WoW Performance Issues/Tweaks, Etc - Page 13

Ravelvan · 02/28/09, 7:07 PM

Originally Posted by Brekk

So you're recommendation is to use his current old ram probably DDR2 400-667 based on his system specs with a FSB of 400mhz... which would require DDR2 1600, which does not exist...

Not really disagreeing with anything you are saying, but a FSB of 400MHz would only require DDR2 800 if you are running a 1:1 ratio (or possibly lower spec memory that could overclock to 800MHz), which definitely does exist.

Although I've never use an AMD CPU, so it's possible there is something I don't understand about them.

Szynszyla · 02/28/09, 7:13 PM

Originally Posted by Brekk

So you're recommendation is to use his current old ram probably DDR2 400-667 based on his system specs with a FSB of 400mhz... which would require DDR2 1600, which does not exist...

Learn english, learn about computers, then give people your technical recommendations.

If you had so much clue, than what about FSB:Ram ratios or differently called strap levels?

And AMD is different ball game with o/c at the moment not worth even mentioning performance wise compared to C2D.
We are still in the topic of o/c CoreDuo/C2D not his current AMD as its impossible to compare.

Originally Posted by Brekk

Right now an e5200 is 73$ on newegg. An e8500 is 187$. That's not 4 times the price.

I bet he could get a nice Malay E5200 for as much as 50$, making it 1/3 price compared to E8500 where he wont feel the difference beside having those 130$ in the wallet. This money can be spent better on Graphic card, memory or PSU as doubt he has a decent power supply.

Make it as 50$ for CPU, 50$ for GA-P31-DS3L, Pentagram 520W 65$, 20$ pentagram karakorum on CPU and you have so much money to play with choosing graphic card / memory or have a nice holidays out there. High-end parts are not economicly justified compared to things listed.

Brekk · 02/28/09, 7:58 PM

Originally Posted by Ravelvan

Not really disagreeing with anything you are saying, but a FSB of 400MHz would only require DDR2 800 if you are running a 1:1 ratio (or possibly lower spec memory that could overclock to 800MHz), which definitely does exist.

Although I've never use an AMD CPU, so it's possible there is something I don't understand about them.

FSB x 4 = Memory Frequency

Quad Data Rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I run DDR2 1066 in my system. The fastest FSB that's stock capable of running at is 266mhz. The fastest DDR2 you can get is 1200. That is stock stable at 300mhz. You might get lucky and have some DDR2 1066,1200 that is stable when OC'ed to 400mhz FSB but its highly unlikely that's a 33% OC over stock if your using 1200. That's huge.

Originally Posted by Szynszyla

If you had so much clue, than what about FSB:Ram ratios or differently called strap levels?

different word, same thing. FSB x 4 = memory freq in Intel systems.

And AMD is different ball game with o/c at the moment not worth even mentioning performance wise compared to C2D.
We are still in the topic of o/c CoreDuo/C2D not his current AMD as its impossible to compare.

I didn't say anything about AMD. Those closest I mentioned was carrying over his current 2gb of DDR2 rather then getting new ram. Which you yourself said was a poor investment. If he chooses to keep using the same RAM i guarantee he cannot Overclock the FSB.

Make it as 50$ for CPU, 50$ for GA-P31-DS3L, Pentagram 520W 65$, 20$ pentagram karakorum on CPU and you have so much money to play with choosing graphic card / memory or have a nice holidays out there. High-end parts are not economicly justified compared to things listed.

Excuse me. I missed the memo where a VERY good cpu for 187$ is now an excessive high-end part. It's not like I'm telling him to switch to a coreI7 extreme.

Ravelvan · 02/28/09, 8:11 PM

Originally Posted by Brekk

FSB x 4 = Memory Frequency

Quad Data Rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I run DDR2 1066 in my system. The fastest FSB that's stock capable of running at is 266mhz. The fastest DDR2 you can get is 1200. That is stock stable at 300mhz. You might get lucky and have some DDR2 1066,1200 that is stable when OC'ed to 400mhz FSB but its highly unlikely that's a 33% OC over stock if your using 1200. That's huge.

In that case sorry, I must just be misunderstanding something. All I know is I can set my memory to run essentially whatever speed I want, down to a minimum of 2xFSB. Currently I run a Q6600 at 400x8 with DDR2 800 RAM, so I must just be incredibly lucky...or am completely confused with terminology.

Originally Posted by Brekk

different word, same thing. FSB x 4 = memory freq in Intel systems.

I'm positive this is not necessarily true. Using memory dividers you can run your memory at many different frequencies no matter what you have your FSB set to.

Brekk · 02/28/09, 8:14 PM

yeah you can adjust the RAM to run slower. But then you're not benefitting from OC'ing the FSB. And might as well just OC with the multiplier instead.

And unless he already has DDR2-800 or higher he will not be able to adjust it to run on a 400mhz FSB. This wouldn't be such an issue but Szynszyla is trying to tell him to OC the FSB, and not worry about new RAM. Those two are contradictory to eachother.

Asmo · 02/28/09, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Brekk

FSB x 4 = Memory Frequency

Quad Data Rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I run DDR2 1066 in my system. The fastest FSB that's stock capable of running at is 266mhz. The fastest DDR2 you can get is 1200. That is stock stable at 300mhz. You might get lucky and have some DDR2 1066,1200 that is stable when OC'ed to 400mhz FSB but its highly unlikely that's a 33% OC over stock if your using 1200. That's huge.

You're confused and Ravelvan is correct. The quad data rate you're talking about is on the fsb between the chipset and the cpu, the ram is only running at double data rate (DDR=double data rate). So at least the way I always see these things referred to on overclocking sites is with a fsb of 400 and 1:1 memory ratio the actual fsb speed is 400x4=1600 and the ram 400x2=800.

I'm personally running this core2duo overclocked to 3.3ghz with 413fsb on ddr2 667mhz pc5300 ram. There are people hitting fsb speeds well over 600mhz with ddr2 ram.

Szynszyla · 03/01/09, 6:43 AM

Originally Posted by Brekk

yeah you can adjust the RAM to run slower. But then you're not benefitting from OC'ing the FSB. And might as well just OC with the multiplier instead.

I am sorry but you are terribly wrong about it. Repeating it again that you wont feel any difference in games with high FSB and ram running =<800mhz compared to higher values but you still gain great CPU performance.

People don't play in SuperPI, they play games.

Originally Posted by Brekk

And unless he already has DDR2-800 or higher he will not be able to adjust it to run on a 400mhz FSB. This wouldn't be such an issue but Szynszyla is trying to tell him to OC the FSB, and not worry about new RAM. Those two are contradictory to eachother.

Yes ram dont overclock, damn. You cant say he needs new ram without knowing his current one, and even if he is lucky to not have FSB wall ~350+ his ram is likely to be enough. In worst case scenario he just have to pay 5$ for new 2x1GB considering he can always sell the old one. Was ram worth mentioning all this? I dont think so, couse the price is just silly.

Degorn · 03/02/09, 1:15 AM

Originally Posted by Brekk

yeah you can adjust the RAM to run slower. But then you're not benefitting from OC'ing the FSB. And might as well just OC with the multiplier instead.

Only AMD Black Edition and Intel Extreme series processors come with unlocked multipliers nowadays.

As for the rest of the debate, whoever is interested in the subject should stop by some respected overclocking forum like XtremeSystems before following the advice from someone on any of the sides taking part in an internet forum argument.

Szynszyla · 03/02/09, 5:13 AM

Every CD & C2D comes with unlocked multiplier.

sarf · 03/02/09, 9:36 AM

Regarding the login screen being the stress test of GPUs... there is an addon (well, it's not really an addon, but labeled as such) on wowinterface named BlackLoginScreen. It removes the dragon, background scene and the music. You end up with a black background (quite soothing) which does not eat your GPU alive (it just gnaws it into submission).

I have a problem with WoW - it runs OK on FPS, but as I do raids I experience higher and higher latency (in excess of 10k). The more people in the raid, and the more addons I have activated (generally), the faster the increase happens. I am using the Java wow-proxy to disable the packet delay, and FreeCap to route WoWs data through that proxy. Should I fiddle around with my router to see if I can prioritize the traffic, use a secondary computer to act as the proxy... ?

If I disable almost all my addons, I can squeak by with only a 100ms increase in 10-mans. When we did Sartharion+0 with 17 people, however, I experienced severe latency issues. After disabling nearly every addon (including Omen, which, as a tank, is something I'd rather not do) I managed with a small increase (1-200 ms, hard to judge as the latency measurement read 2.5k+ for the rest of the night) to normal latency (~170 ms, using the wowproxy).

I have an AMD X2 4200, 2 gigs of ram, a Radeon 1950PRO and probably way too much crap installed on my system (lots of services and remnants of programs who were installed once).

Gregger · 03/02/09, 11:58 AM

OK, well I went out and bought the following parts, then we went and ran Sarth3D. I play on a 24"Widescreen HD monitor (1900X1200 reso). With everything maxxed out, I was getting around 54FPS during the "whelp" phase. I was tanking adds throughout the encounter.

