Curse

kvndoom · Jul 08, 2006, 05:25 AM // 05:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wrath Of Dragons

dunno if this helps, but:
amd ~2ghz 3200 64 bit on my laptop is always 99-100%
went to my familys house over 4th of july and tried it there.
they have a 3.2 HT pentium, and it ran at around 40% all the time

HT being the key operative. HyperThreaded CPU's are seen by Windows as 2 separate CPU's so the overall usage will appear lower. But there's really no point with arguing here, people believe what they want, and can't be told otherwise. See this thread for another prime example. Coincidentally, it was the exact same issue, that of course was a non-issue. On his HT computer, gw.exe ran less than 100%, on his single threaded computer it used 100%. Trying to explain it to him was pointless, even at the very end he says his AMD system had "hypertransport" which has absolutely NO relevance to "hyperthreading" on Intel systems.

No I'm not a developer, but I am someone who has been building and troubleshooting computers for the past 11 years and playing Guild Wars for the past 14 months (at 100% CPU usage on all 4 computers I've had it installed on, I might add), and most people in this forum find my advice useful, but for certain people, until they hear what they want to hear, all forms of reason are wasted on them.

majoho · Jul 08, 2006, 08:48 AM // 08:48

As it has been stated several times, most games work like this they use close to 100% it's not an error, it's how it's supposed to be.

Kaguya · Jul 08, 2006, 09:51 AM // 09:51

Mhm. Games use all the power they can get, they want to draw as many screens per second as they can, slower computer might kick out 20 FPS and use 100% CPU, then a computer that is, say, 5 times faster, draws 100 FPS and still uses 100% CPU, instead of drawing 20 FPS and using 20% CPU.

Only cases where any modern graphics intensive game uses less than 100%, is that you are a multiprocessor system (HyperThreaded, Dual Core or even 2 physical processors), where it only uses (100/amount of processors)% of CPU, max it can get from that one processor.

Oh, another case would be where another CPU intensive program is set on higher priority of the game, hogging most of the CPU cycles, leaving the game with less %, although the total CPU usage will still be 100%. :P

Carth` · Jul 08, 2006, 10:17 AM // 10:17

Yay for people who can see sense

AlbinoChocobo · Jul 08, 2006, 10:56 AM // 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaguya

Mhm. Games use all the power they can get, they want to draw as many screens per second as they can, slower computer might kick out 20 FPS and use 100% CPU, then a computer that is, say, 5 times faster, draws 100 FPS and still uses 100% CPU, instead of drawing 20 FPS and using 20% CPU.

Only cases where any modern graphics intensive game uses less than 100%, is that you are a multiprocessor system (HyperThreaded, Dual Core or even 2 physical processors), where it only uses (100/amount of processors)% of CPU, max it can get from that one processor.

Oh, another case would be where another CPU intensive program is set on higher priority of the game, hogging most of the CPU cycles, leaving the game with less %, although the total CPU usage will still be 100%. :P

I would usually agree with that : games use 100% CPU, HyperThreading throws CPU usage measure out of track, and so on.
But experiment says different ; on my old system (3 relative GHz AMD Athlon, single proc, no bells, no whistles) and right now (just got a game update):
- full screen, (obviously) focused : 66%
- windowed, focused : 66%
- windowed, background : 99% (course, Firefox needs a few ticks too)
- reduced : 99%

Can't remember if it has always been this way, though. I'm using W2000SP4 btw.

majoho · Jul 08, 2006, 11:21 AM // 11:21

Just google the keywords and see that people bring the same thing up again and again, at pretty much ever game forum I ever was at some people have suddenly realized that that the CPU usage is high with that particular game and thinks something is wrong - THERE IS NOTHING WRONG... it's how it's supposed to be, dang it :/

http://www.google.com/search?q=game+uses+100%25+cpu

Ahhh... here is the reason:

Most games don't issue HALT commands thus they always use close to max cpu time

Kaguya · Jul 08, 2006, 11:21 AM // 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlbinoChocobo

I would usually agree with that : games use 100% CPU, HyperThreading throws CPU usage measure out of track, and so on.
But experiment says different ; on my old system (3 relative GHz AMD Athlon, single proc, no bells, no whistles) and right now (just got a game update):
- full screen, (obviously) focused : 66%
- windowed, focused : 66%
- windowed, background : 99% (course, Firefox needs a few ticks too)
- reduced : 99%

Can't remember if it has always been this way, though. I'm using W2000SP4 btw.

