Most wow clients on one PC

[Klesko]

I am interested in what people think or know the most wow clients one PC can run at a time and what pc specs would be needed. I am not talking about running 4 or 5. I am looking at something much higher like 8 or more would be my goal.

Each wow client would run as follows
800x600, all settings on low, no mods running, each client minimized always

Since all the clients will be minimized how important will the video card be? Memory doesn't seem to be an issue since each client in my test so far only are taking 40-50mb loaded and worse case 100mb so 4-8 GB of ram would be easy to manage that. I am guessing quad core would be the way to go but would a quad core dual Xeon allow me to run much more or would that be worth it.

[Klesko]

1) Welcome to the board.

2) Community Guidelines - Read Before Posting ('http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&postID=14540')

3) 10 Boxing with 1 PC ('http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=13925') (Please at least attempt to use the search feature next time)

There is a link to another thread in that one of a successfull 8 on 1 boxer. Another post about 12. But I don't recall seeing anything higher than that.Sorry the links posted just talked about if people had done it and really no details other then the site in german.

I was hoping for more details such as is the video card important if the program is always minimized. Also other ideas.

I would love to be able to run 16 or even 24 on a single pc but need to know what direction. So I will ask these questions.

Quad core 2.4ghz, 8gb memory, random 512mb video card. All clients 800x600 and minimized. Do you think I can run 12 clients on this pc?

Dual Xeon Quad core 2.0ghz, 8gb memory, random 1gb video card. All clients 800x600 and minimized. Do you think I can run 24 clients on this pc?

I am not looking to play these clients.. so they will basically be sitting still doing nothing. This is more of a experiment then anything. My theory is that you can run 3 clients per core in a PC. My main unknown is can the video card handle it in this case, remember all clients will be minimized all the time.

[not5150]

13 on a pretty average quad-core Phenom with a Fusion-IO SSD - http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39600/135/

Granted I only got to the load screen because we didn't have enough accounts to sign in.

I could probably get 15-20 on my Skulltrail IF I had a really fast SSD and more system memory. I'm sure there are people out there who are probably doing the same thing, but have chosen to keep quiet about it. As far as games go, WoW is pretty lenient on system usage ... we're not talking about playing Crysis here.

[not5150]

The question has been asked in various forms here... just the other day someone asked if a monster rack-mount server could run several copies of WoW.

Of course that's pushing what some people might call a "PC", but if you're going for bragging rights that might do the trick.

Why don't you load up WoW on your machine and keep loading extra copies until it croaks. Then extrapolate from there.

[Klesko]

13 on a pretty average quad-core Phenom with a Fusion-IO SSD - http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39600/135/

Granted I only got to the load screen because we didn't have enough accounts to sign in.

I could probably get 15-20 on my Skulltrail IF I had a really fast SSD and more system memory. I'm sure there are people out there who are probably doing the same thing, but have chosen to keep quiet about it. As far as games go, WoW is pretty lenient on system usage ... we're not talking about playing Crysis here.Skulltrailis the MB I was looking at getting if I went Dual Xeon. Only problem is that the price triples from the Quad core to the Dual Xeon Quad core but it would be worth it IMO. What OS supports Dual Xeon?

[Multibocks]

Skulltrail is crazy talk, mobo is 600 bucks alone. Get the new i7 chip, it's hawt.

[Schwarz]

200 WOWs... ('http://www.dual-boxing.com/forums/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=577')

While this person got flamed for not actually playing the game I still think no one will beat his 200+ wows at once

[Sam DeathWalker]

If its true that wow does not write to drives untill log out, then with a SSD drive I don't really see 10 or 15 as an upper limit.

Rather then the resolution of each client the total screen resolution is what you need to minimize as that is what you have to render. (i.e. you put 10 800X600 on one screen isnt less then one 1024 X 786), thats why I prefer the full screen each client type set up.

You really won't know unless you have a SSD drive though.

[Sam DeathWalker]

If its true that wow does not write to drives untill log out, then with a SSD drive I don't really see 10 or 15 as an upper limit.

Rather then the resolution of each client the total screen resolution is what you need to minimize as that is what you have to render. (i.e. you put 10 800X600 on one screen isnt less then one 1024 X 786), thats why I prefer the full screen each client type set up.

