Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › WoW - How much cpu power do you need? (Answer: More than Sandy Bridge)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WoW - How much cpu power do you need? (Answer: More than Sandy Bridge) - Page 25

post #241 of 253
Thread Starter 
I get different results, let me share

Wow usage 3 cores tagged:



Wow usage 2 cores tagged:



Wow usage 1 core tagged:




I saw a slight hit in fps when I dropped from 3 to 2 cores, however it wasn't very large only a few fps and it could have been caused by any number of things.

However when I dropped it down to one core my fps bottomed out, I was getting about 15 fps I believe whereas with three cores I was getting around 70.

According to windows 7 wow uses 54 threads, however it seems to only use 2 cores maybe possibly some of a 3rd core (hardly any if any).


I would assume even though my cpus aren't capping 100% with two used like it does on a single core, its still bottlenecking and part of the problem is probably the wow code and how it handles mutli-threading. It's possible one core is always waiting on the other, thus one can't push to 100% because the other core is processing information the first core needs to continue.
Edited by BallaTheFeared - 5/12/11 at 11:13pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
post #242 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
Short answer: If you're looking to get 60 fps or higher everywhere you go sandy bridge fails to deliver. Look to Ivy Bridge here, as its not too far out of SBs reach, however out of its reach it is.

Long answer:

World of Warcraft is a terrible game that was released in 2004 and has been patched and expanded countless times including adding DX11 support six years after its initial release.

But this isn't a review of how a dual threaded MMO that requires the cpu to track countless people over large areas. Nope, this is a review on Sandy Bridge, and why sometimes you don't have enough power.

Before we move forward, lets take a step back in time - back to when I had a single gtx 470 and a 1090T at 4.3GHz.



As you can see in this screen, when playing World of Warcraft a single gtx 470 was severely bottlenecked by my 1090T. To the point of there being a 50% bottleneck. Its important to note this bottleneck didn't occur at 300+ fps, it happened near the bank in stormwind - and it happened at sub 30 fps.


Using that image to compare, I downloaded the game again using the 7 day free play they use to suck people back into a never ending grind. And with that time I went ahead and tested my new setup in a old game. Sandy bridge was quite a bit more capable than my 1090T was in this game. For obvious reasons, the 1090T is quite a bit slower. Its quite a bit slower than this i5 even when its at 3.6GHz. However despite that extra power its still not enough.

I used two different speeds to test, however since its not a controlled environment (people come and go - and its these people that put the most load on the cpu). The speeds I used were 3.6GHz, and 5.3GHz. At all times my ram was running 8-10-9-24 1T @ 2140MHz. My GTX 470s always ran at stock, 607 core.

Here is 3.6GHz


Here is 5.3GHz



Conclusion: WoW requires a lot of cpu power to push it in high population areas. It will take faster cores, and/or higher clocks from Ivy Bridge for anyone to sustain a 60 fps min in this game.

Its also interesting to note that despite the number of threads on the subject with older cpus, wow is capable of using 2 gpus, given you have a fast enough chip to push them.

4.8GHz 99% perfect scaling:
you will never get a solid 60 fps even when i was getting over 100 fps it still dipped ever once in a while or when flying. not really a big deal to me.
Core 2 Haf
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
C2Q Q9550 ASUS P5E3 Deluxe Wifi-AP GTX 480 Kingston HyperX DDR3 KHX1600C9D3K2/8G 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
PNY 1333 55gb, 320Gb, 500GB, 1TB Hyper 212 EVO Win 7 Ultimate 64bit 
OSOSPowerCase
Lubuntu 13.04 x64 OS X 10.8.5 TX750 Haf 912 
  hide details  
Reply
Core 2 Haf
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
C2Q Q9550 ASUS P5E3 Deluxe Wifi-AP GTX 480 Kingston HyperX DDR3 KHX1600C9D3K2/8G 
RAMHard DriveCoolingOS
PNY 1333 55gb, 320Gb, 500GB, 1TB Hyper 212 EVO Win 7 Ultimate 64bit 
OSOSPowerCase
Lubuntu 13.04 x64 OS X 10.8.5 TX750 Haf 912 
  hide details  
Reply
post #243 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by damric View Post
Something is very screwy with the coding. Apparently WoW only utilizes two Intel cores, yet can fully utilize three AMD cores and get some scaling up to six cores.



