29 réponses à ce sujet

[4Aces]

I just created this for those more technically inclined to examine my findings and determine if this can help solve some of the issues with the game.

I just spent about three hours going though a saved game (at least 10K+ lines of data).  It looks like they are indexing the whole bloody game as you go along.  That means, if you do Denerim first things should be fine, but the last area you do will be a real pain. Every thing you have ever seen, every placeable item, and every creature, sound, etc. is saved in your saved game.  It even looks like they are indexing your saved games in each other (though that might just be my now throbbing migraine confusing my memory).  You can all take a look at a saved game by opeining up the Toolset and then just opening up a saved file:

Sorry I forgot about this forum - so each 1 is actually a forward Slash.

C:1Users1Documents1BioWare1Dragon Age1Characters1(CharacterName)1Saves1

For some reason the forums keeps deleting anything after that.  You are looking for the largest file in one of the folders in that Saves folder.
 
That will open the saved game so you can take a look at it.  If you Expand All (right click menu item) it will take a long time based on the size of the file (see below) .  I gave up waiting and left it after about 10 minutes (came back an hour later and it was done - saved game size of 8MB).  When you are done looking, do not save it unless you are editing it on purpose.  Just close the toolset and take some headache meds (if yours has 10K+ lines).

To give you an idea why the last area in the game might always be bad (liek Denerim is for most of us) just compare the size of the first saved game @ ~ 238 kb vs. my last one where I have cleared about Half of Denerim (last major map area though I still have a few side quests outside of it) @ 7,937 kb.  If you have saved games along the way without overwriting them, you will notice the steady increase in size as you progress.  Every new thing (person, creature, room, etc. etc. ad nauseam) is saved in this.

If this is correct then it crushes my goals of ever producing an expansion, as that would just lead to more bloat and worse play.  The good news is that it has nothing to do with the Textures or even apparently RAM, so I can continue with my Texture Mod and wait for them to fix this (they would have to if they are going to release DLCs for the next two years!).  Now of course, this will have to be verified by someone who started with Denerim, and ends somewhere else.  Of course, I cannot expect anyone to actually test that condition, but if you did do it in that order, please let me know via PM if you are willing to send me your saved game so I can test it with my HiRes Pack 1 textures (just to keep things as equalized across the test as possible). 

We may have been the victims of circumstance by thinking that Denerim was the casue since it is the last logical area to visit since the guy running it is after you.  Quick Rant - I have to say the worst Continuity Break in the game (so far anyway) is the Captain of the Guard in the Market saing "Hi Warden"  and it was even sillier that he gives you a job without even trying to say something like "Screw the Regent, I am not going up against you with these Noble-Born-Half-Wits.  As long as you do not cause trouble, your business is your own".  Maybe he did not
get the memo, though they are on the city walls. [smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/bandit.png[/smilie] OK, minor rant over.

So how could the increased textures be interacting with a bloated saved game structure?  Weil if it is really indexing everything, then that can take up a lot of RAM by itself and CPU cycles which would explain the longer loading times as you progress through the game.  If they are using prefetching then it gets a lot worse.

I guess it will become more evident if totally new areas are released and the game gets even worse.  By releasing areas we have already been to, you get to reuse the already indexed entries, thereby not adding anymore unless you add more items/creatures/etc to that area.

Sorry for another book.  I would love to keep it shorter, but then there would be more questions over dozens of
posts.  I will not actively be looking into this anymore, as this is out of my area of expertise.  Since my game does not use more than 3.8GB of RAM with HiRes Pack 1 at the point where it  corrupts my saved games (with no other mods running) then this is a Bioware technical issue.  If it were due to RAM useage than my x64 with 8GB of RAM would be laughing.   I will still visit to clarify anything (if possible) and am always availabe via PM.

EDIT - @adnyr1986 - I missed the part where you mentioned that you also are using a quad core.  Since the game immediately takes over 100% of my Dual Core Processor, I would expect that people playing with Quad Cores do not have as many problems.  This could be the first game that should require a quad core to play.
With double the cores you can process more data than us dual core users, and therfore can lliekly get farther into the game (or longer into a session) before expeienceing the problems.

