whaich Hardware to speed up WOW

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

Hi!
I'm using:
Pentium4 2,4Ghz / ATI Radeon 9800SE / 1GB Ram (DDR) and A-DSL (2000)
and my WOW is still to laggy...
i wanna play WOW with best settings (i.e. best graphics).
Which hardware i should update?
23 answers Last reply
More about whaich hardware speed
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    decreasing the drawing distance is the most important thing to get
    better FPS.. i know that...But where u found those information to edit
    the config.wtf?
    i won't remove my VirScanner but that should be ok cause i have 1GB
    Ram...
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    not an expert I would say everything

    Pentium 3.2Ghz models have been out a while now
    9800SE I believe is the "nurfed" version of 9800
    1 gig ram is ok, 2 gig will rock
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    i looked at my Ram while playing WOW it never gets "full" so why should
    2Gig rock more then 1gig do?
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    maxnews01@web.de wrote:
    > i looked at my Ram while playing WOW it never gets "full" so why should
    > 2Gig rock more then 1gig do?

    Mmm I will check this when I get home but I suspect the game will use
    more memory if there is more available. Should reduce the times where
    game stops while loading the data for 100s of people in one area
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    the thing is: i have no lag (ping <200 most times) but my FPS is always
    <30....
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    maxnews01@web.de wrote:
    > Hi!
    > I'm using:
    > Pentium4 2,4Ghz / ATI Radeon 9800SE / 1GB Ram (DDR) and A-DSL (2000)
    > and my WOW is still to laggy...
    > i wanna play WOW with best settings (i.e. best graphics).
    > Which hardware i should update?

    You system is comparable to mine.

    I have an Athlon 2600, ATI Radeon 9700 (normal, 128mb), 512Mb of RAM and
    800/256 ADSL. (on windows 98se)

    I can turn the graphics settings really high, but what helped most for
    me is to decrease the drawing distance below half.

    Using OpenGL in Config.wtf
    (add SET gxApi "opengl? or SET gxApi "direct3d") improved my smoothness
    and image quality a lot, but that gave me some weird 3D model anomalies.

    I wouldn't chance a thing about your hardware. Just remove all programs
    from memory that are not strictly needed to play world of warcraft (like
    virii scanners and p2p programs).

    Thomas
    - --
    Life is like a videogame with no chance to win - ATR
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iQB5AwUBQuS2gwEP2l8iXKAJAQEXLwMfQxBdVQgY9DWp2RijnY4qpt3FwDr5dojn
    4tbgutSXFmZTSlhioF3sm3R8XdjZgBR6XFaYZiWARwaJPmhGotI8z9e3zYCg1cvK
    sn3/p3iZq3TJhChi8kTZQilUUT9tg7+37vD+rg==
    =7qRa
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    I have 1GB and have no problems whatsoever, game is really fast.
    But, I also don't have any programs running in the background (like
    Instant messaging, spyware, Outlook, etc). It's only WoW
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Turn off VSYNC
    Make sure you are not using the " glow effect"
    Turn colors to 16 bit in game.
    Turn of Hardware Mouse if it is on in game.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    maxnews01@web.de wrote:
    > decreasing the drawing distance is the most important thing to get
    > better FPS.. i know that...But where u found those information to edit
    > the config.wtf?
    > i won't remove my VirScanner but that should be ok cause i have 1GB
    > Ram...

    1GB Ram is not excessive in this game. If you can, upgrade to two.

    I posted this a while ago but here's the priority list:

    1. RAM, lot's of!
    2. I/O subsystem (fast HD and controller. RAID [not ingame :)] if you dare)
    3. CPU power. Anything > 2GHz is ok though
    4. GPU / Graphics board.

    If you want to have _the_ machine for WoW, get 2GB Ram, get 2 Western
    Digital Raptors (fastest non-SCSI HDs available, expensive!) in a RAID
    configuration and top it up with some nice new AMD processor (not
    dual-core, that's wasted money at this point) and some more or less current
    graphic card.

    That's my 2 cents. But really, RAM is first priority. Disk I/O second. Then
    the usual stuff.

    CU

    René

    --
    -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
    Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    In article <20050725122537.297$UT@newsreader.com>,
    Rene <invalid@email.addr> wrote:

    > maxnews01@web.de wrote:
    > > decreasing the drawing distance is the most important thing to get
    > > better FPS.. i know that...But where u found those information to edit
    > > the config.wtf?
    > > i won't remove my VirScanner but that should be ok cause i have 1GB
    > > Ram...
    >
    > 1GB Ram is not excessive in this game. If you can, upgrade to two.


