Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    WoW can use more than two cores!

    I am tired of pasting this into every topic, so here is a temp sticky for you! Small parts are offloaded, and quad vs dual leaves more room for your background apps to run.

    WoW on the PTR utilizes up to 3 cores if available. I would say it would be more beneficial for the quad at this point, but you want to make sure it is higher clocked. I don't have any figures to tell you if a 3.0GHz dual core would be faster than a 2.6GHz Quad utilizing 3 cores. =P
    http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...d=1&pageNo=1#1

    wow supports 3 cores i found this information via blizzard support site
    It's there somewhere? It's currently not true as of 3.2.0 and 3.3.0. We're about to do some restricting in the next patch but that's somewhere down the line.

    WoW is multithreaded. You have your main game thread that's quite hefty, a smaller but decent thread for some video-related stuff, then a bunch of small ones. They can all run on a single core processor if you wanted to. Dual cores work fine. If you wanted a quad core, more power to you. I built my siblings two dual core systems this Christmas and they're having a blast on it. Anything is better from my old college systems back from 2001-2002.
    http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...52627&sid=1#25

    World of Warcraft will offload some secondary tasks to the other cores so there may be some minor advantages.
    http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...378122&sid=1#3

    WoW uses 2 cores by default. There isn't an official third core thing where it just uses it. It *can* run additional work on other cores if you tell it to, and under certain conditions when that extra work is needed. I'm not sure if you'll get some performance gains by doing that but nothing is stopping you from trying.
    http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...88377&sid=1#17

    The game is pretty heavy on one thread (its main one). You'll see a ton of load being put on one. ProcessAffinityMask basically just lets the operating system knows that it can toss other game threads on other cores if it wants to. Stuff like networking and sound don't take a whole lot of CPU power to process so they won't show up too visually.
    http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...390131&sid=1#1

  2. #2
    High Overlord burkhartt's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    153
    this thread needs updating, or removed. not sure how to convert old wow forum links to the new ones. i tried.
    ..........gtfo for now

  3. #3
    You can't, the old topics were never converted AFAIK. The quotes are still valid though.

  4. #4
    The game is not multithreaded well. It's one of the worst examples of multithreading in games.

  5. #5






    Look at the 2100 vs the 2400.

  6. #6
    And the i3-2100 vs 1100T. The 1100T is a much faster CPU but it loses tremendously in WoW.
    In this test even 980X loses to i3-2100 and 980X is at least 150% faster.
    Last edited by haxartus; 2011-10-18 at 06:58 AM.

  7. #7
    Scarab Lord Djinni's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    West Sussex, UK
    Posts
    4,232
    Quote Originally Posted by haxartus View Post
    And the i3-2100 vs 1100T. The 1100T is a much faster CPU but it loses tremendously in WoW.
    In this test even 980X loses to i3-2100 and 980X is at least 150% faster.
    Unfortunately though like with the Tomshardware comparisons, there's no way to tell what the rest of the hardware test-bed is like.
    For all we know the amd vs intel machines could be totally different. (AMD Machine having 3gb 667MHz ram, intel having 8gb 1600Mhz, amd machine having a gtx 450 intel machine having a gtx 570.)

  8. #8
    Pit Lord Ghâzh's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    2,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinni View Post
    Unfortunately though like with the Tomshardware comparisons, there's no way to tell what the rest of the hardware test-bed is like.
    For all we know the amd vs intel machines could be totally different. (AMD Machine having 3gb 667MHz ram, intel having 8gb 1600Mhz, amd machine having a gtx 450 intel machine having a gtx 570.)
    Obviously not if you only look at the pictures of charts linked in a forum. If you, however, read the full review from where the charts were from, you'd notice that it quite clearly listed it's test hardware and setup.

    Unfortunate for you that you're so narrow-minded :>.

