5.0.4 Performance Issue (Similar to D3 Beta)

(Locked)

90 Gnome Warrior
0
Yup, I can confirm the beta is smooth as glass.

On it now, running at 135 degrees (as I was usually in Cata tbh) and 70%-ish core usage. It's so nice to not see my activity monitor be a solid wall of green death.

I've seen a couple of spikes up to 150F-something but that was in a high mob/high activity area and I'm not worried about it overall (because it's sure as hell not 'crowding 180F'). At least with the beta up, I have something to play while I wait for the live side patch.

I am still getting the dock hiding bug (does that count as a performance issue?) but I'll take 'vaguely irritating' over 'genuinely destructive' any day.
Edited by Arenvald on 9/6/2012 5:15 PM PDT
85 Blood Elf Hunter
3110
If this patch seems to fix it why not push it out now. I know it's in beta, but doesn't take that long to figure out if your computer is going into frying pan mode or not. I'm not sure how the gaming industry works, but you have a whole lot of ticked off people who can't play right now and are still not able to play because we have to WAIT for the official patch?!? Can we get a time frame on that??
100 Worgen Druid
14765
Yeah, looks like they stuck in a small sleep to throttle that thread, works fine now (putting in a millisecond sleep or whatever they're using is a time-honored way of yielding a non-critical polling thread, even if there are more elegant means of signaling the thread to wake up - a millisecond of CPU time per second usually isn't worth saving, and if you don't need low latency on whatever the thread is responding to, it works fine; I would have had it do a cond_wait, but whatever).
100 Worgen Druid
14765
09/06/2012 06:06 PMPosted by Linean
If this patch seems to fix it why not push it out now.

There are release cycles for a reason. If the fix is simply to add in a nanosleep at the end of the loop in that thread, it may seem so innocuous that it would be worth disrupting the release cycle to create a new patch version with just that fix in and push it out, but consider that doing so would start a whole new round of QA and regression testing on that new version, it may take longer to get that pushed out than it would to simply continue with the current development cycle and push it out with the other fixes that we're waiting for.

Well, you might argue, the fix is so minor and what it fixes is so serious that it's worth pushing it out with minimal testing. You'd be wrong. Perhaps reducing the CPU usage in that thread allows something else to run more frequently, and that something else running more frequently causes the client to crash within an hour 90% of the time. If only 1% of Mac users are experiencing DAMAGING heat issues, that's serious, but if 90% of all Mac users wouldn't be able to run for more than an hour at a time -- which is worse?

The big problem, and question, is how the original issue got past QA in the first place (and if they'd pick up on an issue such as I just described). Possible answers are that they are using systems that can take the extra CPU load, running in a well-conditioned room, graphics settings are tested at each level for only a short amount of time, and only to verify that they can run at some defined minimum (so they have frame rates capped at whatever the minimum acceptable level is and make sure that some change didn't make it run slower than that). Who knows what their testing entails? Look how many people didn't realize how hot their machine was running, and didn't notice that the CPU usage was spiking a lot higher than it used to.
85 Blood Elf Hunter
3110
@Growltiger

I know there's a process and way to do it and go about it and even beta testing, it's just even more frustrating to know there is now a fix for it and I'm still having to wait. Been over a week with no play and I'm coming up on a weekend off to play and most likely won't get to.
Blizzard Employee
09/06/2012 06:07 PMPosted by Growltiger
Yeah, looks like they stuck in a small sleep to throttle that thread, works fine now (putting in a millisecond sleep or whatever they're using is a time-honored way of yielding a non-critical polling thread, even if there are more elegant means of signaling the thread to wake up - a millisecond of CPU time per second usually isn't worth saving, and if you don't need low latency on whatever the thread is responding to, it works fine; I would have had it do a cond_wait, but whatever).


We added a sleep since it was the safest fix. We didn't want to introduce a new bug. We will implement a better fix(maybe a cond_wait) in a future patch.

Thanks for your help about this issue!
85 Blood Elf Hunter
3110
09/06/2012 06:43 PMPosted by S4d1k
Yeah, looks like they stuck in a small sleep to throttle that thread, works fine now (putting in a millisecond sleep or whatever they're using is a time-honored way of yielding a non-critical polling thread, even if there are more elegant means of signaling the thread to wake up - a millisecond of CPU time per second usually isn't worth saving, and if you don't need low latency on whatever the thread is responding to, it works fine; I would have had it do a cond_wait, but whatever).


We added a sleep since it was the safest fix. We didn't want to introduce a new bug. We will implement a better fix(maybe a cond_wait) in a future patch.

Thanks for your help about this issue!


I guess I don't understand what a sleep, or cond_wait or any of that is. I just logged in for a minute and computer when into frying pan mode again after 1 minute. So is there a fix being added now, or later, or is all this something else? Just curious?!?
100 Worgen Druid
14765
I have absolutely no problem with simply putting in a sleep, your reasoning is impeccable. Using another mechanism would indeed be more work, and introduce the possibility of creating new bugs, and the savings would be minimal.

Query, if you are (or someone else is) able to answer: was this indeed the same thing causing similar problems in D3, and if so, is there no process for migrating bug fixes in code common to more than one product down to the original base code, and then back up to each product that uses it? If there is a process, did it simply fail? Or are the code bases so disparate that such a process would be impractical?

BTW, in the live version, at least some of the shared dynamically loaded libraries have developer paths stored, including the developer's name; might want to fix that if it matters.

Linean, I understand your impatience and how annoying it is. I doubt you'll get a firm answer from Blizzard, but I'd expect a patch next Tuesday (it's live on Beta/PTR right now, though).

A sleep, in this context, simply tells that thread to stop processing for a short while, say five or ten milliseconds. Since the processing probably takes a few hundred microseconds per loop, that drops it down from 100% CPU to around 3% (which is what I'm currently seeing for that thread). 3% isn't NOTHING, but it's nothing to be worried about.

Slower processors might show a higher percent, since it takes them longer to run one loop before sleeping, but it's still fine.

A cond_wait (specifically, pthread_cond_wait) is more elegant solution where the thread goes to sleep until another thread changes something that MIGHT require attention. The other thread notifies the waiting thread (our problem thread), which wakes up, checks to see if there's something to do, does it if so, and then goes back to waiting. It uses no CPU time at all unless there's potentially something to do. The "cond" part of that is "condition", i.e. wait until conditions are changed.

None of this matters to you, though. This fix (that's on PTR/Beta right now) solves the issue we've been talking about here. There may be other problems.
Edited by Growltiger on 9/6/2012 7:17 PM PDT
Blizzard Employee
The problem Diablo 3 had before 1.3.0b was totally different and related to pixel shaders.
When a problem is affecting multiple games we do fix all of them. In which patch the fix for each game goes in is more complicated...

Linean, a retail patch is currently being tested. If you have access to the beta then you can verify if it works since a beta patch with the fix was released today.
Retail patches require a lot more testing since they affect a lot more customers.
100 Human Warlock
9980
If this patch seems to fix it why not push it out now.
The big problem, and question, is how the original issue got past QA in the first place (and if they'd pick up on an issue such as I just described). Possible answers are that they are using systems that can take the extra CPU load, running in a well-conditioned room, graphics settings are tested at each level for only a short amount of time, and only to verify that they can run at some defined minimum (so they have frame rates capped at whatever the minimum acceptable level is and make sure that some change didn't make it run slower than that). Who knows what their testing entails? Look how many people didn't realize how hot their machine was running, and didn't notice that the CPU usage was spiking a lot higher than it used to.


I wondered this too until I Googled "CPU usage warcraft windows".

That search produced high CPU issues on Windows machines all the way back to 2008 but these problems were generally the result of overclocking, running Wow on a home-built computer (or as I like to call them Franken-computer), or were fixed by lowering the graphical setting and-or deleting the WTF folder.

