Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    In talking about FPS and "how many can you see", I wanted to point out that the focus shouldn't be "high" fps, since once you get past your monitor's framerate, anything higher is just a waste. What is more important in being able to play is:

    a) High "enough" fps so that the game is smooth. This is NOT the same as if the eye can detect a higher framerate.
    b) Consistent framerate.

    In order to achieve both, using the video->advanced->max foreground FPS setting can help make play better. This option doesn't print the actual fps that you are setting it to (a bug) but it does work. Setting to 30 fps for me makes the game very very playable, reduces the load and heat on my computer (when the cpu gets hot, framerate suffers), and allows me to set higher levels of graphic quality while still maintaining a consistent framerate and thus playability.

  2. #62
    1. if you have dual core processor without HT don't bother changing anything because it will not help.

    2. Representation of Cores:
    Cores are numerated like this Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4
    HyperThreading indeed makes somewhat a Virtual Cores of you existing Cores but remember that it's only virtual (this virtual core adds something like 30% performance boost to this core)

    so if you have a 4 core processor you should list your Cores in the following way:
    Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4
    if you have a 3 core processor:
    Core1, Core2, Core3
    8 core processor:
    Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4, Core5, Core6, Core7, Core8
    and so on...

    now if you want wow to run on a selected core and not on other core you simply make a string of 0(zeros) and 1(ones)

    for example i have 4 core processor without HT
    and i want to run wow on all 4 cores
    Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4
    1 1 1 1

    so my output string will be: 1111

    if i want wow to run on Core2 and Core3 only
    Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4
    0 1 1 0

    so my output string will be: 0110

    if i want wow to run on Core2 and Core4 only
    Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4
    0 1 0 1

    so my output string will be: 0101

    now if i would have a 4 core processor with HT that would mean that i theoretically will have twice as much cores as i have( 4x2=8 )

    so what does it mean? that means that instead of my "Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4"
    i will have:
    Core1, Core1Virtual, Core2, Core2Virtual, Core3, Core3Virtual, Core4, Core4Virtual

    now if i want wow to run on Core2 and Core4 and Core4Virtual only
    Core1, Core1Virtual, Core2, Core2Virtual, Core3, Core3Virtual, Core4, Core4Virtual
    0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

    so my output string will be: 00100011

    ok now we want to set wow to run on those cores by using

    SET processAffinityMask "x"

    the only thing we need is this magical number

    HOWTO:
    if we want to set wow on the cores from the last example we had our output string: 00100011
    now we need to rewrite it in a reverse order! so 11000100

    this is a binary representation of number that we want to insert instead of x ( in the SET processAffinityMask "x" )

    the x is a decimal representation of our 11000100(which is binary) so we need to change our binary 11000100 into a decimal number
    easiest way is to use windows calc and turn it into programmer mode or something like that in View menu(sorry i don't have english windows )
    basically there will be a selection of HEX, DEC, OCT, BIN

    we need to select BIN and paste our 11000100 into it and then select DEC that gave me 196
    so our x is 196 -> SET processAffinityMask "196"


    now examples which i suggest to set

    4 core processor without HT:
    Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4
    0 1 1 1

    output string: 0111
    reverse: 1110
    decimal: 14
    SET processAffinityMask "14"

    4 core processor with HT:
    Core1, Core1V, Core2, Core2V, Core3, Core3V, Core4, Core4V
    0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

    output string: 00101010
    reverse: 01010100 (we can skip leading zero) so 1010100
    decimal: 84
    SET processAffinityMask "84"

    OR

    Core1, Core1V, Core2, Core2V, Core3, Core3V, Core4, Core4V
    0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

    output string: 00111111
    reverse: 11111100
    decimal: 252
    SET processAffinityMask "252"

    With 8 cores i strongly suggest using last 4-6 cores




    about 2 cores: SET processAffinityMask "3"
    about 2 cores with HT: SET processAffinityMask "15"

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by ihaz View Post
    1. if you have dual core processor without HT don't bother changing anything because it will not help.