  9. #9
    The Lightbringer Asera's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    This side of an imaginary line in the sand
    Posts
    3,741
    2100 vs 2400 certainly shows how awful HT is for WoW, if anything.
    red panda red panda red panda!

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Asera View Post
    2100 vs 2400 certainly shows how awful HT is for WoW, if anything.
    How so? You're comparing a Dual-Core with HT to a Quad-Core without HT...

    Not to mention the i3-2100 does NOT have Turbo Boost, which the i5-2400 does.

  11. #11
    The Lightbringer Asera's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    This side of an imaginary line in the sand
    Posts
    3,741
    How so? You're comparing a Dual-Core with HT to a Quad-Core without HT...
    ....exactly.

    Not to mention the i3-2100 does NOT have Turbo Boost, which the i5-2400 does.
    There isn't anything in the notes that specify turbo being turned on for the 2400's test. In fact, the benchmark for the 2400 was done with preview SB chips without turbo support at the time, AFAIK.
    red panda red panda red panda!

  12. #12
    ...How and why are we still debating this? OP was from a year and a half ago, I thought it got settled then.
    Super casual.

  13. #13
    ... This threadtitle trolls me everytime I read it, seriously.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nellah View Post
    ...How and why are we still debating this? OP was from a year and a half ago, I thought it got settled then.
    This is a thread linked in the Sticky Index - Check Here First. Which I assume you've read, since you're posting here? *looks at Nellah over glasses*
     

  14. #14
    I'm aware, yes. That's the first place I looked to find out why this thread was showing up on the main pages, thinking "it's gotta be a sticky, no way it was necro'd from this long ago otherwise." Which was yesterday morning, and somehow this still keeps getting bumped to the top... to which I was making my reference. Thank you.

    Though I'm not sure which I find harder to believe, that people still think a game that manages one major data pool with one major thread is "poorly multithreaded" or that Tom's Hardware is still being brought up in honest discussion.
    Super casual.

  15. #15
    The Unstoppable Force DeltrusDisc's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    20,085
    Quote Originally Posted by haxartus View Post
    And the i3-2100 vs 1100T. The 1100T is a much faster CPU but it loses tremendously in WoW.
    In this test even 980X loses to i3-2100 and 980X is at least 150% faster.
    Don't forget the i3-2100 is also newer technology.... AND the i3-2100 DOES have hyper-threading....
    "A flower.
    Yes. Upon your return, I will gift you a beautiful flower."

    "Remember. Remember... that we once lived..."

    Quote Originally Posted by mmocd061d7bab8 View Post
    yeh but lava is just very hot water

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Nellah View Post
    or that Tom's Hardware is still being brought up in honest discussion.
    I know, I know. It is the only benchmark like that that I have seen so far sadly.

  17. #17
    Can someone please get all Travis up on this Old Yeller thread?
    5800X | XFX 7900XTX | Prime X570 Pro | 32GB | 990Pro + SN850 2TB | Define 7

  18. #18
    Moderator Cilraaz's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    PA, USA
    Posts
    10,139
    Quote Originally Posted by FlawlessSoul View Post
    Can someone please get all Travis up on this Old Yeller thread?
    Pay attention. It's a sticky. That's why it hasn't been killed.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Cilraaz View Post
    Pay attention. It's a sticky. That's why it hasn't been killed.
    I am fully aware of the sticky status. The topic itself is redundant given content in the Sticky Index and is outdated due to its old citation links. If you want me to get Savage Sam on it, I can, and update it. I anticipate a better critical reception, however, and a better showing at the box office.
    5800X | XFX 7900XTX | Prime X570 Pro | 32GB | 990Pro + SN850 2TB | Define 7

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by haxartus View Post
    The game is not multithreaded well. It's one of the worst examples of multithreading in games.
    Pretty much, it does use more core, just not very well. One core might be at full use while the others will be at 50% and less.
    Warrax, Fury Warrior
    Silika, BM Hunter

Posting Permissions

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