processor is 100% loaded most of the time

[Verh]

That screenshot is made after installing a GTX 670.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Verh wrote:

That screenshot is made after installing a GTX 670.

---

Really?!

Well that just surprises the heck out of me then.

I'm having trouble reading your screenshot as it's very fuzzy. But does it say your GPU is only 3% loaded?

And how is your overall performance in SL now? If it's fine, then the viewer is probably using up whatever CPU it can to give increased performance. I'm watching the CPU meter in my iMac at the moment. At "Low" it's using about 15% of my quad core i7 and I'm getting 36fps. At "Ultra" it's using 30% and I'm getting 4fps. That's consistent with the idea that the GPU does the heavy lifting.

[Verh]

You can try to zoom the screenshot in. With the red arrow I pointed at the FPS reading. It sais 3 FPS. Sometimes it goes up to 7-10 FPS when I am in an empty location (with no other visitors). When I stend next to a wall and look at it (so I see nothing else) FPS might go up to 25-27. When a location is somewhat crouded, FPS is usually 1.2 - 4. And yes, the GPU load is around 3%

When I change the grpahics setting to close to maximum, the FPS drops by 1-3 FPS. I found out that the greatest impact on FPS have the atmospheric shaders. With the settings on close to max, the GPU load is never above 30%.

Let me answer some questions in advance:

- Yes, I've installed the latest GPU drivers.

- Yes, all the SL viewers I use (all 4 of them) recognised I've changed the graphocs card by displaying a message and changing the settings.

- Yes, the grapgics card works fine. I tried several Nvidia tech demos. They run great.

- Yes, the OS utilises the GPU as it should. I see great improvements in video and Flash playback.

 

SL looks so great now with the new GPU. I really want to play it, but it's unplayable now.

[wherorangi]

maybe can try the test again using the LL viewer with the recommended settings for your rig and see what happens

heres mine

dets:

Second Life 4.0.7.318301 (Second Life Release)
Release Notes

You are at 77.0, 13.7, 21.6 in Valentine Heart Island located at sim10652.agni.lindenlab.com (216.82.53.14:13025)
SLURL: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Valentine%20Heart%20Island/77/14/22
(global coordinates 251,981.0, 316,686.0, 21.6)
Second Life Server 16.08.01.318271
Error fetching server release notes URL.

CPU: Intel® Core i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz (3399.46 MHz)
Memory: 16318 MB
OS Version: Microsoft Windows 8 64-bit (Build 9200) compatibility mode. real ver: 10.0 (Build 10011)
Graphics Card Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
Graphics Card: GeForce GTX 660/PCIe/SSE2

Windows Graphics Driver Version: 10.18.0013.6519
OpenGL Version: 4.5.0 NVIDIA 365.19

J2C Decoder Version: KDU v7.2
Audio Driver Version: FMOD Ex 4.44.31
LLCEFLib/CEF Version: 1.5.3-(CEF-WIN-3.2526.1347-32)
Voice Server Version: Vivox 4.6.0017.22050

Packets Lost: 630/103,492 (0.6%)
September 10 2016 10:26:42

+

piccy shows 10% CPU usage

 

 

:

 

[Verh]

Here's my info from LL viewer:

 

Second Life 4.0.7.318301 (Second Life Release)
Release Notes

You are at 90.2, 74.6, 3,000.1 in Nexus Isle located at sim10276.agni.lindenlab.com (216.82.49.198:13016)
SLURL: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Nexus%20Isle/90/75/3000
(global coordinates 263,770.0, 337,483.0, 3,000.1)
Second Life Server 16.08.01.318271
Error fetching server release notes URL.

CPU: Intel® Pentium® D CPU 3.00GHz (3000.95 MHz)
Memory: 3583 MB
OS Version: Microsoft Windows 7 32-bit Service Pack 1 (Build 7601)
Graphics Card Vendor: NVIDIA Corporation
Graphics Card: GeForce GTX 670/PCIe/SSE2

Windows Graphics Driver Version: 21.21.0013.7270
OpenGL Version: 4.5.0 NVIDIA 372.70

J2C Decoder Version: KDU v7.2
Audio Driver Version: FMOD Ex 4.44.31
LLCEFLib/CEF Version: 1.5.3-(CEF-WIN-3.2526.1347-32)
Voice Server Version: Vivox 4.6.0017.22050

Packets Lost: 553/92,650 (0.6%)
September 10 2016 12:46:45

 

Does enyone see a problem there?