    2. Representation of Cores:
    Cores are numerated like this Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4
    HyperThreading indeed makes somewhat a Virtual Cores of you existing Cores but remember that it's only virtual (this virtual core adds something like 30% performance boost to this core)

    so if you have a 4 core processor you should list your Cores in the following way:
    Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4
    if you have a 3 core processor:
    Core1, Core2, Core3
    8 core processor:
    Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4, Core5, Core6, Core7, Core8
    and so on...

    now if you want wow to run on a selected core and not on other core you simply make a string of 0(zeros) and 1(ones)

    for example i have 4 core processor without HT
    and i want to run wow on all 4 cores
    Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4
    1 1 1 1

    so my output string will be: 1111

    if i want wow to run on Core2 and Core3 only
    Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4
    0 1 1 0

    so my output string will be: 0110

    if i want wow to run on Core2 and Core4 only
    Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4
    0 1 0 1

    so my output string will be: 0101

    now if i would have a 4 core processor with HT that would mean that i theoretically will have twice as much cores as i have( 4x2=8 )

    so what does it mean? that means that instead of my "Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4"
    i will have:
    Core1, Core1Virtual, Core2, Core2Virtual, Core3, Core3Virtual, Core4, Core4Virtual

    now if i want wow to run on Core2 and Core4 and Core4Virtual only
    Core1, Core1Virtual, Core2, Core2Virtual, Core3, Core3Virtual, Core4, Core4Virtual
    0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

    so my output string will be: 00100011

    ok now we want to set wow to run on those cores by using

    SET processAffinityMask "x"

    the only thing we need is this magical number

    HOWTO:
    if we want to set wow on the cores from the last example we had our output string: 00100011
    now we need to rewrite it in a reverse order! so 11000100

    this is a binary representation of number that we want to insert instead of x ( in the SET processAffinityMask "x" )

    the x is a decimal representation of our 11000100(which is binary) so we need to change our binary 11000100 into a decimal number
    easiest way is to use windows calc and turn it into programmer mode or something like that in View menu(sorry i don't have english windows )
    basically there will be a selection of HEX, DEC, OCT, BIN

    we need to select BIN and paste our 11000100 into it and then select DEC that gave me 196
    so our x is 196 -> SET processAffinityMask "196"


    now examples which i suggest to set

    4 core processor without HT:
    Core1, Core2, Core3, Core4
    0 1 1 1

    output string: 0111
    reverse: 1110
    decimal: 14
    SET processAffinityMask "14"

    4 core processor with HT:
    Core1, Core1V, Core2, Core2V, Core3, Core3V, Core4, Core4V
    0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

    output string: 00101010
    reverse: 01010100 (we can skip leading zero) so 1010100
    decimal: 84
    SET processAffinityMask "84"

    OR

    Core1, Core1V, Core2, Core2V, Core3, Core3V, Core4, Core4V
    0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

    output string: 00111111
    reverse: 11111100
    decimal: 252
    SET processAffinityMask "252"

    With 8 cores i strongly suggest using last 4-6 cores




    about 2 cores: SET processAffinityMask "3"
    about 2 cores with HT: SET processAffinityMask "15"
    That is exactly right...

    I didnt go into as much detail as you with explanation because to most people half of what you said would make no sense.

    But that is a good explanation from a nerdy perspective lol.

    I reversed the cores for some reason in my diagram in my OP, when I had them previously correct. Should really be adjusted.

    Most people are concerned in the mask numbers and not the actual explanation, but it definitely is something I personally find interesting.

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 05:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by ChexMix View Post
    Just what I needed to know, I will be using 84. I'm at work, so you are saying the config file all we have to change is the CVAR to 84 or do we have to include the binary stuff?
    no binary stuff its just one single number that needs to be changed.

    very simple stuff if all you are going to do is change the mask value..

    the lag tweaks are a bit more in depth. But even those are easy if you use the leatrix utility.

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 05:15 PM ----------

    Just wanted to add an additonal note in bold here since I cant edit the Op..

    A lot of people have asked me about the mask value for hexcore, I also had a few requests concercing the new 6core HT i7 processors.

    So please see the below numbers:

    AMD hexcore: mask value = 56 (cores 4/5/6)
    I7 hexcore ( with hyperthreading) = 1344 (this will force it over logical cores 4/5/6)

  4. #64
    Is it possible WoW does these things itself?
    I did not notice any change in the Task Manager after putting the code in.

  5. #65
    how do i open the wtf file?? what do i use

  6. #66
    High Overlord
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by strunker View Post
    What graphics card are you using?

    Is it okay if you remove the dx11 line?

    Can you go to start / run / dxdiag and post a screen shot of what you see in that config utility.

    thanks
    Im using a GeForce GTS 250. Yes, when I remove the line the water comes back, even @ ultra settings.



