GPU Usage

[Krynis]

Basicly when ever I am playing games such as Crysis, Age of Conan or Call of Duty 4 my GPU usage never stays above 40-50% there is the occasional spike upto 70ish but never more and never for more then a second or two, and this happens regardless of settings in game and also remains with stock or OC speeds.

Any ideas or suggestions would be great.

Edit: also happens in Mass Efftect, also I've updated my specs to current, forgot to before posting.

 

[BassBomb]

What resolution? seems like it might be waiting on cpu

 

[taltamir]

"-CPU: AMD Athlon? 64 X2 4400+ EE (OC'd: 2.75ghz)" - tell me... is your CPU useage 100% per chance?

 

[Elcs]

Im having this in AoC with my 4870 and my CPU (AM2 X2 6000+ stock), even with forced affinity and higher priority never hots 100% (or 50% single core)

 

[Fattysharp]

While I can not speak for the other games, I know Age of Conan has some issues with ATI cards that do not use all the card's ability with 32 bit drivers.

Supposedly ATI and Funcom are working to resolve this, at least that is what is posted in the AOC tech forums, and what was hinted at was next driver release we will seee the changes.

 

[schneiderguy]

You're CPU limited.

 

[lopri]

He's got a 2.7GHz A64 X2. It shouldn't be bad to that extent. Something's wrong or maybe the CCC reading is wrong. GPU usage reading on my HD 3850 was pretty accurate, but not with the HD 4870 and its hotfix drivers. I sometimes see 120%+ GPU usage which makes no sense. Had to go by CPU usage to check whether AVIVO was working.

 

[taltamir]

even if the CPU does not SHOW 100% it could still be the limiting factor, the measurements are inaccurate at best.

another thing is... maybe the ram speed or FSB or lack of L2 cache or who knows what is keeping your CPU from getting maxed out. Actually the whole POINT of a larger L2 cache is to get higher % utilization out of a CPU, doesn't mean it is not running as fast as it could. But you are definitely CPU limited with this combination of CPU + GPU. He is playing crysis, for crysis an X2 @ 2.7 is still not enough methinks. err... Maybe...

Maybe PCIe bus issue?


wait a minute... are you maybe on 1280x1024 with vsync enabled? If you are getting 60 fps with vsync then neither the GPU nor the CPU will be fully loaded, they will simple partially idle to not go over 60fps (which is a GOOD thing)

 

[MarcVenice]

So easy to say: you're cpu limited. His 2.76ghz AMD is still equal to a mainstream intel CPU. In fact, fastest AMD cpu's are only a bit faster. I bet he could gain a few fps in some games, but it won't be much, and it won't help if he's running at 1680*1050 or higher.

 

[PepperBreath]

I have a Q6600 paired with a 8800GTS. At what point can you tell you're being CPU limited or GPU limited? I was planning on upgrading my video card in a few months.

 

[MarcVenice]

If your resolution goes up, but the FPS stay the same, you're cpu limited. Or, if your resolution goes down, and your FPS go up, then you're GPU limited at those higher resolutions. Depending on what games you play you can probably bet that your 8800gts ( 512mb or 320/640mb? ) is limiting you at 1680*1050 and up in most games. In most other games it should be able to run everything on high at 1280*1024.

 

[evolucion8]

How is possible that a guy with an Athlon X2 CPU overclocked to 2.7GHz being CPU limited with such a card? That's ridiculous, my HD 3850 works at 99% in Mass Effect with my single core CPU. How can be that CPU limited with an Athlon X2? Such CPU's are far from being slow in games.

 

[Krynis]

cpu was sitting at approx 50-60% on each core the entire time, around 90-100% with affinity to one core.

PS. Normally I have it OC'd to 2.9ghz but I'm using stock cooling and its summer here so I had to bring it down alittle.

even if the CPU does not SHOW 100% it could still be the limiting factor, the measurements are inaccurate at best. another thing is... maybe the ram speed or FSB or lack of L2 cache or who knows what is keeping your CPU from getting maxed out. Actually the whole POINT of a larger L2 cache is to get higher % utilization out of a CPU, doesn't mean it is not running as fast as it could. But you are definitely CPU limited with this combination of CPU + GPU. He is playing crysis, for crysis an X2 @ 2.7 is still not enough methinks. err... Maybe... Maybe PCIe bus issue? wait a minute... are you maybe on 1280x1024 with vsync enabled? If you are getting 60 fps with vsync then neither the GPU nor the CPU will be fully loaded, they will simple partially idle to not go over 60fps (which is a GOOD thing)

I am on 1280x1024 but I do not use vsync in any of the games I mentioned, and my frame rates are usually closer to the 15-20 in the games mentioned (Mass Effect aside which runs closer to 30-40)

Wondered if the display for the gpu usage might be incorrect but I checked and if i run the over drive auto tune it does reach 100% no problem

 

[TC91]

do you have vsync on by any chance?

