• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Crysis 2 uses on avg 54 percent cpu usage.

tweakboy

tweakboy

Diamond Member
Soo therefore I am not bottlenecked in Christ name

settings 1080p 4xAA 16xAF high quality, vsync on .. 0 lag plays like my CRT
and never drops below 60fps ..

Soo Crysis 2 I powned it when my usage on Speedfan on my dual .. 50 percent 65 percent

My DAW takes up around 40 percent on a huge project. ,,

So tell me why to upgrade ? no ssd talk either my mech drives are fine. Thank you :hmm:
 
Last edited:
Try the high res pack for Crysis 2 and ultra on DX11. Try Witcher 2 with ubersampling all other settings maxed, try Shogun Total War 2 with all maxed, try BFBC2 all maxed, HBAO on, vsync on 32xCSAA.

But who said you're bottlenecked?
Who says you need an upgrade?
 
fffblackmage said:
Maybe those games don't take advantage of more than 2 cores?
Click to expand...


I have speedfan running on dual mon, and it DOES use all your cores,

it shows all processors being worked all 4 cores are getting worked,,

use a resource widget or app and u will see all cores get worked


go get speedfan or use taskmanager in winblowz you can see all cores being worked


The only single threaded using just 1 core , well EA Sports had that LOL but they blow anyhow.. I play games with speedfan above me,, all cores are getting worked. Doesnt have to be optimized for it.
 
I have a phenom II x4 @4Ghz, 8GB RAM, 6950s crossfired and crysis 2 dx11/hires/ultra will slow down in some map areas
 
psolord said:
That's windows thread switching. Doesn't mean that the game uses 4 cores.
Click to expand...

This. Very few games take full advantage of 4 cores.
The proof is in the fact that your number comes as closes as it does to 50%.

Try turning off vsync and see if usage goes to 100% (my bet is, it won't)
 
tweakboy said:
Soo therefore I am not bottlenecked in Christ name

settings 1080p 4xAA 16xAF high quality, vsync on .. 0 lag plays like my CRT
and never drops below 60fps ..

Soo Crysis 2 I powned it when my usage on Speedfan on my dual .. 50 percent 65 percent

My DAW takes up around 40 percent on a huge project. ,,

So tell me why to upgrade ? no ssd talk either my mech drives are fine. Thank you :hmm:
Click to expand...

sad and worries me too. WTB upgrade but no need.
 
Crap Daddy said:
Try the high res pack for Crysis 2 and ultra on DX11. Try Witcher 2 with ubersampling all other settings maxed, try Shogun Total War 2 with all maxed, try BFBC2 all maxed, HBAO on, vsync on 32xCSAA.

But who said you're bottlenecked?
Who says you need an upgrade?
Click to expand...

that only will tax the GPU. I need stuff to tax CPU>
 
tweakboy said:
I have speedfan running on dual mon, and it DOES use all your cores,

it shows all processors being worked all 4 cores are getting worked,,

use a resource widget or app and u will see all cores get worked


go get speedfan or use taskmanager in winblowz you can see all cores being worked


The only single threaded using just 1 core , well EA Sports had that LOL but they blow anyhow.. I play games with speedfan above me,, all cores are getting worked. Doesnt have to be optimized for it.
Click to expand...

windows movies the threads around two different cores too, equally tax (cap and tax) each core for heat reasons (CPU warming, a component of Nobel warnings).
 
Last edited:
soccerballtux said:
so y do we need 8 cores?????????
Click to expand...

You need 8 cores for video editing/transcoding, multitasking a few semi heavy apps at the same time, ray tracing or other stuff.

You do not need them for games that's for sure. At least not for the main thread(s) of most games. ATI and Nvidia are doing a great job multi-threading their drivers, so a "more than dual core" cpu, can be put to good use.

In all my benchmarking years, I have witnessed very few games actually having a huge cpu load, namely Lost Planet 2 and *surprise surprise* Timeshift!

This is what Crysis 2's cpu usage looks like on a i7-860@4Ghz and single 570. When enabling my second 570, the gpu usage did not change all that much, although it was a bit higher (which is normal due to the extra framerate), and there seems to be quite a bit more activity on the sixth thread. Even so, if you compress all that cpu usage to as little threads as possible, it would easily fit on half the threads. A dual core (+HT) lynnfield at 4Ghz, would probably produce the same results. So that means *tada* about 50% cpu usage on my i7 as well.

This is kinda sad, since it's the norm for most games and at the end of the day, most games would be ultra happy with a cheap dual core Sandy@5Ghz, but instead most of us are forced to buy cores that we don't really need. There's a reason why Intel is locking their dual cores. Most people wouldn't buy the more expensive K models. And this is why AMD may have a shot with their quad Zambezis, if they can clock decently that is and are fairly priced.
 
Last edited:
Yup its been said already it looks like the game can only see 2 cores and it is maxing them out, the other 4% is windows services running in the background. Windows spreads the load throughout 4 cores but the game can only see and use 2.