Look at the configuration.
Clearly something is very wrong with that AMD setup. It SHOULD be getting double the FPS on 2 cores than on one core, which the Intel setup does properly. The fact that you need 6 cores on AMD to get double of what one core does, shows that there's either a SERIOUS problem with that X6 CPU, a SERIOUS Problem with the way WOW handles AMD chips, a SERIOUS problem with the drivers (video, chipset, anything) or a SERIOUS Problem with how threads are split between the cores on windows (sort of like using 1 core+HT for two threads, instead of 2 physical cores).
SB Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k Gigabyte P67A-UD5 B3 R9 290X 16GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 2 TB, WD 1 TB, 250gb Liteon ihbs212 blu-ray burner/reader XP+W7 Benq XL2720Z 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine 69/Year of the Goat/Shine 5 Seasonic Platinum X1000 Corsair 760T Logitech G502 with r0ach approved ™ sensor 
Mouse Pad
Puretrak Talent 
  hide details  
Reply
SB Rig
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-2600k Gigabyte P67A-UD5 B3 R9 290X 16GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 2 TB, WD 1 TB, 250gb Liteon ihbs212 blu-ray burner/reader XP+W7 Benq XL2720Z 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Ducky Shine 69/Year of the Goat/Shine 5 Seasonic Platinum X1000 Corsair 760T Logitech G502 with r0ach approved ™ sensor 
Mouse Pad
Puretrak Talent 
  hide details  
Reply
post #244 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by justarealguy View Post
Same price, two more cores. Up to him ultimately, but why not?
For WoW though, it's definitely not quad-core threaded. If he was just an average "gamer" the Q6600 would probably be the better buy, esp for modern games, but for WoW specifically, the 45nm Wolfdale give better clock-for-clock performance and OCs much higher than the 65nm Yorkfield, and since WoW isn't quad-threaded, I think the e8400 would be a better choice.
post #245 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by justarealguy View Post
Same price, two more cores. Up to him ultimately, but why not?
I'd still go with the E8400. Especially an E0 as they overclock like champs and stay relatively cool while doing so.

I've had firsthand experience with an E8400, E8500, E8600, Q6600, and now my Q9650 and I can say without a doubt the best option for a budget CPU for WoW is the E8400. With the stock cooler and some good TIM you can take them close to 4.0Ghz. You aren't doing that with a Q6600, those things get HOT.
 
Project Al
(69 photos)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2700k Gigabyte UD4 MSI 580GTX Lightning Xtreme Edition 3GB 2x4GB G.Skill @ 1600mhz CL6 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
OCZ Vertex II SSD OCZ Vertex II SSD LG Blu-Ray/HD-DVD Combo Drive Win 7 Ult 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Achieva Shimian Acer G235H XArmor U9BL Corsair HX1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Define R3 Silver Arrow Razer Naga Ultimate Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Polk Audio RTi-A1 
AudioAudio
Dayton Audio DTA-100a Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Project Al
(69 photos)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2700k Gigabyte UD4 MSI 580GTX Lightning Xtreme Edition 3GB 2x4GB G.Skill @ 1600mhz CL6 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
OCZ Vertex II SSD OCZ Vertex II SSD LG Blu-Ray/HD-DVD Combo Drive Win 7 Ult 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Achieva Shimian Acer G235H XArmor U9BL Corsair HX1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Define R3 Silver Arrow Razer Naga Ultimate Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Polk Audio RTi-A1 
AudioAudio
Dayton Audio DTA-100a Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #246 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
I get different results, let me share

Wow usage 3 cores tagged:

<img snip>

Wow usage 2 cores tagged:

<img snip>

Wow usage 1 core tagged:

<img snip>


I saw a slight hit in fps when I dropped from 3 to 2 cores, however it wasn't very large only a few fps and it could have been caused by any number of things.

However when I dropped it down to one core my fps bottomed out, I was getting about 15 fps I believe whereas with three cores I was getting around 70.

According to windows 7 wow uses 54 threads, however it seems to only use 2 cores maybe possibly some of a 3rd core (hardly any if any).


I would assume even though my cpus aren't capping 100% with two used like it does on a single core, its still bottlenecking and part of the problem is probably the wow code and how it handles mutli-threading. It's possible one core is always waiting on the other, thus one can't push to 100% because the other core is processing information the first core needs to continue.
You aren't really getting different results. Error10 was looking at thread usage. You're looking at core usage. Windows (maybe linux also?) can automatically spread activity from a single thread over multiple cores. That's why you're seeing activity on 2-3 cores, even though the activity is almost completely constrained to one thread.

You see the drastic drop in framerate when limiting WoW to one thread, as you hit full core utilization and create an information queue of sorts. When you open up a second core, the same amount of information needing processed is automatically spread between the two. Neither is completely capped, so you don't get the same slowdown. When you open a third core, the same amount of information (that didn't cap 2 cores) is spread over three cores. Based on having three points of processing, you can gain a few frames, but since you're not alleviating any CPU utilization cap, the gain isn't that great.

