7 Days to Die and your CPU

[Faded]

I use Rainmeter to display various system monitoring skins on the second monitor while I play so I can monitor CPU/GPU/RAM use and system temperatures, among other things.

 

I've heard it said many times that Unity/7DTD is not quad core compliant. While that's likely to have been true in years past, I can confirm repeated observations that indicate that the game regularly runs on 4 threads under light/moderate loads, and under high loads (mostly in large cities) I have seen all 8 threads in use. (I run the i7-4790K, 4 cores 8 threads @ stock 4 GHz speed, which despite its age remains a very powerful CPU).

 

I don't do anything on this machine except game, and when playing run nothing except Steam and 7 Days to Die. All threads are near idle before starting a session, immediately spin up upon starting the game and playing, and go back to near idle upon exiting the game. These results are reproducible in every case. Setting steam to offline mode before playing doesn't change the results.

 

Has anyone else been doing any testing in this area? I think this is worth discussing because I still see a lot of people claiming single/dual cores are enough for 7dtd, and based on how high my CPU use can get I suspect very much that users of dual core systems are seeing the majority of the performance problems. I find my gameplay experience to be mostly smooth, with the occasional drops in performance that are not explained by my hardware utilization (I chalk this up to lack of optimization due to still being in Early Access)

[Benjiro]

This has been mentioned when A16 first came out. Its mostly down to Unity Engine getting more multithreading support and A16 being compiled with this newer engine version. That in turn makes the game more smooth for people with lots of cores.

 

But can be a disadvantage for people with limited cores because the thread switching is happening on a few cores, thus introducing a overhead/lag. But its normally not so massive ( Maybe a few percentage drop what is compensated with more optimizations to the unity engine and the game ).

 

Its a brave new world now that 8core/16 thread cpu's are available to the customers.

[Faded]

This has been mentioned when A16 first came out.

 

If you could link me to that thread I'd appreciate it; I did the standard search before starting this topic and saw nothing substantial on this topic since the end of 2016.

[Vedui]

Yes, I can confirm that's what I have been seeing as well. All the cores (and threads) get loaded during play) which is nice, because it avoids stressing just one or two cores while the other run idle (or only other apps).

 

I get the impression this has really helped from A15 to smoothen the play out, although it's still heavily GPU dependent.

 

/Vedui -

[Chassit]

I have seen the same on my box.

[Guppycur]

Get whatever the earliest version of 7days you can from Steam, and test each version working your way to a16. I'd be interested to see if this holds true for all of the versions.

 

Particularly the switch from a10 to a11 when Unity 4 was upgraded to Unity 5.

[Faded]

Get whatever the earliest version of 7days you can from Steam, and test each version working your way to a16. I'd be interested to see if this holds true for all of the versions.

 

Particularly the switch from a10 to a11 when Unity 4 was upgraded to Unity 5.

 

Funny that you mention that; I did first notice this back in A12. I did a lot of system monitoring because I wanted to see why the performance sometimes gets so bad. There never was any reason for it that my monitoring could see; I always chalked it up to Unity/EA lack of optimization. However, the number of complaints regarding performance I see on this forum coupled with the apparently prevalent attitude that "dual core is enough" seem to lead to an obvious conclusion.

[Scyris]

People even still have dual cores in this day and age? How old of a pc would that be?

[Cash Wiley]

Apple is still selling dual core computers. Cost me a bundle because I have to buy them for work and refuse to put any money into a dual core computer. Shameful.

[fazi]

On an Fx8350 cpu load is like 10-15% on all cores, so you benefit from having more cores.

But i find the game using all my 8 gb of ram...

[Gipothegip]

I use Rainmeter to display various system monitoring skins on the second monitor while I play so I can monitor CPU/GPU/RAM use and system temperatures, among other things.

 

I've heard it said many times that Unity/7DTD is not quad core compliant. While that's likely to have been true in years past, I can confirm repeated observations that indicate that the game regularly runs on 4 threads under light/moderate loads, and under high loads (mostly in large cities) I have seen all 8 threads in use. (I run the i7-4790K, 4 cores 8 threads @ stock 4 GHz speed, which despite its age remains a very powerful CPU).

 

I don't do anything on this machine except game, and when playing run nothing except Steam and 7 Days to Die. All threads are near idle before starting a session, immediately spin up upon starting the game and playing, and go back to near idle upon exiting the game. These results are reproducible in every case. Setting steam to offline mode before playing doesn't change the results.

 

Has anyone else been doing any testing in this area? I think this is worth discussing because I still see a lot of people claiming single/dual cores are enough for 7dtd, and based on how high my CPU use can get I suspect very much that users of dual core systems are seeing the majority of the performance problems. I find my gameplay experience to be mostly smooth, with the occasional drops in performance that are not explained by my hardware utilization (I chalk this up to lack of optimization due to still being in Early Access)

 

This has been mentioned when A16 first came out. Its mostly down to Unity Engine getting more multithreading support and A16 being compiled with this newer engine version. That in turn makes the game more smooth for people with lots of cores.

