Jump to content

quad core usage too low


DefQon1

Recommended Posts

Hello guys. So, i recently upgraded from E6300 to i5 2500k and i noticed that GTA IV uses only 29% of my cpu, while GPU usage is 90%.

Is that normal ? Game version is 1.0.7.0. I remember that people always said that its very cpu intensive and needs quad core, and now its

using only ~30%. Weird.

 

My other specs

 

CPU: i5 2500k @ 3.3ghz

GPU: XFX HD 5770 1GB XXX OC. Edition @ 930/1330

Mobo: Gigabyte GA-PH67-DS3-B3

RAM: 4GB Kingston HyperX DDR3 1.5V 9-9-9-24

HDD: 1TB Samsung Spinpoint

Edited by DefQon1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hello guys. So, i recently upgraded from E6300 to i5 2500k and i noticed that GTA IV uses only 29% of my cpu, while GPU usage is 90%.

Is that normal ? Game version is 1.0.7.0. I remember that people always said that its very cpu intensive and needs quad core, and now its

using only ~30%. Weird.

 

My other specs

 

CPU: i5 2500k @ 3.3ghz

GPU: XFX HD 5770 1GB XXX OC. Edition @ 930/1330

Mobo: Gigabyte GA-PH67-DS3-B3

RAM: 4GB Kingston HyperX DDR3 1.5V 9-9-9-24

HDD: 1TB Samsung Spinpoint

Probably because your graphics card is limiting your CPU in this case. If it is smooth then you have nothing to worry about, but if it is laggy then you need to turn the graphical settings down in order to get a higher framerate.

DU8afL0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should run some benchmarks while playing to see the actual CPU usage. If you got these number for the benchmark tool, be warned that those results can often be just plain wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gameplay is fine, but i thought that this CPU usage seems so low and maybe i could squeeze out even more FPS from it biggrin.gif. People saying that it needs quad core, and now it uses 30% of it, made me a bit confused. But alright, thanks guys! smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Gameplay is fine, but i thought that this CPU usage seems so low and maybe i could squeeze out even more FPS from it biggrin.gif. People saying that it needs quad core, and now it uses 30% of it, made me a bit confused. But alright, thanks guys! smile.gif

Your videocard is bottlenecking you so bad your cpu only is barely being used to keep up with the card. This game only uses 3 cores so on a quad the most it will ever use is 75% cpu usage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you buy a new video card like I have (a Radeon HD 6950 2 GB), you should enable Turbo on your CPU: going from 3.3 GHz to 3.7 GHz will also give you a couple extra frames wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, you DO NOT have a "True" Quad core Processor, as I5's are DUAL CORES, with Hyperthreading technology which makes it "Quad core performance." I too was confused by this but OTB, Exxon, and Mkey pointed that out to me in another topic a while back..To my knowledge, ONLY the I7's are actual Quads...?Just a friendly heads up. smile.giftounge2.gif

 

But, for I5's it only uses around 47% of the CPU...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radioman.

 

All mobile i5's are dual cores with hyperthreading.

The Clarkdale desktop i5's were dual cores with hyperthreading.

The Lynnfield i5's were true quads without hyperthreading.

All desktop Sandybridge i5's (except the i5-2390T) are true quads without hyperthreading.

 

Just saying dude. Peace. colgate.gif

 

 

Core i5 650   - Clarkdale - Dual Core - Hyper-ThreadingCore i5 680   - Clarkdale - Dual Core - Hyper-ThreadingCore i5 760   - Lynnfield - Quad Core - No Hyper-ThreadingCore i5 2300  - Sandybridge - Quad Core - No Hyper-ThreadingCore i5 2310  - Sandybridge - Quad Core - No Hyper-ThreadingCore i5 2400S - Sandybridge - Quad Core - No Hyper-ThreadingCore i5 2400  - Sandybridge - Quad Core - No Hyper-ThreadingCore i5 2500  - Sandybridge - Quad Core - No Hyper-ThreadingCore i5 2500K - Sandybridge - Quad Core - No Hyper-ThreadingCore i5 2500T - Sandybridge - Quad Core - No Hyper-ThreadingCore i5 2410M - Sandybridge - Dual Core - Hyper-ThreadingCore i5 2540M - Sandybridge - Dual Core - Hyper-Threading

