2400g vs i3-3240: Does the CPU matter with a lower end graphics card?

In our previous test, it was shows that the 2400G's Radeon™ Vega 11 Graphics doesn't have the same in game performance as the RX 460 2GB, which was released in August of 2016 or the GTX 750 ti 2 GB which was released in February 2014.

Other tests have shown that the 2400G's Radeon™ Vega 11 Graphics doesn't perform as well as a GT 1030 in most games.  Also, other tests have shown that the 2400G's Radeon™ Vega 11 Graphics can be outperformed in most games by an Intel G4650 and GT 1030.  However, it may be useful to have the 4 cores and 8 threads if you plan to perform a graphics card upgrade in the future to something faster than a GT 1030.

AMD 2400G performance in World of Tanks 1.01

In February 2018, AMD released the 2400G.  At the time, there was a high demand for graphics cards due to crypto currency mining and graphics card prices were elevated.  In the past few weeks, graphics card prices have come down closer to MSRP for most graphics cards.  Also AMD drivers have matured and the initial issues with the 2400G and 2200G that some users experienced were resolved.

After the release of the 2400G and 2200G, World of Tanks 1.0 was released.  Wargaming has had time to work on issues related to the new graphics and game engine changes.  Now that most of the game issues and driver UEFI/BIOS, and software issues are resolved with the 2400G, its a good time to really see how the 2400G performs in World of Tanks.

Some users on the World of Tanks forums have stated that the 2400G and its onboard Radeon™ Vega 11 Graphics are perfectly capable of playing World of Tanks 1.0 smoothly on the Ultra graphics preset at 1920x1080 resolution.  Tests with other games have shown that the 2400G's Radeon™ Vega 11 Graphics are comparable to the GT 1030 in most games.

GTX 1050 vs RX 460 World of Tanks FPS comparison results Part 2

Introduction:

After reading part one, some people asked if using the overclocked i7-6700K processor would give better results than a less powerful and older processor.  I decided to retest both graphics cards with an i3 processor released in 2012 on a socket 1155 motherboard.  In addition to that, I tested the effects of different game settings on FPS with both GPUs.

Method:

I used Fraps and a WoT replay of the M41 Bulldog on the Windstorm map to compare the GTX 1050 vs the RX 460.  Fraps recorded the minimum, average, and maximum FPS for the battle.  The RX 460 that was used cost $95 and the GTX 1050 that was used cost $100.  Both are models that don't use any additional power and get all their power through the PCI Express x16 slot.  Also, both cards have 2 GB of memory.

The computer used for the comparison had these specs:
Intel i3-3240 CPU
Asrock H61M-VG4 Motherboard
16 GB DDR3 RAM (8GB x 2 sticks)
500 GB Samsung 840 SSD
Seasonic 650 Watt power supply
Windows 10 Pro

The two graphics cards tested were:
ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1050 Mini $99.99
PowerColor RED DRAGON Radeon RX 460 $94.99
Both graphics cards were run at their default clock speed.  Both graphics cards use a single fan and heat sink and have similar cooling designs.

As stated in part one, for smooth game play you want to keep your minimum FPS(Frames per Second) above 30 FPS.  Games can start looking like a slide show below 30 FPS.  Games tend to look smoother and are easier to play when you keep your minimum frame rates higher.  Generally 50-60 FPS is where games start to look much smoother to most gamers.  Some people with 60 Hz monitors prefer to have their minimum FPS never drop below 60 FPS then enable V-sync to reduce the visual effect called screen tearing.  Other players have monitors that are capable of 75 Hz, 100 Hz, 120 Hz, 144 Hz, or faster  refresh rates and want higher average FPS in game.  Minimum and average frame per second are a matter of both game play quality and personal preference and can be limited by the hardware.  Maximum FPS isn't as important for game play as minimum FPS and average FPS.