Jump to content


Multi- Core


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
32 replies to this topic

packet_loss #21 Posted Oct 26 2012 - 00:53

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,562
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011

View PostSparater, on Oct 26 2012 - 00:48, said:

THIS

I am a very hard-core gamer. There are many games out there that are graphic intensive(Crysis 2, Skyrim, BF3) that I can get more fps in, even with graphic mods installed. However, in this game, I average about 50% of what I get in the 3 games above. Having multi-core support would not increase performance by that much more in this game. One conclusion may be then that the coding is very poorly optimized.
I am not speaking for games as they are a bit of a different beast, but in general in software development.  There is a saying that goes "Don't pre-optimize".  Optimization is a bottomless pit, as someone else said, optimizing is very costly in terms of time and resources.  You could spend a week optimizing an algorithm and only get marginal results.  Where as you might redesign and get a much larger gain.  Primarily, you need to get your code working before you worry about optimizations, especially if you have not established a baseline performance measure.



View PostHandies, on Oct 26 2012 - 00:51, said:

Do you realize that Multi core was stated it would be here a year ago.
Are you a software developer by trade?  Do you have any idea how long even a simple change can take depending on how deeply rooted it is in the system?

View PostHandies, on Oct 26 2012 - 00:51, said:

Do you realize, it is not hard anymore to add Direct x 11 and have an option to use Dx 9..
Add DirectX 11?  What does "add" mean in this context? You can't just magically click an add button and suddenly you are DirectX compatible.  It's a new API, that means going through all of your graphics code and changing the calls as well as potentially redesigning some parts.  You don't just add a brand new api, you have to refactor code.  How large do you think that code base is? 5-10million lines perhaps?  More, less?


Why do people get emotional over things when someone challenges them on something they have no practical knowledge of?

Edited by packet_loss, Oct 26 2012 - 00:58.


misscleo #22 Posted Oct 26 2012 - 00:53

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 2,130
  • Member since:
    12-02-2010
BWT only supports splitting the audio thread from the rest, and will run on its own core. WG said countless times already they are going to enable that feature at some point (hopefully never) so stop asking. Go download Process Explorer and use it to see the threads WoT uses while you play. Kill or suspend the the audio thread and tell me if you see any performance increase. Guaranteed you see no difference. Also if you think random crashes happen often now, wait until they add a scheduler and have to deal with even more random errors, it's going to be a nightmare.

You will never see real multicore support in WoT that AAA studios (like Valve) have.

gman2725 #23 Posted Oct 26 2012 - 00:54

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 457
  • Member since:
    04-28-2011
Multicore support will open up the ability to play the game for people with low speed multicore processors like laptops and older desktops. Most laptops these days comes with acceptible built in gpus, but a lot of them have lower speed multi core cpus. With the game being so single threaded it leaves these people out in the cold if they want playable framerates.

packet_loss #24 Posted Oct 26 2012 - 01:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,562
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011

View Postgman2725, on Oct 26 2012 - 00:54, said:

Multicore support will open up the ability to play the game for people with low speed multicore processors like laptops and older desktops. Most laptops these days comes with acceptible built in gpus, but a lot of them have lower speed multi core cpus. With the game being so single threaded it leaves these people out in the cold if they want playable framerates.
That may or may not come to fruition... I have a quad core and a mid to high end GPU.  I still do not get even 60 FPS on medium-ish settings.
There are a lot bigger fish to fry than multi-threading.

Gryphon_ #25 Posted Oct 29 2012 - 06:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 1,147
  • Member since:
    11-24-2011
If the game was rewritten for multiple threads then those with multiple cores would show some benefit. I agree that the GPU is doing the most work, but the CPU has to process the frames for the GPU to render. On top of that, there is also physics, and managemen of the two-way datastream to and from the server. Putting either physics or the datastream on a separate thread should pay significant dividends.

Nevertheless, rewriting the code so that its multi-threaded is a lot of work as making code thread safe isnt easy.

Mohoao #26 Posted Oct 29 2012 - 07:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 270
  • Member since:
    01-13-2012

View PostRawrosaurr, on Oct 26 2012 - 00:19, said:

I need this, I want to play WoT but getting 20 fps just doesn't cut it, especially the 2 fps I get when I sniper through a bush.

You probably need a new video card more than threaded game engine.

Packet_loss and I had this discussion before in another thread.  A threaded game engine is only really beneficial when the game resides ONLY on your PC, when it is a "thin-client" like WoT most of the actual processing is done on the server, not your machine.