 

 

Horses' mouths:

Mobile: http://www.intel.com/en_UK/products/proces...#specifications

Desktop: http://www.intel.com/en_UK/products/proces...#specifications

Edited by meson1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
First off, you DO NOT have a "True" Quad core Processor, as I5's are DUAL CORES, with Hyperthreading technology which makes it "Quad core performance." I too was confused by this but OTB, Exxon, and Mkey pointed that out to me in another topic a while back..To my knowledge, ONLY the I7's are actual Quads...?Just a friendly heads up. smile.giftounge2.gif

 

But, for I5's it only uses around 47% of the CPU...

I5's only use 47% of your cpu? Bullsh*t. Maybe if your setting are too high it would use that little. Perhaps this game has screwed up performance on hyperthreaded CPUs, I have no idea but you can turn hyperthreading off. And turning it off dosen't make it "not a i5" Please don't give advice if you don't know what your talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, you DO NOT have a "True" Quad core Processor, as I5's are DUAL CORES, with Hyperthreading technology which makes it "Quad core performance." I too was confused by this but OTB, Exxon, and Mkey pointed that out to me in another topic a while back..To my knowledge, ONLY the I7's are actual Quads...?Just a friendly heads up. smile.gif  tounge2.gif

 

But, for I5's it only uses around 47% of the CPU...

I5's only use 47% of your cpu? Bullsh*t. Maybe if your setting are too high it would use that little. Perhaps this game has screwed up performance on hyperthreaded CPUs, I have no idea but you can turn hyperthreading off. And turning it off dosen't make it "not a i5" Please don't give advice if you don't know what your talking about.

The CPU usages for I5's I posted are true, as seen here on my Benchmark from the in-game Benchmark tool:

Statistics

Average FPS: 27.74

Duration: 37.09 sec

CPU Usage: 42%

System memory usage: 57%

Video memory usage: 69%

 

Graphics Settings

Video Mode: 1024 x 600 (60 Hz)

Texture Quality: Low

Texture Filter Quality: Low

View Distance: 5

Detail Distance: 20

 

Hardware

Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium

Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium

Video Adapter: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470 

Video Driver version: 8.14.1.6091

Audio Adapter: Speakers and Headphones (IDT High Definition Audio CODEC)

Intel® Core™ i5 CPU      M 430  @ 2.27GHz

 

This is with Patch 4, it was 47% when I was playing the game without any patches...so, it IS true about the CPU Usuage on I5's...Just a friendly heads up.. tounge2.giflol.gif

 

But, about the I5 and Hyperthreading, I was going on what Exxon, OTB, Mkey, etc. has said in another topic where I was confused about that-I trust what they said about it, as I know they know what they are talking about with PC's..But, until I read what meson1 posted, I didn't know that pertained to pretty much only laptop I5's and that desktop I5's have either a Dual or Quad core models... confused.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YankeesPwnMets

Radioman, lemme get things straight here.

 

You have the MOBILE version of the i5, which is a dual core with four threads. All MOBILE versions of the i5 are dual cores

The i5 2500K is a DESKTOP version of the i5, which has four PHYSICAL cores and EIGHT threads. Only SOME desktop i5 are dual, while the rest are quads.

 

If you have some confusion, its OK to ask

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radioman, lemme get things straight here.

 

You have the MOBILE version of the i5, which is a dual core with four threads. All MOBILE versions of the i5 are dual cores

The i5 2500K is a DESKTOP version of the i5, which has four PHYSICAL cores and EIGHT threads. Only SOME desktop i5 are dual, while the rest are quads.

 

If you have some confusion, its OK to ask

Thanks for clearing that up, as I had no idea there was that much of a difference between the Desktop versions and laptop versions..I knew I had a Dual core version though(with Hyperthreading, which essentially makes it a Quad performance wise), thanks to a topic a while back where I was confused about that...