If you want to see it yourself then : Use Ctrl-Alt_Del and the Choose Task Maanger.  Then Choose the Performance Tab at the top of that window.  Then load the game (just to the main menu) and use Alt+Tab to go back to that Task Manager Window.  Look at CPU Usage to see what this game is doing to your processor. 

As I said in the original thread (that this started in), I have never seen anything like this when nothing is actually going on (the main menu does not even have background animation to any great extent), except when running emulators (Doxbox) or Virtual Machines.  It is no wonder some poeple are experiencing overheating, if just getting to the main menu take 100% of a dual-core.  I will not be playing more than a hour at a time, even with my excellent cooling system.  That kind of sustained max. useage will reduce the lifetime of a chip espcially if overclocked.  Only industurial parts such as the bearing in you fans are designed for constant 100% useage like that.  You will get point max. useage when doing things like using Compression utilities (7Zip), movie encoding, or Grapical tools (Photoshop).  But that only lasts for a relatively short time, where you are likely playing the game for hours at a time, which means hours @ 100% CPU useage (if you are a  dual core user).

Hopefully someone with a Quad will let use know what their CPU useage when they get to the main menu (not exiting from a game to it, just on the inital launch before anything is loaded).  That way we can see if this is as dangerous to a Quad Core system.  Regardless, everyone should have a program like RealTemp which is a great little (free) program to monitor core temperatures for Intel Chips (sorry AMD users - but I am sure Googling "CPU Core Temp Sensor AMD" will get you something.  You can paste it to your Start Menu's Startup folder, so that it starts whenever you turn on your system so you will always know when your CPU is overheating (say if a fan stops working or a game runs your CPU @ 100% for five hours straight).

Cheers!

Modifié par 4Aces, 24 décembre 2009 - 03:21 .

[4Aces]

I came across another thread on Steam that answers some of this.



First off, Quad Cores are only seeing 70-80% utilization.



Second, everyone seems to think that just because your CPU can run at 100% it is perfectly fine to do so for long periods of time (some play for 8+ hours at a stretch). With no warning on this game about the heat effects, and since heat monitoring is not a requirement, system damage could occur (so get heat monitoring now!). I have requests into Intel and AMD for estimates on how much running a CPU @ 100% for hours straight will reduce the lifetime of the processor (if cooled to within specs). When I get the responses I will post the results. As for console users, I do not know if you are using Dual or Quad cores, so I cannot even guess if this is effecting you.

[REH1967]

Interesting read. Game bloat of one type or another is definitely going on. Most peeps simply throw terms like "memory leak" around, but I personally am reluctant to do so. However, I do know what I have experienced with my PC's performance, and the game is definitely bogging down at certain points in addition to long loading screens.



This would also explain why, regardless of high or low graphic settings, performance issues remain same (except in large battles, etc).

[4Aces]

If anyone has the capability of monitoring CPU usage in consoles would you please let me know what it is? I just checked and they are using Dual Cores as well. I sure hope the stock cooling is better than the toys that come with the PC CPU's, since you cannot use after market cooling.



I have a request into Intel/AMD to find out what 100% continuous utilization of both cores is doing to the lifetime of the CPU, and if it can cause instability over time. I will report back when I get their official response.

[Dasos]

Yeah I found this an interesting read, out of my depth, I definately suffer from slow down after playing a long time, well, not a long time actually, a very short time. (I have quad core phenom 9550, that's 2.2ghz)

But I don't think that's down to certain area's because I can save at a place where I'm getting literally 5fps, load it up in the same area and hit 50+.

It's not the temps, I have no idea what it is o.o

[badkenbad]

4Aces wrote...
I have a request into Intel/AMD to find out what 100% continuous utilization of both cores is doing to the lifetime of the CPU, and if it can cause instability over time. I will report back when I get their official response.

