Best cpu for running multiple instances of Nox App Player

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

Ruins

Honorable
Aug 14, 2013
62
0
10,630
i bought the Panzer PVP 300lq desktop pc it came with the quad core i7 6700K 4ghz cpu and it will only run 5 instances of nox app player before it starts to get laggy I would like to replace the cpu with one that wil be able to handle running 15 to 20 instances of nox app player at one time for a sustained period of time I read the toms guide best gaming cpu for 2016 but I'm not sure if they are what I'm looking for I was wondering if a 8 or even a 10 core would be better then a actualy gaming cpu since I will need something that can bare heavy load for a long time it needed....

please ask for any detail youll need to help me find the right cpu for the job, money really isn't a issue..
 
Solution
R

Yes, I think you're right, however I have to say shame on MS for not making this clearer. All the top Google hits spout out a standard blurb from the Microsoft forums about which state that "Windows 10" (doesn't mention the version) supports up to 2 physical CPUs. There are then limits on core counts between 32 & 64 bit versions (with up to 256 virtual cores supported on the latter), but again, no mention of "Home" vs "Pro" limits.

The only confirmation I can find regarding this is from forum posts from people who got caught like this one...
Sort by date Sort by votes
Snipergod87

Snipergod87

Splendid
May 26, 2009
5,585
2
29,965
If you are CPU limited (and not RAM, GPU, I/O or anything else) (check CPU usage when running NOX) and a 4 core 8 thread only gives you around 5 instances with out lag you will need a 12 core 24 thread or 16 core 32 thread CPU to handle that, which would put you in Xeon only territory
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

rhysiam

Splendid
Mar 24, 2013
4,366
29
26,990
Are you sure it's your CPU that's causing the issues? That's the first thing to confirm. It could potentially be GPU, RAM - both very likely, or even I/O (much less likely - but still possible).

Fire up task manager, look at your CPU and RAM usage, download GPU-Z and monitor GPU usage.

If your CPU is pegged at or near 100%, then in you're in one of those rare situations where more cores = better. It's slightly concerning though, because if you are maxing out that CPU, and you really want 4 times the performance, I really hope you have a big budget because you'd have to start looking at a dual socket Xeon E5 system. Even the $1700 6950X, the top end enthusiast CPU is 10 Cores, but at significantly lower clocks than the 6700K so perhaps offering double the performance (or ~10 instances).

I hope you're running out of memory. That would be the easiest and cheapest fix and fairly likely with your usage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Snipergod87

Snipergod87

Splendid
May 26, 2009
5,585
2
29,965
You are going to need to spend well over 1 grand on a CPU for running 15 or 20 instances lag free. You have the best CPU for your current motherboard, you will need to get a X99 chipset, and a HEDT processor i7-6800k or higher to run a few more instances. If clock speeds and architecture are the same (which they arent compated to a 6700k, with a 6 core 12 thread processor you could get about 9 instances.

Also your Windows license may not transfer over to a new motherboard.

These are your only options for a X99 Chipset for Intels HEDT Processors which will require a new motherboard.
http://ark.intel.com/search/advance...High End Desktop Processors&BornOnDate=Q2||16
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

rhysiam

Splendid
Mar 24, 2013
4,366
29
26,990
Yep, if you really are CPU bound AND you really need at least 3 times the performance of a 6700K... you're in serious $$ territory.

Before spending money you need to be 100% sure that you are in fact CPU bound.

If you are, this is one of those very rare cases where you can roughly multiply frequency by cores (it doesn't quite work that way, but it's close enough for these purposes). So you quad core @ 4Ghz is giving you *sort of* 16Ghz (it doesn't work like that... but the rough maths does work out).

A 6900X which is ~$1K and requires an X99 motherboard gives you 8 cores at 3.2Ghz, so let's say ~26Ghz, or less than double your current CPU.

Something like a Xeon E5-2697 v4 (@ more than $3K for CPU alone) gives you 18 cores at 2.3Ghz, ~41Ghz, or 2.5 times your current CPU.