 

But, the only thing I am still confused about, is...What is the difference performance wise in having a Quad w/ Hyperthreading and having a Quad with 4 Physical cores? Also, what is the difference performance wise between a laptop I5 and a Desktop I5(the Dual core models of the Desktop versions)? Is there really that big of a difference between Hyperthreading cores and Physical cores? Just curious. confused.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radioman, lemme get things straight here.

 

You have the MOBILE version of the i5, which is a dual core with four threads. All MOBILE versions of the i5 are dual cores

The i5 2500K is a DESKTOP version of the i5, which has four PHYSICAL cores and EIGHT threads. Only SOME desktop i5 are dual, while the rest are quads.

 

If you have some confusion, its OK to ask

YankessPwnMets, lemme get things straight here. tounge.gif

 

The i5 2500K doesn't have 8 THREADS, it has only 4, the i7 2600K has 8 THREADS.

3lIXKDi.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I blame Intel for this confusion, really.

Agreed lol.gificon14.gif

 

But I was already going to say, I thought the 2500k didn't had HT wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YankeesPwnMets
Radioman, lemme get things straight here.

 

You have the MOBILE version of the i5, which is a dual core with four threads. All MOBILE versions of the i5 are dual cores

The i5 2500K is a DESKTOP version of the i5, which has four PHYSICAL cores and EIGHT threads. Only SOME desktop i5 are dual, while the rest are quads.

 

If you have some confusion, its OK to ask

YankessPwnMets, lemme get things straight here. tounge.gif

 

The i5 2500K doesn't have 8 THREADS, it has only 4, the i7 2600K has 8 THREADS.

Sorry... it was late and this i5 i7 jumbo mess was screwin with my head tounge.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But, the only thing I am still confused about, is...What is the difference performance wise in having a Quad w/ Hyperthreading and having a Quad with 4 Physical cores? Also, what is the difference performance wise between a laptop I5 and a Desktop I5(the Dual core models of the Desktop versions)? Is there really that big of a difference between Hyperthreading cores and Physical cores? Just curious. confused.gif

In response, I'm going to post the text of an article I found that seems to give a decent explanation of hyperthreading, what it is and some of the advantages and drawbacks.

 

 

HyperThreading…what is it?

Basically, HyperThreading is just Intel’s marketing term for their implementation of Simultaneous Multi-Threading (SMT, for short). SMT literally means executing two threads simultaneously on a single processing core. In reality, the name SMT is used mostly for historical reasons as two threads never actually execute simultaneously on the same hardware. However, HyperThreading (referred to as HT from here on) will switch between threads quickly enough that the illusion is that they are running at the same time.

 

So, what does it do?

 

In order to understand what HT actually does, it’s important to understand a few basics about the computer architecture. For the sake of simplicity, I’ll be describing a single HyperThreaded core but it works essentially the same way on a dual/quad/hex core. There’s a few elements of a CPU that you need to know about to understand HT:

 

Registers - Registers are basically circuits that hold a single 64-bit value and is the fastest form of storage available on a computer. The x86 architecture provides a number of General Purpose Registers that are used by an executing program. In a multicore chip, registers are unique to each core so if you have a quad-core processor, there will be 4 sets of general purpose registers.

 

Cache – Cache is essentially a form of storage that falls between registers and RAM in terms of speed. In modern processors there are generally three levels and in the case of the i7, Levels 1 & 2 are private and Level 3 is shared by all the cores on a chip. The most important thing to know is that accessing the cache is slower than registers but still faster than RAM.

 

Execution Unit – This is the section in the CPU responsible for actually executing the instructions. If you tell the computer to add 2 + 3, this is the part that operation would be performed in.

 

Front-End – This is a unit of the processor that is also known as Instruction Fetch/Decode. Essentially this unit will grab instructions from either cache or RAM and decode them into a form the execution unit can understand.

 

Branch Predictor – Not too important to know, but basically this unit will attempt to predict branches in program code. If there is an “if-then” statement in a program, it will guess which statements will be executed and prefetch them for the front-end.