What they'll tell you is that it's entirely dependent on the "thermal solution" provided for the processor. By this I mean the overall CPU cooling system, not the goop between the processor and the heat sink. If the cooling system performs to specification, the processor can run full time at 100% without any degredation. The only things that matter to a processor is whether it's getting the right voltage (which controls how much current will be required to operate the processor, which in turn controls heat generation), and whether the heat it generates is being dissipated. According to the Core 2 Duo specifications, the stock Intel thermal solution works just fine with the CPU drawing its maximum design power, as long as the ambient temperature (in the case) is around 40C and the airflow around the heat sink is at least 10 CFM.

100% CPU utilization is only a problem if your power supply isn't supplying proper voltage, or if your processor isn't getting enough cooling. Or if you want to do anything else with your computer while something is using up 100% of the CPU.

Modifié par badkenbad, 28 décembre 2009 - 05:11 .

[4Aces]

Actually I have been told by server administrators exactly what I was expecting. Desktops are not designed to run at 100% even with excessive cooling (though it will help). First off, the massive amount of 'extra' heat that this game causes will bake the silver paste (goop) and reduce it's thermal conductivity over time (which I had not thought of before). On top of that, the standard cooling solutions (radiators) are not meant for this kind of extreme workload. The only thing that is, is a server (which are over-engineered to compensate for running 100% for long periods). The processor's internal electronics will overheat, and will start to drop out (safety mechanism built into the chip and motherboard), which is likely the cause of Dual Cores getting corrupted games. I am still waiting for Intel and AMD to officially respond, but is should be soon.

One thing to note about multi-cores - the more you have the hotter they will/can get. So Dual Cores can hit about 55C - 65C (depends on chip) and I have read that Quads can hit 100C. These are not the 'spontaneous combustion' temps, but the max of their rated specs. Higher than that will be very bad indeed, so check out the temp ratings for your particular chip and make sure that your temp monitoring program shuts your system down about 5C before that. Unfortunately, there can be spike temps inside the chip that quickly hit +5C and then begin to cool, so you want a good safety margin. If you find your system is shutting down a lot playing this game, then you know it is overheating your system (which can damage the motherboard and other parts as well).
You will then either need to stop playing the game until they get it fixed, or get better airflow through your system (better/more fans).

Cheers!


EDIT - Moving a reply from my HiRes Thread to here:

Destructo-Bot wrote...
This is nonsense. There are thousands
of instances of chips running 100% for over a decade in mainframes and
supercomputers and even desktops running SETI and FOLDING. Maxing your
CPU out for long stretches will do little other than raise your power
bill. I agree with your thoughts on textures, but I wouldn't advise
repeating that nonsense elsewhere

I agree, that
is nonsense.  You are comparing the wide range of Desktop systems to
the rugged Server class machines.  Since I have confirmation from
Server Administrators on this, I would wait until I get offical
confrimation from Intel and AMD before calling it anything else.  It is
a theory at this point, as I stated.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sideways.png[/smilie]

If SETI was not a problem running at 100% why did Berkely make this to throttle the CPU
usage for it's version called Bionic?  I did not want to waste the
time, but I managed to find one old Intel/AMD release, for 7 year old
single cores, where they stae that up to 24 hours is fine but beyond
that can damage them.  Now since dual/quads have a shorter lifespan
than these single cores, it seems reasonable that this esitmate of
continual 100% use will be lower than 24 hours.

Modifié par 4Aces, 31 décembre 2009 - 03:26 .

[Destructo-Bot]

Go out and buy two CPUs. Follow the cooling recommendations from the manufacturer. Run one at 100% for 12 hours, the other only run at 25% for 8 hours then idle. Do this for a year straight and keep a log of all processor faults. Get back to me.

Not everyone wants their computer running full tilt for heat and power reasons. Some people never clean their machine and have a bunch of dust on their heatsink. Some people don't have a decent case with airflow. Many don't maintain their computer, including replacing the thermal paste occasionally. Some want to run something else alongside. That is why that software exists.

None of this is the fault of the CPU. It will happily run at 100% pretty much forever as long as it's cooled properly. Also, very few people are going to have the game running for more than a handful of hours. I'll happily throw FOLDING on my PC and run it full tilt for A MONTH STRAIGHT and post the work log for proof. I've had a pentiumII that sat quietly in a closest in my last job running maxed for years. CPUs are resilient.

