SC or WT more hardware demanding?

Someone know how it looks with FPS in SCcompared to WT? I get like 30 FPS in SC and hope for better in WT.

I get a lot better in WT (on completely low settings for both)

Nah WT is more demanding.

Nah WT is more demanding.

 

really?  I have way better FPS on WT than on SC with both on low settings.  However I noticed it was possible to increase it to “movie quality”  which is probably extrememly demanding :smiley:

I find WT more demanding, especially the ground forces

War Thunder recommended hardware:

 

  • OS: Windows Vista/7/8
  • Processor: Dual-Core 2,4 GHz
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • Graphics: Nvidia GeForce 460 or higher, AMD Radeon 55XX series or higher
  • DirectX: Version 9.0c

 

StarConflict recommended hardware:

 

  • OS: Windows 7/8
  • Processor: 2.3 GHz, Intel Core 2 Duo / AMD
  • Memory: 2 GB RAM
  • Video Card: 1024 MB, NVidia GeForce 650 / AMD Radeon HD 5750
  • Hard Disk Space: 5 GB

:012j:

So I don’t need hard drive space for WT? Cloud based, eh? Perfecto. #totallysarcastic

At lowest settings, Star Conflict is far more demanding. But at max settings, War Thunder easily beats Star Conflict (the movie graphics are insanely high-quality)

Ok maybe it was just an impression then ^^  But I definitely get 50 FPS in the hangar in WT and 20-25 in SC.  I can’t remember in-game for WT.  Maybe just the hangar is more demanding in SC

So I don’t need hard drive space for WT? Cloud based, eh? Perfecto. #totallysarcastic

 

Its not listed on Steam… anyway, free space shouldnt be an issue unless you have a low capacity SSD :004j:

At lowest settings, Star Conflict is far more demanding. But at max settings, War Thunder easily beats Star Conflict (the movie graphics are insanely high-quality)

so there is something else?

isn’t movie graphic da only choice?

At lowest settings, Star Conflict is far more demanding. But at max settings, War Thunder easily beats Star Conflict (the movie graphics are insanely high-quality)

WT might be better for me then.

WT might be better for me then.

 

it depends on what you are going to play, if you dont have a good pc planes might be a better choice than ground forces.

 

While using planes in WT I get 30FPS. Using tanks I get 7 FPS. Think about that.

With planes you can get away with crappy ground textures just like a certain game gets away with crappy asteroid textures in space… ;p

i think WT is definitely more demanding with the graphics generally, but does perform better on lowest quality; since this scales up, fps can be better, or worse depending on what you see ingame.

 

SC however has a (still quite low) base demand, so you can run it in full glory easier if your graphics card is at least the minimum spec, but you won’t win as much scaling down settings and resolution, as you would with WT.

 

So hard to say which is more demanding, it really depends on your rig.