World In Conflict - Vostro 1500 Benchmarking Results

I have spent a lot of time benchmarking the new RTS game demo "World in Conflict" and how it performs on the Vostro 1500 laptop.

This was a monumental task considering the total number of options available. But not too bad since I used the built in benchmark. Just time consuming.

Hopefully this will help users more easily set up their best option between FPS and picture quality.

Here's the FILE.

A few notes:

(1) Pixel Shader effects cause extreme drop in FPS
(2) Even 2xAA has a significant effect on framerate performance - at 1280x800 it is a 25% reduction!
(3) Aniso filtering at 2x has no effect on framerate

Based on this, my recommended settings for the Vostro 1500:

Pixel Shaders: high
Refresh Rate: (of course whatever you need for your monitor)
Physics Quality: medium
Texture Quality: medium
Terrani Texture Quality: medium
UI Texture Quality: compressed
Water Quality: low (had little effect on appearance)
Shadows: on (bigger framerate hit, but more realism)
World Distance Detail: medium
Animation Quality: high
Unit Track Lengths: medium
Water Reflection Size: 256
Full Screen Anti-Alias: off
Anisotropic Filtering: 2x
Framerate Cap: (up to you)
Vsync: off
Full Object Geometry: off
Windows on Buildings: on (realism)
Extra Objects Details: off
Destruction FX: off (looks decent even with it off)
Unit Tracks: on
Ground Scorch Marks: on
Flowers and Bushes: on
Grass: on
High Quality Terrain: on
Craters: off (why such a huge hit to fps with it on?)
Water Reflects Clouds: on
Water Reflects Units: on
Water reflects Props: on
Water Reflects Effects: on
Water Trails: on
note: water effects were grouped together in benchmarking with little effect on fps.
Roads: on
Clouds: off (on for more realism but at 13% fps?)
Z-feather: off
Post Effects: off
Soft Shadows: off
Bloom: off (on = 50% fps drop!)
Heat Haze: off
Tree Shadows: off
HQ Tree Shaders: off
Transparency AA: off
Debris Physics: on
Use DX10 Rendering: (Dunno - only have XP)
Shadows from Clouds: off

 

is this game badly coded? Why are the results so poor?

 

Interesting... My Go 7950GTX can use the following settings (in those images I resized) at 1440x900 and in the benchmark test I get 33 fps average which is pretty good imo...

 

That is quite a lots of works!

I disagree with your conclusion though - I think games tend to look better when textures and models are set to the highest, while with limited shadows and shader effects, than with fancy effects and low-quality textures.

And yeah, bloom is the most useless thing in 3D gaming.

Oh, and 7950GTX is way more powerful than 8600GT.

 

easily deserving of rep points, thanks a lot. This is a very good looking game. It looks fantastic on Medium as well.

 

With these same settings, I ran this on my Vostro 1500 with 8600m GT 256MB:
Avg: 21
Min: 12
Max: 43

Forgot to note that with my recommended settings @ 1280x800:
Avg: 51
Min: 23
Max: 159

This seems to be the best compromise between framerate and graphical detail. Add 2x AA if you don't like the jaggies, and you'll drop fps by about 20%. I ran recommended with 2xAA and it renders:
Avg: 40
Min: 18
Max: 107

Just a matter of note, 1280x800 actually looks very good, even on my native res 1680x1050 screen.

 

You might want to edit the file you uploaded......I don't think you have an 8800m GT

I'd probably have more stuff on then you did for WiC, I could live comfortably with game running at 30fps avg /shrug Good job though.

 

Thanks and fixed!

As far as adding more stuff, you can do. But anything else just has a significant effect on frame rate. I've played the game only a little bit, and haven't gotten into any real big action yet, so we will see how realistic the benchmark is to gameplay.

 

I tried the demo with the default settings it recommended for my system (in sig) and the game had absolutely no lag, even during big explosions with smoke, infantry battles no slowdowns or stuttering what so ever, very smooth gameplay.

I will edit this post with screens of the ingame settings

 

Update:

I o/c'd my Vostro 1500 8600m GT from:

GPU = 475
Shader = 950
MEM = 400

to

GPU = 590
Shader = 1180
MEM = 490

And here's the results between stock speeds and o/c'd speeds:

1280x800 FPS Stock / FPS OC / Avg FPS Performance increase
Very Low 90 / 104 / 16%
Low 69 / 69 / 0%
Medium 24 / 29 / 21%
High 13 / 16 / 23%
Very High 9 / 11 / 22%

1440x900 FPS Stock / FPS OC / Avg FPS Performance increase
Very Low 76 / 94 / 24%
Low 61 / 69 / 13%
Medium 21 / 26 /24%
High 11 / 13 / 18%
Very High 7 / 9 / 29%

1680x1050 FPS Stock / FPS OC / Avg FPS Performance increase
Very Low 60 / 78 / 30%
Low 52 / 63 / 21%
Medium 17 / 21 / 24%
High 8 / 20 / 25%
Very High 6 / 8 / 33%

Bottom line, o/c translates into approx 25% increase in FPS.

 

good work htwingnut just wanna know what driver you're using?

 

Is that with your 8600GT overclocked? I get 19/40/126 on my Zepto 6224W with your settings and at 1280x800. The specs are identical to yours (2.2Ghz, 512Mb 8600GT, 2Gb RAM).

I am using 163.69 drivers so would also be very interested to see what drivers you used.

 

dude, would u really notice a difference between 40+fps and 50+ fps, i certainly won't

 

I have not run benchmarks yet with my CPU overclocked @ 590/490 yet. I will do that next.

 

I am nothing, but happy with the performance of WiC with those settings, but there is a significant difference and I was just curious to see if there was any reason for it. Our computer specs are pretty much identical...

 

yeah, i know...just makes u feel better