Bossland's Blog

Gatherbuddy Performance Part I

Rating: 2 votes, 4.50 average.
14 Comments
by
Bossland
on 17.03.2010 at 00:04 (3449 Views)
1 Computer to rule them all

I have tried to run multiple Gatherbuddys on my new/old system, now lets see how it starts:

Brand new Windows 7 Premium, brand new Kingston SSD 128 GB ( it was the fastest ssd and 300 eur are not cheap ), my 2 years old ASRock Board and an over 2 years old Intel Q6600 ( Q = Quad ), last but not least Radeon HD 5770 with 1 Gig.

My expectations where big, since from my expirience with my old AMD X2 4400+ System i was able to run 8 GBs on 40-50 % load.

Compared to that the old one had 2 cores with each 1.8 ghz the "new" one has 4 cores each 2.4 ghz.
Ram: 3.2 Gig vs 8 Gig
System: Tuned XP vs brand new installed Win7

Now my first try - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 .. 14 running but what do i see, the 4 cores are on 90 to 100 % load .. its the end, however removing all WOW AddOns still does the trick to have around 300-330 MB per WOW.

So its not the RAM, its not the Graphiccard, its the Core, but why ?
I opened the Task Manager and had an short look on the running processes, when i came around this:
Windows Search <-- 12 % load
Windows own search app to Index all changes in the files, but wait ... 14 wows running that do change a lot of setting WTFs and 14 GBs running which produce a lot of LOGs .... so the Windows Search Indexer would run 24 / 7.

Disabled the Windows Search and tried again, and i came up to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, ... 16 means 2 more, not bad, but not the thing i wanted.
Again a deeper look into the Task Manager, and look ... Desktop Window Manager Session Manager the thing that manages the Aero look, and steals around 6 % load ... disabled ...

Another try 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 18 not bad ...

18 Gatherbuddys running on an Q6600 with only using 6.65 Gig of RAM but 100 % load.
However its far beyond what i expect. The question is, would an Core7 with 12 Gig do the 24 + trick ?
And what if i use XP Pro 64bit instead of the looking like dream Win7, is the operating system the issue ?

We will find that soon out

blogs/bossland/attachments/2017-gatherbuddy-performance-part-i-dsc03291.jpgblogs/bossland/attachments/2018-gatherbuddy-performance-part-i-multibotting.jpg

Submit "Gatherbuddy Performance Part I" to Twitter Submit "Gatherbuddy Performance Part I" to Facebook Submit "Gatherbuddy Performance Part I" to Mister Wong Submit "Gatherbuddy Performance Part I" to YiGG.de

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Theories

Comments

  1. ski's Avatar
    Have I told you how crazy you are today?
  2. Akatora's Avatar
    crazy monkey blog !
    Updated 17.03.2010 at 18:10 by [ARG:5 UNDEFINED]
  3. xvampx's Avatar
    bossland give me enough sessions and wow accounts and i'll test it for you
    im running an I7 920 with 12GB DDR3 1600 mhz ram ^^
  4. Bossland's Avatar
    i am building such an system now
  5. xvampx's Avatar
    haha nice let me know the results
    i think it'll be able to run around 50-60 bots
  6. Mess1337's Avatar
    The GFX card will be the bottleneck, even though you would get the fastest single chip GFX (ATI 5870), it would only be able to run around 30 wows at lowest settings.
    Keep in mind that if you run XP, it will only support 4 GB memory, those including the Memory of the GFX.
    Also, keep in mind that running WoW on a dual chip (HD5890 or GTX 295), doesn´t nessesarily means that it will run better, since WoW ONLY supports 1 GFX chip.
  7. djmazi12's Avatar
    This must be heaven
  8. Daydreamer's Avatar
    Wow that picture looks like something from a scion fiction movie! Very nice I've got the Dell XPS 720 H2C, because I was too lazy to build one myself.
  9. Nuok's Avatar
    You didn't mention it, although you might already be doing it... but cap wow framrates to 5-10fps

    /console maxfps 10 ect...

    ps. that is a crazy setup
  10. Dalees's Avatar
    Well I think its depending on your OS. Useing WinXP will bring you much more performance on your computer. Vista sux because it ripes down you engine. Win7 is a way better than Vista but way worse than XP
    Also try to turn off all this grapic crap. That divours your performance for - mhhh wait, let me think about it °°°°° - nothing!

    Yes it looks kinda nice with all this blingbling and stuff but what for? Turn it all off and your system runs soother O
  11. pontius001's Avatar
    Actually, Mess1337, I think you might want to change your statement about XP only supporting 4GB of memory. The 32 bit supports a maximum of 4 GB, but most people will only be able to utilize about 3.2 to 3.5 GB of that 4 GB memory. However, the 64 bit version of Windows XP will allow him to utilize >4 GB of memory without the cap issues.
  12. geoffrules's Avatar
    shame you cant measure GPU utilization in task manager.
    If you GPU bound it will push work onto the CPU
  13. Azathoth1's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by Mess1337
    The GFX card will be the bottleneck, even though you would get the fastest single chip GFX (ATI 5870), it would only be able to run around 30 wows at lowest settings.
    Keep in mind that if you run XP, it will only support 4 GB memory, those including the Memory of the GFX.
    Also, keep in mind that running WoW on a dual chip (HD5890 or GTX 295), doesn´t nessesarily means that it will run better, since WoW ONLY supports 1 GFX chip.
    Hence the reason he said XP 64bit.

    Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)
  14. habsmeister's Avatar
    absolutely gobsmack!