[wherorangi]

a thing I can see in your pic is that you are running Avast Anti-Virus ?

people have reported in the past that they have had problems with Avast being pretty aggressive in dealing with the binary data that SL uses

try turning off Avast and see what happens. Just use Windows Firewall and Defender. Never know, it might be something like that 

[Verh]

Thank you for the reasonable advice. But it didn't help. I turned Avast off and saw no noticable difference.

I guess SL requires something more powerful, than some double core 3Ghz.

[Madelaine McMasters]

I found a GPU meter for my iMac and see that SL uses about 20% of it when staring into a fairly empty space, yielding 25 fps. That spikes to well over 50% as the frame rate drops to well under 10 fps.

I'm having a hard time understanding the low utilization of your GPU while swamping the CPU.

[wherorangi]

the only thing I got left to suggest is to have a go with the LL viewer available for obsolete hardware/systems

is here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Alternate_Viewers

the one you want to try is: Second Life Obsolete Platforms Viewer version 3.7.28.300847 

 

[Verh]

Yeah. It's difficult to understand that. I guess I'll have to contact the LL support. But I expect an answer like "We suggest you upgrade your CPU"

By the way. How do I find you in SL to see yuor mesh body you were talking about?   )))

[Monty Linden]

I may regret this but...   there are developer consoles that provide more detailed runtime information about the viewer.  The 'Fast Timers' display is particularly entertaining (Develop->Consoles->Fast Timers).  I'd hoped for useful information on the Wiki but it's not co-operating at the moment.  But for the motivated, you might find a clue as to where your particular CPU demands are being made by breaking down the bins on the display.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Monty Linden wrote:

I may regret this but...   there are developer consoles that provide more detailed runtime information about the viewer.  The 'Fast Timers' display is particularly entertaining (Develop->Consoles->Fast Timers).  I'd hoped for useful information on the Wiki but it's not co-operating at the moment.  But for the motivated, you might find a clue as to where your particular CPU demands are being made by breaking down the bins on the display.

 

---

... runs off to find that console and make you regret it.

[Monty Linden]

I'll help with that, at least: ctrl-shift-9

[Verh]

Hi. Could you please specify how do I find the 'Fast Timers' display? Thanks.

[Whirly Fizzle]

The CTRL+SHIFT+9 shortcut to open the Fast Timers console only works if you have the Develop menu active.

Activate the Develop menu in the top menu bar using CTRL+ALT+Q , note Firestorm calls this menu Developer.

You can then either go to Develop -> Consoles -> Fast Timers, or use the CTRL+SHIFT+9 shortcut.

[Whirly Fizzle]

How to use Fast Timers: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Debug_Help#How_do_I_get_my_Fast_Timers_results.3F

[Verh]

Thank you for the clarification. Analized that. It proved what I predicted. The shadows took a lot of CPU time. But I keep them turned off mostly anyway.

I gained also 4-5 fps by turning Avast off, as one of the previous posts suggested. (greatful for that!)

So if I keep the fraphics settings moderately low and avoid crowded places, I can get around 15 fps. Almost playable.
Will have to stick with that and prepare myself to CPU upgrade.

I thank every participant in this thread who was trying to help me. You are the best!

 

Sincerely yours.

[Verh]

Hi everyone.

 

At last I've upgraded my PC.

Got an i5 2500K and 8Gb of RAM.

Now SL runs smooth most of the time on most of the settings to max. And the GPU at last gets upto 100% loaded ))) And the CPU upto 70%

Thanks everyone fro your support.

I will just have to optumize the settings. Will take some time to figure out the most GPU heavy things..

[JayWaters]

While some may consider me a troll. Consider this. I build and repair botique custom gaming rigs for a living.