    Sorry it's in swedish but I hope you can make out what you need to know.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by strunker View Post

    And yes there is no tcpack in vista/7, perhaps I should have specified that in the post.

    However, there is TCPnodelay.

    Tcpnodelay is directly related to the Nagle algorithm, and disabling Nagle is still a huge huge decrease in MS latency. I highly recommend everyone does it manually, or use the Leatrix tool from wowinterface.com
    First of all thanks for the guide. It contains a lot of useful information.
    I do have a few concerns.

    In the above quote you state that Leatrix will disable Nagle. This is not true. If you download the vb scripts and install them and then check for the tcpnodelay keys, they do not exist nor get added. Also see the below quote from Leatrix FAQ

    Blizzard already disabled nagling in World of Warcraft. Isn't this the same thing?
    This is a common misconception but the answer is no. Blizzard disabled nagling at the application level (effectively integrating the TCPNoDelay function into the game client) way back in patch 2.3.2.

    Leatrix Latency Fix disables delayed acknowledgements at the Windows level (by modifying TcpAckFrequency). They're two different things.
    If you want to disable Nagle, you will need to do it by hand. The part he spews about the client handling it.. I don't know, and certainly do not know if windows will honor that in the stack.

    As far as there being no TCPack in windows 7, can you site some sources. I agree the reg keys are not there by default but it appeared by my testing that setting them in Win 7 x64 does have a profound affect on latency with WoW. So I would argue that it indeed is affecting something.

    Lastly you may want to look at auto tuning for Vista / Win 7 and add some information about it to the guide. You can find some info about it at the below link.

    http://www.stoufis.gr/blog/topics/709

    the 2 commands I use on my wow box are the follownig

    netsh interface tcp set global autotuning=disabled
    netsh interface tcp set heuristics disabled


    Thanks.

  8. #68
    first of all, thank you for this great guide. i can't test it right now, but i can change my config file in remote desktop can't wait to come back home eh eh. Anyway, i found no information regarding disabled HT. have a core i7, but deactivated the native HT to get the full power of my 4 cores. So effectively, i see 4 cores in task manager. Now, does it mean that i must use the value 14 as with quad-no-HT? i would guess so, but just to be sure you know.

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 01:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Tataboutlamine View Post
    deactivated the native HT to get the full power of my 4 cores.
    hum, wow. kept reading on the subject and apparently deactivating HT on i7s is actually a real loss in performance. why did i ever do that...

    guess i know what i'll have to do first.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by BoMB1st View Post
    how do i open the wtf file?? what do i use
    right click/ open with notepad says it right at the top of the original post.

  10. #70
    Stood in the Fire Plasmon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Azioth View Post
    I'm a bit confused... Here you said to set for an I5 w/o HT to 15, but on wowwiki says 15 to use all the cores and 7 to optimal?
    Which one should i use?
    I just want to isolate this because point because people keep mentioning "15". With 4 cores and no hyperthreading, you should use "14" to utilize only cores 2, 3, and 4. If you use "15" then you are using all 4 cores, which is exactly what blizzard has set by default already so you'll see no gain. You want to remove the first core from WoW because windows and other background programs are competing on that core for processing time. Use "14" to remove core 1, which means all of WoW operations are directed to cores that are largely open and have little competing processes.
    If you want to read more details about how to arise at that number, see my post about it, post #19.

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 01:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Tataboutlamine View Post
    ...hum, wow. kept reading on the subject and apparently deactivating HT on i7s is actually a real loss in performance. why did i ever do that...

    guess i know what i'll have to do first.
    If that's the case then use the value 252 instead of 84. By using 252 you are selecting 6 of your 8 possible threads, and the two that have been removed are "Core 1" and "Core 1 Virtual". There's clear logic that 84 will out-perform 255 (all 8 threads) and strunker has verified this with his own testing. However, I was a bit skeptical that 84 would outperform 252 and it doesn't seem like anyone has tested 252 yet. It isn't likely to be very different from 84, but we don't know yet if it's a bit higher or a bit lower.

    The details to arise at those numbers are explained in the first few posts if your looking for some background info.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Kalix View Post
    Im using a GeForce GTS 250. Yes, when I remove the line the water comes back, even @ ultra settings.



