And there are nearly enough people thanking you for it IMO.
so hey, Thanks! a million mang!:cheers4:
so hey, Thanks! a million mang!:cheers4:
Thanks but it is early to thanks me, we must see if it works for other people too.
Cebolaboy pointed another utiltiy here (BES).
Cebolaboy pointed another utiltiy here (BES).
Anyway we now know what to do, limit the kernel time of the cpu with a third party utility, how to do it is less important than knowing what to do.
Last edited:
I see what's going on now. It's a good way to make the game playable on less than 4 cores. It prevents intentionally written loading or decompression or whatever from taking too much CPU and starving the rest of the game on machines that don't have the minimum 4 cores.
It isn't a defect in the game, nor is it something that if you ask support about it, you'll get more answer than your system doesn't meet stated requirements.
But it's a good find for making the game work on sub-minimum systems.
It isn't a defect in the game, nor is it something that if you ask support about it, you'll get more answer than your system doesn't meet stated requirements.
But it's a good find for making the game work on sub-minimum systems.
It's interesting that TW3 by default requires 4 cores. I don't think I saw any games like that before. Though I'm not sure, if there is stuttering on 2 cores, how exactly does that CPU tamer prevent it? If there isn't enough cores - there isn't enough. Or it deprioritizes compression threads somehow? Then everything just should be slowed down (i.e. decompression for instance).
Last edited:
It appears that they allowed some threads to go CPU-bound, starving the system when it has fewer than 4 contexts. Process Tamer prevents applications from their threads doing that. It costs in performance, but here the tradeoff is acceptable.
Linux has a safer scheduler (Microsoft uses CLR, which is really stupid about scheduling resources belonging to threads. There are all sorts of ways to make it deadlock.)
I also thought that they might pin heavy threads to individual cores assuming there are 4 of them available, and in such case it would end up badly on 2.
It is not only about cpu time, but kernel time. Even a single thread already manage multitasking, so even if constantly used at 100% you have an fps drop, not 5 seconds of freeze.
What the game does is using too much kernel time, which take precedence on everything, overwriting any conventional multitasking rule. To quantify "too much", the game for me went up to 3-5 millions of context switch per second, when each thread should have around 15 thousands. Even a 16 thread cpu would choke with that amount of context swap. What is worse is that it uses that kernel time not to compute things but only to procrastinate, that's why it freezes instead of having an fps drop. That's why the program is badly written, with the game affinity set to a single thread this does not happen, only with 2 or 3; in the past it already happened to other apps, to solve it they just needed a patch, not better hardware.
Since the minimum requirement is 4 or more threads debugging this problem is not due, but it remains a bad example of programming.
What the game does is using too much kernel time, which take precedence on everything, overwriting any conventional multitasking rule. To quantify "too much", the game for me went up to 3-5 millions of context switch per second, when each thread should have around 15 thousands. Even a 16 thread cpu would choke with that amount of context swap. What is worse is that it uses that kernel time not to compute things but only to procrastinate, that's why it freezes instead of having an fps drop. That's why the program is badly written, with the game affinity set to a single thread this does not happen, only with 2 or 3; in the past it already happened to other apps, to solve it they just needed a patch, not better hardware.
Since the minimum requirement is 4 or more threads debugging this problem is not due, but it remains a bad example of programming.
limited to 99% it makes no difference. I mean it probably does make some minute difference somewhere, but you wont notice it.
I did it with my 4170 just to test it for you - saw no difference in game.
And really, it makes sense that it wouldnt impact performance overall - you arent at 100% most of the time anyway, so nothing is being limited. During the times when it would go to 100% and freeze, it will now go to 99% and keep running with maybe a .5 FPS drop for a second or two while it catches up.
I cant confirm 100% that it will fix your issue, since my i3 doesnt freeze, but I can at least say that limiting to 99% has no noticeable impact on overall performance.
Ur i3 doesnt have the freeze ? so maybe mine does because i disabled hyperthreading... ?
but most of games usually lose performance with hyperthreading...
Hmm, you maybe working with some old data there mang, HT is almost universally beneficial to games these days. There are specific cases where it isnt helpful or is actually detrimental, but they are very few.
And either way, HT works very well with this game, and I assume that is indeed why you are getting freezes. Without HT, an i3 4160 is basically a G3258 at 3.6Ghz. There is no difference in the cores other than HT being enabled in the i3s where it isnt in the Anniversary Pentiums. Afterburner/HWmonitor how all 4 "cores" being used by the game as well, so its definitely doing something helpful.
And finally, even though it does still sometimes peg at 100% on all 4 cores, it still never freezes.
Too much context swapping isn't efficient indeed. I wonder if they can rewrite it more efficiently. With APIs like Vulkan coming, requirements for good multithreading will only increase.
yea tried it on my laptop and it works great now if only you'd work for cd projekt red lol
Its funny because on my main gaming PC I get better frame rate by doing the same thing ,no idea why
so I expect to not work on 8 cores. Yes it doesn't say it requires 4 cores....not even a single mention.It mentions only CPUs and when people see CPUs they go to processing speed charts and compare their 8 cores or 6 cores or dual cores to how fast is the CPU in the requirements ...not even a single person on this planet counts cores and transistors only processing power.Anything else is bad programming.
i disabled HT because many games, including older ones are getting better performance without AND because Witcher 3 was also really burning my CPU at too high temperatures with it. And im affraid it's now even worse with the new version, isnt there some ppl complaining about CPU usage in lastest version ?Hmm, you maybe working with some old data there mang, HT is almost universally beneficial to games these days. There are specific cases where it isnt helpful or is actually detrimental, but they are very few.
And either way, HT works very well with this game, and I assume that is indeed why you are getting freezes. Without HT, an i3 4160 is basically a G3258 at 3.6Ghz. There is no difference in the cores other than HT being enabled in the i3s where it isnt in the Anniversary Pentiums. Afterburner/HWmonitor how all 4 "cores" being used by the game as well, so its definitely doing something helpful.
And finally, even though it does still sometimes peg at 100% on all 4 cores, it still never freezes.
NVM it's too late now, i even deleted my saves, that game is so poorly optimized job anyway... I dont want have to deal it anymore now... That shit could barrely destroy my CPU or GPU i would not be suprised, no need that cancer anymore on my PC.
GL
I even uninstalled the game, but will reinstall as there seems to be a fix, if not I'll simply power through the game via 1.06, DLC unplayable though.
....At least then I'll be able to slow walk!:teeth:
BTW, Same studdering problem with my 6 Core Phenom II 1055t
....At least then I'll be able to slow walk!:teeth:
BTW, Same studdering problem with my 6 Core Phenom II 1055t
I have an annoying stutter (micro-stutter?) that happens especially on cities. On any graphical setting. I noticed that increasing the GrassDistanceScale value makes it worse/introduces new problems. I then tried low resolutions and tweaked ini files to go beyond low settings.
It still stutters. I've tried everything: Clean install of drivers, NVIDIA CP Tweaks, not using any OC and overlays, reinstalling the game, limiting my FPS (helps a bit), removing all mods, checking if my PC was clean. Nothing solves it
I think it started to happen on 1.07 here. Really sad because i really don't feel like playing the expansion like this.
Is your issue any similar? Did you try to change some settings like FlipQueueSize using RadeonPro? It could help.
Last edited:
Stopped reading there. Check the minimum requirements for the game.
Core i3's meet the actual minimum requirements, if not the stated minimum. Game is playable without stutter for me on a Core i3 2120 and GTX 750. So you should be looking at accumulations of crapware on your system that are slowing it down; it's not the performance of this game.