 

But can be a disadvantage for people with limited cores because the thread switching is happening on a few cores, thus introducing a overhead/lag. But its normally not so massive ( Maybe a few percentage drop what is compensated with more optimizations to the unity engine and the game ).

 

Its a brave new world now that 8core/16 thread cpu's are available to the customers.

 

I think you guys might be mistaken, but onto to something. I have 4 physical core / 8 logical cores (threads) to work with. My performance has still been worse in Alpha 16.

 

It could be clock speeds, seeing as yours runs at 4.0 GHz at stock. I have an older i7 2600k at stock, which is 3.4 GHz, with a boost clock of 3.8 GHz. Maybe the introduction of hyper threading brought about some inefficiencies? Could also be it can't run all cores at that speed, or can't maintain it with all cores in use, so I'm quite a bit slower.

 

I'll have to test my performance and see what happens.

[Gipothegip]

I took a look and got interesting results. Was this change the most recent build? Or was it already there, and they just improved performance in the latest experimental?

 

Anyway, I'm getting better performance since the last time I was playing the game. It is indeed utilizing all cores now.

 

However, I am getting these weird bottlenecks still. I was staring at a field of corn and my fps dipped, GPU usage was only 50 %, and CPU usage just tanked for some reason (like 20 % usage for all but the first thread). Same thing happened while running around and experiencing other performance dips.

 

Note : Overall my processor is only boosting to 3.5 GHz with all cores in use. Looks like I'll have to go into BIOS and actually overclock if I want any faster in this usage scenario. Just how it works I guess, it can boost to 3.8 if only a couple threads are used.

[Faded]

If you disable hyperthreading, you'll notice all 4 cores will have higher utilization, but I suspect you will have more frequent performance drops. My source for this: with hyperthreading off, there's only 4 threads to work with, and they will all get worked hard. The reason 8 threads get slammed hard is because 4 is not enough for every situation.

 

From my experimental play session tonight, if you have full shadows and reflections on, entering a city will make your CPU go nuts. The GPU will also get hit harder, but that's really a separate topic. (7DTD is undeniably more CPU bound, because voxels)

 

Final note: I notice that CPU 1 is getting hit the hardest of all, 80-90% at least sometimes. I suspect very much that the sudden hitches (ever have the game just stutter and skip a few frames for no apparent reason?) are at least partly because CPU 1 is hitting 100% utilization (damn it core unparking, I will never understand why that power saving nonsense is a part of a CPU codenamed Devil's Canyon) and effectively clotheslining everything. An optimization pass will probably calm that down.

 

Final note 2: I have my CPU locked at 4 GHz, whereas normally my boost is 4.4 GHz. The reason for that is because I'm using a Z97 unflashed mobo, and haven't bothered to tweak because I never have any problems with any game I've ever played.

[Faded]

I took a look and got interesting results. Was this change the most recent build? Or was it already there, and they just improved performance in the latest experimental?

 

Anyway, I'm getting better performance since the last time I was playing the game. It is indeed utilizing all cores now.

 

However, I am getting these weird bottlenecks still. I was staring at a field of corn and my fps dipped, GPU usage was only 50 %, and CPU usage just tanked for some reason (like 20 % usage for all but the first thread). Same thing happened while running around and experiencing other performance dips.

 

Note : Overall my processor is only boosting to 3.5 GHz with all cores in use. Looks like I'll have to go into BIOS and actually overclock if I want any faster in this usage scenario. Just how it works I guess, it can boost to 3.8 if only a couple threads are used.

 

What GPU are you using? Also, what % utilization was the first CPU thread at?

[zingo2]

You should always check your Bios and hardware settings.

 

Most Bottlenecks are due to improper settings at Bios levels- this not only applies to 7D2D- it applies to many games, applications- even video. Many mobos(motherboards) are very smart but sometimes you have to tweak power settings and other tweaks. 2 products of same name are not identical!

 

I always tell people when you buy a new ram or just another ram- the first thing you do is tweak your timings! That's important!

 

i2600k works fine. Though I have it water OC at 4.6 I have not noticed any bottleneck by cpu in this game. Unoptimizations by game code- yes. Hardware- limited.

 

Also If you are using windows 10+ This OS has a very smart load distribution- it can do a really good job feeding all your cores from 4 to 32cores. On previous OS it is possible for core 1 or core 2 to go "higher" then expected.

[grrmisfit]

i just checked and while cant confirm its only 7d doing it load on all 12 threads went active when i loaded the game

[Gipothegip]

What GPU are you using? Also, what % utilization was the first CPU thread at?

 

i7 2600k @ stock settings; the first threads utilization was at 60% during the performance dips. The first thread never dips below that, while the other threads are more prone to dramatic dips in utilization when the game starts lagging.

 

When things are going good utilization is what you can expect. About 80 to 90 percent on all threads for the most part. Utilization is consistent, and at that point my GPU is being fully utilized (and my performance is great under these conditions).

 

I think the dips in utilization are a lack of optimizations maybe, or something to do with how it splits the work load.

 

Edit : It is worth noting that 7 Days to Die is the only game I have that does this.

[zingo2]

i7 2600k @ stock settings

 

I think the dips in utilization are a lack of optimizations maybe, or something to do with how it splits the work load.