    Sorry it's in swedish but I hope you can make out what you need to know.
    That is very very strange.

    GTS 250's do not support directx10 as far as I know.


    Even though its installed on your operating system, there is backwards compatibility with the card. This is why you are more than likely running into the issue.

    Something relating to the water effects is probably being enabled in dx11 mode and since your card cannot render dx11 graphics the water just disappears.

    Upgrade your card. I just brought two gtx460's each cost ~200 dollars. I run them in SLI, which is way over kill for wow. You would be fine with just one.

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 06:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Plasmon View Post
    I just want to isolate this because point because people keep mentioning "15". With 4 cores and no hyperthreading, you should use "14" to utilize only cores 2, 3, and 4. If you use "15" then you are using all 4 cores, which is exactly what blizzard has set by default already so you'll see no gain. You want to remove the first core from WoW because windows and other background programs are competing on that core for processing time. Use "14" to remove core 1, which means all of WoW operations are directed to cores that are largely open and have little competing processes.
    If you want to read more details about how to arise at that number, see my post about it, post #19.

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 01:51 PM ----------


    If that's the case then use the value 252 instead of 84. By using 252 you are selecting 6 of your 8 possible threads, and the two that have been removed are "Core 1" and "Core 1 Virtual". There's clear logic that 84 will out-perform 255 (all 8 threads) and strunker has verified this with his own testing. However, I was a bit skeptical that 84 would outperform 252 and it doesn't seem like anyone has tested 252 yet. It isn't likely to be very different from 84, but we don't know yet if it's a bit higher or a bit lower.

    The details to arise at those numbers are explained in the first few posts if your looking for some background info.
    I have yet to test 252, since our conversation the other day.

    Been massively busy with real life this past week. HAvent had time to do much of anything really, even play.

    I will give it a try soon I promise.

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 06:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Xayla View Post
    First of all thanks for the guide. It contains a lot of useful information.
    I do have a few concerns.

    In the above quote you state that Leatrix will disable Nagle. This is not true. If you download the vb scripts and install them and then check for the tcpnodelay keys, they do not exist nor get added. Also see the below quote from Leatrix FAQ



    If you want to disable Nagle, you will need to do it by hand. The part he spews about the client handling it.. I don't know, and certainly do not know if windows will honor that in the stack.

    As far as there being no TCPack in windows 7, can you site some sources. I agree the reg keys are not there by default but it appeared by my testing that setting them in Win 7 x64 does have a profound affect on latency with WoW. So I would argue that it indeed is affecting something.

    Lastly you may want to look at auto tuning for Vista / Win 7 and add some information about it to the guide. You can find some info about it at the below link.

    http://www.stoufis.gr/blog/topics/709

    the 2 commands I use on my wow box are the follownig

    netsh interface tcp set global autotuning=disabled
    netsh interface tcp set heuristics disabled


    Thanks.
    I had created a .bat file for vista/7 which did all the netsh hacks lol..

    BUT unfortunately, it has been lost with time. I had it hosted somewhere, and now it isnt there. That is a good suggestion and one I would likely add to the guide, IF I COULD ACTUALLY EDIT IT!! RAWR

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 07:01 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Xayla View Post
    First of all thanks for the guide. It contains a lot of useful information.
    I do have a few concerns.

    In the above quote you state that Leatrix will disable Nagle. This is not true. If you download the vb scripts and install them and then check for the tcpnodelay keys, they do not exist nor get added. Also see the below quote from Leatrix FAQ



    If you want to disable Nagle, you will need to do it by hand. The part he spews about the client handling it.. I don't know, and certainly do not know if windows will honor that in the stack.

    As far as there being no TCPack in windows 7, can you site some sources. I agree the reg keys are not there by default but it appeared by my testing that setting them in Win 7 x64 does have a profound affect on latency with WoW. So I would argue that it indeed is affecting something.

    Lastly you may want to look at auto tuning for Vista / Win 7 and add some information about it to the guide. You can find some info about it at the below link.

    http://www.stoufis.gr/blog/topics/709

    the 2 commands I use on my wow box are the follownig

    netsh interface tcp set global autotuning=disabled
    netsh interface tcp set heuristics disabled


    Thanks.
    For this reason, TCP implementations usually provide applications with an interface to disable the Nagle algorithm. This is typically called the TCP_NODELAY option.

    tcp no delay is the nagle algorithm which is what the vb scripts work to disable, as well as the reg tweaks that I incorporated into the OP.

