WoW is a very CPU limited game which isn't surprising considering when it came out, GPU's weren't that powerful back then. WoW doesn't scale all that well with newer hardware at all, upgrading video card past the mid range ones tends to gain you almost nothing, upgrading from a dual to a quad core also gains you almost nothing, WoW depends almost entirely on raw CPU and memory bus speed.
Pretty much. You will gain a benefit from upgrading your video card (obviously) but it won't be as significant as upgrading your CPU and even on that front, WoW will not take advantage of a quad core CPU. It's an old engine and despite the "upgrades" it has been receiving, there are just some things that it cannot do (without being scrapped and re-written :p)
I hope that was it. I hadn't had a chance to test 25-mans on the PTR yet unfortunately.
Lets hope.
After using a circa-2003 computer through most of WoW, I was having the many of the same issues as you in WotLK 25-mans. 25s in BC (Gruuls, BT, etc.) were not a problem with a minimized, CPU-limited mod load, graphics settings on minimum and so on. But in WotLK with an even lighter average mod load--even in VoA, small-room Naxx and the like where there are not large graphic distances to render--it was mostly unplayable. I never received increased lag on 10-man raid or 5-man party deaths, though (which likely is a mod issue). And both 10-man & 5-man WotLK raids/instances were playable.
So went back and started the mod CPU testing on the updated-for-WotLK ACP raid-set mods was using (have found over time CPU use to be a larger issue creating lag than addon spam is). Testing with both OptionlessHouse & Addon Manager, nothing was eating CPU excessively. And testing with the pre-3.0-TOCed FuBar_AddonSpamFu, not much was causing spam (besides X-Perl Unit Frames (booo) and VisualHeal/LibHealComm-3.0)). As expected, as every mod in my ACP raid set was tested one-by-one for excessive CPU usage both in combat, in parties and solo in BC.
So, gave big cookies to my guild to let me head into a 25-man OS (and let me lag out) while all mods were turned off temporarily on two different weeks. Same issue; combat started and it was a slide show. Always kept things well maintained on the old PC; never had any background processes running (other than a known-efficient software firewall & the Ventrilo client), disabled unneeded Windows services, etc..
So finally--before setting foot into a 25-man raid again--assembled an updated desktop PC with modern components earlier this year. Sure enough, the first 25-man I entered was actually playable. Reenabled my raid mod set and yes, it was still playable.
So there is quite a difference between the graphics/system resources used in WotLK raids & in BC raids. Hopefully that Blizzard graphics bug they are supposedly fixing in 3.1 puts things back to a similar resource load as what BC raids used. I have doubts, though, based on Blizzard's coding history...heh.
It appears about the only option for solving such a large-WotLK-raid frame rate issue if the 3.1 bug fix doesn't fix it for you--with mods, background OS processes & your internet connection causing the problem being removed from the equation--is to use a modern, updated PC. One with a modern CPU, enough memory (at least 2GB) & a good (standalone) graphics card. I'm still looking out for CPU eaters/spam causers despite the new PC here, though :).
It appears about the only option for solving such a large-WotLK-raid frame rate issue if the 3.1 bug fix doesn't fix it for you--with mods, background OS processes & your internet connection causing the problem being removed from the equation--is to use a modern, updated PC. One with a modern CPU, enough memory (at least 2GB) & a good (standalone) graphics card. I'm still looking out for CPU eaters/spam causers despite the new PC here, though :).
I'm running a 3GHz core 2 duo, 4GB of RAM with an ATI 4870 video card and 25 man raids can still drop me to 25 fps or less which isn't really acceptable since 25 fps is pretty jerky, I don't drop anywhere near that low in 10 man raids.
I'm running a 3GHz core 2 duo, 4GB of RAM with an ATI 4870 video card and 25 man raids can still drop me to 25 fps or less which isn't really acceptable since 25 fps is pretty jerky, I don't drop anywhere near that low in 10 man raids.
Intel Core i7 920 (2.66 GHz), 6 GB of RAM (on a XP Pro 32-bit OS so only 4 GB can be accessed), Nvidia GTX260 (earlier 192, not 216). Same thing, often drops down below 30 FPS in OS 25. But...that's with most graphics settings turned up a bit (other than Shadow & View Distance). And its playable even with that, which is the big thing and is acceptable here.
Still, with the age of WoW and its supposed "support" of less than top-end PCs, dropping that low in WotLK 25s with graphics turned down on a modern PC that should be able to handle things isn't good. Hope that 3.1 particle effect change makes a difference.
That is my concern. I looked at upgrading my system to a Q8200, GTX 260-216 + 4GB ram, needing new motherboard. That would cost me over 500 bucks. I'm not really willing to shell out that kind of money when it doesn't acutally fix the problem and I have read quite a few posts of people with system of that power seeing performance degradation beyond reasonable in 25-mans.
I still think my 3500+, 1950pro 3GB should be adequate for playability though (i.e. I'd be happy with a reliably 20 fps). Certainly I have a lot of friends who operate on comparable systems because it is quite fine for everything we do (played Fallout 3 without problems for example).
I really hope that the particle effects bug is a significant factor in this.
