A bit off topic... Sorry!

[IRKodama]

I have not been able to find this answer and thought who better to ask then the ultra kick ass smart people that troll these boards...

Is EQ hyper threaded? By that I mean, would running two processors help improve the game performance?

[S_B_R]

EQ is not multi-threaded. So dual CPU's would only help slightly, in that other thing going on in the back ground won't be effecting the amount of CPU available to the game. Any improvements will probably marginal at best.

that being said Hyperthreading seems to be offering between 15% and 30% increase in performance, regardless of the application..... YMMV...

[Cryonic]

Let's be clear that we are talking the same technologies. Hyperthreading is a feature of only the newest P4 and P4 Xeon processors from Intel. This makes one CPU look like 2 allowing 2 threads to pass through the CPU at the same time. SMP (Symmetric Multi-Processors) is what is used by many vendors and is actually 2 or more physical processors in the machine.

[IRKodama]

S_B_R, Thank you for the answer that I was looking for!

Cryonic, Yea I got SMP and Hyper-Threading mixed up.

I've decided to go with Hyper-Threading because it's cheeper, in order to try to get EQ and XP media center to be able to play EQ and TV decodes at the same time. Even if it still doesn't work, at least I'll get the Hyper-Threading system boots. =)

[fester]

Hyperthreading will only help you in Windows 2000 when you have NO Idle processes. Any time you have an idle thread/process, your performance will be lower than single processor HAL.

Now, considering EQ is not multi-threaded (as alleged above), it should run considerably slower with a multiprocessor HAL under Windows 2000 than a uniprocessor HAL.

This is not a factor for Windows XP (damn Billy Gates) because WinXP understand "idle" processes and will not eat of cpu resources for these idle processes.

[Freakyuno]

On a side note, and it could very possibly be different now that there are about 200+ mb's in patches for the Windows XP operating system...

Only Windows XP Professional will actually support multi-processor systems. Windows XP Home Edition will recognize the second processor, and under system information will list 2 seperate processors, but it will only actually use one of them, the second one sits idle.

I recently ran EQ on a dual Pentium III 1.0ghz system running Windows XP Pro. During operation, CPU Load reports indicate that either directly, or through operating system threading it's using both processors at anywhere between 89% to 100% throughout the operation of the Everquest session. Running on exactaly the same machine, with 1 pentium III 1.0ghz processor, the CPU load range is 96% to 100% throughout the everquest session. HOWEVER there was no noticable difference in the games performance other than faster zone times by about 35%, but there is so many factors to zone times that it's hard to attribute it to just one thing.

If your experiencing extreemly high video lag during gameplay, get used to it. I run a Pentium 4 3.0ghz with Hyper-Threading on Windows XP with 1gig of RD-Ram and a Geforce FX 5600 Ultra with 128mb of DDR Ram and there are still plenty of times that I lag badly (I run with everything on) now this isnt the highest end system you can build, but by no means lacking for power considering the type of game EQ is.

Everquest's game engine is almost 4 years old, and they have been packing more and more stuff into an outdated engine since the day of release. The video lag your getting is comparable to living in california, needing to go to your grandmothers house down the block and taking the expressway through Colorado to get there. The visuals in EQ are trying to keep pace with the current releases of games, things like shading, particles, transparrency, but the engine at the time didnt support alot of this stuff, so it's long coded. The result is alot more processing has to happen to get the effect on your monitor, the processing time involved is what slows down what we Equate to Frames Per Second being displayed or FPS, anything below about 30 Frames per second starts to appear as noticable "lag" or "flicker" to the human eye.

Basically, if your thinking of going and investing alot of money into a new computer to have the latest and greatest, GREAT! Go for it, it's fun and you'll have a great machine, if your going and investing a ton of money into an Everquest Machine, expecting leaps and bounds better performance, well depening on what you have, it may be the case, but more often than not, you'll be dissapointed.

*EDIT: Fixed a point that wasnt clear

[IRKodama]

Freakyuno,
Yea, I pretty much have the same machine, with the exception of ATI 9700 pro video card and I to get annoying EQ frame lag with all the graphics turned on, in a player packed area. I know the correct tweaks to make when I want to get rid of this frame lag for the most part, but I like the graphics on, since I am not raiding anymore.

However, I was looking more to try to get WinTV decodes to work while EQ was running. EQ and WinTV can run at the same time, except that EQ would take all the system resources and WinTV would not get the resources needed to decode the signal properly. As stated before EQ has a high CPU usage. So I was excited to hear that EQ was single threaded. Hopefully that means that EQ will not use the simulated processor in the hyper-threading model and will leave some/any resources available to other processes like WinTV decodes, since WinTV takes very little CPU usage and does support multiple processors. Well at least that is what I am hoping.

I just upgraded my system last night to a brand new Asus P4P800 hyper-threading MB and Serial ATA hard drive, so I will let yall know how it all goes after I get the XP Media Center OS back up. BTW, XP Media Center Edition is just Win XP Pro with an extra media software package.

[fester]

For best EQ performance:

1) Get a DDR ram system with ONBOARD video (doesn't matter what chipset, but ATI or Nvidia may have the best drivers). For best results try for 2.4 ghz or faster processor.

2) Get the cheapest AGP8x card you can find. Pair it with a AGP8x motherboard/ram combo. For best results try for 2.4 ghz or faster processor. (Cheap ATI 9200's work great)

I have several of the above combination. It is in no way faster than my primary system (AGP8x, ATI 9700 pro, 2 gb ram 800mhz ram, 2.8 ghz P4.)