Edited by Mohoao, Oct 29 2012 - 07:22.


snobot #27 Posted Oct 29 2012 - 20:01

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 366
  • Member since:
    01-15-2012

View Postxiantom, on Oct 26 2012 - 00:29, said:

It depends on what kind of a bottleneck you have. Most people have GPU bottlenecks, so multi-core support doesn't really help them much although it does help.

View PostQumefox, on Oct 26 2012 - 00:34, said:

Uh.. No. This will only be the case if whatever encoder your using is only single threaded. Handbrake on my machine for instance has zero problems eating every core I have.  ffSplit will also use all four when i'm streaming.

A multi-core cpu will yield no benefit over single core when running single threaded applications, beyond the ability to run other things at the same time like you said. But applications that are multi-threaded.. multiple cores help A LOT.

Personally, WoT doesn't even use 100% of a single core on my machine.. though actually it doesn't use 100% of the GPU either, so i'm not really sure what my bottleneck is.  FPS for me ranges from 25-70 depending on map and location.

View Postpacket_loss, on Oct 26 2012 - 00:47, said:

I suspect most of you don't know what you're talking about and are only inferring things from experience using single and multi-threaded applications.

Whether or not multi-threading will improve performance for WoT is entirely dependent on the implementation of BigWorld's render engine.

Classical multi-threading in games would not improve render performance unless the GPU was starved by the CPU.  This solution would use multiple threads primarily for things like loading resources.  DirectX 11 changes this a bit and makes multi-threading more useful, if you want to read about it look here http://msdn.microsof...1(v=vs.85).aspx

However, from what I can tell, BigWorld does not support DirectX 11 (or at least it didn't prior to WG buying it).



What this means is without a major overhaul of the Render engine, multi-threading will not make any difference if your GPU is already thrashing.  Even if you are CPU bound, if the implementation of the game engine is inefficient in the way it sends data to the GPU there will be no increase to FPS simply from multi-threading.

Rather than blindly asking for multi-threading without understanding how it impacts the game, you should just sit patiently and hope that WG does a lot of stuff (perhaps including multi-threading) to improve performance.

View Postpacket_loss, on Oct 26 2012 - 01:02, said:

That may or may not come to fruition... I have a quad core and a mid to high end GPU.  I still do not get even 60 FPS on medium-ish settings.
There are a lot bigger fish to fry than multi-threading.

View PostGryphon_, on Oct 29 2012 - 06:25, said:

If the game was rewritten for multiple threads then those with multiple cores would show some benefit. I agree that the GPU is doing the most work, but the CPU has to process the frames for the GPU to render. On top of that, there is also physics, and managemen of the two-way datastream to and from the server. Putting either physics or the datastream on a separate thread should pay significant dividends.

Nevertheless, rewriting the code so that its multi-threaded is a lot of work as making code thread safe isnt easy.

View PostMohoao, on Oct 29 2012 - 07:18, said:

You probably need a new video card more than threaded game engine.

Packet_loss and I had this discussion before in another thread.  A threaded game engine is only really beneficial when the game resides ONLY on your PC, when it is a "thin-client" like WoT most of the actual processing is done on the server, not your machine.

My recent experience suggests that there may be more people that are CPU-bound than we might think. I play on an old desktop with an Nvidia GT 430 graphics card (a very modest GPU by today's standards) and 2 GB RAM. However, until recently, it had a Pentium E2140 CPU (dual-core, 1.6 GHz, 800 MHz FSB, 1 MB L2 cache) - a severely underpowered CPU for running WoT. I could get 20-25 fps with every graphic setting turned to "Low" or "Off" - playable, but not a great visual experience. The core running WoT stayed pegged at 100% and the GPU ran HOT (like put-an-ice-pack-on-top-of-the-case hot) while the graphics card mostly idled along.

A couple weeks ago, I replaced the Pentium with a Core 2 Duo E6600 (dual-core, 2.4GHz, 1066 MHz FSB, and 4 MB L2 cache), essentially swapping 6-year-old technology for slightly better 6-year-old technology (it's the best the motherboard could handle). My setup now exceeds the minimum specifications for WoT by just a little bit. Now I can play with graphics settings on "Low" to "Medium" (and draw distance and LOD at max) and get 30-35 fps. The game experience is much more interesting- I can see muzzle flashes, explosions and smoke, and terrain detail that I had to forego before. However, the core running WoT STILL stays pegged at 100% (but doesn't run nearly as hot, although a good cleaning of the cooler fins and fans probably has something to do with that) while the graphics card barely breaks a sweat. I'm definitely still CPU-bound, and a $1,000 graphics card wouldn't do a thing to boost my frame rate until I get a CPU that can handle the load without maxing out.

