World Of Warcraft: Cataclysm--Tom's Performance Guide

[Guest]

Would like some advice... I play wow and would like to play on ultra at 1680x1050. I have an amd athlon II X3 445 3.1 GHz processor and an MSI Nvidia 9800 gt video card. I too, was saddened by the lackluster performance of amd cpu's and would like to buy a new video card, but I do not want it handicapped by my sort of mainstream processor. I'm thinking a directX 11 card would boost performance, but I cannot decide which card would give me the biggest boost andd not gaet handicapped by my processor. I'm trying to decide between the nvidia 450 gs, nvidia 460 xt ot the radeon 5770. Any suggestions?

 

[exr]

This review does not sound reasonable. I do not believe a Core i3-530, being the bottom end of Intel CPUs, outclassing a Phenom II X6. Intel CPUs are less Power-consuming and they're faster per clock cycle than AMD. But this bench does not sound very trustworthy.

That the nVidia GT460 outclasses any other AMD card does not sound reasonable to me, neither.

My personal experience says, that you get what you pay for. Especially graphic cards are priced very precisely, so you the fps you get increases proportionally with the price.

Looking at the review on PC Games Hardware, where 12 GPUs were tested with DirectX11 and DirectX9 shows a result, that I would have expceted, too. Link is German, no translation so far.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,803254/WoW-Cataclysm-im-Test-12-AMD-und-Nvidia-Grafikkarten-mit-DirectX-9-und-DirectX-11/Rollenspiel-Adventure/Test/

I can only guess what went wrong during this test. But I do not take these results as reliable.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

fps doesn't increase proportionally with price!
The very low end cards still cost $50 and have almost no performance. A few bucks more, and you double the performance. But at the higher end, higher price doesn't immidiately present an equal boost in performance.

 

[kray0n]

"Could it be a problem with Nvidia's GPU? We dropped a Radeon HD 5870 in with our Phenom II flagship to check and came up with 59.19 FPS in the same test (a mere 1.31 FPS difference). Clearly, AMD's CPUs are holding back performance in Cataclysm compared to Intel's processors."

No, the problem is you're comparing the best of Intel's CPUs to an Athlon and an X6, and completely leaving out the Phenom II X4 CPUs.

Just because Intel's flagship CPU is also their best gaming performer--that doesn't make AMD the same(The X6 is their flagship, but the X4 is a better gaming performer). I was expecting you guys to know better, or if you did, to be less biased.

 

[cangelini]

[citation][nom]kray0n[/nom]"Could it be a problem with Nvidia's GPU? We dropped a Radeon HD 5870 in with our Phenom II flagship to check and came up with 59.19 FPS in the same test (a mere 1.31 FPS difference). Clearly, AMD's CPUs are holding back performance in Cataclysm compared to Intel's processors."No, the problem is you're comparing the best of Intel's CPUs to an Athlon and an X6, and completely leaving out the Phenom II X4 CPUs.Just because Intel's flagship CPU is also their best gaming performer--that doesn't make AMD the same(The X6 is their flagship, but the X4 is a better gaming performer). I was expecting you guys to know better, or if you did, to be less biased.[/citation]

I would have added a faster AMD CPU, had there been one available. As it stood, I used an AMD processor that wasn't even available yet in an attempt to give AMD the best possible opportunity to shine. The fact that, even after sharing my performance results with AMD prior to this story going live, I didn't receive any apprehension from them about the performance test's accuracy, I'm confident that what we've represented here is correct!

 

[senshu]

I find the CPU results very interesting. I would have loved to have seen a high end Core 2 Quad thrown in there. With 12Mb of cache, would it outperform even the core i7?

I'm also curious about the other benchmarks that readers have posted. This review shows AMD taking a sound thumping on all fronts. Other reviews show that at least on the graphics front, it's pretty much even (just like most other games). Undoubtedly a standard benchmark would help to alleviate some of this confusion, but for now there's no real reliable data on which to base your purchasing decision.

 

[foxrocks]

First of all, it's good to see something that focuses on WoW. There are a huge amount of people out there who play little else on their PCs. That, coupled with the fact that it can be an odd beast with what hardware it likes best, makes it mystifying why hardware sites haven't done this sort of piece before. So thanks for that Chris and TH.

I do think, though, that a follow up would be much appreciated, as certain things are inconclusive. I think more testing is needed to try and determine exactly why AMD's processors performed so poorly. It would seem to be a case of cache and memory controller performance being particularly important (more so than number of cores and clock speed), but without a comparison to say, a Core 2 Duo E8500, it's hard to say for sure.

Similarly, the performance of a Core 2 Quad with 12MB of cache would be interesting (not so much from a buying guide perspective as it is old tech, but it might give an indication of the importance of cache/memory controller performance).

The i5 750 plotted against the i7 875K would also be interesting. They have the same number of cores and cache but the i5 is much cheaper. Does the 875K offer anything to be worth the extra?

Then of course there's the AMD video card performance. It would be interesting to know what AMD and Blizzard had to say on this issue.

