World of Warships Desktop and Notebook Benchmarks
Sink Ships! In the Free 2 Play game “World of Warships”, Navy enthusiasts will engage in short and action-packed sea battles. Despite good graphics, the engine is very conservative and is capable of running decently, even on older laptops. In this review, we will present our findings from our various benchmarks.
For the original German article, see here.
The Belarusian developer had previously created a successful F2P game in “World of Tanks” (benchmark) and is now trying to branch into naval battle with four different ship categories. Since the individual games last only about 15 minutes, the game is suitable for short relaxing breaks. The typical F2P upgrade and free play options will provide long-lasting entertainment. Furthermore, the business model seems fair and, as usual, paying a little money will buy you a Premium membership with additional benefits. There are also certain ships which can be unlocked with a Premium subscription, but currently they do not seem to offer any special powers.
Working For Notebookcheck
Are you a techie who knows how to write? Then join our Team! Especially English native speakers welcome!
News and Editorial Editor - Details here
The water simulation is astonishing. The ships are really detailed and are enhanced by a wide range of lighting effects. With medium or high graphics settings, the game looks really nice.
We used a multiplayer session with the beginner ship as our benchmark sequence. We measured the average fps using Fraps and noticed that battles with multiple ships can be demanding on the hardware. Of course, there is no need for high fps if you just want to play the occasional game. We were mostly pleased with an average of 30 fps. We selected 1366x768 pixels as the lowest resolution since 1280x800 and 1280x720 pixels were not supported on all our devices.
We used version 0.5.0.0 (first final version) for our initial tests. The maximum frame rate should be removed from the eninge_config.xml file (set maxFrameRate to 0) and the configuration files need to be altered to allow the recording of replays.
Top 10 Smartphones
Smartphones, Phablets, ≤5-inch, Camera SmartphonesNotebookcheck's Top 10 Smartphones under 160 Euros
“World of Warships” proved quite conservative in our benchmarks. The game ran fluidly at minimum details with an Intel HD Graphics 3000 (in a Core i7-2860QM quad-core). However, on an Acer Aspire M3 with a ULV processor and the HD 3000 IGP it stuttered slightly. As soon as we turned on the GeForce GT 640M, we were able to run the game at medium details. It is also possible to run the game at this level with a modern IGP like the Intel HD Graphics 5500 of the Broadwell Core i3 processors. The IGPs of the Intel quad-core models are surprisingly strong. The HD 4000 IGP of the Asus N56VM consistently got better results than the dedicated GeForce GT 630M GPU of the same laptop.
High details in FHD are only possible with stronger GPUs. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 of the Schenker S413 barely makes the cut. The AMD Radeon R9 M280X offers a lot more breathing room as it is capable of handling everything at the highest quality setting. For 4K, a high-end mobile GPU like the GeForce GTX 970M, or a middle-class desktop GPU, like the MSI R7 370 Gaming 2G (160 Euros/~$181) is necessary. The Sapphire Radeon R9 280X Vapor-X Tri-X (250 Euros) ran 4K at maximum details in our benchmark.
Additional benchmark results with various Nvidia GPUs will be added shortly (once we have tested “Fifa 16”).
|World of Warships|
|NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, 3770K|
60.2 (min: 44) fps ∼34%
114.4 (min: 68) fps ∼44%
118 (min: 71) fps ∼47%
134.9 (min: 84) fps ∼45%
161.2 (min: 102) fps ∼47%
|AMD Radeon R9 290X, 4790K|
Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X OC
57.9 (min: 44) fps ∼33%
134 (min: 85) fps ∼51%
|Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, 4750HQ|
24 (min: 15) fps ∼9%
34 (min: 19) fps ∼14%
73 (min: 49) fps ∼25%
111 (min: 80) fps ∼32%
|NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M, 2637M|
Acer Aspire M3-581TG
19.8 (min: 12) fps ∼8%
32.3 (min: 19) fps ∼11%
40.1 (min: 25) fps ∼12%
|NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M, 4200M|
9.3 (min: 5) fps ∼4%
12.9 (min: 7) fps ∼5%
26.3 (min: 21) fps ∼9%
39.2 (min: 28) fps ∼11%
|NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M, 3720QM|
11.1 (min: 8) fps ∼4%
15.3 (min: 10) fps ∼6%
30.4 (min: 24) fps ∼10%
46 (min: 34) fps ∼13%
|Intel HD Graphics 3000, 2637M|
Acer Aspire M3-581TG
15.6 (min: 11) fps ∼5%
25.1 fps ∼7%
Four of our test models are from Schenker Technologies (mysn.de):
- W504 (Core i7-4700MQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 860M, GTX 870M, GTX 880M, GTX 970M, GTX 980M)
- A505 (Core i7-4720HQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 960M)
- M504 (Core i5-4340M, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GTX 850M)
- M503 (Core i7-4702MQ, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GT 750M)
Nvidia provided three notebooks:
- HP Envy 15-j011sg (Core i5-4200M, 12 GB DDR3, GeForce GT 740M)
- MSI CX61-i572M281BW7 (Core i5-4200M, 8 GB DDR3, GeForce GT 720M)
- Acer Aspire Timeline Ultra M3-581TG (Core i7-2637M, 4GB DDR3, Geforce GT 640M)
Intel provided one more:
- Schenker S413 (Core i7-4750HQ, 8 GB DDR3, Iris Pro Graphics 5200)
The desktop PCs use CPUs/APUs from Intel and AMD, SSDs from Micron, Intel and Samsung, Motherboards from Intel and Asus as well as graphics cards from Nvidia and AMD. We use the Asus PB287Q as a 4K monitor.
GPU drivers: latest.