    This has already been asked by a couple of other posters, but... Can it
    be shown that going beyond 1GB helps WoW even a tiny bit? After a few
    hours playing, and with a few RAM-hog daemons and drivers loaded
    (McAfee, Creative, Roxio) on my Win2k, I've never seen the memory commit
    exceed 750 MB... leaving 250 MB of my 1 GB useless.

    I *wish* the game were more memory aggressive, if it's available. I
    think it's a bit stupid of the coders to leave all the new zone texture
    loads, or even the items in my damn bags, till the last second... and
    let the performance of the game suddenly get dragged into the cesspool
    of disk I/O, the slowest part of any modern computer. I'd gladly buy
    another gig of RAM if I thought it would help.

    --
    Eonar: Hemophage (60), Human warrior Purge (56), Undead mage
    Dagobert (34), Human mage Vaik (12), Night Elf rogue
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    maxnews01@web.de wrote:

    > i won't remove my VirScanner but that should be ok cause
    > i have 1GB Ram...

    The virus scanner doesn't only occupy RAM, it also uses CPU cycles.
    How many, and how much impact it has, depends a lot on which virus
    scanner you're using. For some reason, certain scanners can really dog
    a system out.

    You don't need to remove the virus scanner, but you can certainly turn
    it off while you play WoW. Every little bit helps.

    For myself, I'm about to buy a new computer. I'm finishing up a couple
    of consulting jobs, and when that pay rolls in I'm dropping $2400 on
    parts and building my own high end machine. At least 2 GB RAM,
    probably 4. Athlon XP/2. 7800 GTX PCI-X video. Woot.


    --
    Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
    www.lokari.net
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    chocolatemalt <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:
    > In article <20050725122537.297$UT@newsreader.com>,
    > Rene <invalid@email.addr> wrote:
    >
    > > maxnews01@web.de wrote:
    > > > decreasing the drawing distance is the most important thing to get
    > > > better FPS.. i know that...But where u found those information to
    > > > edit the config.wtf?
    > > > i won't remove my VirScanner but that should be ok cause i have 1GB
    > > > Ram...
    > >
    > > 1GB Ram is not excessive in this game. If you can, upgrade to two.
    >
    > This has already been asked by a couple of other posters, but... Can it
    > be shown that going beyond 1GB helps WoW even a tiny bit? After a few
    > hours playing, and with a few RAM-hog daemons and drivers loaded
    > (McAfee, Creative, Roxio) on my Win2k, I've never seen the memory commit
    > exceed 750 MB... leaving 250 MB of my 1 GB useless.

    I play with 1GB Ram. I had 1GB since about 3years ago and WoW is the first
    game in a loooong time that can't just drop back to windows immediately. It
    uses lots of Ram and it does force a swap out of explorer etc.

    A friend of mine plays on Macintosh. Macintosh performance is a bit behind
    the windows performance and he increased his Ram to 2.5GB. Now he doesn't
    have IF lag, he doesn't have any lag at all. I've seen it.

    There's simply too much textures on all the possible items people are
    wearing. This is why it lags and/or stops when you run into that other
    faction's Raid group. The system is busy loading the textures into Ram. If
    you haven't got enough, "older" textures are swapped out. This is what
    happens in IF. Loading of all the peoples' item-textures of the stuff they
    are wearing. Your HD light flashes continously while you lag. Just take a
    look the next time you are stuck and know you'll be in the pit of Ironforge
    again :)

    If you however have enough RAM, then only the initial lag will occur and
    that will be less severe since there is enough RAM so nothing needs to be
    thrown out. Remember that the game has its data in compressed archives
    where it fetches them. This process requires additional RAM _and_ CPU time.
    So the worst case is, and this is most likely always happen when you are
    stuck for > 10 seconds in load lag, that the game is loading textures from
    disk, simultaneously swapping out (which decreases performance of reading
    from disk) and simply waiting for data to arrive.

    Thus the order I proposed: First RAM, so you don't lose the data that is
    already loaded. Then disk IO in order to speed up initial loading of that
    data and any data that needs to be reloaded, and then CPU and GPU which is
    moderately anyway.

    Note that intense graphic effects are also loaded only on use, so when a
    fight starts, you could also get some lag effects if you haven't seen any
    spells so far. These effects also have textures which are loaded when they
    first appear. One effect is no problem, but several are again IO bound. If
    you have the memory, they stay there. If not, then you'll lose them
    somewhen. So if it lags due to heavy effects, that does not necessarily
    mean that the graphic card cannot keep up. It might also be RAM and / or
    disk subsystem. You'd need to watch your HDD led again, to be sure of that.

