Cores for Cataclysm

[LavCat]

As Cataclysm draws closer I'm thinking about what can be done to mitigate the inevitable performance hit. For me a new graphics card is not really an option, but a faster processor might be, if it would really help.

What I want to know is how many cores can WoW make use of, and will this number increase in Cataclysm? I have a three core processor at the moment and as far as I can tell by the Windows performance graphs, all three cores are used. Some people on the web have said WoW runs only in a single thread, but this hardly seems correct. If I were to get a Thuban part, would it be a waste for WoW? Is anyone currently running WoW on a six core processor?

Would any other moderate upgrades give more of an improvement for Cataclysm do you think?


Edit: Windows 7 Resource Monitor reports Wow.exe has 46 active threads.

[Concillian]

WoW can use more than 2 cores right now, I think 8 is max. I do not know how the performance scales with cores. I currently use a dual core i3 at 4GHz and I've never had a situation where performance was unacceptable.

You do have to mess a little with setProcessAffinity in config.wtf
5 = cores 1&3
7 = cores 1,2,3
10 = cores 2&4
14 = Cores 2,3,4
15 = Cores 1,2,3,4

I assume it can keep going all the way to at least 255.

According to a blue post in this thread though, it may be unnecessary to change these settings manually anymore, though I know there was a period where you did have to do it manually: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread...0298&sid=1

Windows 7 will also park cores under certain conditions, and this seems to affect WoW users. Details of how to turn this off here: http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?high=&...73&mpage=1
Be sure to click the other link in the first post, which has a reversible registry entry for disabling instead of deleting an existing entry.

It's possible that you can improve your performance without a processor upgrade. I've seen people noting significant FPS increases just by messing with processor mask and disabling core parking.

As far as other upgrades helping, that would need more details. Where do you experience degradations? In general, GPU options can be turned down pretty far to the point that CPU is probably the only thing that you would ever NEED to upgrade to get better performance. However, I'm guessing if you have Win7 and an x3, your video performance is probably not a major issue.

For what it's worth, I'm using an i3 @ 4GHz and 5770 (mild overclock) with (2) 1280x1024 monitors, one for the viewport and one for chat windows and maps and such.. essentially slightly more video power than running 1280x. I started by setting everything "ultra". Performance was okay, but I hate the shadows at ultra, and turning these down moved performance to flawless (always over 60FPS). I'll disable more annoying stuff later (like grass that sticks up and hides the mobs). Haven't done anything really challenging (running recount and combat logging while in a 25 man), but I don't see a huge performance difference between Cata and Wrath.

[LavCat]

WoW can use more than 2 cores right now, I think 8 is max. I do not know how the performance scales with cores. I currently use a dual core i3 at 4GHz and I've never had a situation where performance was unacceptable.

You do have to mess a little with setProcessAffinity in config.wtf
5 = cores 1&3
7 = cores 1,2,3
10 = cores 2&4
14 = Cores 2,3,4
15 = Cores 1,2,3,4

I assume it can keep going all the way to at least 255.

According to a blue post in this thread though, it may be unnecessary to change these settings manually anymore, though I know there was a period where you did have to do it manually: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread...0298&sid=1

Windows 7 will also park cores under certain conditions, and this seems to affect WoW users. Details of how to turn this off here: http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.aspx?high=&...73&mpage=1
Be sure to click the other link in the first post, which has a reversible registry entry for disabling instead of deleting an existing entry.

It's possible that you can improve your performance without a processor upgrade. I've seen people noting significant FPS increases just by messing with processor mask and disabling core parking.

As far as other upgrades helping, that would need more details. Where do you experience degradations? In general, GPU options can be turned down pretty far to the point that CPU is probably the only thing that you would ever NEED to upgrade to get better performance. However, I'm guessing if you have Win7 and an x3, your video performance is probably not a major issue.