 

In a core with HT, the registers are all duplicated. This means that one core will have 2 sets of registers and this is what the operating will see as a “logical core” since the sum of the registers represents the processor’s state. We’ll call these sets A and B. Even though it appears as two cores, they will still be sharing the same cache, branch predictor, front-end, and most importantly, execution unit. Because they still share so many resources, only one thread will technically execute at once. The advantage of adding the HT logic is that if a thread is executing and stalls for any reason, the other thread can be switched in very fast while the cause of the stall in the first thread is addressed. To better illustrate how this works, consider the following:

 

-Set A is considered the current state of the processor

-Thread A starts executing

-Thread A needs a value from memory that isn’t in the cache

-Memory access is very time consuming in CPU terms, so thread A is considered stalled

-Instead of wasting cycles waiting for the memory operation to complete, set B is considered the current state

-Thread B is now executing until it stalls or until thread A can execute again (memory operation finishes)

 

This process basically just continues on constantly. Now, there should be an obvious question: What can cause a thread to stall? There’s a few things, the simplest one to understand is a cache miss. This is when the thread goes to access a value that isn’t currently in the cache or any of the registers. A branch misprediction can also occur when the branch predictor prefetches the wrong instructions into the cache.

 

There is another time HyperThreading kicks in, and that is if one thread is using Floating-Point resources while the 2nd is only using Integer resources. HT will allow them both to execute simultaneously while they don't conflict.

 

Does it actually help?

 

HyperThreading has some interesting performance characteristics as a result of its nature. HT will provide close to zero advantage if instruction decoding or execution is the limiting factor in performance. In the Nehalem architecture this is rarely the case. It performs ideally when there are a lot of cache misses or branch mispredictions since the execution unit would otherwise be idle waiting for these issues to be resolved.

 

Basically, certain applications will benefit more than others. Running a more parallel workload such as rendering or encoding video will see a nice benefit from HT since it’s likely both threads will be accessing the same data so they aren’t really competing for cache. Additionally the relatively small amount of local L2 cache in the i7 (256k) means there will be a decent amount of memory access giving the second thread time to execute. Also, it can result in a more responsive machine if not much is going on since threads will have very low execution time and it’s much faster for the CPU to switch the active register set than to grab another thread from RAM and load it into the registers.

 

Are there drawbacks?

As with most engineering decisions, there are drawbacks to HT. One of the more obvious one is that since HT keeps the execution unit fed more efficiently, it spends less time idle and can result in higher operating temperatures. More time idle would mean the CPU got a chance to cool down before the next execution burst and would result in a lower max temperature.

There are also programs that will either not see any benefit from HT or see decreased performance as well. Typically something that has performance limited by cache, instruction decode, the execution unit, or memory access will see little to negative improvement from HT (one of the reasons the i7 has so much memory bandwidth).

 

Running more than one multithreaded, computationally intensive task at a time can also be a situation where HT doesn’t help performance. If a processor core is running threads from different programs or that are operating on different data, all of the shared resources are effectively halved (data cache, branch prediction, instruction cache). This means branch mispredictions and cache misses become even more common, possibly to the point where both threads are stalled. Depending on the specific program this can mean either lower performance (compared to HT being disabled) or worse scaling than expected.

 

The last drawback is probably the most important one: The benefit of HT is inconsistent and dependent upon the specific operating environment and programs being run. Because of the way it works, code that is heavily optimized is likely to show less benefit as it would be designed to lower branch mispredictions and cache misses. The inconsistency of HT while multitasking won’t show up on benchmarks since they’re designed to only test a single task at a time.

 

Is it worth it?

 

This is a hard question to answer, and is heavily dependent on what you’re doing. If you do a lot of 3d rendering or video transcoding then it probably is since this is the workload HT is best suited for. If you find that you generally run multiple intensive tasks simultaneously (like playing a game while encoding a video or recompiling the Linux kernel in a VM) then HT could have a negative impact on overall performance (though not necessarily). One thing that is for sure is its impact is exaggerated in synthetic benchmarks, almost to the point where it becomes misleading.