    My next PC, which will probably be bought within the next two months will
    have 2GB of Ram. Not only because of this game but also because it is
    really cheap nowadays to do so. And WoW really profits from it.

    Cheap test: Have full size background picture in windows. Start WoW, play
    an hour. Exit WoW. If the background picture does not appear immediately
    once the WoW frame disappears, then it was swapped out. If anything gets
    swapped out, you would profit from more RAM.

    I can start UT2K4 (loading time comparable to WoW), play two hours, exit it
    and I am _instantly_ back at the desktop. No HD activity at all, all there.
    That game would not profit from more RAM.

    So yes, although I only have 1GB Ram, I do notice intense HD activity and
    swapping and I could use more. I will have more, soon. If this is your only
    game currently and probably in some time to come, as it is for me, then the
    few coins for a 1GB RAM should be well invested (providing your mainboard
    can handle it by having enough slots).

    Then again I always build my systems myself and I know that not everybody
    can just open the case and install RAM. Which means either to find someone
    who knows how to install it or to pay someone to do it which costs extra.

    > I *wish* the game were more memory aggressive, if it's available. I
    > think it's a bit stupid of the coders to leave all the new zone texture
    > loads, or even the items in my damn bags, till the last second... and
    > let the performance of the game suddenly get dragged into the cesspool
    > of disk I/O, the slowest part of any modern computer. I'd gladly buy
    > another gig of RAM if I thought it would help.

    There is actually quite some sophisticated caching involved. If you want to
    experiment with that, just delete your WTF and WDB sub-folders (or better,
    rename them so you don't lose all the data therein). Are you sure it is the
    game that is not using more memory or the OS that is not giving it more?
    All I can say is that I've seen it on a MAC with 2.5GB RAM and although
    I've never seen it anywhere on a machine with 512MB or less, that was like
    day and night compared to my 1GB system.

    HTH.

    CU

    René

    --
    -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
    Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > I have 1GB and have no problems whatsoever, game is really fast.
    > But, I also don't have any programs running in the background (like
    > Instant messaging, spyware, Outlook, etc). It's only WoW

    I have a carefully maintained system and not many programs. I have an
    external firewall and external virus protection, so nothing that bogs me
    down on this system.

    The game is fast, I've no complaints about it. It just lags and stucks when
    I run into a bunch of people. This is where it loads texture data. Also it
    often stutters a bit when I'm on a flight zoning but that is really
    harmless compared to running into a RAID group or going to the IF AH.

    On the other hand, IF AH is no problem if I log in at 5am :)

    CU

    René

    --
    -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
    Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Rene <invalid@email.addr> wrote:

    >Um, 4 GB of Ram won't do you any good unless you will run linux or Windows
    >XP64 on it.

    Don't worry, I know what I'm doing.

    --
    Exodus 22:18 can kiss my pagan ass
    www.lokari.net
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    In article <20050725142854.323$GD@newsreader.com>,
    Rene <invalid@email.addr> wrote:

