安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
just because marrowwind uses 20 threads doesnt mean it will run all at the same time
many are idle, and most will run 1 at a time
watch your task manager and see if it goes over 23% usage for the game (if your cpu has 8 cores)
and windows doesnt always assign a single core each specific thread, ex. running prime95 with 1 worker thread, you will get activity on all cores, but not more than the 23% total cpu usage (with 8 cores)
Look what you just said.
Prime 95 single threaded setting should max out 1 core 100% shouldn't it? Not what you said about maximum 23% CPU usage on 1 core but activity on multiple cores?
But games are not set to run 1 thread.
Set Prime95 to 8 threads, watch carefully and you will see that all 8 cores get 100% load, what you don't see is 1 core at 800% load :) or worse it lagging and switching threads around on 1 core but only using the one core 100%.
100% / 8 = 22.5%
if one thread is using 100% of one core, the cpu with 8 cores has a 22.5% load
Anyways, okay right but I can watch the individual cores usage when running a game, not just the overall CPU usage. I can open resource monitor or another program and watch all 8 cores individually monitored.
I'm telling you that none of the cores as minitored individually get near 100% in any game and that it does actually spread out over all 8 cores. This means if total CPU usage is 25% then average per-core usage is 25%, sure so may be 10%, some may be 35% and it always fluctuates, but it does it's best to balance it and switch it arround for balance in real time. The average per-core will still be 25% even though in real time it changes. Nothing goes near 100%, even though by your math I should be using 2 cores 100% to get 25% usage?
If I get 50% usage the average is 50% and though it may go higher and lower it does actively work to balance the average per-core usage to be similar to the total CPU usage.
It doesn't seem to be absolutely perfect at balancing workloads but it is good and quick at it.
My CPU has 8 cores, it actively and agressively finds ways to use all of them at once for any modern task at hand.
im used to working with degrees (22.5º is half of 45º)
but in marrowwind does your cpu usage go above 13% (task manager rounds to the nearest 1%) for the game?
if no, then it does not use more than 1 core
Anways, either way, it is not using 100% of any one core. It splits itself over multiple cores to allow it safe headroom and ability to run better without "hitting the ceiling" on any one core.
Yes using 1 core 100% would = 12.5% usage, no getting 1 program to use 12.5% of my CPU is meanwhile NOT using 1 core 100%, it's split across multiple cores.
The more demanding the program(s) is or are the more they split across cores.
It's not actually perfect, like splitting 13% across all cores but it doesn't need to be. It splits as much as it needs to to insure that it has plenty "core headroom" to use without having to offload to another core before completing a opperation.
If I put the CPU under serious load with multithreaded applications then it would split further to try and maintain headroom in each core in case usage on that thread/process got more intense and cause it's faster to finish the unit of work on the core before starting a new unit on a different core instead of having to offload before it can finish if the core is maxed out.
So yes, 1/8 usage, no there is not 1 core being 100% used.
I understand what you are saying now but please understand that it splits.
With Morrwind running, even alt+tab minimized, the top 4 cores, core 0, core 1, core 2 and core 3 are all turbo-cored up to 4.2Ghz while the bottom 4 cores, core 4, core 5, core 6 and core 7, are all Turbo-core up to 3.9Ghz.
For this reason (because the top 4 cores are faster right now) they are getting most of the love and most of the use, but still not usually going over 35% each.
My total CPU usage is only like 20~% but if I increased it alot then workload would spill down onto the bottom 4 cores at 3.9Ghz as well, even though they aren't boosted up as fast as the top 4 cores at 4.2Ghz.
No this is just really strange.
Task Manager is showing 16% usage by Morrowind, but meanwhile Resource Monitor is showing 12-13% and it IS %, I checked and it very definetly says that it is quoting % usage so something is messed up somehow. On the bright side the screwup is all Windows 8.
Why did anyone mention morrowind in a debate about quad and octa core CPUs. Morrowind is old and it will always use only one core, those 22 threads are irrelevant, the game uses 1 core and nothing you say, do, or install won't make it use more.
If you want to compare CPUs gaming wise, select a game that is actually CPU heavy, like Planetside 2 (that game is a wreck, but it strains even the most powerful CPUs).
It doesn't use 1 core, it USES MULTIPLE CORES DOG TINMAD!
the graph shows some activity on all, because during that time frame x% of that core was used, and at 3ghz, the cpu can run 3,000,000,000 calcs per second per core
Each application is programmed to be executed in a certain way. If the application is coded in a way that makes better use of multiple threads, the developers will or should program it with that in mind. When that application is launched, it is registered as a process by the OS. If there are multiple threads in that process, the OS will schedule those threads in the most efficient manner to coincide with all of the other processes/threads that are also running on the system. The OS cannot magically create new threads if the applications/processes don't have those. All it can do is schedule them.
http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/multi-core-and-multi-threading/
Also, the original Morrowind was not multithreaded, so I'm guessing you are confusing the other processes/threads with them all being attributed to Morrowind. Here is a fairly recent thread about Morrowind.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/22320/discussions/0/864949037859046970/#p1
Note post #3.
You guys are basically trying to say my CPU is not good enough to run Morrowind. That's a joke, you don't even need to tell me that, but it's stale, old and pale now.
Also it only requires 500Mhz Pentium 3 so what's wrong with this buggy little resource hog Morrowind and why is it eating up 12-16% of my CPU at 4.2Ghz Turbo Core when it could be running it at 4% or less use at the 1400Mhz "idling" frequency that is the bottom base my FX 8150 drops to when not in use?
You have to remember that the game was released in 2002 when there were no multicore CPUs and the CPUs did not have the processing power of CPUs today. If they would have released a game in 2002 that would have consumed 100% of one core of today's CPUs, the game simply would not have been able to run as a game. It would have been a slide show and a very very slow one at that.
Something is wrong with the numbers task manager and resource monitor are giving me.
from task manager, right click on marrowind.exe -> set affinity
untick 7 of the cpus