GstRender.Thread.MaxProcessorCount : How many cores ? Unparked i7 6700HQ

2»

Comments

  • CaptaPraelium
    1669 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    That image is doing my head in:
    The CPU wasn't a bottleneck to begin with. It's not at 100%. Even the first 10 threads (supposedly all the game is using) aren't.
    And it was using all threads.
    And the GPU isn't the limiter either since they're hardly being used.
    Something is wrong in the first pic but it ain't thread count.
    The 2nd pic the CPU utilisation is far far higher overall
    As are the GPU util and temps
    Can't see clock speeds
    Can't compare actual graphics in the background
    That image actually requires more proof than it provides XD
    Not that I don't believe you, and you're right the default is 5, that's easily tested.
    But that image isn't helping.
    .
    Besides OP has 4 core i5
    .
    Besides, what I told you, is what DICE told us.
    That's one nommy PC you got there
  • TheNoobPolice
    1226 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    There's no such command as Gstrender.Thread.MaxProcessorCount.

    That was nonsense originally posted by in this thread back in BF4, and popularized, sheep style, by a Youtuber call Shustybang. https://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/forum/threadview/2979150493817431277/1/

    What people claimed to have "found" is that it increased frame rate by placing that line in their profsave_profile. What it actually did is just break the profile so it become unreadable (wrongly formatted line with two periods) by the game and it just reverted to default low / medium auto settings on launch even though the GUI still showed "Ultra". Hence the increase in frame rate. If they'd even bothered to actually look at the screen graphics for one second that would have been immediately obvious.

    The only line that was added at that time was just "thread.maxprocessorcount" (without the "GstRender" portion) and it is a user.cfg / console command, not a Profile entry. What it is designed to do is limit (not increase) the number of threads the game can use in order to help people with certain usage problems or issues. A bit like the "set affinity" option in task manager.

    Notice the last comment in thread by DICE dev - that it didn't even work at that point, and it is in the frostbite engine just for "testing purposes" then thread closed.

    You can't just type in a "command" to magically increase multi-thread parallelization. Multi-thread scheduling / timing is one of the most complex and challenging parts of modern day optimisation for developers. If it was just as simple as saying "please game engine - use all my threads" don't you think every game would be amazingly optimised for all multi-core/thread CPU's? If you want to know why this is the case, read about at Amdahl's Law.

    TL:DR There's no need to change this command unless you want to reduce BF1 performance to isolate issues. (something DICE should be doing, not us). Changing it on higher core CPU's will affect how the cores are loaded by %, but the maximum amount of parallelization (in other words, limited by the serial portion which absolutely has to be processed on one thread - see Armdahl's law) cannot possibly be improved without re-coding on a ground-up level.

    Believe it or not, writing a config command doesn't change BF1 to default to a whole new set of code, nor did DICE develop 8+ different versions of the game for every common CPU, because that would be stupid, expensive, and not necessary.
  • 0n3Gun3R
    407 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited March 3

    That image is doing my head in:
    The CPU wasn't a bottleneck to begin with. It's not at 100%. Even the first 10 threads (supposedly all the game is using) aren't.
    And it was using all threads.
    And the GPU isn't the limiter either since they're hardly being used.
    Something is wrong in the first pic but it ain't thread count.
    The 2nd pic the CPU utilisation is far far higher overall
    As are the GPU util and temps
    Can't see clock speeds
    Can't compare actual graphics in the background
    That image actually requires more proof than it provides XD
    Not that I don't believe you, and you're right the default is 5, that's easily tested.
    But that image isn't helping.
    .
    Besides OP has 4 core i5
    .
    Besides, what I told you, is what DICE told us.
    That's one nommy PC you got there

    You can sit and criticize my pic all you want its next to impossible to get accurate screenshot when the command doesn't actually take effect till you reboot the game.
    I'm not claiming huge boost in frames im saying CPU utilization my min FPS when up as did my GPU usage when CPU became starved prior in heavy CPU situations.
  • Gattlin
    279 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited March 4
    Makes sure your system does not overheat because of blocked inlets or outlets laptop or notebook?. System specs are always advisable when asking for help. HD Graphics 530 GPU?
  • CaptaPraelium
    1669 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    0n3Gun3R wrote: »
    That image is doing my head in:
    The CPU wasn't a bottleneck to begin with. It's not at 100%. Even the first 10 threads (supposedly all the game is using) aren't.
    And it was using all threads.
    And the GPU isn't the limiter either since they're hardly being used.
    Something is wrong in the first pic but it ain't thread count.
    The 2nd pic the CPU utilisation is far far higher overall
    As are the GPU util and temps
    Can't see clock speeds
    Can't compare actual graphics in the background
    That image actually requires more proof than it provides XD
    Not that I don't believe you, and you're right the default is 5, that's easily tested.
    But that image isn't helping.
    .
    Besides OP has 4 core i5
    .
    Besides, what I told you, is what DICE told us.
    That's one nommy PC you got there

    You can sit and criticize my pic all you want its next to impossible to get accurate screenshot when the command doesn't actually take effect till you reboot the game.
    I'm not claiming huge boost in frames im saying CPU utilization my min FPS when up as did my GPU usage when CPU became starved prior in heavy CPU situations.

    Well your pic doesn't show that. I'd like to see some actual proof that it works.
  • kespich
    239 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited November 14
    0n3Gun3R wrote: »
    jimmo_0o wrote: »
    Gstrender? i use without
    Thread.MaxProcessorCount 8
    PerfOverlay.DrawFps 1
    RenderDevice.VSyncEnable 0
    RenderDevice.RenderAheadLimit 4
    GameTime.MaxVariableFps 134

    i use this.
    test RenderDevice.RenderAheadLimit with options 1/2/3/4
    and change the frame cap.
    You are essentially queuing 4 frames to your CPU. Performance wise literately no difference from 3-4 al you're doing is adding input lag and more unnecessary load to your CPU

    yea too much pre-render messes up even mouse movement

    edit: this was an unintentional necro
  • TheNoobPolice
    1226 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    @kespich

    Please don't necro threads, it's irritating.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!