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Krynis
cpu was sitting at approx 50-60% on each core the entire time, around 90-100% with affinity to one core.

PS. Normally I have it OC'd to 2.9ghz but I'm using stock cooling and its summer here so I had to bring it down alittle.

even if the CPU does not SHOW 100% it could still be the limiting factor, the measurements are inaccurate at best. another thing is... maybe the ram speed or FSB or lack of L2 cache or who knows what is keeping your CPU from getting maxed out. Actually the whole POINT of a larger L2 cache is to get higher % utilization out of a CPU, doesn't mean it is not running as fast as it could. But you are definitely CPU limited with this combination of CPU + GPU. He is playing crysis, for crysis an X2 @ 2.7 is still not enough methinks. err... Maybe... Maybe PCIe bus issue? wait a minute... are you maybe on 1280x1024 with vsync enabled? If you are getting 60 fps with vsync then neither the GPU nor the CPU will be fully loaded, they will simple partially idle to not go over 60fps (which is a GOOD thing)

I am on 1280x1024 but I do not use vsync in any of the games I mentioned, and my frame rates are usually closer to the 15-20 in the games mentioned (Mass Effect aside which runs closer to 30-40)

Wondered if the display for the gpu usage might be incorrect but I checked and if i run the over drive auto tune it does reach 100% no problem

common misconception, 50-60% on each core means it a single thread that is bounced between the two cores, maxing out the one it is currently one with the other one doing some background windows stuff. (if it refreshed every 1 second, and measured / swapped threads 1000 times a second, then 500 times a second it will be at 100% usage on the core running one thread, and 500 times it will be at about 20% usage running all the other background tasks, for a total of 60% usage when averaged for the entire second in which you receive info updates).

single threaded apps don't give you 100% use one one core and 0% on the other, they give 50% on both cores due to thread swapping...

If you force a core affinity you forbid it from doing that swap, and you said you did and got 100% use on that core. That shows you that there is a thread that is maxing out your core and needs more CPU juice.
unless they were built to scale over infinate amount of cores, more "multi threaded" apps are more of the jury rigged type, where one heavy thread still does the majority of work, and alittle is offloaded to some helper threads. (like one for audio processing, and another for AI).

Bottom line is... 50% on both cores or 100% on one core with thread affinity (locking a thread) is ironclad proof that your CPU is maxed out.

Getting a quad core will actually slow you down, get the fasted dual core and OC it. an E8400 or E8500 that is.

Also 1280x1024 is THE resolution to test CPU boundness... almost every CPU limit test I see is ran on that resolution. If you raise the resolution you should notice that the GPU useage rises, while the FPS Should only go down a little compared to what it is already until your GPU hits 100%

 

[Krynis]

Except performance was about 20% slower with the affinity set to one core, and I'm pretty sure all of the above games have pretty good multi core support dont they?

I am planning to replace the CPU but I want to try an intel so I need a mobo first and my budget is rather small so it will be awhile, thought I would ask around here.

PS. my monitors native res is 1280x1024 and also the maximum res supported by this monitor.

PSS. yes I know my monitor kind of sucks...especially the lack of DVI but I absolutely cannot afford a new atm.

 

[taltamir]

if you can't afford one, then don't replace it...

Crysis getting low frame rates is a given... lower your settings a bit and just play it.

And a higher res monitor will require even more video and CPU power (mainly video card).

 

[PepperBreath]

How can you tell what games and programs are multithreaded? I know Lost Planet is multithreaded and the performance in that game matched a lot of other high end games I've tried. That suggests I'm GPU limited with my 8800 GTS 320MB, correct?

Still, if I have a Q6600, will I have to worry about being CPU limited in the near future?

 

[taltamir]

you have to look it up per game. a sizeable portion of games today is multi threaded, but they work best on two threads.