You really won't know unless you have a SSD drive though.

Any decent video card will render 1260X900 (or whatever it is), and switch to another 1260X900 fairly fast. So no bottleneck there. I mean even if you have a 1920 X 1200 monitor a 9800 video will handle that np also.

How much processor power do you need for background clients, not a whole lot I would thinks.

SSD is kinda like infinate ram so no bottleneck there.

I dont see where there is a bottleneck.

For the price of a skulltrain you can get multiple computers that are way more powerfull in total.

[Klesko]

If its true that wow does not write to drives untill log out, then with a SSD drive I don't really see 10 or 15 as an upper limit.

Rather then the resolution of each client the total screen resolution is what you need to minimize as that is what you have to render. (i.e. you put 10 800X600 on one screen isnt less then one 1024 X 786), thats why I prefer the full screen each client type set up.

You really won't know unless you have a SSD drive though.

Any decent video card will render 1260X900 (or whatever it is), and switch to another 1260X900 fairly fast. So no bottleneck there. I mean even if you have a 1920 X 1200 monitor a 9800 video will handle that np also.

How much processor power do you need for background clients, not a whole lot I would thinks.

SSD is kinda like infinate ram so no bottleneck there.

I dont see where there is a bottleneck.

For the price of a skulltrain you can get multiple computers that are way more powerfull in total.I was planning on just running a single 250gb HDD.... So is that going to limit me? Why SSD over that?

[Lax]

Unless you're low on RAM and swapping a lot, SSD isn't going to make a gigantic difference. The main differences would be on startup, and then when zoning. From the way you're describing what you want to do, you might as well just come out and say you plan on running bots though.

[Suvega]

Unless you're low on RAM and swapping a lot, SSD isn't going to make a gigantic difference. The main differences would be on startup, and then when zoning. From the way you're describing what you want to do, you might as well just come out and say you plan on running bots though.

Furthing Lax's assumption... Whats the point of having many wow's all minimized. Kinda defeats the purpose of playing, no?

[Klesko]

Unless you're low on RAM and swapping a lot, SSD isn't going to make a gigantic difference. The main differences would be on startup, and then when zoning. From the way you're describing what you want to do, you might as well just come out and say you plan on running bots though.Similar to what the link above talked about. Gathering data but for my own personal and guilds use. All I want is a single pc which I can load the most clients on at once. I wont be zonning, moving them much if any at all so that is a non issue.

[TheBigBB]

I am not looking to play these clients.. so they will basically be sitting still doing nothing. This is more of a experiment then anything. My theory is that you can run 3 clients per core in a PC. My main unknown is can the video card handle it in this case, remember all clients will be minimized all the time.Wouldn't this make this completely off-topic?

[TheBigBB]

Similar to what the link above talked about. Gathering data but for my own personal and guilds use. All I want is a single pc which I can load the most clients on at once. I wont be zonning, moving them much if any at all so that is a non issue.And again, if this isn't a post talking about the most clients you can actively play then why ask at this forum? Not even Sam would find joy in simply loading up clients without playing. The only thing you can do with this would be something shady like sticking 8 clients at a graveyard and farming honor with your guildmates off of them. Or botting, but it doesn't sound like you plan on moving them. :thumbdown:

[Klesko]

Similar to what the link above talked about. Gathering data but for my own personal and guilds use. All I want is a single pc which I can load the most clients on at once. I wont be zonning, moving them much if any at all so that is a non issue.And again, if this isn't a post talking about the most clients you can actively play then why ask at this forum? Not even Sam would find joy in simply loading up clients without playing. The only thing you can do with this would be something shady like sticking 8 clients at a graveyard and farming honor with your guildmates off of them. Or botting, but it doesn't sound like you plan on moving them. :thumbdown:Actually its nothing like that, it has more to do with staging photos and other stupid things like that. I am sorry I cant explain more but I think I got the answers I wanted.

[not5150]

Similar to what the link above talked about. Gathering data but for my own personal and guilds use. All I want is a single pc which I can load the most clients on at once. I wont be zonning, moving them much if any at all so that is a non issue.And again, if this isn't a post talking about the most clients you can actively play then why ask at this forum? Not even Sam would find joy in simply loading up clients without playing. The only thing you can do with this would be something shady like sticking 8 clients at a graveyard and farming honor with your guildmates off of them. Or botting, but it doesn't sound like you plan on moving them. :thumbdown:Actually its nothing like that, it has more to do with staging photos and other stupid things like that. I am sorry I cant explain more but I think I got the answers I wanted.Vista supports dual xeons - in fact that's what I run.