    > chocolatemalt <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:
    > > In article <20050725122537.297$UT@newsreader.com>,
    > > Rene <invalid@email.addr> wrote:
    > >
    > > > maxnews01@web.de wrote:
    > > > > decreasing the drawing distance is the most important thing to get
    > > > > better FPS.. i know that...But where u found those information to
    > > > > edit the config.wtf?
    > > > > i won't remove my VirScanner but that should be ok cause i have 1GB
    > > > > Ram...
    > > >
    > > > 1GB Ram is not excessive in this game. If you can, upgrade to two.
    > >
    > > This has already been asked by a couple of other posters, but... Can it
    > > be shown that going beyond 1GB helps WoW even a tiny bit? After a few
    > > hours playing, and with a few RAM-hog daemons and drivers loaded
    > > (McAfee, Creative, Roxio) on my Win2k, I've never seen the memory commit
    > > exceed 750 MB... leaving 250 MB of my 1 GB useless.
    >
    > I play with 1GB Ram. I had 1GB since about 3years ago and WoW is the first
    > game in a loooong time that can't just drop back to windows immediately. It
    > uses lots of Ram and it does force a swap out of explorer etc.
    >
    > A friend of mine plays on Macintosh. Macintosh performance is a bit behind
    > the windows performance and he increased his Ram to 2.5GB. Now he doesn't
    > have IF lag, he doesn't have any lag at all. I've seen it.
    >
    > There's simply too much textures on all the possible items people are
    > wearing. This is why it lags and/or stops when you run into that other
    > faction's Raid group. The system is busy loading the textures into Ram. If
    > you haven't got enough, "older" textures are swapped out. This is what
    > happens in IF. Loading of all the peoples' item-textures of the stuff they
    > are wearing. Your HD light flashes continously while you lag. Just take a
    > look the next time you are stuck and know you'll be in the pit of Ironforge
    > again :)
    >
    > If you however have enough RAM, then only the initial lag will occur and
    > that will be less severe since there is enough RAM so nothing needs to be
    > thrown out. Remember that the game has its data in compressed archives
    > where it fetches them. This process requires additional RAM _and_ CPU time.
    > So the worst case is, and this is most likely always happen when you are
    > stuck for > 10 seconds in load lag, that the game is loading textures from
    > disk, simultaneously swapping out (which decreases performance of reading
    > from disk) and simply waiting for data to arrive.
    >
    > Thus the order I proposed: First RAM, so you don't lose the data that is
    > already loaded. Then disk IO in order to speed up initial loading of that
    > data and any data that needs to be reloaded, and then CPU and GPU which is
    > moderately anyway.
    >
    > Note that intense graphic effects are also loaded only on use, so when a
    > fight starts, you could also get some lag effects if you haven't seen any
    > spells so far. These effects also have textures which are loaded when they
    > first appear. One effect is no problem, but several are again IO bound. If
    > you have the memory, they stay there. If not, then you'll lose them
    > somewhen. So if it lags due to heavy effects, that does not necessarily
    > mean that the graphic card cannot keep up. It might also be RAM and / or
    > disk subsystem. You'd need to watch your HDD led again, to be sure of that.
    >
    > My next PC, which will probably be bought within the next two months will
    > have 2GB of Ram. Not only because of this game but also because it is
    > really cheap nowadays to do so. And WoW really profits from it.
    >
    > Cheap test: Have full size background picture in windows. Start WoW, play
    > an hour. Exit WoW. If the background picture does not appear immediately
    > once the WoW frame disappears, then it was swapped out. If anything gets
    > swapped out, you would profit from more RAM.
    >
    > I can start UT2K4 (loading time comparable to WoW), play two hours, exit it
    > and I am _instantly_ back at the desktop. No HD activity at all, all there.
    > That game would not profit from more RAM.
    >
    > So yes, although I only have 1GB Ram, I do notice intense HD activity and
    > swapping and I could use more. I will have more, soon. If this is your only
    > game currently and probably in some time to come, as it is for me, then the
    > few coins for a 1GB RAM should be well invested (providing your mainboard
    > can handle it by having enough slots).
    >
    > Then again I always build my systems myself and I know that not everybody
    > can just open the case and install RAM. Which means either to find someone
    > who knows how to install it or to pay someone to do it which costs extra.
    >
    > > I *wish* the game were more memory aggressive, if it's available. I
    > > think it's a bit stupid of the coders to leave all the new zone texture
    > > loads, or even the items in my damn bags, till the last second... and
    > > let the performance of the game suddenly get dragged into the cesspool
    > > of disk I/O, the slowest part of any modern computer. I'd gladly buy
    > > another gig of RAM if I thought it would help.
    >
    > There is actually quite some sophisticated caching involved. If you want to
    > experiment with that, just delete your WTF and WDB sub-folders (or better,
    > rename them so you don't lose all the data therein). Are you sure it is the
    > game that is not using more memory or the OS that is not giving it more?
    > All I can say is that I've seen it on a MAC with 2.5GB RAM and although
    > I've never seen it anywhere on a machine with 512MB or less, that was like
    > day and night compared to my 1GB system.


    Your advice is all solid, and it sounds like I'm in the same boat as you
    (last four PC's all self-built, self-upgraded, including Linux servers,
    a dual-cpu mobo, etc) but I'm trying to depart from theory and dig into
    the real memory usage of WoW a bit... After a long (6 hrs) WoW session
    today, for example, I have the following stats from Task Manager:

    physical memory: 1,000,000 kB
    commit limit: 1,200,000 kB
    commit peak: 761,000 kB

    The pagefile is a nominal size of 256 MB to keep a flaky OS happy. The
    1,200,000 kB limit reflects the physical + pagefile - some kernel stuff,
    so it's all consistent. As you can see, WoW and the various background
    processes never exceeded 761 MB in six hours of play, many zones and
    capital cities full of textures, lots of AH activity, etc. In other
    gaming sessions I've never seen the peak exceed 800 MB, so these results
    are typical.

    What I'm wondering is, has anyone seen their WoW (*not* including a
    bunch of browsers, MS Office, SETI, etc, eating up RAM as well) ever use
    more than 1 GB? Clearly it seems like it could use the extra space,
    given the constant disk activity I see, but does it actually *do* so?

