MMORPG (i.e. WoW, FFXI) running multiple instances, Quad or Dual Core?

I play Final Fantasy XI and have been told by many it is a CPU intensive game, . I sometimes run 2 instances of the game at the same time (as in, have "2 of the same game" running but with a different character). My T7200 2.0ghz with 2gb RAM, the CPU shoots to 95%~ (with Firefox running on top, normally watching something from Youtube or something else, watching videos). And on top of that I have a few tabs open for web browsing, and run Winamp or Windows Media Player (watch DVD) on top of my 2 instances of the game.

Needless to say, I'm not too bothered about how the game looks, but running 1 instance + all the apps mentioned above my notebook does fine. Running 2 instances and all the apps above is where I start having performance issues, despite my FFXI instances being throttled down beforehand to a smaller resolution/low graphics, etc. This is of course natural and understandable. i.e. DVDs stutter a bit when I try to skip, both FFXI instances lag/stutter moderately but not to the point where it's unplayable, doing other things on the laptop takes a big longer. This is all expected however.

I am comfortable/satisfied with the way a T7200 2.0ghz CPU runs 2 instances of the game, but with other things on top then it becomes difficult.

I have my eyes on a laptop someone is selling me on this board with 4gb of RAM and a Quad Core (Q9000 2.0ghz) CPU and a very nice graphics card (Ati 4850). I got my eyes on this because I planned to play some newer games on top of what I currently play/do so I think this is an ideal choice, for the price too.

However, based on my situation, due to my desire to do more multiple things on top of running 2 instances of FFXI, would a quad core significantly improve my "quality of life", so to speak. If 2 instances of FFXI alone can bring a T7200 to 85-95% CPU usage, 3 will be more or less impossible. But with a Q9000 would this let me run 2 instances without maxing out CPU usage?

To sum up, here are some stats to help people answer my question:

1 instance + apps mentioned = 20-30% CPU usage, peaking at I'd say 60-70 -depending- if I'm in a busy area of the game, but even so it is comfortable to do so.

2 instances + apps mentioned = 85-95/100% CPU usage, both instances stutter moderately but still playable/tolerable (to my standards), can still watch movies/some stuff takes a bit of time to process

I hope I am clear about my situation/what I am trying to say, and if someone can tell me what they think it'll be greatly appreciated.

Additional notes: I'm not an overclocking fan, I'm not looking to max out graphics/games/performance, I am satisfied with the way everything is, I just want to be able to do more and am wondering if quad core will alleviate my problems above so I can either run 3 instances of FFXI or 2 instances and comfortably do other activities with no or little to none bottlenecks.

EDIT: So in other words, a Q9000 clocked at 2.0ghz (what I started with but only 2 cores) with 4 cores, or a slightly better clocked dual core in the region of 2.5ghz to 2.8ghz? (Which would mean an alternative laptop)

 

in a multi-threaded environment... the slowest quad-core Q9000 will crush the most expensive of dual cores.

as for running multiple instances its about the same.

you just need to set the "Affinity" of the app/game to have it use which of the 4 cores at any given time.

you can do this in the Task Manager, under the Process tab.

or use a program like "SerAffinity"

theoretically, you can even run 4 instances running at 2.0GHz for each instance on each core.

I have done this with other games on a quad-core system.

 

I tried setting the affinity as 1 per each core and notice no difference, the CPU still maxes out to near 100% on both cores.

I wonder if there's automatic CPU balance happening sometimes if I don't set the core, since both will be near 100% regardless if I set the affinity or not.

But theoretically, if I have a quad core and still run 2 instances, it won't max out the CPU right, judging with the way it performs currently with a dual core.

Thanks for your response too.

 

Bumping if anyone else can provide an insight. Sorry!

 

The q9000 will be noticably faster mainly because of the bigger cache.

You could run 4 instances of a game if you wanted to but the bottleneck probably would be the gpu/ram, it depends really.

But set your affinity for non multicore games as goph said because, for example a freeze up can freeze the whole system rather then that core.

If you set affinities for non multicore games, your also likely to get quite a nice boost to performace (some cases ingame) but mainly windows while you gain.

If you dont set the core's they will just run off the same percentage, but affinity's set up right will benefit, and having 4 cores, 2 for the games and 2 for windows/other apps should result in really smooth game play.

I take it your looking at MSI then?

 

Thanks catacylsm

Indeed I am looking at the MSI, but still digging around a bit/maybe the ASUS.

I only run 2 instance for now, maybe one more but unlikely, so I was wondering if the specs on the MSI compared to my current specs will "free up" my current bottleneck of the CPU being busy with the 2 instances of the game. Seems like you think so too, for which I am glad.

The MSI one is attractive but I am going to think about more of the keyboard. I really dislike the enter and directional keys, they're so small.

Thanks again for your insight.

