Isboxer does not locate all the cpu cores/threads (AMD threadripper 3960x: 24 cores/48 threads)

Hey all.

My AMD threadripper 3960x, 24 core/48 threads, shows cpu cores 1-32 within the performance tab in isboxer (where you asssign which cores/treads you want to assign to each game).


Within the windows 10 task manager, it shows:

0- 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7
etc
etc
etc
etc
40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 - 46 - 47


Using 64 gb RAM at 3200 mhz. Its for a 10 man team.

Windows and all drivers (incl motherboard bios, drivers etc) are up to date.

Tried the usual things in isboxer, like clearing everything, used new quick setup wizard, cpu affinity wizard and more.


Maybe someone else have any ideas?

/takes a small break

Unfortunately you're not only going to see that with ISBoxer Toolkit. 32-bit applications such as ISBoxer Toolkit.exe can only determine/specify up to 32 CPU cores. 32-bit Inner Space can only do up to 32.

64-bit applications such as x64/InnerSpace.exe can do up to 64.

In fact, ISBoxer Toolkit is a .NET application, and gets the number of CPU cores via
System.Environment.ProcessorCount. So the number you see is the number reported by .NET to a 32-bit application.



The only way you're going to be able to change this behavior with ISBoxer Toolkit is to create a "Computer", and assign that Computer to your Character Sets. You can set it there to use 48 cores.

https://www.dual-boxing.com/attachme...tid=2275&stc=1

And then the CPU Strategy Wizard etc will show you 48 CPUs

And Again: If you launch a 32-bit application, even with it set like this, that 32-bit application can only assign 32 CPU cores. A 64-bit application can assign up to 64 CPU cores.

If you go higher than 64 CPU cores, things get even more complicated.

You sir is a absolute legend. I was indeed running a 32bit instead of the 64 bit version of innerspace. It was a easy fix, took only a few minutes based on what you told above. It now shows cpu cores 1 - 48 in the performance tab.

Thanks a lot :P

/tips hat

Sidenote:

Maybe its time to review these pages?

https://isboxer.com/wiki/CPU_Management

and

https://isboxer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1090
(any chance you could create some info on AMD cpus aswell, like you once wrote: "The way i7 cores work is 1,3,5,7 are physical (real) cores and 2,4,6,8 are logical (fake) cores. My understanding is that for optimal performance, each fake core should be paired up with its corresponding physical core. And you should never assign only a fake core".

(similar, but for amd/threadripper?)
(why does windows taskmanager show cores 0 - 47, but within isboxer it shows 1-48?)

Testing this out:
1-4 unassigned, for win 10 64bit.
5-12 game nr 1, (8 assigned, its the "main", on seperate bigger monitor.
13-16, etc.etc (4 assigned per slave game, fills exactly up all 48 with this), 9 games on 1 monitor.

Over here jealous of your Christmas present cores!! Congrats on literally ripping them cpu cycles.
What kind of FPS you seeing?

Quote:

---

(any chance you could create some info on AMD cpus aswell, like you once wrote: "The way i7 cores work is 1,3,5,7 are physical (real) cores and 2,4,6,8 are logical (fake) cores. My understanding is that for optimal performance, each fake core should be paired up with its corresponding physical core. And you should never assign only a fake core".
(similar, but for amd/threadripper?)

---

I've not done the same research on AMD's implementation, but I would assume the answer is the same as with Intel's, unless shown otherwise. At the time that was originally written, AMD had no similar CPUs to compare this to.

Quote:

---

(why does windows taskmanager show cores 0 - 47, but within isboxer it shows 1-48?)

---

Task Manager is not made for humans and refers to them as "CPU 0" through "CPU 47". The reason it starts at "CPU 0" is purely technical.

ISBoxer's view is made for humans and counts from 1 to 48. The reason it starts at 1 is purely practical.

Havent done any real testing, but i will later on, have the main game capped at 60-30, high settings, slaves at 60-30 aswell, minimum settings with some settings increased to better see aoe / spell effects. Its "hot-knife-thru-butter-stable fps-like", compared to the good old days of 10man with a 6core/12thread. All my monitors are oldschool 1080p & 60hz though. I could bump the fps a bit, but i dont like the tearing. If i do find a similar lookwise monitor which has 120hz or more though, i will most likely make that upgrade.

Hm...only one out there, matching my wall array of other asus monitors: the Asus VG248QE, 144hz, 1 ms. 300 buxx where i live. /adds to wishlist.

Ps: thanks for the update above Lax. /thumbs-up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ellay

Over here jealous of your Christmas present cores!! Congrats on literally ripping them cpu cycles.
What kind of FPS you seeing?

---

In the most hectic of situations, the fps drops to 34, lowest ive seen so far, usually around mid 40s. Feels smooth to me. Other times im like 55++ fps. /high 5

My other 5man computers each run a amd 3900x's, 2 cores/threads per game. Then 2 cores/2threads unassigned for win 10. 32gb ram. 6gb vram. Seeing similar fps on these 5man rigs.

Flying around in hectic cities, with all at the same time, feels butter smooth. Amazing times.