Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1
    High Overlord Ninjaturtle's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    132

    2 quick questions

    I have an i7 2600k it has hyper threading and I recalled reading somewhere that hyper threading can lower performance if a game was not built for it since using the more cores would be better. The game I had read about was BF3 but my question is how would I make the game not use hyper threading and instead just use more cores. The only other game I would wonder about is Farcry 3 if that would help with that games FPS issues. Average 45 to 60 on a mix of medium and high graphics.

    My second question is a better explanation on bottlenecking I have a NVIDIA GTX 560 SC picked it because of the many good solid reviews on it but I get the feeling from many of the posts I read that I probably should have just switched the cpu and card around on what I spent more on. Would my card end up slowing down my processor because of the gap in performance?

    Btw besides the stock over clock on the card nothing else of overclocked except for the boost mode my processor does on its own.

  2. #2
    Deleted
    HT actually gives a performance boost in BF3.
    you mostly just got a bottleneck in fps due to the entry level gaming gpu you have from a generation ago.
    overclocking either should give a performance boost , however gpu boost would have the most use.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaturtle View Post
    I have an i7 2600k

    My second question is a better explanation on bottlenecking I have a NVIDIA GTX 560 SC picked it because of the many good solid reviews on it but I get the feeling from many of the posts I read that I probably should have just switched the cpu and card around on what I spent more on. Would my card end up slowing down my processor because of the gap in performance?
    Yes, it would have been far better to get i5-2500k instead of i7-2600k and spent $100 more on graphics card but it's too late to cry about that now.

    GTX560 is only a midrange gamer card paired with rather high end processor and it's definitely your problem with any new games.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  4. #4
    Deleted
    In theory HT shouldn't reduce application performance as long as the operating system scheduler understands the difference between physical and logical processors, and schedules accordingly (which it does, unless you're using pre-historic Windows)

    HT has been around for 10 years. I think you're worrying too much about it. All these modern games you mention have been developed well into the era of logical processing and I'm quite sure developers fully understand the considerations.

  5. #5
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Zatie12 View Post
    In theory HT shouldn't reduce application performance as long as the operating system scheduler understands the difference between physical and logical processors, and schedules accordingly (which it does, unless you're using pre-historic Windows)

    HT has been around for 10 years. I think you're worrying too much about it. All these modern games you mention have been developed well into the era of logical processing and I'm quite sure developers fully understand the considerations.
    actually lots of games don't even support beyond 2 cores, let alone HT. (this is recently improving more and more though)
    however HT does not give any performance loss. (unless it is about heat production at very high level overclocks 5.0 Ghz +, still moot point)

  6. #6
    Deleted
    actually lots of games don't even support beyond 2 cores, let alone HT
    Such as? And which of these games are CPU rather than GPU limited in the modern environment?
    If you're referring to games made 6,7,8,9 years ago, then it's academic. They probably don't need more than 2 cores on a modern CPU anyway.
    Last edited by mmocabe77c30e6; 2013-03-25 at 07:42 PM.

  7. #7
    HT should give a boost in BF3 but this is only useful when you have more cards or better cards because the better GPU you get the harder the CPU's job is. For a card like a 560 you don't need to overclock the cpu it's not going to give you performance, you're better off with overclocking the gpu or buy a new gpu.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-25 at 08:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Zatie12 View Post
    Such as? And which of these games are CPU rather than GPU limited in the modern environment?
    If you're referring to games made 6,7,8,9 years ago, then it's academic. They probably don't need more than 2 cores on a modern CPU anyway.
    WoW uses 2.

  8. #8
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Zatie12 View Post
    Such as? And which of these games are CPU rather than GPU limited in the modern environment?
    If you're referring to games made 6,7,8,9 years ago, then it's academic. They probably don't need more than 2 cores on a modern CPU anyway.
    many games don't support multithreading well beyond 2 cores this is also a reason why intel is usually better for gaming. (since they provide the most power per core , instead of many weaker cores)
    as for the timeframe i'd say most of those games are <5 years old that still don't benefit from more cores due to the way dev's decided to make sloppy console ports which any decent pc can run maxed with it's eyes closed.
    it's a software problem rather then a hardware issue.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithh View Post
    WoW uses 2.
    Wrong. WoW has around 60 threads, so it can run in up to 60 cores theoretically.

    Quote Originally Posted by shroudster View Post
    many games don't support multithreading well beyond 2 cores this is also a reason why intel is usually better for gaming. (since they provide the most power per core , instead of many weaker cores)
    it's a software problem rather then a hardware issue.
    Problem is that one of those threads (the main game loop) is around 40% of whole execution time, graphics rendering thread 25% and sound thread 15% leaving around 10% for the rest. Because of this split (core1: 40%, core2: 25+15=40% and core3: 20%) it runs optimally already on two and half cores (yes, third core does improve performance notably) but it can and will use more cores than two.

