Crysis Multiplayer CPU Usage

[The Sly Syl]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Skacer
Phew, for a second there I thought I was the only one who realized most games pre-dualcore did this.

Actually, any game designer that claims their game to be dualcore or quadcore enabled, that doesn't do this, is simply lying through their teeth. If they had actually been designed from the outset to use x amount of cores, they would actually use x amount of cores at 100% usage.

Yeah; I was wondering why this was any sort of a problem at all. I have really old windows 98 era games that still use 100% of one of my cores. They use every single bit possible to shoot the framerates into the thousands. (But, at the time ~ it was simply a playable framerate)

I mean, oddly enough, even something as old as X-com attemps to try and use 100% CPU usage.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: The Sly Syl

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Skacer
Phew, for a second there I thought I was the only one who realized most games pre-dualcore did this.

Actually, any game designer that claims their game to be dualcore or quadcore enabled, that doesn't do this, is simply lying through their teeth. If they had actually been designed from the outset to use x amount of cores, they would actually use x amount of cores at 100% usage.

Yeah; I was wondering why this was any sort of a problem at all. I have really old windows 98 era games that still use 100% of one of my cores. They use every single bit possible to shoot the framerates into the thousands. (But, at the time ~ it was simply a playable framerate)

I mean, oddly enough, even something as old as X-com attemps to try and use 100% CPU usage.

Good to see I'm starting to get some posters on my side of the fence on this issue ... I was starting to think I was crazy.

100% usage while you're playing Crysis is not a system issue. If you have 100% pegged in Windows, then you should be looking at other problems with your build.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I would expect that 100% CPU usage is only a problem if the GPU usage is only at 80% or so - if it's 100%/95%, the situation should be more or less the same as 95%/100% - very well matched.

It also occurs to me they may be detecting idle CPU time and upping the LOD on physics until they run out of idle cycles. No sense in just leaving them doing nothing if they could be increasing detail, even if only in a very small manner.

 

[math20]

I am dual booting xp and vista and I notice huge performance gains in xp. The readme.txt even says that vista is not officially supported. Sorry to be a vista hater, I like it for most things but some games just have performance problems in it.

 

[Mandin62]

math20 when you say huge what does that mean?

 

[math20]

I mean that it runs noticeably smoother in xp, parts that would lag a lot in vista lag to a minimum in xp such as entering and exiting buildings or 1v1 duels. I'd say a minimum gain of 10fps, I'd have to do some benchmarks to know for certain though.

Another thing is that I'm running at 1280x800 with high settings and the resolution I set the game to seems to have a much larger impact than the other settings. Probably has something to do with 320mb of vram.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: math20
I am dual booting xp and vista and I notice huge performance gains in xp. The readme.txt even says that vista is not officially supported. Sorry to be a vista hater, I like it for most things but some games just have performance problems in it.

Thank you for proving my point to everyone about windows vista vs windows xp when running the Crysis Beta how vista is not officially supported!

 

[Stas]

well, that was a good laugh. OMG an application is using 100% of the CPU time. CPU is gonna break! lol
Come on people, this is nothing like flooring a car in 1st gear.
Your CPU is going to be used at 100% becuase that's what the application requires. If your CPU was only used 90% of the time then that would mean that something else is a bottleneck. Video card for example.
Running the game at lower settings WILL NOT relieve the CPU from significant load. In fact, this makes the game more CPU limitted than running it at high settings. At lower settings Video card is no longer struggling to process all the pixels, so CPU has more work to do. Why do you think they test CPUs in games at like 800x600 or 640x480 all low settings? Because that's where CPU performance counts.
If a game is NOT using 100% CPU time while nothing else CPU instensive is running in the background then that's bad coding. There is always something to do for a CPU, and if it's idling for no reason (video card is not the limiting factor) then the game is simply not optimized to take advantage of the particular proccessor.

 

[Stas]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: The Sly Syl

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Skacer
Phew, for a second there I thought I was the only one who realized most games pre-dualcore did this.

Actually, any game designer that claims their game to be dualcore or quadcore enabled, that doesn't do this, is simply lying through their teeth. If they had actually been designed from the outset to use x amount of cores, they would actually use x amount of cores at 100% usage.

Yeah; I was wondering why this was any sort of a problem at all. I have really old windows 98 era games that still use 100% of one of my cores. They use every single bit possible to shoot the framerates into the thousands. (But, at the time ~ it was simply a playable framerate)

I mean, oddly enough, even something as old as X-com attemps to try and use 100% CPU usage.

Good to see I'm starting to get some posters on my side of the fence on this issue ... I was starting to think I was crazy.

100% usage while you're playing Crysis is not a system issue. If you have 100% pegged in Windows, then you should be looking at other problems with your build.

Don't let them weaken your faith! Especially if it's based on true knowlege. Running CPU at 100% is not bad for the CPU itself.

 

[Cogman]

lol, All you have to do is look at the post count for all the "OMG 100%, its going to esplode!" in terms of what is "bad" for you cpu, idling is just as bad as running at 100% perhaps even worse because you are just waisting energy. Don't believe me? How many people fold? Now how much CPU usage does folding take up? 100% you say? so where is the mass of "OMG Folding bork my cpu" threads? Good luck trying to find them.

As others have stated, 100% usage is not a bad thing, that just means that they are using all cores and not just 1 or 2. Generally that translates in to better effects, AI, and smoother play. Not always of course, there is such thing as inefficient programming, but that usually translates into crappy effects with choppy game play. It is NOT easy to use 100% of 4 cores. Threading while programming is actually pretty hard. So 100% is a good sign that someone is doing their job correctly.

And -10 points for the person that draw the cpu -> car analogy, cpu != car. The only thing you should fear about 100% cpu power is the heat produce, but Intel tackled that a fair time ago. Once your cpu hits 10C below a possible damaging tempurature, your computer will freeze, shutdown, or just stop, but restarting will fix all of that.

 

[videogames101]

this is really funny, 100% means your getting the maximum fps possible... whats bad again?

 

[shortylickens]

Ummmm, I hate to tell you this sir (but I'm bored so I may as well), I have an Athlon 64 4800+ and when I play Master of Orion 2 it uses up 99 - 100%.
Unless I set processor affinity down to only one of my cores and then its 49-50%.