"I am sorry I cant explain more" - I can smell a journalist looking for an easy story. Please tell us which publication/website you are working for. It may help things along. You could also be a data miner logging characters on each realm.

If you are a journalist and you are using this info for a story, then it's unethical to not state your intentions. Please re-read the SPJ Code of Ethics.

Better yet, here is the appropriate section - "Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story"

[not5150]

If its true that wow does not write to drives untill log out, then with a SSD drive I don't really see 10 or 15 as an upper limit.

Rather then the resolution of each client the total screen resolution is what you need to minimize as that is what you have to render. (i.e. you put 10 800X600 on one screen isnt less then one 1024 X 786), thats why I prefer the full screen each client type set up.

You really won't know unless you have a SSD drive though.

Any decent video card will render 1260X900 (or whatever it is), and switch to another 1260X900 fairly fast. So no bottleneck there. I mean even if you have a 1920 X 1200 monitor a 9800 video will handle that np also.

How much processor power do you need for background clients, not a whole lot I would thinks.

SSD is kinda like infinate ram so no bottleneck there.

I dont see where there is a bottleneck.

For the price of a skulltrain you can get multiple computers that are way more powerfull in total.An SSD does NOT eliminate the bottleneck... it makes the bottleneck less drastic. Assuming you put the swap file on the SSD, you'll have one order of magnitude of bandwidth slowdown when you start swapping. This is versus two or more magnitudes of slowdown when you swap to the hard drive.

[Sam DeathWalker]

Well I wasn't thinking of putting the windows swap file on the SSD, the write is so slow that you only want to put WoW on the SSD so you get only reads and no writes.

In fact it would crazy to put the windows swap file on an SSD. Unless you are only doing reads from the swap file. But seems when you "swap" you also write. Actually you would want to limit the swap file, or even eliminate it (I think you can if you have 4 plus gig in your machine, not sure though) to be really low with a SSD drive so you don't swap but you just read what you need from the SSD when you need it.

An order of magnatude means that if you can run 10 wow's off a raptor, you can run 100 wow's from an SSD .....

Lax knows a ton more about these things then I do but Lets say each instance of wow needs say 1/2G of ram, and say you want to run 20 instances but you don't have 10G of ram. Well SSD is basically ram, with a 10X access time (which is a ton faster then HHD), and same thoughput time (I think). If wow only reads (which a Blue post said is the case), then if wow is on the SSD each client just goes to the SSD when it needs some data, instead of the system ram, its not losing much time. The processor gets its data from the cash, the cash can get it from the memory buss which can get it from the SSD or system ram. If the SSD can dump data onto the memory buss as fast as ram, then its just like ram. Of course the SSD has to be IDE or SATA and is limited by those busses. Humm ... And I don't know how wow is coded, if it needs infromation not in system ram does it go to the HDD and move data from there to the system ram ... well I don't know, I guess I have to read up on all that.

Is WoW writen in C or what? If it is then its just a matter of figureing out how C decides to get data to the processor thats not in system ram.

I guess buss saturation is going to be your limit actually, as it is in most high end applications.

[not5150]

Gah for the love of god... if you get an SSD drive, you want to put the swap file on it.

Modern flash will have 100,000+ erase/cycles per cell. Wear leveling will mean that the drive can take a 24/7 full churn for more than a year (in fact, the bus bandwidth limits this).

As I've said before... there is a difference between brands of SSDs. Maybe you're basing your opinions on stuff you've been playing with.

Where the heck do you assume that the writes to an SSD are so slow?

Read this - http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39204/135/

"Well I wasn't thinking of putting the windows swap file on the SSD, the write is so slow that you only want to put WoW on the SSD so you get only reads and no writes.

In fact it would crazy to put the windows swap file on an SSD. Unless you are only doing reads from the swap file. But seems when you "swap" you also write. Actually you would want to limit the swap file, or even eliminate it (I think you can if you have 4 plus gig in your machine, not sure though) to be really low with a SSD drive so you don't swap but you just read what you need from the SSD when you need it."

