Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Hentai_Researcher_Nat

Would this PC Work well for WoWS?

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
7 posts
570 battles

I asked a question about a week ago for some help building a cheaper end pc that could run WoWS at least smooth at minimum to low graphics, and now I actually made a "Build" that I would appreciate some feedback on from the more PC savvy of the Players. Mainly, if you would be kind enough to answer, these two questions ; could it run WoWS smoothly and at what graphical settings? Thank you in advance for those who do respond.

  • GTX 750 Ti Video Card
  • Intel® Core™ i3-8100 Processor
  • 4.0 GB RAM
  • 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium
  • idk what my disk size is, but I still have 526 gigs left

I also already have a Realtek High Definition Audio sound card if that matters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,090
[HINON]
Supertester
19,289 posts
12,830 battles

Yeah that'd work well. You might get around 40 ~ 50 FPS at max settings with that. With that setup your graphics card is the bottleneck, I'm running an i5 4590 (which is about as fast as your i3 8100) with a GTX 960 and I get 70+ FPS at max settings at 1920x1080. Also, 4gb of ram isn't that much and might adversely affect load-in times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
379
[PROJX]
Members
978 posts
15,795 battles
26 minutes ago, Nat55atata said:

I asked a question about a week ago for some help building a cheaper end pc that could run WoWS at least smooth at minimum to low graphics, and now I actually made a "Build" that I would appreciate some feedback on from the more PC savvy of the Players. Mainly, if you would be kind enough to answer, these two questions ; could it run WoWS smoothly and at what graphical settings? Thank you in advance for those who do respond.

  • GTX 750 Ti Video Card
  • Intel® Core™ i3-8100 Processor
  • 4.0 GB RAM
  • 64-bit Windows 7 Home Premium
  • idk what my disk size is, but I still have 526 gigs left

I also already have a Realtek High Definition Audio sound card if that matters

 

Hey Nat55atata! - here's another data point for you (and Good News!)...

 

My gaming PC died earlier this year during the Clash of Fire event...I needed to substitute my old personal business laptop running Windows 7 which had no nVidia or AMD graphics card (just the Intel Integrated Graphics) and its processing power was not that dissimilar to your specs.

 

WOWS ran fine on the low graphics settings and I was surprised that (other than the graphics not being the highest detail that I had been used to playing) as far as frame rates and overall appearance it was really good.  I believe WG, when it developed WOWS, anticipated many parts of their customer base would not have access to the latest in PC or graphics card power so they intentionally designed in a capability to play the game on platforms with less than bleeding edge performance.

 

Edited by hangglide42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7 posts
570 battles
1 minute ago, hangglide42 said:

 

Hey Nat55atata! - here's another data point for you (and Good News!)...

 

My gaming PC died earlier this year during the Clash of Fire evert...I needed to substitute my old personal business laptop running Windows 7 which had no nVidia or AMD graphics card (just the Intel Integrated Graphics) and its processing power was not that dissimilar to your specs.

 

WOWS ran fine on the low graphics settings and I was surprised that (other than the graphics not being the highest detail that I had been used to playing) as far as frame rates and overall appearance it was really good.  I believe WG, when it developed WOWS, anticipated many parts of their customer base would not have access to the latest in PC or graphics card power so they intentionally designed ini a capability to play the game on platforms with less than bleeding edge performance.

 

that brings a faithful smile to my face! my current PC would make your laptop look like a powerhouse, so I am more then ecstatic that just spending 300 bucks to replace 2 parts will make it run the game at my preferred graphics (Frames First, Pretty Second).

14 minutes ago, Lert said:

Yeah that'd work well. You might get around 40 ~ 50 FPS at max settings with that. With that setup your graphics card is the bottleneck, I'm running an i5 4590 (which is about as fast as your i3 8100) with a GTX 960 and I get 70+ FPS at max settings at 1920x1080. Also, 4gb of ram isn't that much and might adversely affect load-in times.

Max Settings, wow, I did not expect that much power from just replacing two parts. on the graphics card, what would you recommend over the 750? would a 1050 be significantly better, or would you recommend your 960 over it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,761
[PRNA]
Beta Testers
18,814 posts
2,987 battles

I'd say yes. The i3-8100 is a little low in cores but the 4 threads does help. The 750 Ti is okay but I would HIGHLY recommend a GTX 1060 for $200, and just that tiny little bit more spent will help you a lot. Upgrade the processor later. Also, another thing to put your money into would be the RAM. Get, at least, 8 GB (that is, unless you never have more than a single tab operation going - ever - and no more than 5 Chrome tabs)

 

Also, plz get Win10, it really does help.