    It is totally normal for each and every game without either a) heavy AI or b) heavy physics calculation that the main game loop and graphics rendering takes more than half of all processing time and those can not be splitted further because it would cause sync problems of events inside the game. Things like Crysis3 can use more cores because those are working on eyecandy fluff like physics that can be splitted to infinite number of cores.


    Numbers above are based on Cataclysm client.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by vesseblah View Post
    Wrong. WoW has around 60 threads, so it can run in up to 60 cores theoretically.
    Are you joking yourself with such a statement? Seems like you never heard about the OS multitasking handlings and nvidia's threaded optimization.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithh View Post
    Are you joking yourself with such a statement? Seems like you never heard about the OS multitasking handlings and nvidia's threaded optimization.
    Excuse me but I have no clue what the fuck you're trying to say there. Please rephrase it with more words that make sense.

    Starting from the explanation what what Nvidia's optimizations has got to do with game engine and OS running in CPU.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  12. #12
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    17,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithh View Post
    Are you joking yourself with such a statement?
    Vesseblah's answer was new to me too, though more that I never really thought about it. A quick google of "How many cores does wow use" shows very conclusive information that WoW uses many more than 3 threads, however 2-3 cores are the best performance gain. More than that is little stuff, but definitely more than 2 threads. So, yeah. Vesseblah's answer was on the mark.
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    Vesseblah's answer was new to me too, though more that I never really thought about it. A quick google of "How many cores does wow use" shows very conclusive information that WoW uses many more than 3 threads, however 2-3 cores are the best performance gain. More than that is little stuff, but definitely more than 2 threads. So, yeah. Vesseblah's answer was on the mark.
    Simple, get in the middle of SW aslong as the CPU starts to neck, stand still get your average fps, set affinity to 1 core, then 2, then 3, then 4. Conclude. I tested it awhile ago and the 3rd thread was giving a 5% performance the 4th thread complety nothing.

    A single threaded application can even use all cores if the OS divides the load over all cores, but this doesn't mean it's going to give performance.

  14. #14
    Bloodsail Admiral Killora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    BFE, Montana
    Posts
    1,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaturtle View Post
    I have an i7 2600k it has hyper threading and I recalled reading somewhere that hyper threading can lower performance if a game was not built for it since using the more cores would be better. The game I had read about was BF3 but my question is how would I make the game not use hyper threading and instead just use more cores. The only other game I would wonder about is Farcry 3 if that would help with that games FPS issues. Average 45 to 60 on a mix of medium and high graphics.
    Hyper-threading will rarely create performance decreases, it'll either do nothing, or give an increase. BF3 benefits from Hyper-threading and Far cry 3 MARGINALLY benefits from it. I wouldn't worry about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaturtle View Post
    My second question is a better explanation on bottlenecking I have a NVIDIA GTX 560 SC picked it because of the many good solid reviews on it but I get the feeling from many of the posts I read that I probably should have just switched the cpu and card around on what I spent more on. Would my card end up slowing down my processor because of the gap in performance?
    bottle necking is mostly caused when the CPU can't send enough instructions to the GPU for the GPU to run at full load. So if you have vsync on, for example, and you're running below 60 FPS (on a 60hz screen) and your GPU is less than 98 or 99% load, that's a result of your CPU being unable to send enough instructions to the GPU. The reason doesnt necessarily have to be a slow CPU, a lot of these issues are caused by poor data splicing or instruction allocation (this is from the game engine)

    So really, if your GPU is working as hard as it can, and you're getting low FPS, it's likely a result of the GPU not being powerful enough for the graphics setting you have it set at.

    So the answer to your question is no, your GPU will not slow down the CPU, only vice versa. What GPU you buy is all up to what your expectations are and your price range.

    Quote Originally Posted by chazus View Post
    Vesseblah's answer was new to me too, though more that I never really thought about it. A quick google of "How many cores does wow use" shows very conclusive information that WoW uses many more than 3 threads, however 2-3 cores are the best performance gain. More than that is little stuff, but definitely more than 2 threads. So, yeah. Vesseblah's answer was on the mark.
    His statement was correct, in that Wow could THEORETICALLY use 60 processor cores. However pretty much all of those threads have very minimal load on them (i'm talking less than .5% load.)

    The issue WoW has is the bulk of the calculations from WoW. Like particles, GPU tasking, etc. Is done on one of those threads. Sound and other menial tasks are on seprate threads. The issue has never been that WoW can't use more cores, because in theory any game made today can use an obscene amount of cores, it's that the data is not spliced properly among the threads. Which i can partially understand because it is very difficult to do. As well as the fact that WoW and many other games like it are optimized for dual core processor still, and if they spliced it too much, dual core users would have problems.

    The solution, in theory, is to create two seprate tasking sets (or more) and offer it as an option in game (kinda of like far cry 3 did) that splices the data better between threads when turned on. But again, difficult to do.