Any way you cut it, WoW only has so much information to be processed (CPU utilization), but processing that information faster (CPU clock speed) will show a decent benefit. That's why it doesn't benefit from quad cores as much as faster processing. It's back to the game being poorly programmed.
post #247 of 253
Still not seeing a DCP screen from ya bella. Why not?

http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml
Goofy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 4850e 2.4Ghz 22 watts 1.1v 1500HT 300FSB Gigabyte GA-M78SM-S2H What I'm Testing 2 2gb Geil PC6400 960MHZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Hitachi 160gb SATA-II Pioneer DVR 111D Redhat Core 12 x86_64, Windows XP HANNspree 20" 1600x900 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitec Premium Desktop Mini-Box M3-ATX 120 Watt DC-DC Spire Logitec 
Mouse Pad
Xtrac 
  hide details  
Reply
Goofy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 4850e 2.4Ghz 22 watts 1.1v 1500HT 300FSB Gigabyte GA-M78SM-S2H What I'm Testing 2 2gb Geil PC6400 960MHZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Hitachi 160gb SATA-II Pioneer DVR 111D Redhat Core 12 x86_64, Windows XP HANNspree 20" 1600x900 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitec Premium Desktop Mini-Box M3-ATX 120 Watt DC-DC Spire Logitec 
Mouse Pad
Xtrac 
  hide details  
Reply
post #248 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cilraaz View Post
You aren't really getting different results. Error10 was looking at thread usage. You're looking at core usage. Windows (maybe linux also?) can automatically spread activity from a single thread over multiple cores. That's why you're seeing activity on 2-3 cores, even though the activity is almost completely constrained to one thread.

You see the drastic drop in framerate when limiting WoW to one thread, as you hit full core utilization and create an information queue of sorts. When you open up a second core, the same amount of information needing processed is automatically spread between the two. Neither is completely capped, so you don't get the same slowdown. When you open a third core, the same amount of information (that didn't cap 2 cores) is spread over three cores. Based on having three points of processing, you can gain a few frames, but since you're not alleviating any CPU utilization cap, the gain isn't that great.

Any way you cut it, WoW only has so much information to be processed (CPU utilization), but processing that information faster (CPU clock speed) will show a decent benefit. That's why it doesn't benefit from quad cores as much as faster processing. It's back to the game being poorly programmed.

I don't think thats right, what you're talking about - splitting a thread over multiple cores - it isn't something they can do yet. Its just not possible. So WoW must use more than one core (multi-threaded), which was my only point. How many threads it has running isn't really the point as far as I know they clearly all don't need clock cycles at the same time.

This? I have Dragon Age II running in the background, let me know if that would skew the results.

Edited by BallaTheFeared - 5/13/11 at 12:18pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Core i5 2500K P8P67 PRO NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 
GraphicsRAMRAMRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT G-Skill A-Data G-Skill 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveOS
A-Data Crucial M4 64GB + 1TB F3 Spinpoint $155 LS/DL DVD RW $?? Windows 8 64-bit "Epic Registry" Edition 
MonitorPowerCase
ASUS 21.5 1920x1080 2ms $135 CORSAIR HX850 $120 Mother Earth $free 
  hide details  
Reply
post #249 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
I don't think thats right, what you're talking about - splitting a thread over multiple cores - it isn't something they can do yet. Its just not possible. So WoW must use more than one core (multi-threaded), which was my only point. How many threads it has running isn't really the point as far as I know they clearly all don't need clock cycles at the same time.
Perhaps my terminology wasn't the clearest. It doesn't "split" the thread up over cores, but the scheduler can bounce the thread between the cores, which would show you the lessened strain per core that your screenshots showed.

The game is quite technically multi-threaded. The problem is that the vast majority of the work is still contained in a single thread.
post #250 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
I don't think thats right, what you're talking about - splitting a thread over multiple cores - it isn't something they can do yet. Its just not possible. So WoW must use more than one core (multi-threaded), which was my only point. How many threads it has running isn't really the point as far as I know they clearly all don't need clock cycles at the same time.
Not quite. The work does get distributed among all available cores actually. This is clearly seen when you scale up from 2 cores. A dual core will be running around 100% on each core, a quad will be running 50% on each, 8 cores will be 25%, etc. And it scales up perfectly just like that. If you have one core not doing 50% on a quad, another will be doing more than 50% to make up for it.
 
Project Al
(69 photos)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2700k Gigabyte UD4 MSI 580GTX Lightning Xtreme Edition 3GB 2x4GB G.Skill @ 1600mhz CL6 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
OCZ Vertex II SSD OCZ Vertex II SSD LG Blu-Ray/HD-DVD Combo Drive Win 7 Ult 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Achieva Shimian Acer G235H XArmor U9BL Corsair HX1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Define R3 Silver Arrow Razer Naga Ultimate Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Polk Audio RTi-A1 
AudioAudio
Dayton Audio DTA-100a Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Project Al
(69 photos)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2700k Gigabyte UD4 MSI 580GTX Lightning Xtreme Edition 3GB 2x4GB G.Skill @ 1600mhz CL6 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
OCZ Vertex II SSD OCZ Vertex II SSD LG Blu-Ray/HD-DVD Combo Drive Win 7 Ult 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
Achieva Shimian Acer G235H XArmor U9BL Corsair HX1000W 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Fractal Define R3 Silver Arrow Razer Naga Ultimate Razer Goliathus Speed Edition Polk Audio RTi-A1 
AudioAudio
Dayton Audio DTA-100a Asus Xonar STX 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › WoW - How much cpu power do you need? (Answer: More than Sandy Bridge)