 

And finally:

SSD or nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,090
[HINON]
Supertester
19,289 posts
12,830 battles
6 minutes ago, Nat55atata said:

on the graphics card, what would you recommend over the 750? would a 1050 be significantly better, or would you recommend your 960 over it?

Nvidia cards follow a certain naming convention, XXYY, where XX is the generation and the YY is the model number within that generation. So my 960 is a 9th gen, model 60. The higher the model number, the more performance within that generation, and the lower the number, the more budget oriented. So there is a very good chance that, say, a 790 will outperform a 950. The 1050 and 960 are about equal in performance.

That said, the 10th generation are exceptionally good cards.

However, personally I would always try to go for the -60 model instead of the -50. The -50s are higher end budget cards, the -60s are lower end enthusiast cards, and more future proof.

So my recommendation is, see if you have the budget for a 1060.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[SPUDS]
[SPUDS]
Members
570 posts
3,356 battles

This game seems to be very GPU dependent. I have an older phenom II x6 1100T paired with an RX 470 (it's actually crossfire, but the game doesn't support it), and I still have butter smooth gameplay. I haven't used a frame counter yet, but I can generally tell when a game dips below my monitor's refresh rate (60 hz).

I would personally recommend spending a little more on the GPU and a little less on the CPU, that is if you haven't already purchased the game.

However, another thing to consider is like my system above, your CPU will probably long outlive your GPU. Mine has gone through 4 GPU upgrades, and I'm still debating keeping the CPU.

These are both things to consider before buying parts.

 

However, compared against that i3, I would recommend the following instead:

 

intel pentium G4560, AKA the i3 in disguise.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA96K6BC8633

It's  a pentium with hyperthreading, which is what usually defines an i3 against a pentium. For $99, it's basically the same performance.

 

AMD ryzen 3 1200

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113446

With 4 cores, and AMD's improvements to the power of said cores, it's performance is closer to that of an i5 than an i3, for a similar price to the i3. for $110, it's a great buy as well.

 

I would personally steer clear of AMD graphics cards at the moment. With the mining craze at full tilt again, they've become rather expensive.

if you can, spring for the 1060 as @Lert said. if you can't, the 1050ti should be decent for the price.

 

Also, as everyone before me said, please get more ram, 4.0GB is not enough anymore.

Edited by JackBinary
additional information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,090
[HINON]
Supertester
19,289 posts
12,830 battles
10 minutes ago, JackBinary said:

if you can, spring for the 1060 as @Lert said. if you can't, the 1050ti should be decent for the price.

Agreed. Though if that's beyond your budget too, the 960 might be a worthy alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[SPUDS]
[SPUDS]
Members
570 posts
3,356 battles

Jayztwocents did a series of videos about ~$500 builds recently, and I feel like they'd be a big help for you. if you do plan on watching them, watch all 3.

 

 

 

 

Edited by JackBinary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,976
[SYN]
Members
14,471 posts
10,488 battles
1 hour ago, StrixKitty said:

I'd say yes. The i3-8100 is a little low in cores but the 4 threads does help. The 750 Ti is okay but I would HIGHLY recommend a GTX 1060 for $200, and just that tiny little bit more spent will help you a lot. Upgrade the processor later. Also, another thing to put your money into would be the RAM. Get, at least, 8 GB (that is, unless you never have more than a single tab operation going - ever - and no more than 5 Chrome tabs)

 

Also, plz get Win10, it really does help.

 

And finally:

SSD or nothing. 

The new i3-8xxx has 4 cores now.

But good luck finding one, thanks to intel doing a paper launch.

 

Instead, a Ryzen 3 1200 and a cheap B350 chipset mobo will do the job adequately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,761
[PRNA]
Beta Testers
18,814 posts
2,987 battles
56 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

The new i3-8xxx has 4 cores now.

But good luck finding one, thanks to intel doing a paper launch.

 

Instead, a Ryzen 3 1200 and a cheap B350 chipset mobo will do the job adequately.

It does? I had planned to use it in a Mini-STX build mobo (this is, before I learned of the new Micro-STX mobo form factor with MXM support) but had no idea it had 4 cores.

 

From what I can gather, Intel CPUs are usually better at gaming while AMD at computing. 

Edited by StrixKitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,456
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
12,572 posts
4,442 battles

I'd try and stretch the budget to get 8 GB RAM. 4GB really isn't enough nowadays, My PC uses about 3GB just for the OS and background programs. Memory usage is only going to get bigger in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×