    You are however correct:


    ' Attempt to apply latency fix
    For Each subkey In arrSubKeys
    err = oReg.SetDwordValue (HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE,strKeyPath & subkey,"TcpAckFrequency","1")


    That is the only thing leatrix does in his fix. So he doesnt mess with tcp no delay at all. I thought he had that in there.

    Interesting. That is something I would also likely add to the guide is that tcp_nodelay must be done manually for full latency reduction.

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 07:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalix View Post
    Im using a GeForce GTS 250. Yes, when I remove the line the water comes back, even @ ultra settings.



    Sorry it's in swedish but I hope you can make out what you need to know.
    I already responded to your post, but I responded incorrectly.

    I said that the card does not support directx10, what I meant to say is that it doesnt support dx11.

    Due to the fact it doesnt support dx11, any graphics in game that call upon api's that are part of dx11 will not render.

    This is more than likely the reason the water is not showing up properly for you.

    Time to upgrade your card lol

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 07:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Tataboutlamine View Post
    first of all, thank you for this great guide. i can't test it right now, but i can change my config file in remote desktop can't wait to come back home eh eh. Anyway, i found no information regarding disabled HT. have a core i7, but deactivated the native HT to get the full power of my 4 cores. So effectively, i see 4 cores in task manager. Now, does it mean that i must use the value 14 as with quad-no-HT? i would guess so, but just to be sure you know.

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 01:19 PM ----------



    hum, wow. kept reading on the subject and apparently deactivating HT on i7s is actually a real loss in performance. why did i ever do that...

    guess i know what i'll have to do first.
    lol I have no idea why you would do that. But yeah. Definitely switch them back on lol.

  12. #72
    Ok... so left is by default, right SET processAffinityMask "84", doesn't seem to change many things...



    Uploaded with ImageShack.us

    Otherwise, it seems to increse cpu 1 usage which is what I want to avoid.

  13. #73
    theres no DX10 mode?
    Azeroth and Kalimdor and Northrend and Outland

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by inyu View Post
    Ok... so left is by default, right SET processAffinityMask "84", doesn't seem to change many things...



    Uploaded with ImageShack.us

    Otherwise, it seems to increse cpu 1 usage which is what I want to avoid.
    Likely due to the fact you do not want to be using 84..

    84 is only for i7s with HT. The way I know you do not have this, is because if you did, there would be 8 cores detected as opposed to 4.

    So, if you post what processor type you have. Myself, or someone else from the thread, can likely tell you the proper value to input.

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 07:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Seriousdoom View Post
    theres no DX10 mode?
    How do you mean?

    Wow officially supports dx9/10 natively.

    They added experiemental support for dx11 with the cata release.

    You need to have an operating system which supports dx11, as well as a graphics card that supports it in order to enable this mode and take advantage of the added benefit.

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 07:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Plasmon View Post
    I just want to isolate this because point because people keep mentioning "15". With 4 cores and no hyperthreading, you should use "14" to utilize only cores 2, 3, and 4. If you use "15" then you are using all 4 cores, which is exactly what blizzard has set by default already so you'll see no gain. You want to remove the first core from WoW because windows and other background programs are competing on that core for processing time. Use "14" to remove core 1, which means all of WoW operations are directed to cores that are largely open and have little competing processes.
    If you want to read more details about how to arise at that number, see my post about it, post #19.

    ---------- Post added 2011-01-18 at 01:51 PM ----------


    If that's the case then use the value 252 instead of 84. By using 252 you are selecting 6 of your 8 possible threads, and the two that have been removed are "Core 1" and "Core 1 Virtual". There's clear logic that 84 will out-perform 255 (all 8 threads) and strunker has verified this with his own testing. However, I was a bit skeptical that 84 would outperform 252 and it doesn't seem like anyone has tested 252 yet. It isn't likely to be very different from 84, but we don't know yet if it's a bit higher or a bit lower.

    The details to arise at those numbers are explained in the first few posts if your looking for some background info.
    14 would be correct. Likely an oversight on my end.

    c0 c1 c2 c3
    1 2 4 8 = 14 for cores 2/3/4

    I sent a private message to the guy who posts all the front page updates asking if I could have rights to edit the OP.

    Hopefully they are somehow granted.

  15. #75
    Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'll ask anyway.

