank to the rock around F4, then fell back to help a teammate progress up the 1-2 line area following the movements in the 9.20 replay.  The 9.20 battle was a tier 9 battle and the Sandbox battle was a tier 10 battle.  Both battles were in medium tanks.

The computer used for the comparison had these specs:
i7 6700K overclocked to 4.6 GHz and water cooled.
32 GB DDR 4 RAM (8GB x 4 sticks)
1 TB Samsung 960 EVO NVMe SSD
Seasonic 760 Watt power supply
Windows 10 Pro 64 bit

Graphics cards used were:
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini (ZT-P10500A-10L)
EVGA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti SC GAMING (04G-P4-6253-KR)
EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 HYBRID GAMING (11G-P4-6698-KR)

I compared the results with two lower priced graphics cards and a high end graphics card to cover both ends of the performance spectrum.

I used the Fraps program to record minimum, maximum, and average FPS.  FPS measurements were started as soona s the battle start countdown timer reached 00:00.  The FPS measurement was set to end after a certain number of seconds which was near the end of the battle.  Each replay was run two times at each graphics setting to be sure there were no unusual reading of the FPS measurements and to ensure consistent and accurate results.  The results were very consistent for most of the GPUs with the usual variation of average and minimum FPS being 1 FPS or less.

Full Max in 9.20 is the Maximum preset with FXAA-HQ enabled and the shadow slider turned up to Ultra.

One thing to consider is the Sandbox version of WoT is not final and there may be future graphics optimizations through both Wargaming and Nvidia.

GTX 1080 ti results:

On the medium setting the average FPS for 9.20 was lower due to the 120 FPS cap in 9.20 and earlier versions of WoT.  The minimum FPS of both versions were similar.  Something similar happened with the high graphics setting.  With both the Maximum and Ultra settings 9.20 was about 10 FPS faster in both average and minimum FPS.

GTX 1050 ti results:

First we will look at 2560×1440 resolution.  In WoT 9.20 a GTX 1050 ti is capable of playing at 2560×1440 with the graphics details on Medium and High settings.

At the medium setting the average FPS was similar, however the minimum FPS on Sandbox was lower.  The minimum FPS stayed above 60 FPS, so that’s still going to give someone smooth gameplay and the option of those with 60 Hz monitors to play with VSync enabled.  At the high setting, the average FPS were also similar.  However 9.20 actually had a lower minimum FPS.  At the maximum setting, Sandbox had a lower average FPS.  However the minimum FPS was similar between both versions.  Full Max and Ultra were both too low of a frame rate for smooth gameplay in 9.20 and Sandbox versions.

Next we will compare the 1920×1080 resolution GTX 1050 ti results.

At medium resolution Sandbox had a higher average FPS due to not having the 120 FPS cap that WoT 9.20 and earlier versions of WoT have.  At the high setting, the results were about the same for average and minimum FPS.  At the maximum setting, 9.20 had an average FPS that was about 15 FPS higher.  The minimum FPS was similar on both versions.  At the Full Max and Ultra settings, 9.20 had an average FPS that was over 10 FPS higher.  The minimum FPS in 9.20 was also about 10 FPS higher.

GTX 1050 results:

At the Medium graphics setting, the sandbox version had a higher average FPS due to not having the 120 FPS cap.  However the minimum FPS was lower in the sandbox version at the medium setting.  At the high graphics setting, the results were nearly identical.  At the Maximum graphics setting, 9.20 was about 15 FPS higher in average FPS.  However the minimum FPS were similar.  At the Full Max/Ultra setting 9.20 was over 10 FPS higher in average FPS.  The minimum FPS was about 7 FPS higher in 9.20.


As I said above, one thing to consider is the Sandbox version of WoT is not final and there may be future graphics optimizations through both Wargaming and Nvidia.  At some graphics presets, the Sandbox version showed it has similar performance to WoT 9.20.  At other setting the FPS results were lower.  Also, at the Medium and High graphics settings, the Sandbox version may yield higher FPS due to not having the 120 FPS cap that WoT 9.20 and earlier have.  In addition to that, the Sandbox version of WoT has different options in the graphics settings.  Therefore you can’t say that the preset graphics options are 100% identical.

With further optimization in the game and through drivers, I would expect that the game performance with the new maps could be increased to have less than a 5 FPS difference between performance in 9.20 and the new maps.


