67 replies to this topic

[siLve00]

Troutmonkey, on 21 October 2014 - 11:15 PM, said:

You got a link on what you are talking about here? I've never heard of this.
It used to be that you could unlock cores on the old dual core Phenoms as some where just quad cores with two cores disabled, but I don't think that's what you're talking about here.

google :"unlocking core parking" ... i won´t explain it since you will find every informations when you look for it.
it is 100% safe no oe is needed and you just disable the windows/cpu ability to safe energy.
back in the days there were software which could tweak how the OS will handle the cpu threads ( i didn´t hear for a long time about it ) since oe is way safer w/o banging your OS

BUT if jimbo want more performance i wouldn´t recommend any other action as to replace the mainboard and the cpu.
OE a phenom x4 9xx will cause alot of heat ( the max heat those cpu´s can handle are 69 celsius everything above will cause trouble.. you wont damage the cpu but it won´t run stable anymore )..
so he would need a new good cooler for arround 30 € = new mainboard
110 € for the cpu ( 8320 ) and his cpu performance will double.

if you could get your hand on a cheap amd phehom II x6 1100T you could keep your mainboard but that cpu will cost 100€ for a 30% performance increase.


edit : performing = only for games... nothing else..if you want real power.. you would need an intel cpu and arround 500 € but that would increase the performace by over 300%

Edited by siLve00, 22 October 2014 - 06:38 AM.

[HBizzle]

Celtic Warrior, on 20 October 2014 - 04:19 PM, said:

Have you guys tried unlocking all your cores? Windows will park cores if the game or software is not setup to use multiple threads. I use an FX 8350 with an R9 280x and am getting 60fps. I unlocked all 8 of my cores though.

How do you do this?

Xarian, on 21 October 2014 - 05:27 PM, said:

The problem is Adobe Flash.

Optimize Flash, and you will increase your frame rate significantly. Try playing with all the various flash settings.

Want proof? Turn your HUD off in-game and watch FPS skyrocket.

Where do I go to do this?

[siLve00]

HBizzle, on 22 October 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

How do you do this?


Where do I go to do this?

read my post above yours...
and the fx 8350 is 200 % faster in gaming performance as the cpu who is mentioned by the thread starter.

what i don´t get... you guys playing a game where mechs cost 50-500 $ and you aren´t ( or you won´t ) even invest like 100-200$ for your systems.

A system for 300$ is able to run mw:o at constant 55+ fps.. and about the UI yes thats a problem...but its not flash based like your normal flashplayer you are using in your explorer ( as example ). its integrated and alot of such games ( like swtor and star trek online ) causing such fps drops bc of the UI.

[Troutmonkey]

siLve00, on 22 October 2014 - 06:30 AM, said:

if you could get your hand on a cheap amd phehom II x6 1100T you could keep your mainboard but that cpu will cost 100€ for a 30% performance increase.

Believe it or not a second hand AMD 1090T is worth about as much as a FX8350. Don't ask me why.
If you have an AM3+ board (not AM3) then your mobo should be able to take the FX chips anyway. I purchased an AM3+ board in the hope that "Bulldozer" would be amazing, but it turned out a little lackluster. Still deciding whether my next upgrade will use the same board or move to Intel

[Troutmonkey]

siLve00, on 22 October 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

A system for 300$ is able to run mw:o at constant 55+ fps.. and about the UI yes thats a problem...but its not flash based like your normal flashplayer you are using in your explorer ( as example ). its integrated and alot of such games ( like swtor and star trek online ) causing such fps drops bc of the UI.

I don't know where you are getting your parts mate, but my system (Specs in sig) cost nearly $1000, with the Graphics card taking up $400 of that price (not even top of the range). It's about 2-3 years old now and plays everything except MWO well on high/ultra.

[Goose]

Xarian, on 21 October 2014 - 05:27 PM, said:

The problem is Adobe Flash.

Optimize Flash, and you will increase your frame rate significantly. Try playing with all the various flash settings.

Want proof? Turn your HUD off in-game and watch FPS skyrocket.

I gain like three fps running this test, so I'm thinking the theory is oversimplified …

Edited by Goose, 24 October 2014 - 01:25 PM.

[Rhaegor]

I get like 70-90 fps mostly, but it can drop as low as 55 in smoke. I have particles on low due to steam causing a MASSIVE drop in frame rate. GTX 760, core i5 4670.

Edited by Rhaegor, 22 October 2014 - 03:27 PM.

[Celtic Warrior]

Here's a link about core parking.

http://www.reddit.co..._i_found_a_fix/

and discussed here at Anandtech forums.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2390785&highlight=core+parking
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2307057&highlight=core+parking

and it looks like there's even a utility that can do it for you here.
http://www.coderbag....Parking-Utility

I did it through my registry, either way the results are the same.

Edited by Celtic Warrior, 23 October 2014 - 04:03 PM.