XFX MB750I72P9 LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 750i SLI ATX Intel Motherboard
XFX GX285NZDBF GeForce GTX 285 Black Edition 1GB 512-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card
Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz LGA 775 95W Quad-Core Processor Model BX80580Q9400
OCZ Platinum 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model OCZ2P10664GK
LOGISYS Computer PS750X14 750W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS Certified Power Supply

I managed to get all of that, plus a case for around $570 at microcenter near me. What are some other modifications I can do to decrease my load times and increase performance?

sarf · 03/02/09, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Gregger

What are some other modifications I can do to decrease my load times and increase performance?

Get a SSD / ramdrive and put your MPQ-files (in fact, the entire Data directory) on it, then create a hardlink for it (Windows - use Junction, Mac/*nix users can probably use ln).

If you use non-Windows-based OS (perhaps it is possible with the symbolic links in Vista/7?), you can do a "ghetto RAID" version of this by placing each individual MPQ-file on its own physical drive.

Feorthas · 03/02/09, 4:03 PM

Regarding the CPU limited discussion that came up--and blew up--recently, I'll gladly confirm that just about any old S939 A64x2 running at stock clocks I'd probably CPU limited in Lich King (but not Burning Crusade!); I recently took my 4200+ from its stock 2.2 Ghz to 2.5 Ghz (for those who care, 250x10 @1.4125v, mem set to DDR333 (yielding 416.25 mhz); runs Prime95 for 6 hours, no issues) and I noticed a drastic improvement in 25m raid framerates and the quality of the "Death Knight Voices" (would no longer stutter/crackle all the time, only while in raid now :p).

Because I'm never ever *quite* pegged at 100% on both cores in WoW, with nothing else open, I have a theory about what's going on: WoW's main thread/process has gotten unwieldy, with the additions made in LK, and not a noticable amount has been added to its helper processes. Whether this is due to poor coding or a massive synchronization clusterfuck (very, very possible), we have no way of telling; however, WoW itself definitely isn't utilizing my second core above, say, 50% as I can listen to pandora during a raid without issue and almost watch most YouTube videos without the occasional stutter, both pre/post-OC. Hopefully we'll see a noticable improvement in the future--at the very least, I'm hoping for further use of the second(/third/forth) core(s) that a multicore CPU can bring to bear on the situation.

Additionally, just for reference, I ran BC at 1680x1050/8xAA/Windowed during raids; pre-OC, I could barely run 1920x1200/0xAA/Fullscreen/med-low settings (speaking of, effects & texture detail levels pretty much did nothing to improve framerates) whereas I can now *magically* do 1920/0xAA/med-high settings after the OC. Have an 8800 GT (650 core, 950 mem) for my video card and 4 gigs of ram.

cadavor · 03/02/09, 5:12 PM

Hi Gang,

I did dig through the last 8 pages and didn't see this listed. For AMD users, there is a driver that AMD puts out for your dual-core processors (such as the AMD Athlon64 x2 +3000, +3200, +3800, +4000, +4200, etc) where you should install this driver to actually enable the second core. For example, my old machine is an AMD Athlon X2 3800+ that I used for a very long time, and gave to my wife, who also plays Warcraft. After a few reloads and release of Wotlk, the performance was hurting big-time. We were going to purchase new ram (2gb existing) or a better video card (GF7600GT), but it didn't make sense. I used to play the very power-hungry BF2 on this rig, and now it can't run 25-man raid content with more than 5-10fps?

In looking at the performance monitor, only one core was displayed and it was at 100% utilization. After installing this driver here - Dual Core Optimizer driver, the second core appeared on the performance monitor, and total CPU utilization dropped down to around 50% or so. Additionally, her Dalaran framerate went up to around 25-50, depending on what part of town she was in. 25-man raids became immediately workable.

I saw a few of the folks posting in here have AMD rigs; hopefully this fixes your problem. Best of luck. :-)

Lollersk8er · 03/02/09, 5:31 PM

Originally Posted by Feorthas

Because I'm never ever *quite* pegged at 100% on both cores in WoW, with nothing else open, I have a theory about what's going on: WoW's main thread/process has gotten unwieldy, with the additions made in LK, and not a noticable amount has been added to its helper processes. Whether this is due to poor coding or a massive synchronization clusterfuck (very, very possible), we have no way of telling; however, WoW itself definitely isn't utilizing my second core above, say, 50% as I can listen to pandora during a raid without issue and almost watch most YouTube videos without the occasional stutter, both pre/post-OC. Hopefully we'll see a noticable improvement in the future--at the very least, I'm hoping for further use of the second(/third/forth) core(s) that a multicore CPU can bring to bear on the situation.

WoW only uses one core, but having at least two makes sure, that you can use that one exclusively for the game. Actually WoW ends up being evenly divided over all cores, it just isn't true multithreading.