    --
    Eonar: Hemophage (60), Human warrior Purge (56), Undead mage
    Dagobert (34), Human mage Vaik (12), Night Elf rogue
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    maxnews01@web.de wrote:
    > decreasing the drawing distance is the most important thing to get
    > better FPS.. i know that...But where u found those information to edit
    > the config.wtf?

    - From the information in the Documentation directory on your hd:

    /////
    2. Gameplay is slow or choppy only in town: If you are experiencing
    poor frame rates when you enter the large city areas, try changing
    rendering modes between "OpenGL" and "Direct 3D" modes.

    o Open the World of Warcraft folder on your hard drive.
    o Open the WTF folder.
    o Open the Config.wtf file using a text editor, like Notepad.
    o Choose either SET gxApi "opengl" or SET gxApi "direct3d"
    o Save the file and start World of Warcraft again.
    /////

    Notepad didn't work for me though. Wordpad did.

    OpenGL looks really good on my 9700! It should on your card too. But
    especially animated fires and other players sometimes make the game very
    visually unattractive on my computer :-(

    I went to Moonglade today with OpenGL because it is one of the most
    beautiful parts of the game that I know. But after a while the graphic
    distortions started happening again, so I logged off and removed the
    setting.

    > i won't remove my VirScanner but that should be ok cause i have 1GB
    > Ram...

    What if your av software decides to download an update while you play?
    Or even prompt you for something while you are in an important
    (critical) part of the game?

    I would disable and exit the virusscanner before playing WoW and turn it
    on again after this. There is not much risk of a virus infection when
    you are only running WoW, believe me.

    Maybe if someone writes an exploit for WoW that injects a virus to your
    computer, but even then the attacker probably would not know your IP and
    be unable to attack you. And it would be fixed with the next Blizzard
    patch of course..