Your premise is far-fetched and really grasping at straws. Complain about the CPU useage if you like, but it's there TO BE USED. I was a "server admin" too. So you just heard from a server admin that says just the opposite. You are likely to get a "cover your ass" response from any manufacturer of just about anything when you ask a question like that. They'll give you the most conservative and ass-covering answer possible.

edit: Bioware's social forum is lousy with line breaks and slashes, edits, urls... well pretty much everything. Their forum software is AWFUL. Takes a few edits to make a reasonable looking post that doesn't have extra or too few line breaks. The inserting extra slashes is annoying too.

Modifié par Destructo-Bot, 02 janvier 2010 - 11:27 .

[4Aces]

@D-B Well thanks for your opinion. I have heard the same (100% for a few hours straight is bad for non-server class rigs) from four server-admins now (I stopped looking a few days ago). I am still waiting for the official Intel/AMD response on Dual Cores, which I expect to get now that the holidays are over. Since they are the ones that take a look at the chip and determine if you voided warranty (heat damage does this), then I will take their answer seriously not just as a CYA.



Your points about the difference in people's cases/airflow/dust level are all spot on. Did you see a requirement on this game that notified you that you should have a perfectly tuned system? Even a small one that said that this required your system cooling to be well maintained? No, there was no warning of this extreme behaviour. There should have been at least a warning that CPU temps must be monitored if you are going to play this game, but instead it was like an Easter egg that everyone forgot about.



ROFL - A pentium II was a rugged chip. If you were a server admin, then you know that the new chipsets are made with much smaller & weaker components (wire). Their warranties shrink with each successive iteration, as they pack more into the same space, and run higher temps as a consequence.



Your system is not everyone's. You likely have a well maintained, carefully designed system with more than adequate cooling. As my previous message pointed out, if 100% CPU utilization was not detrimental, then why did Berkley create a throttling program for their version of SETI? They thought it could at least damage *some* systems.





I hear you about these forums. I gave up editing to fit their strange behaviour. It is something that really should have been patch two months ago.





@ Everyone - As for the save game bloat, someone finally tested Denerim straight out from Lothering, and the area is still a crash happy wonderland (with [b]anyone's[b] increased size texture pack). So save game bloat is not the cause. It is too bad since it would have been much easier to fix. So I guess the other threads calling it a memory leak are probably correct. The save game bloat could still be responsible for the longer load times, but that appears to be all.

[JironGhrad]

Ok, I'll bite... I'm running the game on a P4 3.2 Hyperthreaded single core. 2 GB of RAM. I've never seen a load time over 45 seconds. MY final saves are (multiple characters) all around 12.6 mb. Total Crash-to-desktop: 3, total play time: 147 hours. None of the crashes have been repeatable. If it's a memory leak, then I should have crashed every time it ran out of memory which should happen much more often on 2 GB of RAM.

[rikkles]

I personally think that it's a combination of issues, including certainly something other than memory leaks: launching Denerim for me on a quad Phenom 2.2 (with and without the TLB fix), with 2x Crossfire ATI 3550sOR a single new 5770, can automatically crash the game.

The ONLY way for me to relatively reliably play the game in Denerim is to use low textures and low (or possibly medium) graphics. Needless to say it's really not fun playing in such a crappy way, and really hurts.

[Destructo-Bot]

I'm just going to have to disagree vehemently. Processing power (along with RAM) is there to be used and if Bioware can design a game in a way that uses what is available I think that is fantastic.
I'd use an analogy: Someone who doesn't change their oil. Your car can handle a drive across the country just fine. Of course that probably isn't true if you haven't changed the oil in your car in 5 years. Which is what someone who doesn't occasionally dust their case out is doing, albeit with less disastrous consequences.

Current chips may use finer processes but they are not strictly mechanical devices. They don't really WEAR in the same way that something purely mechanical does, not at the scales involved. Not to mention that the OLDER chips had little or no thermal control at all. Modern chips will REDUCE voltage, REDUCE clockrates, or DISABLE cores if not all three if they detect overheating. You can RIP the heatsink off a modern processor while under load! It will LIVE. Older processor would smoke and die a permanent death.