So basically it depends on what application you're running. But then there are other factors such as which generation of processor you're running on and which O/S you're running. As this article explains:

 

Multi-Core Support in Windows 7

 

Microsoft began the process of adding multi-core processor support in Windows Vista, but it really improved the underlying technology with Windows 7. Here’s what it means for you.

 

The first dual-core desktop processors appeared on the market in early 2005, with the release of the Intel Pentium D and AMD Athlon 64 X2. Dual core processors were really just the logical result of CPU process technology allowing Intel and AMD to make CPUs so small they could stick two into one package. For years, it was possible to get a dual processor computer, but that merely meant two physical processors were under the hood, and hence drew twice the power.

 

Windows XP, the prevailing operating system on the market when dual-core processors were first released, had basic multicore support. Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 were capable of seeing two logical processors per core as Core0 and Core1 and it was possible to do something called Process Affinity, where the end user told an application to run on one specific core. The vast majority of times, applications defaulted to the first core, but in some cases, especially games, one application would try to run on two cores and it would not run very well at all.

 

Microsoft addressed the dual-core issue with Windows Vista, adding a number of features in the deep plumbing of the operating system to prevent conflicts, lock-ups, or other problems. Multi-core was still emerging as a technology and the development cycle for Windows Vista was, shall we say, chaotic, but some important features were added.

 

There is, of course, only so much that Microsoft can do in terms of multi-core support. The true benefits of multi-core can only be realized at the application layer, which Microsoft is supporting by heavily modifying its Visual Studio IDE and various SDKs to support multi-threading wherever possible.

 

Intel has also provided its own tools to examine code and to look for areas where an application can be multithreaded, and both Intel and AMD provide their own developer support along with Microsoft. But in the end, all the work by Intel and AMD on the CPU and Microsoft on the OS will not make Adobe Photoshop multi-threaded. That’s Adobe’s job.

 

The task of developing multi-threaded applications will get easier when Microsoft ships Visual Studio 2010, as the upcoming release of the software development environment will offer many improvements in parallel programming support. Among them are a Task Parallel Library to run repetitive tasks in parallel when possible, Parallel Language Integrated Query (PLINQ) for parallel data operations, Microsoft Concurrency Runtime for building scheduling and resource management into the application, Asynchronous Agents Library, and the Parallel Pattern Library for C++ users.

 

Starting With Vista

 

Still, there are things Microsoft can do. Starting with Windows XP and then expanding in Vista, Microsoft introduced support for nonuniform memory architecture (NUMA) systems (AMD Opteron and Intel Nehalem families), pervasive prefetching, an improved DLL loader that creates new processes faster than Windows XP, and an improved thread pool. Vista could support multiple pools per process, something XP couldn’t do.

 

Vista has something called “anti-convoy features” to keep performance from degrading when a large number of threads were blocked, waiting for resources. You probably have encountered these. The whole system would freeze for several seconds and not respond to any input, then suddenly, bam, the system takes off again, running all of its processes. That was a convoy locking up everything.

 

If ten threads needed a resource and only nine got it but one thread failed to acquire the resource, all ten threads would lock. Vista ended this by letting threads that need a resource get that resource, then send the thread that couldn’t get a resource back to the end of the line.

 

Windows 7 Builds On This

 

Windows 7 was developed in parallel with Windows Server 2008 Release 2. The two share the same kernel and thus many features. One of them, for example, is support for up to 256 cores. AMD and Intel are at the six/eight-core range, but in a system with multiple processors, that adds up fast. Intel intends its new Nehalem-EX processor, with eight cores, to be used in servers with four sockets. That’s 32 cores and 64 threads.

 

Windows XP was built back in the time of Symmetric Multiprocessing (SMP), where multiple cores in a CPU were seen as separate physical CPUs, as were multithreaded CPUs like the new Core i5/i7. Memory was seen as a single fabric. Windows 7, with its NUMA concepts, sees cores as functional nodes, manages threads between the nodes, and allows for partitioning or allocating memory between cores.