[Celtic Warrior]

FX 8350 Water cooled
R9 280x Asus DC II
Gigabyte MD
16 gigs RAM
SSD

My system has no problem running anything at high settings.

Edited by Celtic Warrior, 23 October 2014 - 04:07 PM.

[siLve00]

Troutmonkey, on 22 October 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

Believe it or not a second hand AMD 1090T is worth about as much as a FX8350. Don't ask me why.
If you have an AM3+ board (not AM3) then your mobo should be able to take the FX chips anyway. I purchased an AM3+ board in the hope that "Bulldozer" would be amazing, but it turned out a little lackluster. Still deciding whether my next upgrade will use the same board or move to Intel

i can tell you why because you can oe them like crazy... its a real powerhorse... 4.4 ghz with air and like 4.6 ghz with water is np..the cpu will run stable as hell.

thats why i said the big one.. if you can get a cheap hand on it.. here you pay for the 11 arround 100-140€.
But you are correct if you say... intel cpu´s are right now the top choice for gaming.... but each 10% performance increase will cost you arround 100 $.. is it worth it ? Nah

About the building a pc ... well i said i can build... i didnt mention any timeline. Gimme 4 weeks and it is np. It won´t be a pimp my e peeeeen pc... but it will and can run medicore games like mw:o on high with constant 50-60fps.

why i know it... i can test games on 5 systems right now.
My oldest rig is an amd 955 BE with a HIS icooler 270x oe to 1125 mhz 4 gig ram nothign special at all... 55-60 fps.
I did change the 270x for an old ati 5870... 40-45 fps.. i could squeeze 4 fps by oe the gpu but i did stop at 89 celsius since that system is aircooled.

oh and btw.. i don´t use the ingame tool for the fps tests.. just as info.

Celtic warrior got a good and very balanced system.. the watercooling isnt realy what ya need.. but i know why he did it
*pffffffffffffrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr* lol

[Morang]

Maybe tell the game to use only a couple of cores in the task manager (only cores 2 and 3 for example, leaving cores 0 and 1 for other programms)? I read that in WoT (which is only able to use one core) that trick (limiting the game to a single core which is not the first one) allows to distribute the load better. MWO, of course, won't feel comfortable on one core, but if confined to 2 - 3 cores leaving at least core 0 for all other programs, it may run better IMO.

There are third-party task manager upgrades which allows you to manage the use of CPU cores by programs better than stock one. Give cores 2 and 3 to MWO exclusively, confine all other programs to cores 0 and 1 and look if there are any improvements.

[Mothykins]

Troutmonkey, on 22 October 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

Believe it or not a second hand AMD 1090T is worth about as much as a FX8350. Don't ask me why.
If you have an AM3+ board (not AM3) then your mobo should be able to take the FX chips anyway. I purchased an AM3+ board in the hope that "Bulldozer" would be amazing, but it turned out a little lackluster. Still deciding whether my next upgrade will use the same board or move to Intel

Mostly because the 1090T is a tank, overclocks massively with the stock cooler (4.1ghz. Trust me. I checked.) and actually has an edge over the FX on a few tests (Floating point, single thread memory performance) and overall has about the same general profile. For example, the frame rate average on high settings for both CPUs running similar setups is within 5% variance. At low settings though, the 1090T shows it's age though.

Also, the 1090T, for whatever odd reason, is excessively good at video encoding. Like, 30% better.



But, Yeah, Most of the time There's maybe two cores running while playing. I:

[siLve00]

Morang, on 23 October 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:

Maybe tell the game to use only a couple of cores in the task manager (only cores 2 and 3 for example, leaving cores 0 and 1 for other programms)? I read that in WoT (which is only able to use one core) that trick (limiting the game to a single core which is not the first one) allows to distribute the load better. MWO, of course, won't feel comfortable on one core, but if confined to 2 - 3 cores leaving at least core 0 for all other programs, it may run better IMO.

There are third-party task manager upgrades which allows you to manage the use of CPU cores by programs better than stock one. Give cores 2 and 3 to MWO exclusively, confine all other programs to cores 0 and 1 and look if there are any improvements.

erm you dont need a third party task manager nor an update.... since windows 7 you can do it by hand...

task manager -> change to process/select the process -> right click -> set affinity-> done

( watch out with intel cpu´s some cpu´s handling the simulated cores different .. number wise )

Edited by siLve00, 24 October 2014 - 04:49 AM.

[Morang]

siLve00, on 24 October 2014 - 04:48 AM, said:

erm you dont need a third party task manager nor an update.... since windows 7 you can do it by hand...

task manager -> change to process/select the process -> right click -> set affinity-> done

( watch out with intel cpu´s some cpu´s handling the simulated cores different .. number wise )

At least since Vista actually. I do it manually for WoT in stock Vista Task Manager. I meant third-party solution as possibly better way of confining all the other programs to the cores unused by the game, as it's just boring to manually set affinity for each particular process with dozens of them running (and you can't select more than one process in stock Task Manager to do it simultaneously for all of them - so I thought that it's perhaps possible in third party upgrades).