Overheating just shouldn't be a problem. Poor basic maintenance of someone's personal equipment is not something I can blame Bioware for. If they are having issues with the game maxing their CPU they need a can of compressed gas, not a game patch.

Also, the game has not crashed for me. Ever. I won't say it's bug free, but my experience with the game so far, even running it for embarrisingly long gaming sessions has been crash free. Nor have I noticed a substantial slowdown of loading times. I have in fact tabbed out, went to bed, worked a full day, come home, had dinner and resumed playing from the previous day without ill effect. This is not directed at people to mention that their problems are not a bug, but rather that the problems are not universal.

Modifié par Destructo-Bot, 04 janvier 2010 - 05:13 .

[JironGhrad]

Destructo-Bot wrote...
Also, the game has not crashed for me. Ever. I won't say it's bug free, but my experience with the game so far, even running it for embarrisingly long gaming sessions has been crash free. Nor have I noticed a substantial slowdown of loading times. I have in fact tabbed out, went to bed, worked a full day, come home, had dinner and resumed playing from the previous day without ill effect. This is not directed at people to mention that their problems are not a bug, but rather that the problems are not universal.

I actually stress-tested the application... I played without restarting or tabing away from DA for over 60 hours.  It never used more than 1.4GB of RAM even at the 60 hour point.

[Kelston]

JironGhrad wrote...

Ok, I'll bite... I'm running the game on a P4 3.2 Hyperthreaded single core. 2 GB of RAM. I've never seen a load time over 45 seconds. MY final saves are (multiple characters) all around 12.6 mb. Total Crash-to-desktop: 3, total play time: 147 hours. None of the crashes have been repeatable. If it's a memory leak, then I should have crashed every time it ran out of memory which should happen much more often on 2 GB of RAM.

Not sure why my final game saves are larger, mine clock in at 14-16MB looking at Landsmeet saves all the way to post-Coronation saves and the autosave at the end.

Having played through the game twice, I crashed to the desktop maybe 6-7 times in total per playthrough. Though that number is a bit misleading since quite often, when I quit the game, I get a crash error, but I didn't pay much attention to them since I was quitting the game anyway. Looking at my Windows Vista problem log, I have about 37 registered to DA:O and 4 registered to the Character Creator program.

It's hard to say whether the crashes are repeatable since when you crash, it unloads all the memory anyway and starts over so your attempt to re-create the problem hardly seems to be an actual attempt to do so.

Load times became really terrible for me the longer I played. It was most noticeable in Orzammar and Denerim. If I had tried to load areas, it was pushing past the minute mark. Maybe you haven't noticed a load time longer than 45 seconds, but how long are your first few load times when you start the game? It never takes me more than 5-10 seconds to load near the beginning of a gaming session.

So really, I find your reporting somewhat flawed. No real attempt to re-create the crashes yet you are more than willing to state a conclusion regarding them.

[Kelston]

Destructo-Bot wrote...

None of this is the fault of the CPU. It will happily run at 100% pretty much forever as long as it's cooled properly. Also, very few people are going to have the game running for more than a handful of hours. I'll happily throw FOLDING on my PC and run it full tilt for A MONTH STRAIGHT and post the work log for proof. I've had a pentiumII that sat quietly in a closest in my last job running maxed for years. CPUs are resilient.

This is a ludicrous claim and supported by only anecdotal evidence.

There are reasons that processes pegging a standard computer CPU to 100% usage for an extended period of time is considered problematic by most (should be all tbh) coders. There's a reason tech support forums don't outright dismiss 100% usage threads saying "NAH MAN CPUs ARE MADE THAT WAY".

There is a good article at AnandTech that covers CPU degradation when running at 100% load over an extended period of time.

But you seem more convinced by flimsy anecdotal evidence despite actual data or stuff you'd know from a basic physics course.

[Destructo-Bot]

Most people upgrade their PCs within 5 years, people that play games such as Dragon Age usually much more frequently. So even IF there was significant degradation, it'll be moot.