For what it's worth, I'm using an i3 @ 4GHz and 5770 (mild overclock) with (2) 1280x1024 monitors, one for the viewport and one for chat windows and maps and such.. essentially slightly more video power than running 1280x. I started by setting everything "ultra". Performance was okay, but I hate the shadows at ultra, and turning these down moved performance to flawless (always over 60FPS). I'll disable more annoying stuff later (like grass that sticks up and hides the mobs). Haven't done anything really challenging (running recount and combat logging while in a 25 man), but I don't see a huge performance difference between Cata and Wrath.

You playing Cataclysm Beta? Do you use the DirectX 11 option or DX9?

From what I've read processAffinityMask is set to maximum by default. In any event all three of my cores seem to be used. I have never seen a core parked (not that I check that often), but parking is not supposed to happen unless one has four or more cores, which I don't.

I like eye candy. I run a single monitor 1920x1200. Everything is turned up except for shadows, which are set one notch down from max. The max shadows setting lowers frame rate too much. My AA is currently set to 4x Edge-detect, which to my eye looks better than 4x set in game. I can't run higher than 4x Edge-detect without a frame rate hit. Even so I drop down to 30 fps flying through dense trees. I'd like to run AA higher than 4x Edge-detect if I could.

Frame rate also drops in Dalaran, but in most places it is 60 fps for me. I am amazed that Cataclysm does not have lower frame rates. When Wrath came out (actually the patch before Wrath) everything slowed to a crawl on my machine, necessitating a new video card.

I seem to get better results setting the Wow.exe process to high priority. Unfortunately I don't know how to make the setting stick. I have to set the priority in Task Manager each time WoW is started. Anyone know how to do this automatically?

[Concillian]

I seem to get better results setting the Wow.exe process to high priority. Unfortunately I don't know how to make the setting stick. I have to set the priority in Task Manager each time WoW is started. Anyone know how to do this automatically?

change whatever the shortcut says for launching in properties to

cmd /c start "" /abovenormal "<path>\wow.exe"

or use /high in place of /abovenormal

Note that if you use the launcher it doesn't work, it only sets the launcher high priority, and the launcher will start wow at normal priority.

You probably also want to change the icon, which is a different setting in the properties of the shortcut, choose that and browse back to wherever you have wow.exe.

[Concillian]

You playing Cataclysm Beta? Do you use the DirectX 11 option or DX9?

I do not see an option for this. I set the general quality slider to Ultra, then manually moved shadows to low. When I crash, the info in the GFX section implies DX9, something like D3D9....

[LavCat]

Note that if you use the launcher it doesn't work, it only sets the launcher high priority, and the launcher will start wow at normal priority.

Alas I had already researched this solution before I asked the question, but since I am using the launcher, it does not help.

[Concillian]

Alas I had already researched this solution before I asked the question, but since I am using the launcher, it does not help.

Well stop using the launcher =P

Or only use the launcher like once a week or something to see if there's something to download.

[LavCat]

You playing Cataclysm Beta? Do you use the DirectX 11 option or DX9?

I do not see an option for this. I set the general quality slider to Ultra, then manually moved shadows to low. When I crash, the info in the GFX section implies DX9, something like D3D9....

SET gxApi "d3d11"

I am not in the beta and I run with gxApi set to d3d9ex. If I use the Wrath default of d3d9 I get frequent client crashes in any high texture area. The d3d9ex setting fixes the problem for me, thankfully.

[Concillian]

SET gxApi "d3d11"

I am not in the beta and I run with gxApi set to d3d9ex. If I use the Wrath default of d3d9 I get frequent client crashes in any high texture area. The d3d9ex setting fixes the problem for me, thankfully.

Says it runs faster set to DX11, but crashes with multisampling (AA). That bites, but hey it crashes pretty often anyway, I'll give it a shot.

I've seen some sunshafts, maybe this is enabled in the base client now. Perhaps it makes them different with that variable.

[LavCat]

I tried some time tests last night, between Stormwind and Booty Bay, in order to measure the effect of shadow quality maxed and one notch less than maxed. Running with vsync enabled as I do, there was no difference: 60 fps average in each case. I like the shadows, but unfortunately the highest shadow quality still takes a framerate hit in Dalaran. I'm wondering if d3d11 will go live this week?

