Can you get better performance by setting the game to run on CPU core #2?

from Sins Forums


I run the game on a Socket 939 Athlon X2 4400, which has 1 MB cache on each core and runs at 2.2 Ghz at stock speed.  (It's a crappy overclocker and I can only squeeze 2.4 Ghz out of it.)  I have 2 GB of RAM and an 8800 GT, and the game seems to lag on my system some once there are large numbers of ships.  In the task manager I've noticed that Core #1 is being used at 100% and the only other programs I run while playing are mIRC, Firefox, and Windows Media Player (for listening to SomaFM.com radio).

What would happen if, in the Task Manager, I set the game so that it would only run on CPU #1 (core #2)?  Might I enjoy better performance if it weren't running on the same core as Windows XP and whatever else is running?
technical
3,402 views 6 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

Well, on another note, are there any game settings I could adjust that would make the game a little less processor-intensive?
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
I would be intrested if you find a way to get it optimised for multiple cores as well.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
I'm running vista w/ 2.0 GHz core 2 duo, 4 Gigs RAM, 8400 nvidia card and the game runs perfect save for when advent bubble ships are in proximity. Then the game slows way down. I havent noticed if my 2 cores are splitting the load or not, but things seem to run smooth even late game with 6 stars and 150+ planets. Only problem I end up with is the game crashing or minidumping.

Might try vista or adding more RAM if you have the means. But specifically I've no clue on getting processors to split the difference.
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
I'm running vista w/ 2.0 GHz core 2 duo, 4 Gigs RAM, 8400 nvidia card and the game runs perfect save for when advent bubble ships are in proximity. Then the game slows way down. I havent noticed if my 2 cores are splitting the load or not, but things seem to run smooth even late game with 6 stars and 150+ planets. Only problem I end up with is the game crashing or minidumping. Might try vista or adding more RAM if you have the means. But specifically I've no clue on getting processors to split the difference.
End of quote


You won't be able to, at least not with most games. It's because of the way threads are handled by the CPU at the most basic level. If multiple cores (or CPUs) are modifying the same data it will enter a deadlock state and pretty much lock up since it can't decide which is valid (do I trust the answer from Core 1 or Core 2?). At the basic level, while most applications are coded in a language that is multi threaded, games take on their own unless they are specifically coded to be multi-threaded games. Having both cores tell your video card to draw something different on the screen at the same time is an issue, just like both cores trying to read/write to the same section of memory, etc. The game needs to be coded in a manner permitting multiple independent threads (for instance: one for graphics, one for I/O, one for AI, etc) and the O/S and CPU will assign threads to cores as it sees fit. An example of this would be Supreme Commander which splits itself in multiple threads (I/O, AI, Video, sound, etc) the operating system will offload the seperate threads onto different cores. They don't have to be different cores for each one though just that the game/programs has to be coded in such a way that the threads that make up the game can be separated from each other and not end up deadlocking the system. One core can handle multiple threads (it's doing it right now for you with multiple programs open) but unless the programs as I've stated is coded to in a multi-core able manner it won't be able to.

I just wanted to add, that this is why having a dual/quad/multi core system isn't a gigantic boon to gamers. Sure, in the future it will be nice when games really support them but right now they really only provide a marginal benefit of moving the background tasks off the same core as the game (which is a bit of performance boost but not "huge"). It is nice when running multiple applications though at the same time since a whole programs can be moved from core to core.

Note: I'm not an professional programmer or anything so the specific of how it's coded I'm not sure of just that at a basic level this is why that occurs.
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

Wow what a busy post - I finally decided to search for what could be causing my problems...

Problem: regardless of graphics settings, I can only play for 25 seconds... then it simply stops/stalls for 1 minute 05 seconds (but still buffers mouse clicks to some degree). This 'lag' has increased (from 25/25 second active/stalled) as my current game has progressed (3 stars, 2 enemies - ie: certainly not 6 stars as another poster had mentioned!)

Without going into all my pc specs since it seems irrelevant for the most part (basically; intel duo 2.8ghz overclocked to 3.2ghz each core) gives u an idea. It's well over spec'd compared to some of the machines mentioned in this post.

I've wondered tho - a "possible" point of difference is my ram runs in "flex" mode (whateva that means) cuz I added a 3rd gig of ram but that 3rd gig is a different 'make/model' than the other 2 ram sims. Apparently all my ram runs slower because of this 'incompatibility'.

Someone mentioned a potential system-'timing' issue... maybe my ram situation and/or my cpu being overclocked is causing this so-called bottleneck?

One day (maybe) I might try Sins without that 3rd ram sim and see if theres if theres any kind of improvement... otherwise I might just lose interest - not that it matters to anyone else - IC already have my money.