Given that MANY, MANY, MANY "normal" users peg their CPUs for long periods during things like Video Encodes, Renders, benchmarking, data processing, etc, all things I dealt with during my tenure as IT. I've NEVER seen a CPU fail due to wear. I've not even HEARD of such a thing.

The article that came up for me on Anantech regarding CPU wear? It was regarding OVERVOLTING your processor along with OVERCLOCKING and running it HOT, i.e. running it far out of spec. And furthermore, this was talking about the reduced ability to overclock after running it for extended periods out of spec, not even failure! I really, really hate to be rude... but DUH!

Point number two. I had a friend, Mario Cifaldi, that created a company called Overdrive PC, now part of Velocity Micro due to OPCs success. His entire business centered around taking CPUs and other components and dramatically overclocking them, AND WARRANTYING it for up to 5 years. He maintained a successful and profitable business around this, so much that he was bought by VM.

Anecdotes in this case are perfectly fine. I've seen many thousands of system that not only ran pegged for extended periods, but that were overclocked as well. I have never even heard of a CPU failure when it was run in it's recomended thermal specs. If it's being run out of spec, this is not the fault of Bioware. If they want to make a game that pegs the CPU to do something useful, that is super. My anectodal evidence is the EXACT opposite of flimsy, it is as solid as you'll ever find. So if you want to try to brush off my anecdotal evidence you'll have to come out and say that ALL anectodal evidence is USELESS. Which is bunk and you know it. It's far more humourous to me that you contradict my anectodal evidence with your anecdotal evidence! Nah man, forums I've been on say 100% is bad and coders too! THOSE ARE ANECDOTES!

Excerpt from the article: "As a result, those who believed they can run E8400 @ 4.xGhz
with simple stock cooling, and overvolted them about 0.2~0.3V, and
still believe they can outrun their warranty lifetime, are morons.
As shown in Anand's graph, E8400's VID is 1.125V, and in order to run
at 4.xGhz, most people put more than 30% more voltage into the
processor."

No kidding? I agree with the article, but not you guys. My premise is that pegging a CPU in spec is fine and that if it's running out of spec, "OVERHEATING" as stated by the OP, means that the fix is a can of gas duster or the like, not a game patch.

Modifié par Destructo-Bot, 05 janvier 2010 - 09:51 .

[Destructo-Bot]

As an aside, if you mean to say that the game doesn't need to peg the CPU to do what it does, that's fine and reason for a patch. However, games are one of the applications on computers that are DESIGNED to push them. The game should be using every available bit of CPU time, RAM, and GFX processing potential, otherwise these things are going to waste when they could be used to increase AI or visuals. So I would say that if the game isn't maxing out your system, it is actually poorly designed.

Furthermore, the running of a computer to its full potential is not a bad thing. If your computer can become unstable when its run that way for something like a game it is poorly designed and in essence, broken.

Modifié par Destructo-Bot, 06 janvier 2010 - 02:27 .

[4Aces]

JironGhrad wrote...

Ok, I'll bite... I'm running the game on a P4 3.2 Hyperthreaded single core. 2 GB of RAM...

Sorry, but that is irrelevant.  I was specifically talking about dual-cores.  Besides, I strongly doubt you are playing with full settings with a system like that, and therefore are not able to see what the 'full' game acts like.  If you never noticed a slowdown while running around the Denerim market (like you just stepped in molasses for about 10 seconds and then it clears up), then your game experience is not average.  Since I cannot accent that, I have to point out that I am not slamming you, just pointing out that the comparison is apples & oranges.

Now for the facts:

AMD says that running one of their multi-cores @100% for 24 hours with adequate cooling will not damage their processor, but running longer than that can.

Intel says that running one of their multi-cores @ 100% with adequate cooling will not damage the processor, regardless of how long you run it.  They then warned that running at even close to thermal design power (temp) for extended periods will reduce the lifetime of the CPU.  So that means that unless you are like D-B with aftermarket cooling (aka - something that did not come with the CPU), then you should not play the game for more than a few hours at a time (less if you have not cleaned the system in the last 8 months).  The stock cooling for an intel CPU is a tiny globe radiator with a tiny fan that does a very decent job for regular useage, but not something as extreme as SETI / Folding @ Home / or DAO. 