    Lastly, the reason WoW benefits ideally from 2-3 cores is because how the data is allocated as i said above. And that all the major calculations are done on the one main thread, and theres 2 seprate threads of things like sound.
    Last edited by Killora; 2013-03-25 at 10:46 PM.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithh View Post
    A single threaded application can even use all cores if the OS divides the load over all cores, but this doesn't mean it's going to give performance.
    Wrong again. OS can split applications into as many cores as the program has threads running, one or more threads per each core, not one or more cores per thread. One thread in the program means one core maximum, and that's why single threaded games like processors that have high performance per core.

    Seriously, just think about it for a second... If it was possible to split threads, any single-threaded game would run evenly even in all 16 cores of new AMD server processors. But it don't. It runs in just one core because it's just one thread.


    In normal CPUs the task scheduler spreads all threads into all cores as evenly as possible so that the CPU can run as slow as possible using all power saving techniques it has and also to make sure if some thread suddenly spikes big CPU load it will interfere with as few other threads as possible. On modern processors that can shut off unused cores for boost speed OS tries to load everything into first two cores, and if things don't fit then start using more cores one by one so that the CPU can use the boost feature. With HT and AMD's Bulldozer modules OS knows (after enough patching) that it can use only every other core for the even spread or for the boosting, and only when those first real cores are used it starts using the virtual cores.

    Unpatched Windows had a problem with AMD's Bulldozer because the task scheduler didn't know every other core was a fake one and it tried to load those sequentially like it would do with non-HT processor AMD made before.
    Last edited by vesseblah; 2013-03-26 at 12:16 AM.
    Never going to log into this garbage forum again as long as calling obvious troll obvious troll is the easiest way to get banned.
    Trolling should be.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by vesseblah View Post
    Wrong again. OS can split applications into as many cores as the program has threads running, one or more threads per each core, not one or more cores per thread. One thread in the program means one core maximum, and that's why single threaded games like processors that have high performance per core.

    Seriously, just think about it for a second... If it was possible to split threads, any single-threaded game would run evenly even in all 16 cores of new AMD server processors. But it don't. It runs in just one core because it's just one thread.
    .
    I'm not talking about how many threads inside a process. I meant if an application is written to use only 1 core, the OS can share the load over all cores. People are only interesting in effectiveness/performance, so I don't even see the point making a statement this game can use 60 cores while 2/3cores alone would do the same job.

  17. #17
    Bloodsail Admiral Killora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    BFE, Montana
    Posts
    1,105
    Quote Originally Posted by Faithh View Post
    I'm not talking about how many threads inside a process. I meant if an application is written to use only 1 core, the OS can share the load over all cores. People are only interesting in effectiveness/performance, so I don't even see the point making a statement this game can use 60 cores while 2/3cores alone would do the same job.
    Uhm, the threads you see inside the application is what dictate how many cores the game can theoretically utilize. Nothing can split one thread to run under more than one core at a time.

    Games written to use 1 core still (usually) have more than one thread.

    The point hes making is that your statement in saying that WoW only uses 2 cores is wrong. And that your statement about one thread being shared among multiple cores is, also, wrong.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Killora View Post
    Uhm, the threads you see inside the application is what dictate how many cores the game can theoretically utilize. Nothing can split one thread to run under more than one core at a time.

    Games written to use 1 core still (usually) have more than one thread.

    The point hes making is that your statement in saying that WoW only uses 2 cores is wrong. And that your statement about one thread being shared among multiple cores is, also, wrong.
    Read again just, I don't have to keep repeating stuff and you shouldn't do either.

  19. #19
    I am Murloc! Cyanotical's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,553
    IDK about 60 threads, but it seems right, give or take a few depending on addons, wow has 2 major threads, 1 not as major thread and a bunch of minor ones

    the code that shows your health is a thread, your mana bar is another and so on, but these are so minor that they would be better described as methods, but since the code is already compiled, 'thread' is closer to correct

    as for HT, you can practically count a hyperthread as another core, the efficiency of them is high enough and considering how few applications need physical cores its pointless to consider them otherwise

    as for games that are negatively impacted by hyperthreading, i can't think of any off the top of my head, which means it's not enough to care about

    as for bottlenecking, it's a bad term, balancing is better, try to think of your computer as a table, with your CPU being a leg, your GPU being another, RAM a third, etc,
    optimal performance is keeping a ball on the center of the table, if any one of the legs are too short, the table is not level and the ball rolls off the side

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyanotical View Post

    as for games that are negatively impacted by hyperthreading, i can't think of any off the top of my head, which means it's not enough to care about
    Some people were disabling HT because they were having stuttering issues in BF3 but I never had to, possibly I started to play that game after a halfyear later since the release. Some benchmarks were proving an i7 was scoring less with 1 fps than an i5, so where do you have to point it out? HT.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •