Problems with FPS ? Multi core ? Enjoy EQ2 like never did before!

[Zichius]

<p>Sry wrong post.</p>

[cradeg]

<p>as statet in my other reply already , i see in my task manager that even if i have 2 cores running the process (this is default on my system by the way) that only one core is taking care for calculating EQ 2. From my point of view Sony has to change the way the EQ2 engine is running to support the use of multiple cores.</p><p> best regards</p>

[Tebos]

<p>Let me get this straight. Setting affinity on CPU1, CPU2 and CPU3 will spread the game load equally on three of the four core's? Or do you also choose CPU0 along with the other core's?</p><p>There was a time when the game was hard coded to only use one of the core's and now that is not the case?</p>

[cradeg]

<p>i did a simple test , </p><p> 1) started EQ2 here on my notebook with a Intel Core 2 Duo (1 CPU with 2 Cores)  2) opened the task manager and took a look at the graphs when EQ 2 is open , one core is showing 100 % and once core almost 0 % (in total 50%) 3) i click on the Everquest 2 Proces and choose Affinity , in my case both CPU 0 and CPU 1 are enabled 4) when swith the CPU 0 off and have CPU 1 still valid , i can see in the graph of the taskmanager how the line goes up there to 100% and the other CPU drops down to 0%  5) When i enable both again , the graph goes up on the CPU 0 and CPU 1 drops down</p><p>So for me the EQ2 process is today not able to run (splitted) on both cores , even if you enable both it will run only on one , using up there everything .. and one core is not used.</p><p>best regards</p>

[Zichius]

<p>OMG ehehe mhh have to try with a single session,</p><p>but if you run multiple sessions 2 or 3 or 4 with multiple cores <b>attaching all sessions to all cores</b> , the workload IS DIVIDED by all cores. argh eheh</p><p>With the lastest core selected having a lil bit more work 5-10 % than the other.</p><p>Even the RAM usage become strange, 1 Session 1.2Gb, 3 session 2.8Gb average values.</p><p>This is 100% true, try it.</p><p>When at home will do some tests with a single session.</p>

[cradeg]

<p>with multiple sessions you mean you start EQ 2 more than once and put each process on a different cpu or ? </p>

[Zichius]

<p>Yep Teb,</p><p>Everquest2.exe---> CPU 1+CPU2+CPU3 1st session</p><p>Everquest2.exe---> CPU 1+CPU2+CPU3 2nd</p><p>Everquest2.exe---> CPU 1+CPU2+CPU3 3rd</p><p>leaving CPU0 for all the system tasks.</p>

[cradeg]

that is of course true .... but most people do not run multiple accounts on one pc , from my point of view i would like to have that One EQ II is using both cores so that i can play more smooth and having not one core waiting for anyhting to do, where in the meantime the other one is running with 100%

[Zichius]

<p>Yep Crad,</p><p>from what i can see at work i think you right, 2nd core seems only to get a lil % of work when running single session.</p><p>I will investigate more anyway. </p><p>Sad.</p>

[cradeg]

the usage on the second core is only all the other programs in the background , like anti virus and such things .. therefore it is not running at 0% but going up and down a bit , but definialty not EQ 2 that is causing this <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Dark_Grue]

<p>Changing the program processor affinity won't load-balance a single EQ2 process across multiple processors.</p><p>If you were running multiple EQ2 processes you can bind a particular one to a particular processor - doing so overrides the OS process scheduler, which is supposed to divvy up the single-threads across processors automatically anyway.</p><p>Only useful in circumstances where you're running a multi-core processor <b>and</b> multiple instances of the same program, but chances are it's not even useful for that, your anecdotes about performance notwithstanding.</p>

[Miladi]

It would probably be easier to follow this technique if your grammar and spelling were improved. It hurt my head to try and follow what you were trying to say. I just hope its because English isn't your native language. If its not, then disregard the criticism.

[Zichius]

<p>Ashes on head , ultra sry i forgot a thing :</p><p>Due to this thing:</p><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?&topic_id=43010" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...&topic_id=43010</a> </p><p>And assuming that ONE year ago i bought a 23'' new monitor, (3 days before the problem happens DEAR SOE).</p><p>I get Wineq2 support program, a must if you want to shrink windows in less than 1024x768 resolution.</p><p>I just end a lil try at work with and without Wineq2 and that makes difference !</p><p>I am not saying it will divide 50% work across Cpus but will float between 90-10 to 70-30 from what i can spot.</p><p>Sry again eheheh.</p><p>Crap, Teb is going to kill me arghhh hehe</p>

[cradeg]

<cite>Miladian wrote:</cite><blockquote>It would probably be easier to follow this technique if your grammar and spelling were improved. It hurt my head to try and follow what you were trying to say.I just hope its because English isn't your native language. If its not, then disregard the criticism.</blockquote><p>i apologize , i am no english native speaker.  i hope everyone gets my point , even with wrong grammer and spelling</p>

[Dark_Grue]

<cite>Zichius wrote:</cite><blockquote>I am not saying it will divide 50% work across Cpus but will float between 90-10 to 70-30 from what i can spot.</blockquote><p>No amount of snake oil will turn a single-threaded application like EQ2 into a multi-threaded one.</p><p>And, evenly divind all work across all (or some) processors isn't necessarily the best utilization of processor resources. That's why the scheduling algorithms (and the trade-offs built into the design decisions that make them) are so complicated.</p><p><cite>Zichius wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>Install on this HDD A fully patched WinXP, with all the things needed to run Eq2 ONLY.</blockquote><p>You should realize that <b>this step alone</b> can result is drastically improved performance, and pretty much invalidates your testing without a baseline. Stripping your PC down to only what's needed to play the game without any other system drivers, applications (or virus protection), will practically of necessity make it perform better.</p>

[Tebos]

<p>Fascinating post!</p><p>I don't have a quad-core system to try this out, but I have run multiple instance of EQII on one computer just fine, but having to drop down to "Balanced" mode from Extreme Quality when doing so. I also launch the game from seperate directory locations. Do you launch multiple EQII instances from the same directory location?</p><p>Being able to keep Extreme Quality setting on multiple instances of EQII when running on a quad-core system interest me.</p><p>I swore I was not going to do another hardware refresh for another year...sigh!</p>

[antwar]

<cite>Zichius wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Yep Teb,</p><p>Everquest2.exe---> CPU 1+CPU2+CPU3 1st session</p><p>Everquest2.exe---> CPU 1+CPU2+CPU3 2nd</p><p>Everquest2.exe---> CPU 1+CPU2+CPU3 3rd</p><p>leaving CPU0 for all the system tasks.</p></blockquote><p>this is not EXACTLY what is going on here... as tested earlier in the thread, if you enable one session of the game for both cores, only ONE CORE gets used. the same is true for multiple instances of the game. only ONE CORE is being used by that particular instance, NOT all cores selected. </p><p>in other words, you would get the EXACT SAME performance if you had enabled EQ2.exe (1) for CPU1, EQ2.exe (2) for CPU2, and EQ2.exe (3) for CPU 3 with CPU0 being utilized by the OS and any overhead. you are NOT, i repeat, NOT actually spreading the task for multiple instances across ALL CPUs. its just not happening.</p>