Even though crysis supports 4 core multi threading (only other game i know of is supreme command), it still plays faster on an 3ghz intel dual core then a 2.4ghz quad. And the penryn adds another 10% compared to the older C2D.
A quad core extreme at 3ghz would certainly beat a 3ghz dual core for crysis, but at comparable prices and lower speeds, you are still better off with a dual core. Especially if you OC (since the duals OC higher)

with a Q6600 without OCing you will definitely have to worry about CPU limitations IMAO. In the long run it might work out better as future games might suddenly become better at multi threading, but it is hard to predict. Plus, it makes more sense to buy what is faster today, and in the future buy "future tech" for a fraction of what it costs today... I have a policy never to buy tech that does not have tangible benefits TODAY. Because 1/10 times it will be obsolete or a fraction of the price by the time its benefits show.

I just ran mass effect on my E8400 oced @ 3.6ghz + 4850, on 1920x1200 particles high (max), textures high (there is also very high which is unplayable) and no blur or grain effect.... I have vysnc on but i am not even close to 60fps, I can feel some lag...
I was getting 95-100% CPU usage steady. No idea how much GPU usage there was, due to rivatuner not wanting to work properly with the 4850 (I guess i need to do the cfg mod like with the 8800GTS 512... or wait for the next version).

So I am clearly CPU bound, and it clearly scales very well on 2 cores if it manages to actually show me 100% usage. And I am not managing even 60FPS, even on such a system and setting combination.

Which surprises the heck out of me, I wouldn't have dreamed if it if you didn't mention mass effect yourself.

EDIT: PS, CPU has made PATHETIC advances in the past 2 years or so... compared to GPUs and other hardware... Nehalem shows promise, but until it hits we are stuck with relatively very "dated" CPUs... even with newer ones like penryn...

 

[Krynis]

for the record my frame rates in Crysis are nearly identical across all settings in Dx9, not much gain at all.

PS. thanks for the comments and suggestions so far

 

[MarcVenice]

Mass Effect running at 15-20 FPS, at 1280*1024 with a 8800gts 320mb, is just plain wrong. Unless he has his settings WAY up, and is actually GPU bound. But his CPU shouldn't have a problem providing past 15-20fps. In fact, I will try this tomorrow. Shame on me, but I haven't had the time to play Mass Effect yet, I have a x2 3800+ at 2.6ghz, and a 8800gts 320mb, stock speeds. I wanna bet I get better FPS, and that I'm not CPU bound in Unreal 3 Engine games, to the effect that it gets unplayable. With a faster CPU you might see higher FPS, but we're talking 80 fps vs 120 fps, big deal, right?

 

[Elcs]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Mass Effect running at 15-20 FPS, at 1280*1024 with a 8800gts 320mb, is just plain wrong. Unless he has his settings WAY up, and is actually GPU bound. But his CPU shouldn't have a problem providing past 15-20fps. In fact, I will try this tomorrow. Shame on me, but I haven't had the time to play Mass Effect yet, I have a x2 3800+ at 2.6ghz, and a 8800gts 320mb, stock speeds. I wanna bet I get better FPS, and that I'm not CPU bound in Unreal 3 Engine games, to the effect that it gets unplayable. With a faster CPU you might see higher FPS, but we're talking 80 fps vs 120 fps, big deal, right?

MarcVenice - You have been very helpful in my Age of Conan threads where I am having extremely poor performance with an X2 6000+, 4 Gb RAM and tried both a 512mb 8800GT and an HD4870 both to the same affect.

I also have a hard time to believe that I am CPU-bound on AoC although I cannot explain the performance anomaly I am having, better performance at the same settings on 1920x1080 compared to 1280x720.

I am keeping an eye closely on this thread to see what is uncovered.

 

[taltamir]

i am now told that i shouldn't be CPU bound on mass effect... intersting. This definitely bears further investigation.

 

[Krynis]

so I was messing around in UT3 today and looked up at everest in my taskbar and guess what, 90-100% cpu usage on both cores and it stayed that way until I finished playing so yeah despite my doubts it really does look like its the slow cpu, which is fine replacing it anyway.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: lopri
He's got a 2.7GHz A64 X2. It shouldn't be bad to that extent. Something's wrong or maybe the CCC reading is wrong. GPU usage reading on my HD 3850 was pretty accurate, but not with the HD 4870 and its hotfix drivers. I sometimes see 120%+ GPU usage which makes no sense. Had to go by CPU usage to check whether AVIVO was working.

thread hijack,
did you get avivo to work, with anything other than the catalyst thing, also did you find a away to edit the encoding options