[FullMetalDad]

I have GTX 780 3GByte DDR5
latest Nvidia drivers 344.48 DX11
16 GByte DDR3
AMD FX8350 8 core processor
Windows 7 64 bit

I'm regularly seeing FPS 30-40 in game. I do have all settings set to "very high" POSTAA (as suggested by Nvidia panel).

Changing PhysX to GPU had no effect. I don' believe AMD has core park issue (all processors appear to be active when playing MWO), but any thoughts appreciated.

In testing ground I'm 100+ FPS with dips into 70's.

[siLve00]

Morang, on 24 October 2014 - 05:00 AM, said:

At least since Vista actually. I do it manually for WoT in stock Vista Task Manager. I meant third-party solution as possibly better way of confining all the other programs to the cores unused by the game, as it's just boring to manually set affinity for each particular process with dozens of them running (and you can't select more than one process in stock Task Manager to do it simultaneously for all of them - so I thought that it's perhaps possible in third party upgrades).

I think you are quite wrong when it comes down to 1-5% cpu usage.. aslong you dont have a simulated 8 core system with a low base clocking ( below 2 ghz for example the old Q7xx-9xx intel cpu´s ). With these systems you have even to shut down cores so the boost can kick in... which won´t be used due the splitting and for the most games its better run on 2x2.8ghz as 4x1.6 or even 8x0.733 ghz.

This thread is going places lol hehe

Miner, on 24 October 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

I have GTX 780 3GByte DDR5
latest Nvidia drivers 344.48 DX11
16 GByte DDR3
AMD FX8350 8 core processor
Windows 7 64 bit

I'm regularly seeing FPS 30-40 in game. I do have all settings set to "very high" POSTAA (as suggested by Nvidia panel).

Changing PhysX to GPU had no effect. I don' believe AMD has core park issue (all processors appear to be active when playing MWO), but any thoughts appreciated.

In testing ground I'm 100+ FPS with dips into 70's.

The FX8350 simulates 4 cores... 4 are only real and 4 getting simulated... that´s maybe the problem... the cpu splits up.. no boost lower base clocking ( try to check with core temp for example the frequenz of your cpu´s ).

But still don´t get it.. that cpu should even w/o boost powerfull enough. Check maybe your energy setting in windows.. that can cause sometimes trouble too.

Edited by siLve00, 24 October 2014 - 07:00 AM.

[Celtic Warrior]

I'm getting 60 fps minimum on my setup so anyone with anything similar should be getting the same or something is wrong with their computer. The FX 8350 is more then capable of running MWO, even my sons APU with a discrete graphics card runs the game pretty good.

[Sprouticus]

I JUST bumped myself from an FX-4100 to an FX-8370. It raised me from 30-40 fps with dips into the mid 20's up to 550-55 with dips into the 30's. (very high for everything except shadows and particles which are low)

But I could fix this now by simply raising the GPU. I am now GPU bound 95% of the time. I havb a 7770, not a terirble card for 2.5 years ago, but not great.

If I wanted to spend another $200 I could bump my frame rate by another 30 FPS with a good card. I might do that at some point. But Im happy where Im at now.

[GernMiester]

Odds are if they could fix or even cared about this it would of been fixed in beta.

Multicore CPU's = early 2000's release for average computers. Pentium D era

CryENGINE 1 = 2001-2004

CryENGINE 2 = 2007 release

CryENGINE 3 = 2009 release and used by MWO last I checked. Multicore support

MWO = 2012 closed beta with better graphics and mech skins

CryENGINE 4th Generation = 2013 release

MWO today = 1 core munching, downgraded graphics, and like $50 per mech.

This means multicore use was/is an option and its PGI's bad coding or stupid administrative decisions that make the game munch on 1 core only. 7 idle cores with 1 choking down everything. Sad sad sad...

So what is it PGI, bad coders? Moron admin decision by an clueless exec who cant program his DVR? Some unknow reason to not take advantage CryENGINE multicore support?

Either way its all PGI's fault for not making it work properly. Keep poking at them, they will die or fess up..

[Galland]

I think, at least for Intel Core i7 processors, there is little benefit to disabling core parking. The Core i7-3770, for example has 4 physical cores, and the HyperThreading feature. HyperThreading is an Intel technology that allows a CPU core to execute 2 simultaneous threads. Unless an application is written specifically to take advantage of HyperThreading (like Microsoft SQL Server), the logical cores will just sit unused and will be burning up power idling, hence that is the reason why Windows parks them. If you open up Resource Monitor, only half of the 8 cores on a quad-core i7 are parked at any one time, so the actual physical cores of the processor are still active. Despite what we like to think, Windows does a better job of managing its resources than we give it credit for, and unless we can demonstrably show that some feature is impeding performance (the exception are some AMD processors), we shouldn't be messing around with the under-the-hood settings. Hacking up the registry is one way of screwing up your OS if you're not careful.