 

This led to all kinds of headaches involving overwrites or conflicts over the same memory allocation memory. NUMA lets a portion of memory be allocated to a core. Switching memory from one core to another, though, isn’t trivial, but with Windows Vista, Microsoft added C functions to copy memory from one allocation to another.

 

As much as Windows 7 performs well on an older processor, you will see real benefits of Windows 7 if you get a newer computer with an Intel Core i5/i7 processor or AMD processor, since they both have NUMA support. In fact, benchmarks and tests have shown dramatic improvement when run on a Core i7 system instead of a computer with an older Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad processor.

 

Power management and core management is also improved. Intel’s Nehalem and AMD’s Phenom architectures actively monitor their cores and shut them down to conserve power. Prior to Windows 7, though, the OS ran threads wherever a core was available. This made it harder for quad-core machines to shut down idle cores, for example. Applications may create threads, but they don’t assign them to cores; that’s the operating system’s job.

 

So with Windows 7, there is a concerted effort to assign cores to an execution pipeline, such as a core. Now, threads get sent back to the same core where the last threads for that application executed, so an application more closely sticks with one core. This lets idle cores shut down and makes for smarter processor affinity. Instead of throwing threads at every core, it just goes to one.

 

Windows 7 also has something called “SMT parking” or “core parking.” Both are used interchangeably. This is a feature developed in partnership with Intel, which supports the Hyper-Threading (HT) in the new Core i5/i7s. In addition to managing the threads in cores, Windows 7 also manages the HT in the Intel chips. AMD has chosen not to use HT technology, so you won’t get the benefit on an AMD computer.

 

The OS recognizes which systems have Hyper-Threading and schedules for performance and thread management accordingly. It also recognizes hyperthreads and physical threads to make decisions on where to assign threads; it migrates threads to an available core at the appropriate time when necessary.

 

Windows 7 improved on the anti-convoy features, which benefits both Intel and AMD systems. In testing Vista, Microsoft found that a lot of lockups and system freezes came from multiple applications trying to access the Graphics Device Interface (GDI). In Vista, a single application could lock the whole system while it waited for another thread or application to let it access the GDI and redraw the system.

 

The Windows 7 kernel features a new GDI and improved memory allocation. Microsoft rearchitected the GDI’s internal synchronization mechanism, ending exclusive locks on the GDI by one thread. It adds a little overhead, but it keeps your whole system from freezing while multiple applications fight for the GDI — a worthwhile tradeoff.

 

Multi-core Windows PCs benefit because more than one application can be rendered by the GDI layer at the same time. In fact, each core can do a concurrent GDI rendering, and the GDI stack can send multiple requests out to the GPU for rendering work.

 

Now that multicore has become a permanent fixture in computing – not just desktops and servers, but even hand-held devices, as Intel’s Atom processor and ARM’s embedded Coretex processor are both available in dual-core designs – operating systems are being made more and more multi-core aware.

 

But always remember that the operating system is the program loaded and task handler. Your applications won’t be made multithreaded by Windows; that’s something the developers have to do, and they are, but that’s a whole other story.

I'm not sure if this answers your questions, but it is fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, you DO NOT have a "True" Quad core Processor, as I5's are DUAL CORES, with Hyperthreading technology which makes it "Quad core performance." I too was confused by this but OTB, Exxon, and Mkey pointed that out to me in another topic a while back..To my knowledge, ONLY the I7's are actual Quads...?Just a friendly heads up. smile.gif  tounge2.gif

 

But, for I5's it only uses around 47% of the CPU...

I5's only use 47% of your cpu? Bullsh*t. Maybe if your setting are too high it would use that little. Perhaps this game has screwed up performance on hyperthreaded CPUs, I have no idea but you can turn hyperthreading off. And turning it off dosen't make it "not a i5" Please don't give advice if you don't know what your talking about.