After seeing three expansions of that kind of nonsense I can fully understand how the QA department effectively tuned out what little they were getting.

Which brings us to the issue of the beta testers actually noticing this bug.

I noticed my mac ran slower on the beta but I chalked it to the fact it was beta and that my iMac had the bare minimum CPU (Intel Core 2 Duo) and a unsupported graphics card (ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT 128 MB).

It wasn't until this thread that I even checked the CPU usage and temperature and for me on my iMac even with the bug I was running at 67 C and killing the rogue thread dropped me to 58 C. So in my case even running a bare minimum CPU on a unsupported graphics card i wasn't seen the 70+C that some people on iMacs were seeing.

Side note: on my computer the beta patch has the CPU running at 45% tops at 58 C while the live program is an insane 114% and 68 C. The sooner this patch gets to live the better.
Edited by Necronmaxima on 9/6/2012 8:21 PM PDT
100 Blood Elf Priest
20295
So my new iMac arrived today (the one I bought because my old system that couldn't carry anything greater than 10.5.8 was no longer supported, hurrrrr). I spent quite a fair bit of time working on my UI - we're talking 2-3 hours or so - when I realized that my system was -hot-. As in, ready-to-melt-my-hand hot. I had heard about the overheating problems, but honestly thought it was just an issue that MacBook Pro users were having. I'm naive like that.

Anywho. With Blizzard saying that the fix will be released for live servers soon™, I'd like to keep a closer eye on my machine's temperature. I've been digging around my utilities and whatnot, but haven't happened upon anything that tells me the temperature. Do yall have any suggestions on a widget or app or whatnot that I could use to help me monitor that?

I'm gonna go stick my face in the oven now. So tired of being without this game - and now that I have a machine that allows me to see shadows for the first time ever (!!!), I feel like I'm just being teased with this whole CPU/overheating thing :<
90 Draenei Shaman
5935
The problem Diablo 3 had before 1.3.0b was totally different and related to pixel shaders.
When a problem is affecting multiple games we do fix all of them. In which patch the fix for each game goes in is more complicated...

Linean, a retail patch is currently being tested. If you have access to the beta then you can verify if it works since a beta patch with the fix was released today.
Retail patches require a lot more testing since they affect a lot more customers.


S4d1k any hopes we'll get this new patch by this weekend?
100 Worgen Druid
14765
Thanks, S4d1k!

09/06/2012 07:43 PMPosted by S4d1k
If you have access to the beta

The PTR client is the same (at least, for now), so anyone can test this (and even if you didn't have access to either, you could still test the client on the login screen).

If you haven't already downloaded the Beta/PTR client, it's about 20GB, however the initial download to where you get the game client is fairly fast, and even waiting for the Launcher to say it's Playable (Orange) isn't too bad (though performance when zoning in to an area can be excruciatingly slow at times if you haven't waited for it to hit Optimal (Green)). The streaming download process works amazingly well, in my experience.
100 Worgen Druid
14765
09/06/2012 08:30 PMPosted by Pekti
Do yall have any suggestions on a widget or app or whatnot that I could use to help me monitor that?

islayer.com/apps/istatpro/ is a very handy widget

www.bresink.de/osx/TemperatureMonitor.html just shows temperatures

www.eidac.de smcFancontrol, for boosting your fan speeds manually (and shows a few temperatures, as well as current fan speeds).

I'm using just istatpro and smcFancontrol
Edited by Growltiger on 9/6/2012 8:42 PM PDT
100 Blood Elf Priest
20295
09/06/2012 08:38 PMPosted by Growltiger
Do yall have any suggestions on a widget or app or whatnot that I could use to help me monitor that?

islayer.com/apps/istatpro/ is a very handy widget

www.bresink.de/osx/TemperatureMonitor.html just shows temperatures

www.macupdate.com/app/mac/23049/smcfancontrol for boosting your fan speeds manually (and shows a few temperatures, as well as current fan speeds).