    Thomas
    - --
    Life is like a videogame with no chance to win - ATR
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iQB5AwUBQuVdWwEP2l8iXKAJAQEV+wMcCcd6mSqQf8wV9/7xNtJTHUVRs1Qzd7td
    BXBVTxljilUSJSVLLJ6Bi3XD9dNooMPJ+3kXqBYyhgNBGvOU+5UL915F3yimvVvc
    v1e+yJPBWV2lMKmEujWRA03oUfk4Lo8c1i+rgw==
    =ffhw
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    chocolatemalt <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:
    > In article <20050725142854.323$GD@newsreader.com>,
    > Rene <invalid@email.addr> wrote:
    >
    > > chocolatemalt <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote:
    > > > In article <20050725122537.297$UT@newsreader.com>,
    > > > Rene <invalid@email.addr> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > maxnews01@web.de wrote:
    > > > > > decreasing the drawing distance is the most important thing to
    > > > > > get better FPS.. i know that...But where u found those
    > > > > > information to edit the config.wtf?
    > > > > > i won't remove my VirScanner but that should be ok cause i have
    > > > > > 1GB Ram...
    > > > >
    > > > > 1GB Ram is not excessive in this game. If you can, upgrade to two.
    > > >
    > > > This has already been asked by a couple of other posters, but... Can
    > > > it be shown that going beyond 1GB helps WoW even a tiny bit? After a
    > > > few hours playing, and with a few RAM-hog daemons and drivers loaded
    > > > (McAfee, Creative, Roxio) on my Win2k, I've never seen the memory
    > > > commit exceed 750 MB... leaving 250 MB of my 1 GB useless.
    > >
    > > I play with 1GB Ram. I had 1GB since about 3years ago and WoW is the
    > > first game in a loooong time that can't just drop back to windows
    > > immediately. It uses lots of Ram and it does force a swap out of
    > > explorer etc.
    > >
    > > A friend of mine plays on Macintosh. Macintosh performance is a bit
    > > behind the windows performance and he increased his Ram to 2.5GB. Now
    > > he doesn't have IF lag, he doesn't have any lag at all. I've seen it.
    > >
    > > There's simply too much textures on all the possible items people are
    > > wearing. This is why it lags and/or stops when you run into that other
    > > faction's Raid group. The system is busy loading the textures into Ram.
    > > If you haven't got enough, "older" textures are swapped out. This is
    > > what happens in IF. Loading of all the peoples' item-textures of the
    > > stuff they are wearing. Your HD light flashes continously while you
    > > lag. Just take a look the next time you are stuck and know you'll be in
    > > the pit of Ironforge again :)
    > >
    > > If you however have enough RAM, then only the initial lag will occur
    > > and that will be less severe since there is enough RAM so nothing needs
    > > to be thrown out. Remember that the game has its data in compressed
    > > archives where it fetches them. This process requires additional RAM
    > > _and_ CPU time. So the worst case is, and this is most likely always
    > > happen when you are stuck for > 10 seconds in load lag, that the game
    > > is loading textures from disk, simultaneously swapping out (which
    > > decreases performance of reading from disk) and simply waiting for data
    > > to arrive.
    > >
    > > Thus the order I proposed: First RAM, so you don't lose the data that
    > > is already loaded. Then disk IO in order to speed up initial loading of
    > > that data and any data that needs to be reloaded, and then CPU and GPU
    > > which is moderately anyway.
    > >
    > > Note that intense graphic effects are also loaded only on use, so when
    > > a fight starts, you could also get some lag effects if you haven't seen
    > > any spells so far. These effects also have textures which are loaded
    > > when they first appear. One effect is no problem, but several are again
    > > IO bound. If you have the memory, they stay there. If not, then you'll
    > > lose them somewhen. So if it lags due to heavy effects, that does not
    > > necessarily mean that the graphic card cannot keep up. It might also be
    > > RAM and / or disk subsystem. You'd need to watch your HDD led again, to
    > > be sure of that.
    > >
    > > My next PC, which will probably be bought within the next two months
    > > will have 2GB of Ram. Not only because of this game but also because it
    > > is really cheap nowadays to do so. And WoW really profits from it.
    > >
    > > Cheap test: Have full size background picture in windows. Start WoW,
    > > play an hour. Exit WoW. If the background picture does not appear
    > > immediately once the WoW frame disappears, then it was swapped out. If
    > > anything gets swapped out, you would profit from more RAM.
    > >
    > > I can start UT2K4 (loading time comparable to WoW), play two hours,
    > > exit it and I am _instantly_ back at the desktop. No HD activity at
    > > all, all there. That game would not profit from more RAM.
    > >
    > > So yes, although I only have 1GB Ram, I do notice intense HD activity
    > > and swapping and I could use more. I will have more, soon. If this is
    > > your only game currently and probably in some time to come, as it is
    > > for me, then the few coins for a 1GB RAM should be well invested
    > > (providing your mainboard can handle it by having enough slots).
    > >
    > > Then again I always build my systems myself and I know that not
    > > everybody can just open the case and install RAM. Which means either to
    > > find someone who knows how to install it or to pay someone to do it
    > > which costs extra.
    > >
    > > > I *wish* the game were more memory aggressive, if it's available. I
    > > > think it's a bit stupid of the coders to leave all the new zone
    > > > texture loads, or even the items in my damn bags, till the last
    > > > second... and let the performance of the game suddenly get dragged
    > > > into the cesspool of disk I/O, the slowest part of any modern
    > > > computer. I'd gladly buy another gig of RAM if I thought it would
    > > > help.
    > >
    > > There is actually quite some sophisticated caching involved. If you
    > > want to experiment with that, just delete your WTF and WDB sub-folders
    > > (or better, rename them so you don't lose all the data therein). Are
    > > you sure it is the game that is not using more memory or the OS that is
    > > not giving it more? All I can say is that I've seen it on a MAC with
    > > 2.5GB RAM and although I've never seen it anywhere on a machine with
    > > 512MB or less, that was like day and night compared to my 1GB system.
    >
    > Your advice is all solid, and it sounds like I'm in the same boat as you
    > (last four PC's all self-built, self-upgraded, including Linux servers,
    > a dual-cpu mobo, etc) but I'm trying to depart from theory and dig into
    > the real memory usage of WoW a bit... After a long (6 hrs) WoW session
    > today, for example, I have the following stats from Task Manager:
    >
    > physical memory: 1,000,000 kB
    > commit limit: 1,200,000 kB
    > commit peak: 761,000 kB
    >
    > The pagefile is a nominal size of 256 MB to keep a flaky OS happy. The
    > 1,200,000 kB limit reflects the physical + pagefile - some kernel stuff,
    > so it's all consistent. As you can see, WoW and the various background
    > processes never exceeded 761 MB in six hours of play, many zones and
    > capital cities full of textures, lots of AH activity, etc. In other
    > gaming sessions I've never seen the peak exceed 800 MB, so these results
    > are typical.

    Yes, but those programs can fetch this data for themselves by using an API
    call which means that they (or rather WoW) could deliberately use less RAM
    for transient stuff like a texture cache. I'd estimate that all textures in
    WoW together use well more than 1GB themselves (including the overhead of
    having them at least twice in memory during loading into the GPU's memory
    and most likely for a short time yet another time during loading from disk
    due to buffers and caches).