    It was said in the beginning of the thread that WoW used to run on only two cores but now runs on three. Yet, I've seen many references throughout the post about how by default, WoW will run across all cores and can be forced to run on all cores with some of the values presented. So which is it? Does it only really need three or does it have the capacity to run across as many cores as you have now?

    Also, I'm using Windows 7 and wanted to see just how much my applications were relying on the first core (I run a quad core with no HT, btw). I opened a variety of different programs and noticed that the load seemed to be spread across all four of my cores for every one. Does anyone have any insight as to how Windows 7 manages how programs are run across multiple cores? Without knowing any better, it would appear to me that the OS figures out the most optimal spread without the need for the user to specify cores.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by strunker View Post
    lol I have no idea why you would do that. But yeah. Definitely switch them back on lol.
    well actually, older OS like XP and even worse, vista, handled HT badly in games. something to do with the scheduler and directx. sure, HT remains an improvement for anything multithreaded, like archive compression/decompression and video editing to name some, but it was actually not doing much for gaming, and made it worse instead. W7 is apparently a lot smarter, and the i7 HT is nothing like the old p4 HT (which i've just recently learned). The net result is that today's gaming doesn't really see any difference, maybe a couple % in performance decrease for games that handle HT badly. Its probably the reason why i had disabled it in the first place.

    DX11 supposely takes HT into account and greatly optimise graphical processing when using virtual cores which is probably why people are seeing fps boosts when enabling DX11 AND HT.

    Conclusion : i will re-enable my HT and shop for a DX11 card.

    oh and 84... just to stay on topic

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Kodoku View Post
    Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'll ask anyway.

    It was said in the beginning of the thread that WoW used to run on only two cores but now runs on three. Yet, I've seen many references throughout the post about how by default, WoW will run across all cores and can be forced to run on all cores with some of the values presented. So which is it? Does it only really need three or does it have the capacity to run across as many cores as you have now?

    Also, I'm using Windows 7 and wanted to see just how much my applications were relying on the first core (I run a quad core with no HT, btw). I opened a variety of different programs and noticed that the load seemed to be spread across all four of my cores for every one. Does anyone have any insight as to how Windows 7 manages how programs are run across multiple cores? Without knowing any better, it would appear to me that the OS figures out the most optimal spread without the need for the user to specify cores.
    There is currently only support for up to 3 cores.

    What the other people i here were likely referring to is setting the affinity mask value to a number that will also incorporate the virtual cores in with the logical (non virtual cores).

    Truth is that, and testing shows, that only 3 cores max will be used. This is why you dont really notice a difference between setting the value to say 84 which utilizes logical cores 2/3/4 and setting it to 255, which would use cores 1/2/3/4 a long with all the virtual cores.

    Not really sure how else to explain that more clearly, but setting any application not just wow to run over virtual cores is not recommended. This is why we attempt, via affinity mask, to force it to run strictly over logical cores, and by inputting the proper mask number we can tell it which of the logical cores we want it to run over.

    Hopefully that clears it up for you.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by strunker View Post
    There is currently only support for up to 3 cores.

    What the other people i here were likely referring to is setting the affinity mask value to a number that will also incorporate the virtual cores in with the logical (non virtual cores).

    Truth is that, and testing shows, that only 3 cores max will be used. This is why you dont really notice a difference between setting the value to say 84 which utilizes logical cores 2/3/4 and setting it to 255, which would use cores 1/2/3/4 a long with all the virtual cores.

    Not really sure how else to explain that more clearly, but setting any application not just wow to run over virtual cores is not recommended. This is why we attempt, via affinity mask, to force it to run strictly over logical cores, and by inputting the proper mask number we can tell it which of the logical cores we want it to run over.

    Hopefully that clears it up for you.
    I understand what you mean. I also gather that the largest benefit of this tweak will be seen by people with HT processors. In my case, since nothing on my system seems to be overly relying on the first core, delegating WoW to cores 2, 3, and 4 doesn't really do much for me. And since I don't have an HT processor myself, I'd do just as well to leave my settings as they are.

  19. #79
    What would the affinity setting be for an Athlon II x3 with 4th core unlocked to a Phenom II quad core

  20. #80
    Blademaster GreyFoxIndy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    29
    What setting for AMD Phenom 9950 Quad-Core. I set it to 80, I didn't really see any changes.

Posting Permissions

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