 

[underseb]

[citation][nom]underseb[/nom]I've done some test with a SLI of GeForce GTX 260 SP216 with a i7 920 @ 3.8 Ghz.I ran my tests at 1920*1200 with ultra settings, and used fraps to record fps. In order to tests, i take the flight from one point to another in the same area that you did in the test.Average FPS with one GTX 260 : 67.820 FPS
Average FPS with SLI GTX 260 : 101.807 FPS.Something seems to goes wrong with the gtx 295 in the test.[/citation]

So non one care about the result of my tests ?

 

[enzo matrix]

So non one care about the result of my tests ?

What do you want us to say? Those who cared, read it.

 

[underseb]

Well, i'm not expecting something from readers.
But I think C. Angelini could double check his results and correct his article if needed.
And / or test SLI with 2 cards, not with the gtx295.
I'm not sure many people will read all the comments and trust me.

 

[cdc3d]

If anyone still cares, I've played WoW for 6 years, and have usually upgraded my system based on what I though I would need for the next year of seamless playing. It's been tough at times, because you really don't know what they are going to improve next and how it is going to tax your system. Anyway, here is my system spec and results for a /timetest from Crushblow to Krazzworks. Hope it helps anyone looking, though comparing my results with Chris', I can only assume that cpu efficiency for newer chips comes into play here.

CPU: Q9550 @ 4.0ghz (471 x 8.5)
Mobo: GA EP45-UD3R
Memory: 4GB Corsair XMS2, PC8500, 942Mhz (For the OC Stability)
GFX: EVGA GTX470 @ 700/1400/3400
OS: Windows 7, 64-bit
Sound: Soundblaster Audigy SE
Storage: Western Digital, 500GB, 7200RPM, 16mb Cache

WoW Settings: Ultra, 8x MSAA, Trans set to 'Multisample', Shadows brought down 1 notch. Resolution: 1920x1080

Timetest Results:

1. Avg 55, Min 19.75, Max 127
2. Avg 50, Min 25, Max 117
3. Avg 56, Min 25 Max 119

 

[Guest]

Update this article! Add the GTX 570 , HD6950 , and HD6970. A lot of PC gamers may dabble in other games on occasion, but spend +90% of their gaming time on WoW.

This is probably the most important benchmark that anyone could include when doing a GFX or CPU hardware review, but for some reason, the hardware review world chooses to ignore 12 million users, and the PC game with the highest user base in history.

Please include WoW benchmarks in new hardware reviews.

 

[jearthman]

Im looking at an HP with the I7 and Radeon 5570. However it also will have 8GB of RAM. Will the extra RAM be able to pick up the slack of the Graphics card? I guess what Im trying to say is can this machine play wow at ultra?

 

[jearthman]

Oh and my monitor is 1900x1200

 

[tophor]

Have a 5770 crossfire setup on 10.12. Performace is very poor (imo) at 1920*1200 Ultra (No Vsync, No AA, 4x AF). I dip consistently in an instanced area (little to no players) into the 20-30 range. 20-30 is atrocious to play, I like 60fps much more. I've updated the Catalysts profiles too. I just don't know what to think, but feel ripped. Rest of system: 8gB DDR31600, i5-750@3.5Ghz, 2x 5770. Got a response from Blizzard on the official forum: "Wow is not programmed for muli GPU setups. (period)"

In these benchmarks, anything over 60fps is a waste of money. imo. However what people should REALLY look at is how often said setup dips BELOW 60fps. Personally I can feel up to about 60fps, maybe 50fps. After that, its money burnt. Its not the averages, but the average amount of time spent below 60fps. Crossfire, more trouble than its worth. Power, Heat, Profiles does not equal savings. Next card I buy will be a single GPU setup. But i'm sure people already now about <60fps, etc. also just my opinion.

Tempted to reinstall Windows for better performance, but I've got a suspicion that it ain't gonna help.

CAN anyone tell me if switching to a different driver set (10.10e?) or turning off crossfire will help improve my performance. Or possibly waiting for a new driver update? How can ATI/Nvidia allow some of their Flagship products to perform so poorly on lets face it one of the most played PC games of all time.

 

[ravnoscc]

I currently have a 5850 and am looking to upgrade to Crossfire mainly for WoW performance. On my current set up I attain 45 minimum FPS @ 1920x1200 (fullscreen mode) running every setting on Ultra, 16xAF and 4xAA. I would like to "assume" that if I upgrade to Crossfired 5850s that I should be able to see 60fps (no drops) at current settings and perhaps be able to up my FSAA to 8x or beyond and not see any performance hits. The next step would be to move to a 30" 2560x1600 rez, but that's way down the road.

Any thoughts on if this would be possible due to all the complaints about CF not working in WoW, w/or w/o Fullscreen mode, etc.

Thanks.

 

[mike mondy]

The article mentions that some hardware won't go past 59 or 60 FPS. WoW has a setting in the graphics options to limit the FPS to the Vsync rate -- which for LCD monitors is typically 60.