[Concillian]

I tried d3d11 and saw zero change in frame rate and image quality. I was standing somewhere out in the open where I was seeing less than max FPS (vsync off, max set to 100 FPS) due to high ground density, which should have been attributable to GPU. Exited, added the d3d11 line and logged back in, no change. Turned ground density back down a little to up the frame rates again, and the next beta patch removed the d3d11 line for me. I don't know if it did anything to the actual game, but I saw no difference.

Much of the other stuff listed in that thread, like sunshafts are available options in the UI, I assume so on the PTR as well.

[Concillian]

Not sure what they did for a benchmark, but this is showing little to no gain with more cores than 2, all clock speed. Perhaps raiding is different than what they did. I take any WoW benchmark with a grain of salt, since there's really no way to benchmark what really matters (raiding while logging and running recount)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3937/amds-...formance/5

[LavCat]

Not sure what they did for a benchmark, but this is showing little to no gain with more cores than 2, all clock speed. Perhaps raiding is different than what they did. I take any WoW benchmark with a grain of salt, since there's really no way to benchmark what really matters (raiding while logging and running recount)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3937/amds-...formance/5

I confess that when I get up in the morning (more typically afternoon) the first thing I read is anandtech, second is the lounge.

That article was a disapointment, not least because the prices were not lower, but also because I did not know what to make of the WoW data. It's pretty clear to me on my own machine that all three cores are being used, as the three cpu usage graphs have the same shape. I wish Blizzard would be more forthcoming about the game engine.

I thought what mattered was Wintergrasp and running recount?

[Concillian]

I tried d3d11 and saw zero change in frame rate and image quality. I was standing somewhere out in the open where I was seeing less than max FPS (vsync off, max set to 100 FPS) due to high ground density, which should have been attributable to GPU. Exited, added the d3d11 line and logged back in, no change. Turned ground density back down a little to up the frame rates again, and the next beta patch removed the d3d11 line for me. I don't know if it did anything to the actual game, but I saw no difference.

Well, I realized I didn't actually have DX11 installed since my last OS install (Vista). I hadn't installed SP2, which for some dumb reason isn't available on Windows Update, and you have to go seek it out. Then the Platform update for DX11 shows on Windows Update.

So I did this while the latest beta version was downloading.

The good news is that d3d11 does work and does speed things up. I went from 67-75 FPS in one spot to 95-105 FPS in the same spot (settings were EVERYTHING Ultra, including shadows). A very significant boost. I haven't tried with AA, the notes say that will potentially crash. My spot was looking out of Crossroads just north of the road to Ratchet from Crossroads, since my beta druid happened to be in the inn at Crossroads.

Playing with the options a bit, it seems the higher quality options have a LOT less impact on FPS. Shadows from Ultra to low moved FPS from ~95 average to ~105 average, for example, where before this was more significant. The spot I'm in has a moving dynamic shadow so I could be sure this was at least semi-representative.

The bad news is they tried to implement multi-monitor support into WoW itself and this completely broke what I have had working. In WoW Eyefinity works fine and I get my 2560x1024. In WoW-Beta I get 2 1280x1024 with the same thing displayed with both monitors. Since, for whatever reason, the ATI CCC calls both my monitors "Monitor 1" there is no way to do anything within the in-game selector. I effectively have 1 monitor only in WoW-beta. Game breaker for me, can't go backwards when you've been playing on 2 monitors for years. I guess I'm completely spoiled.

So I didn't play much with DX11 because I couldn't play how I wanted to. I spent some time on the multi-monitor thing, perhaps I'll pick it up again later when I have more time.

EDIT:
I should have gone to bed, but didn't. Using Fullscreen Windowed mode enabled me to use both monitors as before. Display res still shows as 1280x1024, but it's obviously 2@1280x1024. Oh, and they removed the checkbox for "Full Screen Glow Effect" and in the beta is always enabled. I discovered the command to turn this off: '/console ffxGlow 0'. Never really liked that effect.