I'd be curious to hear from people who have older and/or slower CPUs to find out what percentage of CPU cycles WoT eats up on various graphics settings. I'm wondering about the break point where the processors become powerful and fast enough to run WoT on medium-high graphics settings without pegging the needle at 100%. I hope it won't be too much longer before I can do a more substantial upgrade, but even then, I won't be able to spend enough to get me into Core i7 land. I'd like to know how far I have to go to run WoT comfortably.

Edited by snobot, Oct 29 2012 - 20:01.


The_Chieftain #28 Posted Oct 29 2012 - 22:31

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 0 battles
  • 7,088
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
The question came up in a recent Serb Q&A.

The issue is the middleware for WoT which does not support multi-core. An entirely new system is being developed inhouse, but it's a re-work, and it's not happening fast. WoWP/WoWS is multi-core from the start.

Handies #29 Posted Oct 30 2012 - 04:27

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 3,246
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 29 2012 - 22:31, said:

The question came up in a recent Serb Q&A.

The issue is the middleware for WoT which does not support multi-core. An entirely new system is being developed inhouse, but it's a re-work, and it's not happening fast. WoWP/WoWS is multi-core from the start.
That is good news! Thanks for taking for the time and stating that.

Rides_with_Death #30 Posted Oct 30 2012 - 05:34

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 700
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011
Then after reading this have to ask, if one is to build a WOT gaming rig what would be the best build to suit it?

snobot #31 Posted Oct 30 2012 - 15:21

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 366
  • Member since:
    01-15-2012

View PostRides_with_Death, on Oct 30 2012 - 05:34, said:

Then after reading this have to ask, if one is to build a WOT gaming rig what would be the best build to suit it?

I'd say that if you want to build specifically for WoT, max out on the CPU speed, install 4 GB RAM (but get a motherboard that supports more so you can add on later), and pick a mid-level gaming GPU (or go crazy on this too, if money isn't a big concern). Also, a faster hard disk drive will help with load times - I'd say 7200 RPM is passable but 10,000 RPM would be great if you can afford it. As others have mentioned, spend an extra $20-25 to get a good power supply (500W or so).

ReaperV #32 Posted Oct 30 2012 - 19:53

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 543
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011
As a person running an older Phenom II X6 1100T BE (OCed to 4Ghz with a giant aftermarket aircooler/radiator) and a GTX680 2GB card, I can tell you that I get a nice 60FPS most of the time (I have VSYNC on because it makes it look better running at 1080p on a 42" plasma), however I still get massive (2-3 second) "freezes" or "jolts" that have made me miss shots from time to time. Sure it only happens every 5-10 minutes or so (like at the start of a match and at some odd times during the match), however my assumption is that it's my CPU that is getting bottlenecked. No, I would not magically get an extra 100FPS (with VSYNC off) with multi-core support, however it is these moments that would probably go away, not to mention that the odd times the FPS drops to 30 or so would probably be closer to 40 FPS. Noticeable improvement? That is debateable by some people, however to me that is a definite "yes."

I'm definitely waiting for some optimizations or additional multi-core support, because it seems my performance was more consistent in the previous patches prior to the new renderer, although on average I have to say that performance has improved... it just has those damn "stutters" now that are annoying at worst.

GT500 #33 Posted Oct 30 2012 - 20:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 2,254
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostWhord, on Oct 26 2012 - 00:24, said:

If you think Multi-Core is going to make a HUGE difference, I'm afraid you're in for dissapointment. This game is still GPU intensive and CPU core speed intensive. Remember the whole point of multi-core....at 3ghz a single core versus a 3ghz multi-core will transcode a video at the same speed if it is the only thing you are doing on your system.

Multi-core allows you to transcode the video at the same speed as the single core while ALSO surfing the internet, watching an HD video and listening to music.

Sure, you will see a performance improvement. But not by some astronomical amount if you are already slow as beans.

What we need is CONTINUED optimization of the coding. Optimization is time consuming, expensive and will benefit all users.

Sorry you do not know what you are talking about as you have partial truths.  You may not be CPU limited because you do not have a decent video card running at high res.  I run at 2560x1600 with THREE GTX680's and an 5GHZ 12 core CPU and I can tell you hands down my bottle neck is not the GPU... Heck it hardly stresses 1 Video card.
THis game is CPU limited and a threaded engine would make a huge difference in this game for those that hit the CPU ceiling on 1 thread.

It depends on the resolution you play at as well and graphic settings.  Players are a lower res or lower settings are likely to be more CPU bound if they are having FPS issues with great video cards.