Determining Performance bottlenecks

[trikster2]

Can anyone give me pointers for determining performance bottlenecks in windows 2000?

I have an application that maxes out my CPU

So of course I am trying to run the application twice and it runs like cr@p

Well I could just get a faster CPU (I have a 1Ghz Duron) but I am woried that would not solve the problem.

The CPU being pegged at 100 could be a side effect of something else affecting my performance such as the speed of my memory (2100 DDR) or a slow graphics card (Geforce 3 Ti 200 64 meg).

I am running 2000, is there any performance counter, similar to the CPU meeter that will show me memory, PCI or AGP bandwidth used as a percentage of the theoretical max?

Thanks

 

[Malladine]

I second the request for such a useful utility...

Out of curiousity, what app. takes up so much CPU time trikster?

 

[Electric Amish]

It depends on what the app does....

Does it hit the HD a lot?

Does it have a lot of intense video calculations?

Does it use a lot of memory?

amish

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: Malladine
I second the request for such a useful utility...

Out of curiousity, what app. takes up so much CPU time trikster?

I am running a game called Dark ages of camelot by Mythic

Recently they allowed two instances of the game to run on the same computer.

The game engine is based on the same engine as Morrowind.

When I run two apps everything works but the client in the background "laggs"

> Does it hit the HD a lot?

No.

> Does it have a lot of intense video calculations?

Probably

> Does it use a lot of memory?

Yes. 600MB commit charge BUT I have 798MB

Originaly I thought my 512MB of ram was the problem so I upgraded to 798MB.

Did not improve a thing.

Now I'm torn between spending the $$$$ to upgrade to a newer video gard with 128 mb OR upgrading to a faster CPU than the 1 Ghz Duron

That's why I want to know if say, my AGP bus is saturated swaping textures (so maybe a 128MB video card is the answer) or if my memory bus is saturated (faster RAM, NFORCE2 Maybe?) or if it is just simply the CPU. i.e where would say, $200 be best spent.....

Another alternative is a Dual CPU system, but what the heck is up with the low end dual CPU market? It looks really dead dead right now.

 

[chizow]

The Duron is the most glaring bottleneck; throw an XP in there w/out the neutered on-die cache and you should see considerable improvement. Haven't played DAoC myself, but from what I understand it runs with low frames regardless of the GPU. The GF3 should be able to run it at a smooth framerate with some detail sacrifices.

There's really no good benchmark that'll test everything you asked, you pretty much have to isolate each variable on either the same platform (FSB/bandwidth) or on various platforms (changing CPU, GPU, mobo individually) by running it through a benchmark suite. This is why benchmarks are particularly valuable, so that over time you can compare and "store" the info from various points in time to get a better understanding of the big picture.

I'd definitely replace that Duron first though, XP's up to 2100+ can be had for less than $100. Then I'd consider a GPU upgrade. Then I'd consider a platform/RAM upgrade last.

Chiz

 

[Electric Amish]

To test the video, reduce the quality (if possible) in both instances of the game and see if that helps at all.

Also, it could be your 'net connection unless you've run 2 instances of games like this in the past w/o problem.

amish

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: Electric Amish
To test the video, reduce the quality (if possible) in both instances of the game and see if that helps at all.

Also, it could be your 'net connection unless you've run 2 instances of games like this in the past w/o problem.

amish

It's not my net connection. I normaly play on two separate computers hooked up to a Webramp/sonicwall.

Funny thing is I get the same performance at 800x600 as I do at 1280x1024. I find that kind of weird.

Yeah I know the AMD's 2,100 cost about $100.

Which would give better performance an AMD 2,100 or a Pentium 2.4Ghz?

Thanks!

 

[Acanthus]

That is the worst game ever created, dont waste your time.

Improving performance on DAOC is as much ram as you can throw at it, they require 512MB to run it properly, 1GB is much better.

Edit: Also run the bot at the lowest possible resolution.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: trikster2
Which would give better performance an AMD 2,100 or a Pentium 2.4Ghz?

Thanks!

P4 2.4 vs. AMD XP 2100+

Keep in mind, those results are with the 100MHz FSB P4, so there should be improvement with the 2.4B. In the 2.4 range its pretty even, as you can get a 2400+ for ~$140, a 2500+ Barton for $165, or a P4 2.4B for ~$160. Looks like you'll be going with DDR as well. The GF3 will become the bottleneck, but it'll certainly be better than your current situation.