As for the claim that people do not play for very long at a time, that is complete BS.  There are many people that play for 8 hours at a sitting, and thousands who completed the game within three days of it being released.  They were all over the boards dropping hints, writing guides, and making fan sites (on which they explain how long they played).  The average for a game such as this is probably three to four hours, but the bell curve is very wide.  I would not be surprised to see that 25% of player play for 6+ hours at a time, and 5% for 12+  hours at a time.  Given the large number of sales that Bioware has had, 5% is a lot of systems.

Both Intel and AMD state that 100% CPU utilization for long periods on an overclocked system is dangerous.  As D-B already stated, most of the people that play games like DAO upgrade their systems all the time.  The missing part of that is they are also the most likely to OC their systems.  Bioware knows that, as it is a common fact that gamers are the primary source of OCing.  If you really want me to bury you with references just PM me.

D-D: I guess they did not give the CYA you were expecting after all (though it is not as rosy a picture as you paint).

Now onto my other information.  It seems as if all the claims that this was not created for consoles could be correct after all.  Over the last few days, while waiting for the official responses, I did some research.  It turns out the PS3 has SEVEN cores.  I wish I could find a PC based on the guts of a PS3!  So if I were a betting man, I would slap some money down on DAO being built for ONE console, and ported to everything else.  If someone had an dual quad-core design, they could probably tell us that they were seeing regular CPU(s) usages.  It is also interesting that when I looked I could not find any compalints about the Denerim problems for PS3 players, but I can for Xbox 360 (only three cores).  Just something to chew on.


Bottom line - the game has a requirement that was not published (and nothing anyone says will change that). 
DAO Requires you to have a heat monitoring program running (preferably with autoshutdown).

It should also have a warning that this game should not be played on OC'd systems (at all).  So turn it back down to play this game.  

P.S. I have recieved reports that Quad Core systems are seeing 60-80% utilization on average, with spikes to 90%!

P.P.S. Please remember that Intel warns that playing NEAR the thermal limit of your CPU will reduce the lifetime of the processor.  So set your autoshutdown at about 7 degreees below the thermal limit for your chip (visit Intel's site to get the specs on your chip).  No game is worth your system being out of action for 8 weeks waiting for an RMA. 

Modifié par 4Aces, 08 janvier 2010 - 07:02 .

[rikkles]

Ok I upgraded my box from XP to Win7 64. Since I'm using a Phenom 2.2, I *have* to use the TLB fix otherwise it's dog slow. Using that, it turns out that now with my ATI 5770 I don't crash in Denerim any more. I have 4 gigs of RAM, so maybe the added usable RAM in Win 7 64 did the deed, or something is borked in XP. Don't know.

[4Aces]

No, the game does not utilize the RAM very well, so I doubt it is that. It barely uses 2.5GB of my 8GB (even with my HiRes mod) which I think is part of the problem with processor utilization. It seems that they are using a data driven system, offloading stuff that should be going to the GPU (vid card) and asking the CPU to handle it all. That is fine for the 7 core PS3, or even a Quad Core PC, but not so much for everyone else unless you nerf your settings, which is just silly given the system requirements for the game.

[Valaskjalf]

4Aces wrote...
Now for the facts:

Intel says that running one of their multi-cores @ 100% with adequate cooling will not damage the processor, regardless of how long you run it.  They then warned that running at even close to thermal design power (temp) for extended periods will reduce the lifetime of the CPU.  So that means that unless you are like D-B with aftermarket cooling (aka - something that did not come with the CPU), then you should not play the game for more than a few hours at a time (less if you have not cleaned the system in the last 8 months).  The stock cooling for an intel CPU is a tiny globe radiator with a tiny fan that does a very decent job for regular useage, but not something as extreme as SETI / Folding @ Home / or DAO. 

After 10 straight hrs of gameplay on my E8500 (stock cooler, max settings w/ my 5770 - 99-100% load in task manager), my cpu was still at 59C max. I'm nowhere near the thermal limit (>100C). Your claims are far off.