Do you have empirical data to back this up? Your whole assumption is based on SSD writes are "so slow" which actually isn't true.

[Sam DeathWalker]

Thats product thats not even in existance yet, let alone who knows what the cost will be.

At 8G swap file isnt needed:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vista-workshop,1775-6.html

Hard to say about less.

Here is stuff on page files:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555223

Ok you have ram, the ram fills up and the OS puts the virtual pages on the "swap file" (actually its a page file).

Yes the page file should be on the fastest resource you have.

Well if you have a 32G SSD and WoW is taking up like 10G, ya I guess you should put the page file on the SSD.

Ok you have WoW on the SSD. How could gain anything by storeing WoW information in a page file on the same SSD? Assuming your CPU needs information from the WoW folder (and where else whould it need information from if you are running wow ... ); why is it slower to go to the WoW folder on the SSD for the information then it is to get the same information from the page file also on the SSD?

Pageing files involves writing, "swaping". It would seem on the face of it if your application does not do writes (like wow), and only does reads, having a page file causes addiional writes that would not occur if you had no page file. I'm not sure if all the information we read is considering a read only application like wow.

Ya Im not worried about the drive failing but most drives SSD have slow write times. Do you have a link to a buyable product?

Those charts from Intel seems fairly BS somehow, not really sure how but Claiming their SSD are miles ahead of everything else seems nuts. What no other company knows how to make nand gates lol ...

Anyway page file or no page file, I think its safe to say that the buss is the bottleneck. SATA is limited and that limit of getting data from and to the SSD is what prevents you from running unlimited wows on one machine.

[Lax]

The speed of an SSD is product-dependant, not that much different in that respect (meaning, they may differ, not that speeds are similar) from different standard platter HDD drives, flash drives, etc. SSD is also a relatively new thing, so top of the line drives from the previous generation can generally be expected to be slower than top of the line drives from the current generation, and you will probably find mid-range SSDs as well.

Based on specs listed here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2003240636%201421541071&bop=And&Order=RATING
I would say that in general, writing on SSDs is roughly half as fast as reading (or slightly better than half for sequential, slightly worse than half for random). But, still appears to be faster than writing on a standard HDD, possibly by a good margin.

At any rate, elaborating on my thoughts regarding SSDs, ignoring the holes in OP's story, this is for people who legitimately want to know:
1. If you are running out of RAM and your virtual memory is on disk instead of in RAM, then definitely put the swap file on an SSD if you've got one. Writing is slower than reading but unless you got a slow SSD, you're going to be well-served by getting your swap file off of your HDD (Edit: but, just buy more RAM tbh, never buy an SSD just for this point).
2. SSD's biggest improvement for playing WoW is going to be when large amounts of resources are getting loaded at once, this is going to be when logging in and when zoning for the most part, but ALSO when in major cities, specifically when the resources are being LOADED. If you're standing around in Shatt for a while, and nobody new is coming in, it's not going to make a difference (unless you're running out of RAM, see #1). But yes, it will help with the initial chugging in those cases.

This is just based on the science and benchmarks behind it for the speeds, and based on years of HDD chugging in MMOs (and an understanding of when/why it happens). Hopefully that helps someone. ;)

[Kaynin]

On my quad core I find I can play two instances per core without too much hassle at resolutions and graphic settings I enjoy playing at, having enough ram to cover for it ofcourse. Maxfps 25, Maxfpsbk 10 (It's playable. :/ )

[Sam DeathWalker]

Ok Ill defer to Lax's superior experience in these areas. So putting the swap file (1.5 X your system ram?) on the SSD and WoW on the SSD seems yur best move.

It looks like 150mb/s read and 100mb/s write for a $240 drive.

150mb/s is SaTa max bandwidth

2 of those drives will saturate a SaTa II bus.

[not5150]

So the Fusion-io card I played with and loaded 13 WoWs at E For All doesn't exist? Or did you mean that it isn't available commercially?