Sorry bud you are bottlenecked 😛
 
I noticed with the 1.9 patch, DX11 + HighResTexure pack it puts more stress on the GPU than before and less on the CPU.
 
soccerballtux said:
windows movies the threads around two different cores too, equally tax (cap and tax) each core for heat reasons (CPU warming, a component of Nobel warnings).
Click to expand...

Windows does not move threads around for heat reasons. Windows moves threads around because some background process is queued for a time slice while the game is running. Windows says "oh, you can use this core" when the game thread get scheduled to run it says "well, the last core you occupied is in use, so use this core".

It is called scheduling, any multiproccess/multithreaded OS is going to do the exact same thing.

You can force windows to only allow a process to run on certain cores. This can result in a measurable speedup if your process is doing too much switching.
 
soccerballtux said:
so y do we need 8 cores?????????
Click to expand...

You don't. Multiple cores is only good for concurrent problems. Games are hard to effectively make threaded as (generally) the biggest bottlenecks can't easily be split into concurrent tasks. The only games that really can do this well are games with a lot of things doing stuff like pathfinding over a complex terrain. (supreme commander is an example of this)

Most FPSes don't have this problem.
 
Cogman said:
This. Very few games take full advantage of 4 cores.
The proof is in the fact that your number comes as closes as it does to 50%.

Try turning off vsync and see if usage goes to 100% (my bet is, it won't)
Click to expand...

Will try that and report back. thx
 
Getting 50% CPU usage does not mean the game is only using two cores. A simple example with 3 jobs:
1) Takes 2 time unit
2 and 3 ) Takes 1 time unit

Lets assume that 2TUs is 1 core maxed for a frame.

First lets run it on 2 Cores:

Core 1 - Job 1 ... Job 1
Core 2 - Job 2 ... Job 3

If we run it on 4 Cores:

Core 1 - Job 1 ... Job 1
Core 2 - Job 2
Core 3 - Job 3
Core 4 - Idle

If Job 1 was just AI and didn't need to finish in the frame and jobs 2 and 3 determined the frame rate then actually 4 Cores are twice as fast as a 2 Core machine, even though CPU usage only shows 50%.

Just because a game doesn't use all the cores all of the time, does not mean its not benefiting from them sometimes. That time period might well be smaller than the Windows sampling time for Task Manager, which makes it doubly hard to see it happening.
 
BrightCandle said:
Getting 50% CPU usage does not mean the game is only using two cores. A simple example with 3 jobs:
1) Takes 2 time unit
2 and 3 ) Takes 1 time unit

Lets assume that 2TUs is 1 core maxed for a frame.

First lets run it on 2 Cores:

Core 1 - Job 1 ... Job 1
Core 2 - Job 2 ... Job 3

If we run it on 4 Cores:

Core 1 - Job 1 ... Job 1
Core 2 - Job 2
Core 3 - Job 3
Core 4 - Idle

If Job 1 was just AI and didn't need to finish in the frame and jobs 2 and 3 determined the frame rate then actually 4 Cores are twice as fast as a 2 Core machine, even though CPU usage only shows 50%.

Just because a game doesn't use all the cores all of the time, does not mean its not benefiting from them sometimes. That time period might well be smaller than the Windows sampling time for Task Manager, which makes it doubly hard to see it happening.
Click to expand...
you are making the basic assumption that the game parts are yielding their timeslices when they have no work to do. MOST games do not do this. Especially games with high requirements. Most games simply busy wait just because it generally results in higher performance while being easier to implement.
 
Cogman said:
Windows does not move threads around for heat reasons. Windows moves threads around because some background process is queued for a time slice while the game is running. Windows says "oh, you can use this core" when the game thread get scheduled to run it says "well, the last core you occupied is in use, so use this core".

It is called scheduling, any multiproccess/multithreaded OS is going to do the exact same thing.

You can force windows to only allow a process to run on certain cores. This can result in a measurable speedup if your process is doing too much switching.
Click to expand...

I had no idea. That's retarded that it moves it to another core. Context switches are lame.
 
soccerballtux said:
I had no idea. That's retarded that it moves it to another core. Context switches are lame.
Click to expand...

It doesn't always. The OS tries its hardest to prevent it. However the OS doesn't really know if one process is a 5ms process or a 5 hour process, so it treats the all the same. However after about 500ms, usually enough happens ay the same time to force a context switch.
 
tweakboy said:
Crysis 2 uses on avg 54 percent cpu usage

Soo therefore I am not bottlenecked in Christ name
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Consider this scenario. Lets say for example at a particular moment in time Crysis is running 3 threads to produce that 54%. One thread has one core pegged, so that is 25% (of a Q6600). The 2nd thread is lighter, adding about 14%, and the third thread only consumes 12%. And lets say a few windows threads are consuming 3%. That all adds up to your 54%. But since one of those threads has one core pegged, you are most definitely cpu bottlenecked. One thread is all it takes to bottleneck a quad core, if the coding isnt done right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top