32 thoughts on “Sandbox FPS Benchmarks

  1. Untra settings on the 1080 Ti concerned me for a minute, then realised it was in 4k.
    My monitor is 1440p, so everything should be cool with my 1080.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Playing with both a 970/i5 4690k and a 1060/i7 6700HQ with both 8GB or RAM at 1080p. Absolutely no difference noticed between sandbox and 9.20. With everything ultra I got between 90 and 120 fps for both. They did an insane job on optimisation.

    My friend with a 1050Ti on a laptop managed to stay between 45 and 70fps wuth everything ultra. Keep in mind the new ultra setting has new features, it’s not the same as “maximum” in the current WoT.

    Basicaly going from 9.20 to HD maps will make you lose between 1 and 5 fps depending on where you are on the map.


  3. I have i5 2500k @ 4,5GHz, GTX 960 OC 4Gb and 16Gb RAM. I tested with HD client and Ultra settings, solid 55-65 depending what map, how much action etc. The 55 fps was the lowest fps I got no matter how much I tested.. 😀

    Liked by 1 person

  4. My PC is pretty dope because I collected that hollocaust money from the fucken krauts. Now keep on paying me so I can play out white people against white people. Suka christiani people ahaha.


    1. Hey, my Polish man who is pickpocketing Mcdonalds visitors and touching the back of ladies is back. I thought you died. 😦


        1. As a tax paying citizen of a wealthy EU-country I already payed way to much for Poland… I simply don’t understand where that national pride is coming from. You should be more humble, my Polish friend…


  5. I run a I7 920at 4ghz with a r9 290x. Res is at 2560 x 1600 with full AA max. Vsync on. the game never dropped bellow 59fps. with all on Ultra. It was awesome. The new HD engine makes it a whole new game. Well done WG. I’m so back into WoT waiting for this update. I also love what they did with the tank shells and how the made them glow in flight.

    Even the sounds were improved. Had my jaw sitting on my Keyboard. I’m very excited for the future of this game. Brovo!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I play on a tablet. Recommended setting was minimum but I managed LOW. The overall effect is good and in many ways better than current maps. I did not gain pressure waves/blast effects/tracers. The water was often just a solid blue or green without waves or transparency (although it was not consistent). And my tank did not leave track. Despite all this it was a very good gameplay experience but it did leave me wishing I could upgrade my tablet. Not only will this bring players back, it will sell a lot of new computers-my prediction.


      1. You EU pig, glad you’re a minority on EU1 & 2. Do you know from what country a majority of the players are from? Yes, Poland you pig.


        1. Oh, Pawel asked his friend to troll too?

          Poland is still in the EU so by your logic you are an EU pig as well so shut the fuck up and don’t forget to clean my toilet after you are done pickpocketing tourists in Mcdonalds.

          And Poles wonder why do people have a negative view of them…


          1. You German pig. Poland don’t have your immigration chaos and therefore still a independent country from your fourth reich, pig.


        2. If you are yellow, green, blue or purple, you are indeed a minority on EU 1 & 2 amongst all those PL tomatoes. Well said, Polish sir!


  7. OK but…

    Since +70% of the played base use a bit more down to earth PC’s.
    How about doing all those test with (just an idea):

    8 gb ram
    7200rpm HDD
    1050, 1050ti, 1060 3gb, 1060 6gb, 1070, RX460, RX470, RX480 (or their 5 series equivalents)

    I see two problem with the testing (problem as in: not to many people have that kind of hardware):

    1. CPU is a beast, let’s try some budget variant
    2. SSD – most people still use HDD for the game, and slow HDD’s has a lot of problems with the new maps (slow texture loading – FPS drops).

    Apart from that, huge thank to the author for the great work.

    I got similar results with i7 7700k @4.5 + 32 gb DDR4@ 3800mhz + GTX1070 + Samsung SSD.


    1. Its been shown before than an old i3-3240 and a newer i7 give you the same exact FPS in WoT with the game graphics card, unless its a really high end graphics card that would be limited by a slow CPU. Lets face it, nobody would use a gTX 1080 and a 5 year old i3 and expect good results with modern games.

      An SSD has absolutely no effect on your FPS in WoT. Its been proven many times before by the people that tested it. All it has an effect on is battle load times. The same goes for other modern games. Even Ghost Recon Wildlands doesn’t have an FPS drop at 4K resolution when you use a 7200 RPM hard drive instead of an SSD.


  8. Tested at 1080p with an i5 7500, an 1060 6gb & 8Gb of DDR4 2400Mhz, got 75fps capped by the vsync and zero fps drop, and the card isn’t working at 100%


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.