 

[jcrown]

I'm wondering if Blizzard has any comment on AMD CPU scaling, as this definitely puts a serious dent in the notion of building an AMD-based budget gaming PC.

 

[wuden]

ok not sure what to take from this.
i have e4300 and 9800 gt 512mb
i have a 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 monitor.

right now i use the 1680 on high i get 30ish fps.

I'd be better off upgrading cpu then gpu? where does my 400 bucks go?
new sandybridge setup with 9800gt or

a gtx 460 and q9505?

 

[neiroatopelcc]

Considered just overclocking your dualcore to hell? Might get you enough performance to run the game more properly without any upgrade.

 

[Guest]

I am curious as to why the ATI 4870X2 2G RAM card was not included in the 2560x1600 tests.

Also, I agree with a previous post in that windowed mode tests are a must with WoW. WoW isn't a game where we stay inside a single window while playing especially if we're using a dual (or more) monitor setup.

 

[Guest]

Any word on how WoW would perform on Phenom II 2.2ghz tricore with an ATI HD5650?

 

[mihaitzateo]

@Cangelini:
Just for curiosity did you checked the config file of WOW about CPU affinity?
And about "set cores detected"?
That setting needs to be adjusted when you run a CPU that have more than 2 cores,at least this is what I think so.
Cause performance scaling for CPUs from 2 cores above is very weird.
I see that you did not commented about this and are some posts about it.

Here something about that file:
http://wow-blue.com/technical-support/t1063426441-low-fps-and-lag-spikes-on-patch-4-0-3-blizz.html

Is about the file config.wtf which is in wow installation folder/WTF/wtf.config
(usually in Program Files\World of Warcraft\WTF\wtf.config).

You should add:
For 3 cores:
SET ProcessAffinityMask "7"
SET coresDetected "3"
For 4 cores or 2 cores with hyperthreading:
SET ProcessAffinityMask "15"
SET coresDetected "4"
For 5 cores:
SET ProcessAffinityMask "31"
SET coresDetected "5"
For 6 cores or 3 cores with hyperthreading:
SET ProcessAffinityMask "63"
SET coresDetected "6"
For 4 cores with hyperthreading:
SET ProcessAffinityMask "255"
SET coresDetected "8"
For 5 cores with hyperthreading
SET ProcessAffinityMask "1023"
SET coresDetected "10"
For 6 cores with hyperthreading:
SET ProcessAffinityMask "4095"
SET coresDetected "12"

The explanation you can found on wowwiki:
http://www.wowwiki.com/CVar_processAffinityMask
Is a bit mask,if you have 4 cores and want to use all cores that means 1111 which in decimal notation is 15 (1111 is in base 2 ,15 in base 10):
If you want to use cores 2 3 and 4 you have 1110 1 means you use that core,0 means you do not use that core;1110 is 13 in decimal notation.
If you want to use core 2 3 and 4 you have 0111 which means you need to put 7.
Etc.
There is also an add-on that permits to set the number of cores,up to 8:
(the add-on is tweakwow just search for google tweakwow is the version 2.9.6 - I am not able to post the link here,is not shown,do not know why).
Easyest way you get that add-on which also permits various tweaks on graphics (like turning weather off,etc) and set it from there.
(however that one have support only up to 8 cores which is for i5/i7 with 4 cores and hyperthreading,but I doubt too many ppl playing WOW have i7 980x ) )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_numeral_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_10

I have only a dual-core so I can now know about this (and quit WOW from september,) ,but I found it strange that in the add-on Tweakwow that have an update released for cataclysm also you can set the number of cores.


Not to mention that peformance scaling on Phenom II x6 is very weird,from the tests presented here,you barely gain any more performance from 3 cores to 5 core,I mean performance with 3 cores,4 cores and 5 cores is same.
Talking about this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/world-of-warcraft-cataclysm-directx-11-performance,2793-10.html
On Intel i7 980x the performance make no sense,from 2 cores to 6 cores (which is from 4 threads to 12 threads) you do not gain any more performance.In fact on four cores performance (that is 8 threads) is even better than on 5 cores (10 threads) or 6 cores (12 threads).
I guess for performance scaling on number of cores the cpus cores where disable from mainboard bios,and after WOW was retested.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Here http://wow.mmoui.com/downloads/info13562-TweakWoW.html#info is Tweakwow.
(hope this time the link works)
Is interesting what allows you to set.

 

[drakel]

Just a side note. Be sure to turn off the "vertical sync" option. It will limit any gpu to 60fps. then run from the command line "/console maxfps 400" watch the fps for a while then modify the console maxfps number to match. This opens up the video stream for testing, then back it down to save bandwidth. and fyi, WOW has more players than all the other games, period. To see benchmarks like this are "EPIC". GREAT JOB TOMS HARDWARE!
fantom
I7-950 @ 3.770 ghz
MSI GX470N GPU + 50(afterburner oc)
12 GB Kingston Hyperx (1736)
Fios 25/15
fps max 200...avg = 95 fps min = 75 fps