[LavCat]

Glad the d3d11 mystery was resolved. I should have gone to bed too, but I got my rogue to 78 and started grinding Wintergrasps.

My display anomaly of the evening was Ember Clutch. The FPS showed about 60 but the visible frame rate was more like 2. A bit of googling showed this is a common problem in Ember Clutch. However I don't recall the problem from when other of my characters were questing there. I hope d3d11 fixes Ember Clutch.

[Treesh]

Glad the d3d11 mystery was resolved. I should have gone to bed too, but I got my rogue to 78 and started grinding Wintergrasps.

My display anomaly of the evening was Ember Clutch. The FPS showed about 60 but the visible frame rate was more like 2. A bit of googling showed this is a common problem in Ember Clutch. However I don't recall the problem from when other of my characters were questing there. I hope d3d11 fixes Ember Clutch.

Ember clutch has always killed my machine. Just flying near it on a flight path makes the machine freeze up for a bit. I just put it down to Blizzard's issue with fire since D2 days and just avoid that area.

[LavCat]

Well, I realized I didn't actually have DX11 installed since my last OS install (Vista). I hadn't installed SP2, which for some dumb reason isn't available on Windows Update, and you have to go seek it out. Then the Platform update for DX11 shows on Windows Update.

So I did this while the latest beta version was downloading.

The good news is that d3d11 does work and does speed things up. I went from 67-75 FPS in one spot to 95-105 FPS in the same spot (settings were EVERYTHING Ultra, including shadows). A very significant boost. I haven't tried with AA, the notes say that will potentially crash. My spot was looking out of Crossroads just north of the road to Ratchet from Crossroads, since my beta druid happened to be in the inn at Crossroads.

Playing with the options a bit, it seems the higher quality options have a LOT less impact on FPS. Shadows from Ultra to low moved FPS from ~95 average to ~105 average, for example, where before this was more significant. The spot I'm in has a moving dynamic shadow so I could be sure this was at least semi-representative.

The bad news is they tried to implement multi-monitor support into WoW itself and this completely broke what I have had working. In WoW Eyefinity works fine and I get my 2560x1024. In WoW-Beta I get 2 1280x1024 with the same thing displayed with both monitors. Since, for whatever reason, the ATI CCC calls both my monitors "Monitor 1" there is no way to do anything within the in-game selector. I effectively have 1 monitor only in WoW-beta. Game breaker for me, can't go backwards when you've been playing on 2 monitors for years. I guess I'm completely spoiled.

So I didn't play much with DX11 because I couldn't play how I wanted to. I spent some time on the multi-monitor thing, perhaps I'll pick it up again later when I have more time.

EDIT:
I should have gone to bed, but didn't. Using Fullscreen Windowed mode enabled me to use both monitors as before. Display res still shows as 1280x1024, but it's obviously 2@1280x1024. Oh, and they removed the checkbox for "Full Screen Glow Effect" and in the beta is always enabled. I discovered the command to turn this off: '/console ffxGlow 0'. Never really liked that effect.

Now that 4.0.1 is live, I tried d3d11. I don't see any difference in how things look, but the option seems to break alt tabbing to the desktop. I have the same problem when running PowerDVD.

I'm going back to default for now.

By the way, I am rather disappointed in the new water after all the hype. Water seems to glow unnaturally. The effect may be better with lava though.

[Concillian]

Try running windowed fullscreen. Alt tabbing is not borked that way.

d3d11 does not look any different, just faster.

[LavCat]

Try running windowed fullscreen. Alt tabbing is not borked that way.

d3d11 does not look any different, just faster.

Just tried windowed fullscreen. Unfortunately it messes with the gamma. Night in Dalaran looks like noon in Tanaris.

[LavCat]

Try running windowed fullscreen. Alt tabbing is not borked that way.

d3d11 does not look any different, just faster.

I also noticed "high" quality shadows are broken for me in d3d11. The shadows flicker terribly. The other shadow quality levels work OK. "High" quality shadows look OK in d3d9, however.