That being said there are some misconceptions being told here in this thread.

Firstly) SL can be very CPU intensive. When a an object is rezzed in an open world, the CPU must recalculate the co ordinates every time you teleport or even move within the same sim and ajust the co ordinates of every other prim, it will start with those within drawing distance first. This heavily cripples single threaded single core CPUs  and it is somewhat better with hyprethreading on dual core CPUs. A true quad core being ideal. If building a new machine for SL today, a Minimum of a haswell or skylake generation I-3 will be adequate on a budget but a true quad core like an i5 in either haswell or skylake would be as much as anyone needs or would be of any benefit in SL. A modern i-7 would not help your SL or mostly any gaming experience if you already have 4 true cores with a healthy single core performance speed.

Secondly) There are 9 series and 10 series cards for all budgets. A low end 10 series card will outperfom ANY card in the 7 series aside from perhaps a 780ti in SL.

When looking at Nvidia cards, the first number is the generation the 7's are newer than the 6's so on and so forth. The second two numbers is where it is in the entry level, mid range level or high range. 50 series are entry level, 60s and 70s are low-mid to high mid range cards. 80s being top tier (or of course TitanX, but that is extreme not high end). A 1060 today offers at least 970 performance and is much closer to a 980 than it is as close to a 970.

That being said a 120 dollar 1050ti is pretty on par with a 780ti, and has modern technological advancments in several areas. Those include power consumption, (requiring less power draw )a nd offering a choice that would not require most computers to upgrade their PSU to one with either more power OR the actual plug with pins that is required on most MID RANGE cards in additon to the pci e slot to provide the power.

Thirdly) while a GPU in most cases is the best place to upgrade, your GPU in fact can bog down and cripple your CPU being the source of the bottleneck by relaying the data required faster than the CPU can deal with it. This is why quad cores do so well on SL. If you take a GPU, the same exact GPU and bench test it using several CPUS you wil see the place where more CPU no longer helps. If your CPU is already 100% adding a GPU will help in one way, it will take a load of your integrated chipset thus in theory giving it more breathing room. Truth is that itt may or may not help at all if your GPU is powerful enough to bottleneck the CPU.  This can and often does happen, not just the other way around.

If you want to run Ultra on SL with all the sliders cranked all the shadows and ambient lighting ani aliasing and antiscopic filtering with as decent FPS as your going to get?

The two machines below are what I would conisder the min to enjoy that experience and the maximum that would not do any good but cost more money if you exceeded.

 

Min

CPU:I3 6100

GPU: Nvidia Gtx 970 OR gtx 1050ti

RAM: 8gb of DDR4 running 1800mhz at least

PSU: 450W Bronze+ Certified

the above can easily be built for around 400 dollars give or take depending on choice in components like motherboard and case cooling system etc. It is still going to be better than any console in any game and will do very well in SL, you may have to turn off some of the features in some laggy areas, but for the most part you will be fine never lowering the slider below ultra. Your CPU will hit 100% from time to time but you mostly wont notice it as more than a frame stutter in world.

Max

CPU-i5 6400

GPU: GTX 980, GTX 980ti or GTX 1060 6gb version

RAM: 16BG of DDR4 1800mhz

PSU: 550w Gold+ Certified.

 

While you could certainly spend more on components of "higher end" than this, the returns would be minimal and in my opinion a complete waste. For example a 1070 or 1080 or Titan X while being generally better faster cards, they arent going to help you much in SL, none of the 3 chosed for the best max for SL system will do better or worse either, just get the one you find the better deal on, or the newest if you play other games as a 1060 with 6b is going to do as good as any other at 1080p, only consider anything higher than a 1060 if your screen resolution is greater than 1080p or its a complete waste of money.

While more RAM in most games doesn't help, in SL it does because many things are poorly optimized and use the system memory rather than Vram for texturing. This is why often a high end GPU would appear to struggleif the CPU and RAM are obsolete and working too hard. It may not even be running at 20% as most of the burden is still on the system memory configuration which is dictated by the CPU not the GPU in this case.