[Costin_Razvan]

Valaskjalf wrote...
After 10 straight hrs of gameplay on my E8500 (stock cooler, max settings w/ my 5770 - 99-100% load in task manager), my cpu was still at 59C max. I'm nowhere near the thermal limit (>100C). Your claims are far off.

Not all hardware works the same you know.

[Goldknight_JDS]

I'm currently playing on a Q9650 with 8 gig of RAM and an 8800 GT running Windows 7 x64. I loaded up a new game just entering the wilds and my cpu utilization topped out at 61%. Loaded up a different character near the Landsmeet in Denerim and it topped at 67% while walking around the market district with all auras on.

[Mr_Raider]

I've been running folding @home for three years. My CPUs are at 100% 24/7. No issues. This is Phenom 9500, a Phenom 920, and an Athlon II 620.

[Destructo-Bot]

My responses are bold italicized

4Aces wrote...

Now for the facts:

AMD says that running one of their multi-cores @100% for 24 hours with adequate cooling will not damage their processor, but running longer than that can.

There is the Cover Your Ass I was expecting. Intel was more honest with their reply.

Intel says that running one of their multi-cores @ 100% with adequate cooling will not damage the processor, regardless of how long you run it.  They then warned that running at even close to thermal design power (temp) for extended periods will reduce the lifetime of the CPU.  So that means that unless you are like D-B with aftermarket cooling (aka - something that did not come with the CPU), then you should not play the game for more than a few hours at a time (less if you have not cleaned the system in the last 8 months).  The stock cooling for an intel CPU is a tiny globe radiator with a tiny fan that does a very decent job for regular useage, but not something as extreme as SETI / Folding @ Home / or DAO. 

Uh oh! I'm using the stock cooler. Assumptions are bad!
The stock cooler works just fine, don't expect to overclock with it though.


Both Intel and AMD state that 100% CPU utilization for long periods on an overclocked system is dangerous.  As D-B already stated, most of the people that play games like DAO upgrade their systems all the time.  The missing part of that is they are also the most likely to OC their systems.  Bioware knows that, as it is a common fact that gamers are the primary source of OCing.  If you really want me to bury you with references just PM me.

People running their systems out of spec without proper cooling shouldn't factor into anything Bioware needs to concern themselves with. Anyone who does significant overclocking should be aware of the caveats as well, otherwise they are a fool. There is more than enough readily available info out there.

Mr_Raider wrote...

I've been running folding @home for three years. My CPUs are at 100% 24/7. No issues. This is Phenom 9500, a Phenom 920, and an Athlon II 620.

That was a good data point that supports my assertion.


D-D: I guess they did not give the CYA you were expecting after all (though it is not as rosy a picture as you paint).

AMD gave a CYA with the "more than 24 hours" bit. Run it as long as you like in spec. Intel was open about it though they warned agaisnt OC, which is prudence rather than CYA.

...It turns out the PS3 has SEVEN cores.  I wish I could find a PC based on the guts of a PS3!...

The PS3 has a 3.2GHz PowerPC CPU, with 7 CELL processors. The CELL is not directly comparable to a general purpose CPU like the PowerPC , it's a specialized co-processor. You really wouldn't want it in your PC except in very specific circumstances.


P.P.S. Please remember that Intel warns that playing NEAR the thermal limit of your CPU will reduce the lifetime of the processor.  So set your autoshutdown at about 7 degreees below the thermal limit for your chip (visit Intel's site to get the specs on your chip).  No game is worth your system being out of action for 8 weeks waiting for an RMA.

To reiterate, if your CPU can overheat under NORMAL load (yes than means 100%), it is a design problem with your PC. Not with Dragon Age. I get the sense you are blaming DA rather than the system builder or owner. There are many CPUs designed to run cool, someone who gets one of the ones that run hot and stuffs it in a system they never dust really deserves what they get. And system builders that do the same deserve to get hammered with tech support calls.

Games SHOULD use EVERY last bit of your PCs power that they can, ideally. You don't buy a 4GHz I7, 8GB of RAM, and dual GTX 295s to run notepad.

Modifié par Destructo-Bot, 09 janvier 2010 - 09:52 .