    Whenever I need to program something that needs to push a lot of data
    around and where it makes sense to keep that data around a bit because it
    might get requested again, I either use a user-definable fixed size cache
    or I ask the OS how much memory is there and adapt accordingly. I wrote a
    program earlier this year that needed to process some TB of data out of
    compressed files in a real-time envrioment under tight resource
    constraints. It was extremely imperative that there is no memory leak and
    no swapping at all, since once the system started swapping, the performance
    broke in and the real-time processing was no longer possible. It ran on a
    linux cluster with other processes so it is not exactly comparable, but I
    can tell you that the important factor is not how much memory your OS is
    willing to assing to you but plain and simply the number of swap's. AFAIK
    you can monitor these counters on Windows XP and company using the built in
    monitoring subsystem (perfmon.exe).

    Watch memory and pagefile usage using this monitoring tool and see what
    that tells you. To put it bluntly: If your commit peak really is 761MB out
    of 1GB RAM, that means that you have 0 swapping at all. I'm pretty sure
    that is not the case. The name commit peak is a bit misleading. And there
    is kernel memory, drivers and file caches that do not count against this
    value (as far as I know, I could be wrong here though, I never optimized
    memory for Win32 platform, it was always unix).

    > What I'm wondering is, has anyone seen their WoW (*not* including a
    > bunch of browsers, MS Office, SETI, etc, eating up RAM as well) ever use
    > more than 1 GB? Clearly it seems like it could use the extra space,
    > given the constant disk activity I see, but does it actually *do* so?

    My friend, yes. Others need to comment though. My machine is too often
    (re-)loading data though so _I_ do need more memory if I want to get rid of
    that.

    CU

    René

    --
    -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
    Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On 2005-07-26 05:18:47 +0200, chocolatemalt
    <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> said:

    > Your advice is all solid, and it sounds like I'm in the same boat as
    > you (last four PC's all self-built, self-upgraded, including Linux
    > servers, a dual-cpu mobo, etc) but I'm trying to depart from theory and
    > dig into the real memory usage of WoW a bit... After a long (6 hrs)
    > WoW session today, for example, I have the following stats from Task
    > Manager:
    >
    > physical memory: 1,000,000 kB
    > commit limit: 1,200,000 kB
    > commit peak: 761,000 kB
    >
    > The pagefile is a nominal size of 256 MB to keep a flaky OS happy. The
    > 1,200,000 kB limit reflects the physical + pagefile - some kernel
    > stuff, so it's all consistent. As you can see, WoW and the various
    > background processes never exceeded 761 MB in six hours of play, many
    > zones and capital cities full of textures, lots of AH activity, etc.
    > In other gaming sessions I've never seen the peak exceed 800 MB, so
    > these results are typical.
    >
    > What I'm wondering is, has anyone seen their WoW (*not* including a
    > bunch of browsers, MS Office, SETI, etc, eating up RAM as well) ever
    > use more than 1 GB? Clearly it seems like it could use the extra
    > space, given the constant disk activity I see, but does it actually
    > *do* so?

    The amount of RAM needed heavily depends on Texture detail. In order to
    improve performance on lower-end machines, a lot (if not all) recent
    games use mipmaps: various levels of details for one and the same
    texture. If you don't have this setting at the highest, this severely
    reduces RAM usage as the size of memory used for textures will be a lot
    less.

    To give some numbers (these are examples, don't know about the actual
    resolutions in WoW), say User 1 is running everything maxed out. A
    given texture might be 1024x1024 pixels. User 2 has his texture detail
    set a tad lower to 512x512, even with compression applied this will
    result in about 4x more memory use for User 1 compared to User 2.
    --
    http://www.new-roots.com/
    Nerghal - Undead Warlock lvl 60 - Bloodscalp EU
    Gwar - Orcish Warrior lvl 10 - Bloodscalp EU
    Chasey - Undead Priest lvl 19 - Bloodscalp EU
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    HI

    maxnews01@web.de wrote:
    > i looked at my Ram while playing WOW it never gets "full" so why should
    > 2Gig rock more then 1gig do?


    You know you can turn on more columns in Taskmgr than the standard?
    View-> select columns on the processes tab

    make sure to choose the following:
    image name, username, cpu, cpu time, mem usage, vm size

    *vm size* is really important here, because e.g. my firefox shows at the
    moment that it's using 9536k, but the vm size is 52'844k ....

    when it comes to memory usage, it's the sum of both that counts ... and
    the vm size is actually worse when it comes to performance ... this has
    always to be loaded from the HD when the game needs it ...

    if you look on the perfomance tab, you see the *physical memory*. in a
    message above you wrote that you have

    > physical memory: 1,000,000 kB

    did you round this yourselfs? because this is actually a pretty weird
    ammount, my notebook (1.5g with separate graphics memory) shows 1571760,
    a desktop machine here (1gig with separate graphics card and memory)
    shows 1047276 ...

    when you look at "system cache", thats an amount which the OS reserves.
    this is not directly available to WOW ...

