FPS comparison of 9.20 vs Sandbox on the same map tested with multiple graphics cards

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 2560x1440 resolution.  In WoT 9.20 a GTX 1050 ti is capable of playing at 2560x1440 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 1920x1080 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.

Conclusion:

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.