Jump to content
ZeeAa

Extremely poor performance on multicore system

4 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
18 posts
963 battles

I have an rather old dual socket workstation, previously with two xeon 5160 CPUs. They are equal to dual core C2D E6850 3.00 GHz, just xeon branded and support two socket systems. And radeon R9 270 for graphics, on Windows 10.

 

The game ran really great, I was really suprised specially comparing the game to WoT. With little fine tuning the graphics card was well utilized and the FPS was going between 40-60 FPS, limited to 60 by vertical sync. I noticed that the game was running between 50%-60% CPU utilisation, on this system with two dual core CPUs. Very nice.

 

Then I upgraded the CPUs to xeon E5345's. These are quad cores with lower clock speed 2.33 GHz, nearly equal to quad core C2Q Q6600. Because of lower speed per core, the performance should drop a bit of course.

 

But instead, it sank right into the bottom. Now I noticed, the game uses all these cores, with CPU utilisation of 70-90%, but because of it, it's very slow. GPU utilisation is about 10-15% when playing, FPS counter is also very erratic because every second it makes huge jumps, but the average is really slow, maybe between 5-15 FPS. Sometimes, the game itself takes two minutes to load even into the opening login screen. Sometimes, it loads normally. Usually, when I try to fight, I might be able to see the battle after 1-2 minute delay. Prior, I usually had no or maybe max. 10 second delay. Sometimes the game runs so I can play but often it runs so slow, it's not playable. Also mosts of the sounds break up, they "rattle" as the CPU is so taxed out.

 

I think this is related to the game running on too many threads. The CPU is running in kernel mode nearly all the time. See attached graph from process explorer, similiar to task manager. The red is drawing CPU usage in kernel mode. That's very abnormal, normally if a game would utilize maybe like 50% of CPU time, then maybe 5-15% would be kernel mode execution.

 

And let me rephrase, installing the quads which are about 20% slower per clock, it's excepted to see a fall in performance when software can't take advantage of extra cores, but this is way beond the fall, as the game uses more CPU time than was previsouly even available.

 

Also, when the game is in background, that is, I'm running it full screen and when I switch into Windows, the game still takes nearly all CPU time. Other games like WoT doesn't do that and I'm pretty sure this game didn't do that either when I had the dual cores, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Somehow this game really doesn't like 8 cores, at least not when they are as slow as mine. Compared to AMD FX 8 cores, this computer would roughly would equal to 8 core AMD FX model close to 2.50 GHz.

 

I also noticed some other weirness probably related to this. I'm playing in 1920x1080 resolution. Pretty much all  games use 900-1400 MB of graphics mem on that resolution. I don't rememeber what this game used with dual core CPUs because like I said, it ran great before so I didn't bother to see, but now, it used only 500-600 MB. I also tried to turn down the details, but that was obviously no help as the game somehow internally can't handle so many cores.


I've been trying all sorts of tricks to make the game playable but in it's current state, I can't really play. I don't have a lot of games installed but World of Warships seems to be alone from suffering this configuration like this.

 

 

 

 BtLQH1D.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
18 posts
963 battles

It would be nice if this would be fixed. I've tried to play as is it but it's unplayable for me. Like I said, I have two core 2 based quad cores @2.33 GHz, and as seen above screenshot, the game uses them all about 70-90% load, but they are not executing anything since the game in practically running standstill and GPU usage is about 10%-30%. Must be some major thread concurrency problem. Even when limiting the game to run only on 2 or 4 cores, it will not help at all.

 

Since my computer is fairly comparable to AMD FX-8 series, I find it little odd that others with such computers haven't stumbled on this. Maybe in install phase the game makes some fixed settings and then it breaks down after I upgraded to quad core CPUs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6 posts
157 battles

Even on low settings you find this game unplayable? I also doubt that your Xeon E5345's are comparable to the AMD FX-8 series. Instead they are closer to AMD FX 4100+/Intel Core i3 mobileIn general, it was not really an upgrade for video games as you have already noticed. Basically, it is a downgrade for everything else except for web server hosting/virtualization. 

 

A higher clocked CPU always performs better in games, unless we are comparing a single core vs a dual core system.  A 20% decrease of the CPU clock rate will not decrease the overall performance only by 20%, it can be a lot higher than that. Simply put, WoW may need more raw CPU power than what you are offering even if you have 8 or 100 cores in your system. Fixing this means rewriting the game from the start so that it can support lower end systems.

 

In my opinion, your CPU configuration is your bottleneck, which may not be noticeable in other games/applications that are not so CPU intensive. 

Edited by javavall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SAP]
Players
216 posts
2,054 battles

i think... it used to be a problem for programs, games and even systems when you changed number of cores. I think you should try clean instal windows and there install WoWs. Since DX12 isnt on the sceene yet, the game will keep lot of CPU stressed and it is true what javavall said, that it could be your bottleneck. i however would suspect the system / game instaled for 2 cores and now having 4. system could redistribute power in wrong way, game requesting something and system rerouting it. 

 

by the way, does any of you know if WoWs will utilize DX12? - that would be one nice feat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×