I'm using just istatpro and smcFancontrol


Thank you, sir! I will certainly take a look at those. Now.. maybe this sounds silly... but I feel sorta silly myself having to download something to boost my fan speeds. This computer -literally- came out of the box less than five hours ago. I am so very not happy with Blizzard right now. >:L
90 Gnome Mage
6615
I realize this may be a bit off topic but there are small smart people following this thread and I figure while I'm re-downloading Beta, I'll test my luck with this question...

I currently have smcFanControl and iStat Pro both installed on my rMPB and I'm getting different temperatures and I'm just wondering what I should be following - especially when I try to test this fix in beta...

smcFanControl says 169 F

while iStat Pro gives me the following:

HD: 110 F
CPU Heatsink: 122 F
Airport Card: 115 F
Enclosure Base: 95 F
Enclosure Base 2: 95 F
Enclosure Base 3: 92 F
GPU: 137 F
GPU Diode: 144 F

So uh...which should I be really paying attention to? smc is showing a higher temp than anything recorded on iStat.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Edited by Bellåtrix on 9/6/2012 8:45 PM PDT
100 Blood Elf Priest
20295
Snagged iStatPro. Looks like exactly what I was wanting. My current temps are 113º and 106º. Heck if I know which one matters the most, but the disturbing part is that I discovered the overheating an hour ago and immediately shut down WoW. I'm scared to know what it was at at that point.
100 Human Warlock
9980
The problem Diablo 3 had before 1.3.0b was totally different and related to pixel shaders.
When a problem is affecting multiple games we do fix all of them. In which patch the fix for each game goes in is more complicated...

Linean, a retail patch is currently being tested. If you have access to the beta then you can verify if it works since a beta patch with the fix was released today.
Retail patches require a lot more testing since they affect a lot more customers.


When I got to that last line I totally face palmed.

After doing some research I understand how this likely happened but I also know there is going to be more than one person that is going to look at that last line and go "You mean like the months of testing that gave us this bug in the first place?"

I know you mean that you want to make sure this patch doesn't cause other problems but that was most definitely NOT the way to word it in an issue that is becoming as popular to beat on as Garrosh Hellscream dumped into the middle of Stormwind.
MVP - Technical Support
100 Human Warrior
22100
bresink also makes hardware monitor, i use it to check actual fan speeds too. it's great for trouble shooting. one time my macbook pro was running too hot and i knew something was wrong. i fired up hardware monitor and it indeed reported one of the fans was not right. it was spinning far far too slow, it eventually even stopped and hit 0 rpm. It was a great tool in getting to bottom of my problem though. When i called apple up, all i had to tell them was "i'm overheating, i've already diagnosed the problem, i've identified one of the fans are not spinning correctly via the fan sensors being read by hardware monitor". apple was like "ok, good deal, we'll fix ya fan right up"...

just look at this bad boy
http://mysticalos.com/sensors1.jpg
http://mysticalos.com/sensors2.jpg

it's amazing just how many sensors machines have now adays. back in the PPC days we had like 2-3 sensors.
100 Human Warlock
9980
09/06/2012 08:47 PMPosted by Pekti
Snagged iStatPro. Looks like exactly what I was wanting. My current temps are 113º and 106º. Heck if I know which one matters the most, but the disturbing part is that I discovered the overheating an hour ago and immediately shut down WoW. I'm scared to know what it was at at that point.


I use iStatmenu (the commercial version) where all the major details can be displayed in your menu bar. Running WOW in windowed mode with the CPU temperature on display in the menubar all the time not only allows you to see if your mac is majorly overheating (mind isn't) but to see if the new beta patch fixes the problem (it seems to as it runs a lot cooler then live)

Side note: mention if you are giving us Celsius or Fahrenheit temperatures. 113º and 106º C are totally insane but 113º and 106º F (43º and 41º C) respectively are totally fine. My iMac runs at 55º C (131º F) just browsing.
Edited by Necronmaxima on 9/6/2012 10:18 PM PDT
This topic is locked.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]