The "max" for SL system above would cost between 800-1200 dollar depending on how fancy you get with things like storage (SSD). Cable sleeving, case, choice of modular or semi modular PSU, case fans, motherboard choice etc as this would be a true mid range custom gaming rig. It borders on massive overkill if all you do is play SL but it surely will not the be the source of any issues you are dealing with in world. Spending more will not get you more speaking strictly of SL and most games in fact unless you insist on 4k resolutions then that is a different story entirely. This system is more than adequate even at 2k resolutions.

 

I have built and tested both of these system above with great results in SL in the past two months, the i5 is a bit more crisp and snappier but the i3 is not unsatisfactory at all with all settings cranked, it just has more fps drops and the occassional frame stutter from the cpu hitting 100% occasionally although even then it is rarely.

I cannot recommend an AMD processor or GPU at this time.The Skylake i-3 is better at everything , even AMDS most expensive CPU with it's 8 cores simply isnt as good as a Skylake i3 and will cost more.

For Gpu's I tested an RX480 Sapphire NItro OC with 8gb of VRAM in both systems. Ambient lighting causes the wierd screen tearing in SL that is complained about in several threads here with many different R series AMD cards. I do not know why some have the issue and others do not. This is a GREAT GPU in everything BUT SL. It is a situation where AMD doesnt see the user base of SL to be of any influence to fix their drivers on their end and LL refusing to aknowlege this problem on thier end as it is something LL COULD fix easily by intergrating Vulcan which is freely available from AMD. SO LL cares little for AMD card owners and AMD cares little if you have a good experience on SL.

 

I just cannot recommend anything from team red as of the current writing of this post. I look forward to building and testing new system with the Zen line of AMD processors and the Vega line of GPUs when they are finally released and I have high hopes.

 Note on PSU power: Older generation cards AND CPUs require much more power than current generational offerings. You may find your old PSU is more than capable of running something current while an outdated older version card of less GPU power and VRAM would also require a PSU added to the expense of the deal you think you are getting on a 3 or 4 generations old graphics card. It is usually NOT worth it. Just get a gtx1050 and plug it in. If your system cannot handle a 1050 it is probably best to think about upgrading the ENTIRE system and giving yours to a friend or someone who wants to wait 30 minutes for Windows to boot who doesn't play any games.

 Also the 450W Bronze is the minumum I would purchase today. The system outlined actually has a max power draw of around 270 Watts meaning even a 300W would be enough, but a 450W would give you some future proofness if you wanted to say add a second card in SLI or a bunch of case fans or storage, things like that.

The diffference in price between a 300w and 450w Bronze rated supply by any reputable brand is negligable, let go of the 5 bucks.On the other hand, everything is becoming more power efficient, I think 750W is the absolute most that 99.9% of people will ever need moving from here forward. People just like to spend big money on big numbers too often it seems. Believe me when I tell you that the marketing teams of those products are well aware of this fact and the diminishing returns past a certain point are not of any value at all other than the big numbers spent and in benchmarks. In reality the only number that now matters is they have more of your money and you have less of it.

PS: the one who said I was a troll used numbers that were very skewed in order to prove their "rightness" when in fact it was ONE benchmark and the card performed below 51 other better choices you could make...more than hald of those costing the same or less to buy. Modern and Mid range is determined by what is available NOW on your current budget. buying that card would be a complete waste of money as it is rendered nearly obsolete and is obliterated in performance by a modern low end 1050 GPU costing less.

Ranking in the 50s is no proof that this is a modern mid range card, it means its the 50th+ suckiest card compared to the 1st. There are over 50 better cards than it and many of those are obsolete by something in the top 10-12 cards for the same money.When considering modern, the what to buy list number 50 isnt even a consideration to most who understand performance statistics benchmarks computers and technology.

I am sure the mid range Chevy 1984 Impala was a heck of a car...for a mid range one in 1984. Today a little korean tin can will whip its ass in prices features and performance and it is low end. However there was a time when a DVD player was 800 dollars and now can be bought for 20 dollars and have blue ray. That's how technology works, each generation is faster better and less expensive to produce. That 800 dollar dvd player from the past may work nearly as good as a 20 dollar cheap blu ray player today, it MIGHT be the 50th best one with all the choices, it is still obsolete and overpriced, even used.