The CPU usages for I5's I posted are true, as seen here on my Benchmark from the in-game Benchmark tool:

Statistics

Average FPS: 27.74

Duration: 37.09 sec

CPU Usage: 42%

System memory usage: 57%

Video memory usage: 69%

 

Graphics Settings

Video Mode: 1024 x 600 (60 Hz)

Texture Quality: Low

Texture Filter Quality: Low

View Distance: 5

Detail Distance: 20

 

Hardware

Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium

Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium

Video Adapter: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470  

Video Driver version: 8.14.1.6091

Audio Adapter: Speakers and Headphones (IDT High Definition Audio CODEC)

Intel® Core™ i5 CPU       M 430  @ 2.27GHz

 

This is with Patch 4, it was 47% when I was playing the game without any patches...so, it IS true about the CPU Usuage on I5's...Just a friendly heads up.. tounge2.giflol.gif

 

But, about the I5 and Hyperthreading, I was going on what Exxon, OTB, Mkey, etc. has said in another topic where I was confused about that-I trust what they said about it, as I know they know what they are talking about with PC's..But, until I read what meson1 posted, I didn't know that pertained to pretty much only laptop I5's and that desktop I5's have either a Dual or Quad core models... confused.gif

Thanks for posting your benchmark. I see what your problem is clear as could be. It's not your CPU, it's your videocard. The MINIMUM video card requirement is a radeon x1900 256MB. Your running a moble HD5470! If you try and run the game on a severely underspeced video card, what is happening is your CPU is barely being used at all because the GPU bottleneck is so so severe. Nothing at all to do with your CPU, however if it were me i'd go ahead and disable hyperthreading to be on the safe side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I've An i3.. I'm playing the game, it used to run propperly, not anymore. ( see my topic in this troubleshooting ) Is the i3 how do i see if its dual or quad or threaded? is it even 'gta iv' worthy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I've An i3.. I'm playing the game, it used to run propperly, not anymore. ( see my topic in this troubleshooting ) Is the i3 how do i see if its dual or quad or threaded? is it even 'gta iv' worthy?

All i3's are hyperthreaded dual cores. Meaning two physical cores and four logical cores/threads.

 

It should be fine with GTA 4, but I'll take a look at your thread.

DU8afL0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I've An i3.. I'm playing the game, it used to run propperly, not anymore. ( see my topic in this troubleshooting ) Is the i3 how do i see if its dual or quad or threaded? is it even 'gta iv' worthy?

GTAIV Should run as good as it's going to on an i3. Remember, when the game first came out, the fastest CPUs in existence were the core 2 quad and the original athlon 64 x4. An i3 should blow these away really judging from the benchmarks i've seen. Remember too, this game doesn't run very well on any system. I'll put it another way, if I can play threw the entire game on my sig system, you should definately be able to as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I've An i3.. I'm playing the game, it used to run propperly, not anymore.  ( see my topic in this troubleshooting ) Is the i3 how do i see if its dual or quad or threaded? is it even 'gta iv' worthy?

GTAIV Should run as good as it's going to on an i3. Remember, when the game first came out, the fastest CPUs in existence were the core 2 quad and the original athlon 64 x4. An i3 should blow these away really judging from the benchmarks i've seen. Remember too, this game doesn't run very well on any system. I'll put it another way, if I can play threw the entire game on my sig system, you should definately be able to as well.

Apperently not. i get maybe a good 1-2 minutes of clean game play then I get lag dips! f*ckin hell.. Rockstar, you gone done fukked up now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I've An i3.. I'm playing the game, it used to run propperly, not anymore.  ( see my topic in this troubleshooting ) Is the i3 how do i see if its dual or quad or threaded? is it even 'gta iv' worthy?

GTAIV Should run as good as it's going to on an i3. Remember, when the game first came out, the fastest CPUs in existence were the core 2 quad and the original athlon 64 x4. An i3 should blow these away really judging from the benchmarks i've seen. Remember too, this game doesn't run very well on any system. I'll put it another way, if I can play threw the entire game on my sig system, you should definately be able to as well.

Apperently not. i get maybe a good 1-2 minutes of clean game play then I get lag dips! f*ckin hell.. Rockstar, you gone done fukked up now.

I assume you've tried to play with the lowest settings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.