Well I am on AMD ClawHammer 3200+, the earlier gen 64bit proc, and GW has always been using 100% for me. I play in window pretty much all the time, and GW is eating that 99% when focused and while not focused when not running anything else. Only time I've seen it drop below 90% is when I watch videos alongside GW, when it's about 50/50 between the media player and GW, depending on what quality video I am watching.

I've checked the CPU usage usually when there's a thread like this, only to say what I have said each time.

AlbinoChocobo · Jul 08, 2006, 02:01 PM // 14:01

Well, goes to show GW is getting old. I was impressed from the start with the way it could be windowed/reduced/full screened in less than a second on my rather old machine (try that with BfME). Intelligent CPU consumption is great too (for background progs).
Then again, it seems it's not doing so great on higher-end PCs ...

Vecte · Jul 08, 2006, 03:53 PM // 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by kvndoom

HT being the key operative. HyperThreaded CPU's are seen by Windows as 2 separate CPU's so the overall usage will appear lower. But there's really no point with arguing here, people believe what they want, and can't be told otherwise. See this thread for another prime example. Coincidentally, it was the exact same issue, that of course was a non-issue. On his HT computer, gw.exe ran less than 100%, on his single threaded computer it used 100%. Trying to explain it to him was pointless, even at the very end he says his AMD system had "hypertransport" which has absolutely NO relevance to "hyperthreading" on Intel systems.

No I'm not a developer, but I am someone who has been building and troubleshooting computers for the past 11 years and playing Guild Wars for the past 14 months (at 100% CPU usage on all 4 computers I've had it installed on, I might add), and most people in this forum find my advice useful, but for certain people, until they hear what they want to hear, all forms of reason are wasted on them.

If, you paid attention to the last two lines of my last post, you see where I apologized for being hard headed. Before then I had little knowledge of HT cpu's, so when I was looking in my task manager, I had no idea what was truly going on. Yes, my saying my cpu had hypertransport had NO relevance to hyperthreading. I was not replying to what you or anyone in general in the thread said, I was making a general statment. I was not trying to link it to my Intel system being hyperthreaded. I was simply stating that my hypertransport had to be activated in the BIOS. Also to be noted, I made a few other simple short statements, just summarizing things. So please, do not use my thread as an example and say explaining something to me was pointless. Yes, I was wrong about something, and yes, I admitted it at the end, you just did not take the time to see it. I may not be as smart as you, or as smart as many others here, and I may not have as much experience, but I know quite a bit, so please, no more assumptions about me, or anyone else for that matter.

Also, if you haven't realised, the aurthor of this thread has yet to reply back about the issue. His statement in the beginning was that he was lagging extremely bad. He thought that the CPU usage might be an issue, although it likely is not. You have been negative with all of your posts towards this thread. You seem to think he is having a non issue, but he is. He is lagging bad, which, no one should truly lag, even if they are using 100% CPU. So instead of being negative, and saying, "that until people hear what they want to hear, all forms of reason are wasted," why don't you try to focus on the actual issue and try to help.

Yes, I do admit, I am bashing due to anger which I usually do not do, but I felt that this needed to be addressed. I do not care if someone uses me as an example, even if it is in a negative way. But, using me as an example and stating that explaining something to me was pointless, when It was not, angers me. I apologize to the aurthor of this thread for having done this in his thread.

Now, before anyone else makes assumptions, maybe we should all wait until he replies back with more information, and just maybe someone can think of an underlying cause to his lag.

Yanman.be · Jul 08, 2006, 04:00 PM // 16:00

I'm at 47% on a 3.0 Ghz HT pentium 4

AlbinoChocobo · Jul 08, 2006, 05:21 PM // 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yanman.be

I'm at 47% on a 3.0 Ghz HT pentium 4

Read 100% then

Malice Black · Jul 09, 2006, 03:03 AM // 03:03

mine runs around 40-50% but then my new rig owns