    > so it's all consistent. As you can see, WoW and the various
    > background processes never exceeded 761 MB in six hours of play, many
    > zones and capital cities full of textures, lots of AH activity, etc.
    > In other gaming sessions I've never seen the peak exceed 800 MB, so
    > these results are typical.

    starting wow on the desktop just now:
    password screen: 93+89 mb
    after login in orgrimar AH (Dun Morogh) with a lvl 38 Shaman, no addons
    installed, at 15:50 in the afternoon, so theres nobody there: 359+360mb,
    and the count is rising ... a minute later its already 366+365mb ...

    on my desktop at home, I usually have addons installed which use about
    40mb more, so i'm already at the 760MB you mention.
    I'll have to test this at home after I played some time, but i guess the
    amount needed will sky rocket in the evening, or when the allies are
    trying to raid XR ...
    I'll try to post some values here


    insofar, I am forced to agree with Rene: Buy more RAM, buy a faster Harddisk

    Urs

    --
    mail: urs [dot] steiner [at] switzerland [dot] org
    phone: 078 / 790 32 16
    The reason that every major university maintains a department of
    mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those
    people.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Lokari wrote:
    > Rene <invalid@email.addr> wrote:
    >
    >> Um, 4 GB of Ram won't do you any good unless you will run linux or
    >> Windows XP64 on it.
    >
    > Don't worry, I know what I'm doing.

    I hope you do, since he doesn't, it seems...
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Quantum Leaper" <leaper@bigfoot.com> wrote:
    > Lokari wrote:
    > > Rene <invalid@email.addr> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Um, 4 GB of Ram won't do you any good unless you will run linux or
    > >> Windows XP64 on it.
    > >
    > > Don't worry, I know what I'm doing.
    >
    > I hope you do, since he doesn't, it seems...

    Care to be a leeetle bit more verbose?

    CU

    René

    --
    -------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
    Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Rene wrote:
    <s>
    > Um, 4 GB of Ram won't do you any good unless you will run linux or Windows
    > XP64 on it. (the latter has problems with drivers, while programs can be
    > 32bit or 64bit, drivers must be 64bit and not too many are available at the
    > current time). The memory on those two OS' is divided into to separate
    > address rooms, one for user, one for kernel. Normally this is 2GB/2GB but
    > can be switched to 3GB/1GB. This means that the kernel simply uses 1GB of
    > address room (not 1GB RAM, just the addresses). In reality it is a little
    > bit more complicated since devices map into the address room and also use a
    > bit.

    Sounds plausible. Files have the same size limit in FAT32. But wouldn't
    4GB (2x2GB Dual DDR) mean that WoW runs in 2GB and XP and the cache run
    in the rest?

    On another post to this thread, the Data directory of WoW totals 4.15GB,
    so if you were able to load that all on startup you would have no disk
    access during the game IMHO.

    texture.MPQ is 650mb, so that is how big an optimal videocard should be
    with the current 1.6.0 patch..

    Problem, you can't buy such a system yet. So more is probably always
    better ;-)

    Thomas
    --
    Life is like a videogame with no chance to win - ATR
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    nvrsbr wrote:
    > Turn off VSYNC
    > Make sure you are not using the " glow effect"
    > Turn colors to 16 bit in game.
    > Turn of Hardware Mouse if it is on in game.

    I tried, but it wouldn't stay in 16 bits graphics :-(
    ATI Radeon 9700 (plain) 128Mb

    I have switched back to Direct3D by removing the config.wtf file and
    then setting everything maxed out except the drawing distance and the
    FSAA or whatever. I run at 1280x1024 in which I think the game looks nicest.

    Thomas
    - --
    Life is like a videogame with no chance to win - ATR
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iQB5AwUBQugCXwEP2l8iXKAJAQE8aAMeKCslju1P7n4X9QJPrMiZ0uqct8NpvUSQ
    BaRnt+YN4EZ0IvD/15RVT+0zBgY/Jyybx9ntjsel4Fc9qCa7N5V0jUN4Y8KiIq6C
    kEHpY9O16QGTIlJ6nCiYKY9Gsl2oDEhrAfZ51Q==
    =XlzF
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ask a new question

Read More

Hardware World Of Warcraft Video Games