Dual core problem?


fallenz

 

Posted

Since the last time I played I noticed I've had to lower a bunch of settings to keep the game running smooth. I thought maybe it was related to the ultra mode stuff, even though I never turned most of those new settings on.

I just noticed now though that the game is only using like 50-60% of my CPU power and leaving the rest sitting idle. It looks a lot like other games I have that only run on a single core. I have two cores, and upon examining the client process in the task manager the affinity is set to both, but that just means it's not Vista telling the game to only use one core I think.

So is there a setting in an ini file somewhere that may have been somehow changed to limit the game to a single core? Or is it normal the the game to only use half my CPU while struggling to maintain a stable framerate?

I have an Athlon 7750 with two cores at 2.71 ghz, 4gb RAM, and a GeForce 9500 GT 1gb.


 

Posted

This game should be able utilize 2 by default. As far as I know, there is no setting on the user interface that has anything to do with the cores, but I believe you can turn it off with -renderthread 0 in the command line. So unless you have that, I don't know why Vista isn't assigning the 2nd thread of instruction to a second core.

Maybe the default changed again with i18 for some reason?

Edit:
I just checked mine and it seems to be working normally.
For now, try adding -renderthread 1 to your command line just to see if it makes any difference for you.
It shouldn't, but if your client is bugged at 0 somehow, then you never know.

Example: In your shortcut for the game, change the Target to:
"C:\Program Files\City of Heroes\CohUpdater.exe" -renderthread 1


 

Posted

I did not have either of those in my shortcut. I tried adding -renderthread 1 but I don't see any difference. Game is still only using 50-60% CPU. It's possible it's using both cores but just not taking full advantage of them, I don't know why. Seems like a waste having my CPUs idle 40% of the time.


 

Posted

If your CPU has to wait on your video card/GPU to finish processing data, then you will never see 100% CPU utilization. If you are seeing 100% CPU utilization, then your GPU may be sitting idle waiting for data from your CPU or you may be perfectly matched where your CPU and GPU are running full steam.

Also, the "Vertical Sync" option will force the GPU to wait for the vertical sync before flipping buffers and this could also cause the CPU to wait on the GPU.

You might try reducing graphics settings to reduce the load on your video card/GPU so it can keep up with the CPU.

While the game does use at least two threads which should ideally be busy most of the time, the CPU usage on a dual-core machine may never reach 100% CPU utilization due to other factors.


 

Posted

Interesting. Thanks.


 

Posted

So a better solution would be a better GPU. Like a GeForce GT 240? Cheap as dirt at Newegg yesterday, $40 after rebates. Might as well ask here if anyone has one and what their experience with it is with this game. Already ordered it, but it's going to be a few days.


 

Posted

GT250 at least if you want to run Ultra Mode. Check out the thread on Ultra Mode for help in finding a good video card in your price range. Look for any post from je_saist for help in getting a great card for this game.


 

Posted

I have no intention of maxing settings. I already have some of the ultra mode options turned on and they work fine on my 9500 GT, things like AA and Ambient Occlusion don't interest me. The settings I can run the game at with my 9500 GT are fine for me, it's just there's a little slowdown occasionally, especially in the new mission areas. From what I can tell the GT 240 is like 2-3 times as powerful as my 9500 GT, so I'm pretty sure it's going to make me happy as long as there's no compatibility issues (which is mostly what I mean when I asked about it). This is just a quick cheap upgrade, something to last me a few months or maybe a year depending on my financial situation. The GTS 250 is 3 times as much money as I paid for my GT 240, so it was never really an option. I probably would have gone with a GT 220 if there wasn't a sale.