Modern Mid Range Cards include GTX 1060, GTX 1070, GTX 970, GTX 980, RX470, RX480 RX390, RX290 as the only ones to even consider AT all when making a buy list today..making them modern. Anything less than these CURRENT GENERATION thus MODERN offerings is consdired entry level in fact a couple would still be considered entry level by most enthusiasts for a gaming PC. Compare those numbers to a 6 series or 7 series nvidia card and let me know what you come up with. Laughing yet or satisfied with your 5 dollar savings by choosing number 50?

If you think ranking 50 makes something mid range then clearly you do not understand how scaling works. There are mid range cards in the top 10, there are not that many "High End" options to consider.I can only thik of 6 possibly 7 cards that would be considered high end by todays standards, meaning the 8th choice is easily in the mid range category.

High End- 400-1200 dollars

Mid Range- 225-400 dollars

Entry Level- 100-225 dollars

Less than 100- your integrated chip blows the doors off it if it is "modern" there is no point in upgrading your GPU. You would be best upgrading to a better processor and platform and save your money toward it. 100 dollar cards are garbage and would result in a performance LOSS versus just using a reasonably modern integrated chipset on the CPU

[arton Rotaru]

---

JayWaters wrote:

 

PS: the one who said I was a troll used numbers that were very skewed in order to prove their "rightness" when in fact it was ONE benchmark and the card performed below 51 other better choices you could make...more than hald of those costing the same or less to buy. Modern and Mid range is determined by what is available NOW on your current budget. buying that card would be a complete waste of money as it is rendered nearly obsolete and is obliterated in performance by a modern low end 1050 GPU costing less.

---

First of all, I did not use any benchmark charts at all, to prove anything.

Secondly. you still did not got the point. Instead you are posting lengthy paragraphs about Chevy Impalas and whatnot. (I didn't read it all) Which makes you still look like a troll to me.

 

 

But I'm a nice guy, so I'll explain it to you.

The whole point of my reply to the OP was that his CPU won't be able to push graphics cards in the performance range of a GTX 760, and above, to it's full potential. That would be 670's, 580's etc.. Roughly anything in that range.

It totally doesn't matter what you, or I call these cards. Be it mid range, high end, or piece of cake. All that matters is the performance level they deliver which requires a better CPU than the one the OP had initially.

He got GTX 670 for his own very reasons, which are none of my business. Later on he got a better CPU as well, and now his performance improved a lot. That's all that matters in this thread, and not semantics of a single sentences that has been made.

OMG, he called a 760 a mid range card. Cast the first stone. lol:matte-motes-little-laugh:

[Verh]

Don't eat each other guys. Instead, try to explain me why is it when my CPU is 70% loaded and GPU about 50%, I still get 17-20 fps with drops to 7-9  fps in some sims? Why can't SL use 100% of the resourses?

[Derek Torvalar]

No no. Let them have at each other. I get so little entertainment from these forums now.

The reason is beause SL is a piece of crap. Not optimized at all.

[Verh]

I thought so

[LinuxGod4u]

An older tread, BUT common issue, so lets dive in:

A- Need a 64 bit OS (operating system) since a Windows 32 bit OS can only really use up to approx. 3.25 GB RAM

B- Need a motherboard that will hold at least 10-12GB RAM (current findings based on recent (2017) third party viewer testing/prolonged SL sessions)

C- GPU is too weak & for least amount of issues go with a Nvidia graphics card...bare min. GT 740 128 bit 1GB DDR5, although I prefer as a min. Nvidia GTX 750/750ti

D- LOL I have a neighbor/SL resident using a 3rd generation (LGA 1155) Intel G1620 dual core Celeron @ 2.7GHz & it runs SL fairly well., so your CPU would work

Above listed advisements are based on my current (2017) 3rd party viewer testings & my neighbor's custom built pc-desktop. FYI he uses a Nvidia GT 740 128 bit DDR5 1GB , W/10 Home x64 & 10GB RAM

"I Love Simplicity"