That was the gaming version, their enterprise card has been available for several months. You don't even need to go with the Fusion card.... an OCZ or Intel SSD will do just fine.

http://www.dvnation.com/Fusion-IO-IODrive-SSD-Solid-State-Disk-Drive.html - DVNation has been selling it for more than six months
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2013240636%2050001550&bop=And&Order=PRICED - OCZ has been available on Newegg for a while
http://www.amazon.com/X25M80GB-80GB-2-5-form-Factor/dp/B001F4YIYY/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1225322526&sr=8-1 - Amazon has Intel SSDs in stock now

Sam maybe you need to actually play with some SSDs before you start spouting off the benefits/disadvantages. There's a big difference between theory and data.

[aboron]

I have gotten through the waiting list for one of these: http://www.acard.com/english/fb01-product.jsp?idno_no=270&prod_no=ANS-9010&type1_title=%20Solid%20State%20Drive&type1_idno=13
and there is one on the way to my house right now.

I can only find 4GB DDR2 ram sticks for it, but 32 gig should be good enough for main vista boot and a wow "/data" folder.

Plus no worrying about flash wear leveling on ram chips, and hopefully I should be able to pick up some 8GB sticks before the DDR2 format bites it.

And in the end, after it becomes obsolete, I can use it for a noiseless htpc.

[Sam DeathWalker]

Those are some really amazing drives. My wow folder is 11G so I would guess 16G is the minimum you can get away with.

2G ram is like $25 so umm 16G is umm $200 plus you can get their $250 dive so you can saturata a SaTa2 buss for $450.

But for $450 shouldnt you just go to 64 bit operating system and a motherboard that has 16G ram?

Well this can take 32G using the 2G $25 rams (16 of them or $400)

Dam this is $414 wholesale.

Tyan Thunder h2000M (S3992G3NR-E) Dual Opteron 2000/ DDR2/ RAID/ V&3L/ E-ATX Server Motherboard
Specification
Mfr Part Number: S3992G3NR-E
CPU: Dual uPGA 1207-pin ZIF Sockets Support AMD Opteron (Rev. F) 2000 Series Santa Rosa Dual-Core/ Barcelona Quad-Core Processors
Chipset: Broadcom BCM5780 (HT2000) & BCM5785 (HT1000)
Memory: 16x 240pin DDR2-667 DIMMs, Dual Channel, ECC/REG
Slots: 2x PCI-Express x16 Slots (Run on x8); 2x 133/100MHz PCI-X Slots; 1x 100MHz PCI-X Slot; 1x 32-bit/33MHz PCI Slot; 1x Tyan "TARO" SO-DIMM Socket
IDE/SATA: 1x ATA-133 Channel; 4x SATA Ports, Support RAID 0, 1, 5, and 10
Video: ATI ES1000 Graphics Controller w/ 32MB Video Memory
LAN: 2x 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet Controllers (From BCM5780); 1x Intel i82551QM Fast Ethernet Controller
Ports: 4x USB 2.0 Ports (2 rear, 2 by header); 2x PS/2 Ports; 2x Serial Ports (1 rear, 1 by header); 1x VGA Port; 3x RJ45 LAN Ports
Power Connector: 1x 24pin main power, 1x 8pin CPU power
Form Factor: Extended ATX, 13 x 12 nich
Package: Retail
RoHS Compliant

Ok so for $800 you can get 32G ram motherboard and ram and dont need any SSD. Dam I wish I never read this lol ... $800 X 6 is umm ouch.

The cheapest optrons are: $144 each wholesale, doubt you need two but if you run tons of wows then ya.

AMD Opteron Dual-Core Processor Model 2212 1207pins, Retail w/o Heatsink Fan


So you can load your whole wow folder into the system ram and have 20G left over ....

And with 32G you dont need a page file ...

Ill bet you can get 30 wows on that kind of machine np, I think.

Well hummm ... ummm ok my brain is going to blow up heh ...


Ok the optron does not seem faster then a 6000 duel core I dont htink based on its price. So for about $1200 you get more ram then my 6 machines (32G to 24G) but about 1/2 the processor power. But you only need ONE video card ... but you only have ONE monitor ... but you only need ONE keyboard and mouse.

Ummm ...

If everything is in system ram how much processor power do you need for say 30 wows? And can you play 30 wows with only one screen, well you cant ... well if you are full screen in all and dont mind flipping though 30 times to get to a particular caracter. ummm ... well. Wonder how fast pip works if everything is in system ram ...