Chiz

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
That is the worst game ever created, dont waste your time.

Improving performance on DAOC is as much ram as you can throw at it, they require 512MB to run it properly, 1GB is much better.

Edit: Also run the bot at the lowest possible resolution.

LoL

One mans food is anothers poison I guess. Seriously what have you found that's better than Daoc?

Ram is fine. Win2K says I have over 100M free.

I know I can put in a new CPU and it MIGHT fix it.
I know I can get a better graphics card and it MIGHT fix it.
I know I can get faster ram and it MIGHT fix it.

But regarding my original question: There is no utility that will show me anything more than CPU utiliztion? I'm running Win2K and none of the perfmon counters seem to apply.

 

[Dulanic]

Trikster there is nothing that can be done about this... its a problem with the way the game/windows allocates the CPU... it gives all the CPU to the game on top so the 2nd one lags like crazy and you cant even turn on auto follow. I have a Athlon XP 1600+ @ 1.85Ghz and it does the same thing. Sorry nothing we can do about it.

BTW games almost always use 100% of the CPU. Even 1 instance of DAoC will do that.

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: Dulanic
Trikster there is nothing that can be done about this... its a problem with the way the game/windows allocates the CPU... it gives all the CPU to the game on top so the 2nd one lags like crazy and you cant even turn on auto follow. I have a Athlon XP 1600+ @ 1.85Ghz and it does the same thing. Sorry nothing we can do about it.

BTW games almost always use 100% of the CPU. Even 1 instance of DAoC will do that.

THANK YOU Dulanic

So if I got a Dual CPU mother board and set affinity for each process to a different CPU I should be fine?

That is say a dual 1.2 Athlon MP would be better than a single Athlon 2400?

Dang when will those dual CPU NFORCE2 mother boards come out????????????

 

[clicknext]

Did you try going to my computer->properties->advanced tab->performance settings->advanced tab and changing the processor scheduling to favour background services? Worth a shot... I hope it exists in Win2000, I don't remember.

 

[Dulanic]

I was thinking of trying that myself but didnt have a chance and didnt think it would work. Dual CPU should work.

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: Dulanic
I was thinking of trying that myself but didnt have a chance and didnt think it would work. Dual CPU should work.

Wholly Cow Dual CPU is expensive

$180 for a CHEAP motherboard
$260 For 2 MP 2000+

Registered RAM?

Maybe I should just stick with my current solution: KVM, two computers and a whole lot of CTRL-CTRL (what my KVM uses to switch computers)

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: Dulanic
I was thinking of trying that myself but didnt have a chance and didnt think it would work. Dual CPU should work.

How about the new P4 Hyperthreaded CPUs?

At least that way I could use a modern motherboard.

Would HT effectively preserve CPU headroom for the background APP even if the forground app is demanding everything it can get?

>2nd one lags like crazy and you cant even turn on auto follow

This is kind of funny. I can make AF and horse riding work IF I manually switch between the two clients. So when I am moving around I am doing manaul management of my processes. It's a shame probably a few lines of code in the client and all these issues would go away.

I would not even bother but playing two clients on the same computer is a blast especialy in RvR. My bots don't sit in the CK they run around with me and I use them both equaly.

 

[Shade4ever]

You said the game was based on the Morrowind engine...so, given my previous experience, that CPU is what's stopping you...

I originally set up Morrowind on a 1.33GHz T-bird, w/ 768 MB of PC133, and running on my original GF3...got <20 FPS in intensive areas, 30-40 standing still, watching the sky.

I upgraded to an nForce2 mobo w/ 1GB PC2700...up to around 23 FPS at worst, saw 60-70 FPS twiddling my thumbs.

Finally, I got a 2600+...and now get 30-35FPS at worst w/ all options turned up (except the crappy shadows), and regularly see 150+, even during most combat.

I don't know if it'll mean much for running 2 instances of DAoC, since that didn't factor into SP-only Morrowind. Anyway, there's my input.

 

[clicknext]

Ah, morrowind... I'm currently playing that game... badly designed engine, if you ask me. It renders stuff from farthest to closest so everything that's being blocked from your view is rendered as well as anything you can see. That's why standing behind a wall doesn't make your frame rate go up. Your computer is drawing everything behind the wall.