 

Edit : It is worth noting that 7 Days to Die is the only game I have that does this.

 

1. Try a mild Overcloking on 2600k- Say 10%. These chips can reach amazing performance when OCed right. 5% can reach 5Ghz. At Stock settings a 2600k might show its old age compared to the latest offerings by Intel. In fact it can under-perform. Most people did not buy the K version to run it at its stock. You have i5 2500 for that.

 

2. Use this tool(oldschool)- run it for 8 hours- If no problems dont worry about 7 days to die.

 

http://files.extremeoverclocking.com/file.php?f=205

 

3. Use this tool (modern times) The red Aida. Run it for about 2 to 4 hours. It will show throttling, bottle-necking stuff like that.

 

https://www.aida64.com/downloads

 

4/5. If you encounter any problems while performing tests then there is a problem with your hardware. If there are no problems Then 2600k is struggling due to stock settings(most common mistake is cpu utilization controlled by Bios settings) or wrong configuration in Bios power. You did not tell what Operating system you are using- that affects too.

 

If all things check out- Dont worry. 7D2D is not polished- its still very rough and the end product will have a smoother setting.

[Faded]

i7 2600k @ stock settings; the first threads utilization was at 60% during the performance dips. The first thread never dips below that, while the other threads are more prone to dramatic dips in utilization when the game starts lagging.

 

When things are going good utilization is what you can expect. About 80 to 90 percent on all threads for the most part. Utilization is consistent, and at that point my GPU is being fully utilized (and my performance is great under these conditions).

 

I think the dips in utilization are a lack of optimizations maybe, or something to do with how it splits the work load.

 

Edit : It is worth noting that 7 Days to Die is the only game I have that does this.

 

What GPU are you using?

 

I forgot to mention OS as well: I'm still on Win 7. When I need more RAM I'll load Win 8.1 on my gaming system.

[Gipothegip]

What GPU are you using?

 

I forgot to mention OS as well: I'm still on Win 7. When I need more RAM I'll load Win 8.1 on my gaming system.

 

Sorry, I forgot to mention Windows 10.

 

My GPU is a GTX 950 (EVGA FTW).

[Faded]

Sorry, I forgot to mention Windows 10.

 

My GPU is a GTX 950 (EVGA FTW).

 

That's a rather underpowered GPU to pair with a solid CPU like the 2600k. What stopped you from going to a 970 or 1060/1070?

[Gipothegip]

That's a rather underpowered GPU to pair with a solid CPU like the 2600k. What stopped you from going to a 970 or 1060/1070?

 

Well, long story short, my current rig is a prebuilt and a gift I got over 5 years ago. This was a while before I knew much about computer hardware too.

 

Anyway, come the end of 2015, and into 2016 I decided to do some upgrades. The 950 ended up being my choice due to budget reasons, and that I picked it up on a good sale. I also needed a new PSU to go with the card to be safe (old one was one of the crap no names they always put into prebuilts). I figured it wouldn't be a bad choice for upgrading an older machine. I also wanted to get an SSD and upgrade to 16 GB of RAM (which I did).

 

I was saving up money at the time, so I didn't want to spend a ton on upgrading. I ended up spending about $400 in the end, which is where I was aiming.

 

My main goals were to get an older rig up to speed, and learn more about computer hardware in the process.

 

Honestly though, my GTX 950 has worked well for what I've used it for. There are a couple times in hindsight though that I probably should've gone with a GTX 960, but I'm gaming at 1440 x 900 so that makes things easier, and the 950 is still a good card for what it is.

[grrmisfit]

im only getting 30 fps on avg with max settings with a ryzen 1600 16 gigs ram and rx460 on windows 10

[meganoth]

However, I am getting these weird bottlenecks still. I was staring at a field of corn and my fps dipped, GPU usage was only 50 %, and CPU usage just tanked for some reason (like 20 % usage for all but the first thread). Same thing happened while running around and experiencing other performance dips.

 

If your CPU and GPU never reach 100% utilization, they are probably not the problem.

Since you are seeing this when driving around, it might be a bottleneck in the data paths. For example your motherboard might be too slow to get data from your hard disk or SSD into your RAM even though the disk or SSD might be fast enough. Or if you have a hard disk, that might be the bottleneck. Maybe you didn't connect the hard disk with AHCI leading to slow performance with random reads (careful, you can't switch that in the BIOS afterwards, you would have to reinstall the BS afterwards). Maybe the data path between CPU and GPU is an old standard, a PCIe 1.0 16x port from 2005 could transfer 4GB/s, PCIe 2.0 8GB/s, PCIe 3.0 introduced in 2012 can transfer 15.8GB/s.

 

Another possibility: Maybe the CPU caches are too small and the game needs too much bandwidth to the RAM.

[SylenThunder]

What GPU are you using?

 

I forgot to mention OS as well: I'm still on Win 7. When I need more RAM I'll load Win 8.1 on my gaming system.

IMHO, don't go to 8.1 if you're just adding RAM. And if you do decide to upgrade the OS, go to Linux or Win10. Either of those options is better than 8.1.