To actually get 3-4 times your CPU speed you'd need to look at a dual CPU system, you're talking $3K + probably.
Newegg has dual socket motherboards starting around $300, and there's a 12 Core 2.2Ghz CPU for ~$1200. A pair of those would start to get you in the right territory...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Snipergod87

Snipergod87

Splendid
May 26, 2009
5,585
2
29,965


That is just a case, motherboard and power supply, no CPU's, RAM or anything else included. (You would probably have to buy new RAM too)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

rhysiam

Splendid
Mar 24, 2013
4,366
29
26,990


It's barebones, so no RAM or CPUs. If you put enough RAM and two high end CPUs it might. But it's older v2 Xeon's with DDR3 RAM.

Again... are you 100% sure this thing is CPU limited?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

rhysiam

Splendid
Mar 24, 2013
4,366
29
26,990
So something like this barebones kit: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816139087
With two of these CPUs: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117473&cm_re=xeon_e5_v3-_-19-117-473-_-Product

... would net you close to 4 times the raw processing power a 6700K.

BUT, you're looking at over 4 Grand.
AND, you'd need cooling, you might need new RAM, you would need storage. Plus, you're into server grade gear, expect it to take an age to POST, drivers for Win 10 could be an issue, etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Snipergod87

Snipergod87

Splendid
May 26, 2009
5,585
2
29,965


Would have to be Windows 10 Pro or higher to make use of 2 sockets, or Windows Server
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

rhysiam

Splendid
Mar 24, 2013
4,366
29
26,990

Yes, I think you're right, however I have to say shame on MS for not making this clearer. All the top Google hits spout out a standard blurb from the Microsoft forums about which state that "Windows 10" (doesn't mention the version) supports up to 2 physical CPUs. There are then limits on core counts between 32 & 64 bit versions (with up to 256 virtual cores supported on the latter), but again, no mention of "Home" vs "Pro" limits.

The only confirmation I can find regarding this is from forum posts from people who got caught like this one: https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/sharepoint/en-US/9cced655-37ee-4a1b-8bce-1b147f312d1a/only-single-socket-recognised-in-task-manager?forum=win10itprohardware

IMHO it's not an unreasonable restriction in the scheme of things, and if you're already looking at a dual socket system the price of a Pro license is pretty insignificant (unless you're going second hand), but MS should absolutely make this completely clear. There's no excuse for not including these hard limits in the version comparison lists... and they don't.
 
Upvote 1 Downvote
Solution
R

rhysiam

Splendid
Mar 24, 2013
4,366
29
26,990


That could well be the cheapest way to do it, depending on how much RAM and how potent a GPU each build requires. I did a bit more Googling for you and I'm struggling to find good advice on running that many instances. I haven't used the software myself (and I don't believe anyone else here has yet either), so you might be in uncharted territory here. Your requirements will also depend entirely on the sorts of apps you're trying to run on the instances.

What I'm trying to say is that unless a few hours or a day of your time is worth more to you than the thousands of dollars you're about to spend, it might be worth doing a bit of testing before just throwing more cash at the problem.

You have a GTX 1080 and 32GB RAM in your current rig. How many instances can you run if you remove the GPU, run off the onboard graphics, and strip yourself back to 8GB RAM? Systems with those specs would be less than half the price of another 32GB + GTX 1080 rig). Maybe you need 16GB RAM? You won't know until you monitor the RAM usage and (ideally) test it.
Maybe the onboard graphics isn't enough (quite likely), but you don't want to buy more 1080s unless you have to. Monitor your GPU usage at peak demand times to get a sense of the GPU load, to approximate the cheapest GPU that will get the job done.

I'm not sure anyone can tell you exactly what specs you need. And you're best answering those questions yourself before going out and buying expensive hardware which may well sit there woefully underutilised because of a bottleneck somewhere else in the system.
 
Upvote 2 Downvote
R

rhysiam

Splendid
Mar 24, 2013
4,366
29
26,990
Thanks for the best answer @ruins.

Did you end up coming to a good solution? It would be worth posting back here what you ended up with and whether it actually addressed your problem. Like I said in my post above I did a bit of Googling and really couldn't find any good advice for you. So if you have actually solved your problem, or at least learnt more about it, taking a minute or two to post back here could help others in future.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom