Lack of Fps on a new build in WoW

[DSRilk]

Another thing that can make a difference is heat. Some mobos are set to clock down the CPU to avoid overheating.

[Noctifer616]

Another thing that can make a difference is heat. Some mobos are set to clock down the CPU to avoid overheating.

OP says he is getting 45C max, which is quite good and not even close to overheating.

Also, that remind me, make sure you have all settings in Windows set to max performance, not power savings. It's possible your CPU could downclock during WoW because of the power settings (wouldn't be the first time someone had an issue with it).

[Sinyc]

WoW can't even scale up to 8 cores, hence why it has such terrible performance on AMD CPU's.

That is more of an issue with AMD sucking at single threaded tasks, unlike Intel.

Cooler and cpu wise im running a AsRock Z77 Extreme4 motherboard and a Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO instead of the stock cooler. I'm just curious how far I should Oc since I don't want push temps too high

You should be able to hit 4-4.2GHz on that cooler. If you want to push for 4.5, then you might want to look into a water cooling solution. Although the extra 300MHz might not be worth the cost of upgrading your cooler.

Would an i7 really make a big difference in WoW compared to a same clocked i5? Would the performance gain even justify the higher price?

And yes, with less visual clutter in WoD, raid performance on weaker CPU should increase.

No, since WoW won't use more than 4 cores an i7 is just a waste. Unless you play other games/do other things on your PC that would require > 4 cores.

[Noctifer616]

That is more of an issue with AMD sucking at single threaded tasks, unlike Intel.

Wouldn't you say it's the issue of the software industry not making applications that take advantage of the higher number of cores?

I mean, the first multy core CPU was released like 10 years ago, and MS will bring out it's first truly multythreaded API late next year.

[Tarien]

WoW supports multiple cores actually.

Wow supports multiple cores

Is there an echo in here? Or are we going to continue to split hairs on the current industry status on multicore/thread support?

A newer i7 with higher per core performance and lower thermals would do wonders for performance, especially if you're overclocking.

I might be wrong, but fairly sure that the Sandy Bridge series actually have better thermals than the later Ivy Bridge and Haswell/Broadwell generations. Pretty sure I read that someplace, the i5 2500k is still easier to OC than later CPUs because it generates less heat.

I only mention this because its probably valuable for the OP to know his CPU should overclock a little easier than later gen CPUs that really only offer small gains (when buying similar models ie 3570k, 4670k).

[Sinyc]

Wouldn't you say it's the issue of the software industry not making applications that take advantage of the higher number of cores?

I mean, the first multy core CPU was released like 10 years ago, and MS will bring out it's first truly multythreaded API late next year.

Sort of. There are a lot of applications that can take advantage of multiple cores, but its not exactly easy to write a program to EFFECTIVELY utilize all those cores. (Could also just be developer laziness)

Saying your game utilizes 8 cores, but does so in an inefficient manner is meaningless.

I might be wrong, but fairly sure that the Sandy Bridge series actually have better thermals than the later Ivy Bridge and Haswell/Broadwell generations. Pretty sure I read that someplace, the i5 2500k is still easier to OC than later CPUs because it generates less heat.

I only mention this because its probably valuable for the OP to know his CPU should overclock a little easier than later gen CPUs that really only offer small gains (when buying similar models ie 3570k, 4670k).

You are correct, Sandy Bridge is probably the most OC friendly line of i5/i7s to date. Alot of people push their 2500k/2700k to 4.5 with ease.

My 4670k cries when trying to get 4.3GHz on a water cooler. And the heat... oh the HEAT! (thinking of de-lidding, but not 100% sure yet)

[DSRilk]

OP says he is getting 45C max, which is quite good and not even close to overheating.

Also, that remind me, make sure you have all settings in Windows set to max performance, not power savings. It's possible your CPU could downclock during WoW because of the power settings (wouldn't be the first time someone had an issue with it).

Is he measuring it during game play? I get 38C in the bios, but can hit well over 50 during game play. Also, it may stay lower due to automated downclocking. May not be an issue at all; just tossing out another possibility to investigate.

[Arbiter]

You should be able to hit 4-4.2GHz on that cooler. If you want to push for 4.5, then you might want to look into a water cooling solution. Although the extra 300MHz might not be worth the cost of upgrading your cooler.

4.5Ghz is actually a pretty easily achievable clock for a Sandy Bridge processor with that cooler. I have the same cooler with a 2500k running at 4.5Ghz. Temp are around 50C under regular gaming load (70-80C during stress tests). I've even gotten it stable at 4.8Ghz on that cooler. It's just a matter of not wanting the voltages and temps anywhere close to it's max safe voltage/max safe temp.

[Deleted]

WoW supports multiple cores actually.

Actually, it doesn't.
WoW supports 2 cores at most, the other 2 or 6 are basically idle. The game is simply not optimized for multicore machines and a crappy dual core CPU clocked at 4.5GHz would give better results than a high end i5 or i7 clocked at 3.8GHz (for example).
You don't believe me? Do your own test. Remove the frame cap from the settings, let WoW run at max FPS/quality. Open Task Manager, watch the CPU usage. Open GPU-Z, watch GPU usage.
If you have a good machine, the GPU would run at 50-60% at most while the CPU would be:
a) Dual core: Around 100% on both cores.
b) Quad core (i3 or i5): Around 50% on all cores.
c) Octa core (i7): Around 25-30% on all cores.

This is because WoW itself uses 2 cores but the OS splits the load between all available cores.

I have 2x7950 in CF and i7-960. WoW runs at 30 fps at most at 1680x1050 resolution. GPUs are basically idle, CPU is at 25%, therefore I have a CPU bottleneck due to WoW's crappy outdated useless engine.

Proof of my words:



Benchmark Results: World of Warcraft: Mists Of Pandaria

[Sinyc]

Actually, it doesn't.
WoW supports 2 cores at most, the other 2 or 6 are basically idle.

Are you saying that 2 is not "multiple"??

[Deleted]

Are you saying that 2 is not "multiple"??

I'm saying that "at most 2" is not considered "multiple" on 8-core systems.

[Sinyc]

I'm saying that "at most 2" is not considered "multiple" on 8-core systems.

> 1 = multiple

Its also different for AMD and Intel CPU's. See below.

Intel CPU Scaling:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,2793-9.html

AMD CPU Scaling:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...e,2793-10.html

[Tarien]

I'm saying that "at most 2" is not considered "multiple" on 8-core systems.

This is just splitting hairs and is not useful for the OP at all. Just let it go.

[Deleted]

> 1 = multiple

Its also different for AMD and Intel CPU's. See below.

Intel CPU Scaling:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,2793-9.html

AMD CPU Scaling:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...e,2793-10.html

Therefore you prove my point. WoW is not optimized for multicore systems. Either overclock your CPU to ridiculously high frequencies, or find another game.
I hate this as well. I'm maxxing every single game, but the oh-so-not-demanding outdated WoW barely runs at a low resolution.

[Tarien]

WoW barely runs at a low resolution.

1440p Ultra

[Noctifer616]

1440p Ultra

Let's not kid ourselves, what really matters is performance in 25 man heroic raids. You are not going to see 100 FPS in encounters.

[Deleted]

1440p Ultra

Now try running it on Ultra in a crowded area (e.g. outside the Shrine, VoS in Orgrimmar or a 25-man raid) and lets see how fast it is.

[Tarien]

Let's not kid ourselves, what really matters is performance in 25 man heroic raids. You are not going to see 100 FPS in encounters.

Only raid screenshot I have, it can go a little lower on the pull, 30fps maybe, but only for the opening 15s or so. Definitely still playable.

Now try running it on Ultra in a crowded area (e.g. outside the Shrine, VoS in Orgrimmar or a 25-man raid) and lets see how fast it is.

Here you go. Bare in mind that I am running 1440p also, which is pretty much twice the pixels of a 1080p screen.

[Noctifer616]

Only raid screenshot I have, it can go a little lower on the pull, 30fps maybe, but only for the opening 15s or so. Definitely still playable.



Here you go. Bare in mind that I am running 1440p also, which is pretty much twice the pixels of a 1080p screen.

What if someone doesn't care about IQ and just wants more FPS. Can you show me the game running in 25 man raids with 60-120 FPS no matter the graphics settings?

[Kezotar]

Intel Core I7-2700k @ 3.50 Ghz


You have a NEW pc with a 2nd generation processor running at 3.5GHz? Or is that a typo?

2nd generation CPU that rocks every game by todays standards. Who cares?

Problem is - People think their CPUs, if it is a intel that it will hit 60 FPS ULTRA MAIMUM in 25Man -NO FPS drop, flawless..
Think again, you get 18-25 FPS from the AMD, you get 25-28 from the intel. (Price difference can be up to 200EUR-300USD)