EDIT: So in these situations, I take it a quad core will ease my issues rather than a dual core which is clocked higher compared to my current setup?

 

Yes, you will have room to do other things, aswell as the noticably more responsive switching and tasking (even while gaming.)

Here is why i really like multiple cores though.

Control Pannel Picture

Notice the 4th grid is at 100% (due to a crash), it doesnt really affect anything except that core, because ive set the afinity to core 4, it wont affect the others, where as if i had used all cores for a non multicore game, i would have to cold restart my laptop .

But anyway, enough about my terrible crashes, what you want to be able to do is this.

Multiple Instances of starwars!

See the task manager grids, 1 and 2 are running the game but 3 and 4 standard process's for windows.

The Q9000 will be running your games fluently in my oppinion and the GPU will take alot of the weight at good quality.

Hope ive managed to ease your mind a bit.

And as for the keyboard, its quite nice actually, im already fully use to touch typing on it however it has ruined my use of standard standard keyboards a bit hehe.

 

Nice pics/info, they do clear a lot of doubts for me.

I guess when I tried to fiddle with my cores I couldn't get very far because, well, I only have 2 so it's not possible to completely dedicate a core each for my 2 instances, unless I have more.

However, if you do not touch the affinity/core settings at all, does the machine just randomly assign work to any of the cores? I was wondering how those usage graphs will look like if you had them "as usual" (using all 4 cores instead of a dedicated one)

For example, I'm running a virtual Windows XP box right now on my laptop to do testing (for work), but just for fun I decided to run disk cleanup which can be an intensive CPU hog. I set it to delete compressed old files and looking at my 2 cores now, they are both quite high and are clearly being used. What I've always wondered is how Windows (Vista, my main laptop) assigns workload to those cores... is it just a case of "oh you're not doing much, here's some work for you!" ?

As for the MSI keyboard, I decided I do not want to ruin my use of standard keyboards hehehe, so because of that I am straying away a little from it.

However, Acer are doing some Quad Core laptops, I'm investigating those at the moment (Acer 8930G, Comet sells a variety of 8930Gs with a quad core in them, cheapest one I've seen costs £999 with Quad Core, but the GFX card sucks.... 9600M GT 1gb, not quite as good as the 4850 ATI)

Thanks for your info again. I look forward to your next reply.

 

Bumping so Cata can see this.

 

Hmm i dont think having all cores to the 1 program will make a difference really, except maybe getting out of a jam, but even then your whole computer could just freeze up on you.

I think vista assigns threads individually as there not *massive* hogs, however when it comes to major hogs, i think vista tries to put the thread on both cores, even though its incompatible in a way, or it wont make much difference.

What i will do is try and crash one of my game servers with the affinity on all 4 cores, then report back with my finds

Also if you want me to run any particular tests, i'd be more then happy.

Andi quite like the keyboard, its big although i dont tend to use the number pad at all hehe.

 

Ah I see. Thanks for responding again,

I can't think of any specific tests I want doing so.... I guess case closed for now.

Either way all I can see now is that if 2 cores can do what I want to do right now at 2ghz then 4 cores with more ram but still 2.0ghz and bigger cache should be handle whatever with some left over for more, and it'll be possible to assign 1 or 2 cores to all windows tasks and completely assign 1 task to 1 core.... I like that idea actually... more cores = more fun/selection... hehehe

I never use the keypad either, but I think it might be handy if I want to for example assign them as hotkeys for stuff, maybe.

Back to laptop hunting I suppose.

 

How does the video card render 2 instances of FFXI?

 

What do you mean pac, do you mean if the GPU has enough power to render two instances or run two instances at the same time?

I still think the MSI is one of the better buys though hehe, its cost effective for sure, i think there could be some other q9000 sellers though, but they are withing the region of £2000 and hybrid sli or crossfire etc etc.

But as you say, more cores - more threads - no fail jams.

 

As with Catacylsm, I ask the same "what do you mean?", to pac

My laptop has a GeForce 7400 Go (64mb, with 192mb shared with my ram) and it runs 2 instances in low quality "fine" with a bit of frame lag due to CPU being at 90% or more depending on area I am in.

Catacylsm: In Comet there's a few Acer 8930g with a Quad Core Q9000, the cheapest one being £999, but as I said I don't feel like going with the weaker GeForce 9600m, but that's a maybe. I will investigate around a bit more.

MSI is indeed a cost effective buy, I cannot disagree with you there.

 

If you assign affinity of a game to a core do you then have to asign affinity to every other process to the "nongaming" core or will that happen automatic?

p.s. thanks for all the info here guys

 

From what I toyed with (manually via Task Manager) you have to do it all manually.

However, it'll be quite tedious without a specific application. You cannot highlight multiple processes, have to do it one at a time. But SerAffinity allows you to do many at a time:

http://www.geocities.com/edgemeal_software/SetAffinity/index.htm

I just tested. Works cool.