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: Shade4ever
You said the game was based on the Morrowind engine...so, given my previous experience, that CPU is what's stopping you...

I originally set up Morrowind on a 1.33GHz T-bird, w/ 768 MB of PC133, and running on my original GF3...got <20 FPS in intensive areas, 30-40 standing still, watching the sky.

I upgraded to an nForce2 mobo w/ 1GB PC2700...up to around 23 FPS at worst, saw 60-70 FPS twiddling my thumbs.

Finally, I got a 2600+...and now get 30-35FPS at worst w/ all options turned up (except the crappy shadows), and regularly see 150+, even during most combat.

I don't know if it'll mean much for running 2 instances of DAoC, since that didn't factor into SP-only Morrowind. Anyway, there's my input.

Thanks for the input! While I don't doubt that upgrading the CPU will increase the FPS I'm just worried, esp given the input here, that no matter what the CPU speed is the background client will get low FPS.

Two clients run fine on a 1GHZ CPU if I manualy switch between them, so I am assuming more horsepower is good but not necessarily the answer.

I'm seriously considering a dual CPU option, but I want to make it clear: The second CPU is not really to add horse power (I have a 4 Ghz Computer wahoo) no the second CPU is to preserve CPU power for the process that is in the background (assuming the foreground process can only consume at max a single CPUs worth of power).

 

[wetcat007]

Morrowind runs ok for me, i get about 25 fps average, i got a XP 1700+ @ 2000+ and a GeForce 4 ti4400.

 

[EeyoreX]

I am not familiar with the game, but IMO it seems a bit excessive to switch to a dual CPU solution just to run a game.

I'm seriously considering a dual CPU option, but I want to make it clear: The second CPU is not really to add horse power (I have a 4 Ghz Computer wahoo) no the second CPU is to preserve CPU power for the process that is in the background (assuming the foreground process can only consume at max a single CPUs worth of power).

Two 2GHz CPUs would not give you a 4GHz machine. It would allow you to run two apps/processas at 2GHz. One process can only utilize 100% of 1 CPU, so your second CPU should be available for the second instance of the game.

\Dan

 

[trikster2]

Originally posted by: EeyoreX
I am not familiar with the game, but IMO it seems a bit excessive to switch to a dual CPU solution just to run a game.

I'm seriously considering a dual CPU option, but I want to make it clear: The second CPU is not really to add horse power (I have a 4 Ghz Computer wahoo) no the second CPU is to preserve CPU power for the process that is in the background (assuming the foreground process can only consume at max a single CPUs worth of power).

Two 2GHz CPUs would not give you a 4GHz machine. It would allow you to run two apps/processas at 2GHz. One process can only utilize 100% of 1 CPU, so your second CPU should be available for the second instance of the game.

\Dan

Dan I'm running the game twice which generates two separate game.dll threads.

The problem is the foreground thread takes 100% of the CPU no mater what you do.

Need to make sure some HP is reserved for the background thread and the only way I can figure out how to do that would be 2 CPUs.

Yes 2 CPU solutions are expensive. If I am brave and do the XP to MP mod I'm looking at $300 FOR 2 new 1700 XPs and a dual CPU mother board.

But the alternative is two computers so it's actually a cost savings......

 

[trikster2]

Did a survey online.

People with Geforce 4200s and 2Ghz CPUs were still getting a ton of lag/low FPS on the back ground client.

BUT

Someone with a Geforce2 and an 1800XP said she/he had no lag?

WTF?

Found out it was an the Asus MATX NFORCE motherboard.

Huh

So either: The reduced feature set of teh GeForce 2 lets it play better (Does it have T&L?) OR it's the dual channel DDR OR it's the fact that the Geforce 2 is integrated and swapping textures into and out of main memory is faster?

Dang really wish perfmon could help me out on this one.....

Almost brought a 760MPX based MB this weekend ($200) with two MP2000s ($135 each now, lowest I have seen them) but that chipset's days has to be numbered and I am really hesitant to pay nearly $500 on old technology.

Decided to wait for canterwood/springdale and get an HT enabled P4. Should be the same price and probably the same performance as the AMD solution, just newer not EOLed stuff.