If you go with AGP4x ATI 9700 or nvidia, you will be roughly half as fast (measured by turning speed in the Bazaar.)

Don't try to play Quake on either of the systems above (#1 or #2), but EQ runs as fast as I have ever seen on those.

Also having at least a 2.4 ghz and around 512 mb of ram is key, as anything less will slow the graphics by slowing the game as a whole.

[Freakyuno]

Fester,

Although some of what you said made sense (2.4ghz processor)...I think you need to do some more research, either that, or need to explain more why you've come to the conclusions you have.

For Starters. Not all DDR platforms are the fastest out there, only the Newest DDR Platform supported by the Intel 865 and 875 chipset using DDR Ram, tips the scale in favor of DDR over RD-Ram.

Secondly, why in gods name would you purchase a motherboard with onboard video if your planning on putting a video card in it. I am not quite sure what your getting at here, but long standing benchmarks indicate that onboard video blows goats. It's getting better, but it doesnt keep up with component level video cards yet, not even close, and if your not going to use it anyway, why spend the extra money for it integrated into the MB?

Third, AGP 8x, although the latest implementation, also has published benchmarks that at peak performance are only showing a 15% increase over current AGP 4x cards. The reason being that the current software and bios code isnt upto speed yet with the new available bandwidth. As a side note: I think PCI Express, due out first quarter of next year, last I heard, is going to have a much bigger impact.

__________________________________________________ _________________

IRK,

Basically, I understand that your trying to use a WinTV card, but dont remember, or didnt read what your trying to use it for exactaly.

To get optimal performance regardless of the situation, your going to want to do a few things, they all make small differences, but in the end that can add up.
1.) Make sure your WinTV Card, Video Card, Ethernet or Modem, and Sound card are all holding their own IRQ instead of using sharring.
2.) Make sure to start your WinTV application up first, then your Everquest. Microsoft offically says I am wrong, but my own experience supports: Applications that are going to hold resources will hold onto them even in the face of a low CPU Resources available. If you start EQ first, it's possible WinTV will never be able to, or not in a timely manner be able to get the resources to do what you want.
3.) Minimize your starting Services, and optimize your swap file. If you need more help on this, let me know and I'll go through it.

[IRKodama]

Freakyuno, Thank you for the tips.

Good news. My upgraded machine now plays EQ and WinTV at the same time flawlessly! Both are playing like they were the only application running on the system. The TV decodes don't even get messed up when I log into EQ, zone, or open a third app. It also doesn't matter which app I open first. Check it out...

TV Decodes in game (http://members.cox.net/casadeboom/TVdecodes.JPG) (Pitcher is jpg, so the quality sucks.) =)

My system is...
Asus P4P800 Motherboard - Hyper Threading enabled.
Intell P4 3.06 - 533 FSB (on of the first releases last year)
DDR 333 - 2x512mb
Maxtor Serial ATA 120mb
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
Hauppauge WinTV PVR 250
Win XP Media Center Edition OS

Hyper-Threading friggen rocks!!! Well I'm off get some game time in and finish watching Inuyasha! Thanks for the help guys!

[who_me_use_seq]

I can't speak for Fester (he is way smarter than I am) but I think that he was proposing two different solutions there, not getting an onboard video and then adding a vid card to it.

[fester]

Originally posted by Freakyuno
tips the scale in favor of DDR over RD-Ram

The only purpose of having DDR ram is that all onboard video systems in DDR ram systems (at least the SiS and Via systems I have here) use the same bandwidth to the onboard video as you get with AGP 8x. EQ does not use ANY 3D hardware to blit characters and mobs to screen (altho 3D hardware will make you happy when it comes to spell effects, it will not help with 500 characters on screen and visible.)


Originally posted by Freakyuno
Secondly, why in gods name would you purchase a motherboard with onboard video if your planning on putting a video card


Your confused, read the post again. I gave you two options (Onboard video with DDR or AGP8x with or without DDR.) You mixed these two options.


Originally posted by Freakyuno
but long standing benchmarks indicate that onboard video blows goats.


Agreed. I get 114 or so 3dmark2003 points on my onboard video EQ machines. I get 6000 some odd points on my 2.8 ghz, 800mhz DDR ram, AGP8x, ATI 9700 pro. They run EQ at identical speeds. In fact, I have yet to have someone identify which is which (for example while in the baz or any other laggy spots with a number of characters on screen.) During a raid with spell effects, you can instantly identify the onboard video systems (it is the one lagged to death.) Turning spell effects off will correct this problem.


Originally posted by Freakyuno
why spend the extra money for it integrated into the MB?


What extra money? A full system is like, what $400? You will need a VGA monitor. $500 USD will net you a fully working EQ system with monitor, I know I have 3 of these plus the "primary" system. But honestly if I only played EQ, I wouldn't have needed the primary system with the ATI 9700 pro.


Originally posted by Freakyuno
Third, AGP 8x, although the latest implementation, also has published benchmarks that at peak performance are only showing a 15% increase over current AGP 4x cards. The reason being that the current software and bios code isnt upto speed yet with the new available bandwidth.


I remember reading notes such as this, but from memory they seem to dwell on fetching data from the video card's ram to processor ram. This operation is notoriously slow. All I can add to this info is that when I upgraded my AGP4x system with a ATI 9700 pro to an AGP8x system (with the same old ATI 9700 pro) my EQ performance skyrocketed. I did upgrade memory to 800mhz, processor from 2.4 to 2.8 ghz, and 1gb to 2gb at the same time. I am so happy now that my ATI 9700 pro system is ABOUT THE SAME SPEED as my onboard video systems. woot. ;-)