WoW is a very CPU limited game which isn't surprising considering when it came out, GPU's weren't that powerful back then. WoW doesn't scale all that well with newer hardware at all, upgrading video card past the mid range ones tends to gain you almost nothing, upgrading from a dual to a quad core also gains you almost nothing, WoW depends almost entirely on raw CPU and memory bus speed.
upgrading from dual to quad may even lower your performance because the cores on most duals run on a higher speed then in quad processor...
(like switching from a 3ghz dual to a 2.64ghz quad)
I think I7 processors automaticly overclock 2 cores if only 2 of the 4 cores are in use.
Yep, those who are saying that WoW is CPU-heavy are correct. The base game engine is old, and doesn't take advantage of modern video card features that would potentially offload some processing from the CPU. WoW's engine is also not designed from the ground up to take significant advantage of multiple CPU cores (it can offload software sound processing to a second core, but that's about it). As a result of these issues, per-core CPU processing power is by far the most significant factor in WoW performance.
I'm hoping the particle-related tweaks they're making in 3.1 will help. I've now played WoW on 3 computers and have seen my FPS decline steadily over time due to Blizzard trying to push their ancient WoW engine far beyond what it was originally designed to do, with 90% of the burden falling on the CPU.
BTW, a good way to test whether you're CPU or GPU limited is to change your resolution to a drastically different setting (e.g., if you run at 1920x1200 or 1680x1050, try 800x600 - or vice versa). If you see no change in FPS then it's probably not your video card holding you back...
Disable "Superfetch" and "Windows Search" services (run "services.msc"). Run the Resource Monitor (run "perfmon.exe /res") and check for excessive disk/memory accesses.
Neither of these services will have any noticeable impact on performance, since Superfetch is explicitly designed to relinquish resources whenever a running application asks for them and Windows Search not only doesn't continuously index (unless you were smart enough to index some temp folder or something :p) but it also doesn't index when you're running resource heavy applications.
For what I just said to be correct, I'm assuming Vista (Superfetch) and/or Windows Search 4.0.
They will still have an effect though, even if somewhat minimal. SuperFetch will still run and fetch unnecessary data across all running processes and services, usually unnecessary too. Minimizing disk accesses is a very good way to improve FPS, especially when WoW needs to read from the disk too (particularly when walking around in Dalaran).
The largest FPS improvements will still occur by moving the WoW installation off the same physical disk as the Swap File.
First subjective imperssions just running around Dalaran and IF setting up for dual spec. My display runs smoother and I seem to have picked up 10 fps (30fps instead of 20fps) in heavy crowds in dalaran and IF.
Something seems to have noticably improved for my machine since the patch, but it's tentative. I first wanna see some raiding conditions :P
First subjective imperssions just running around Dalaran and IF setting up for dual spec. My display runs smoother and I seem to have picked up 10 fps (30fps instead of 20fps) in heavy crowds in dalaran and IF.
Something seems to have noticably improved for my machine since the patch, but it's tentative. I first wanna see some raiding conditions :P
I noticed similar gains in Ulduar25. Being able to keep projected textures enabled while turning down particle density helps with raid combat slowdowns without compromising detail too much.
Particles have long been a problem (in other games as well I believe?) On my old vid card I had much pain in outland. If I was too near a fire or one of the plumes in Hellfire it'd kill my FPS. You know after the first boss in Ramps wher you go inside and up the ramp? Just turning that corner where you can't see any of the fires my FPS would jump from 10 to 40+
My new vid card seems to do a lot better, thankfully.
Well, I went from
AMD 64 3400 2.4GHz -> Core 2 Duo E2220 2.4GHz
1GB DDR1 -> 4GB DDR2
ATi x1650Pro 256MB -> nVidia 8500GT 1024MB
32bit XP -> 64bit Win 7 (did some 32 Vista as well)
I noticed NO improvement whatsoever :( Nothing... I've not tried 3.1 since I am having trouble getting the damn patch (Rapidshare mirror, downed it twice!! went through my allowed bw today, each time it errored. Blizz BG downer -> error. So yeah.)
Other then Vista or Win7 itself, I can't think of my delimiting factor. Ya think switching to x64 XP would help any?
The processor is in the same operating clock speed, even though it's Intel rather than AMD. I went from a Phenom 2.2GHz quad-core CPU to an Athlon X2 3.1GHz and nearly doubled my frame rates with only the added 900MHz. WoW is more CPU-intensive than GPU-intensive, and doesn't scale much more with multiple cores.
WoW is more CPU-intensive than GPU-intensive, and doesn't scale much more with multiple cores.
Maybe so. But two years ago (during the Burning Crusade) I upgraded the original ATI Radeon 9700 Pro on my old PC to a more modern Nvidia GeForce 6600GT. This was back when ATI was having (typical) driver issues which frequently crashed WoW. Both cards used the AGP slot. Framerate average outdoors & in raids went up by approx. 25% (and no more WoW crashes due to flaky video drivers). Nothing else on the system was changed.
Its common to say that WoW is "more CPU limited than GPU limited". But until I see WoW devs say this--or I have the opportunity to test with a cheap-a&**, low end PCI-X video card on the new PC here--it looks here at least that WoW is...overall slow-PC limited ;).
As to multiple cores, WoW has for a long time been able to utilize two cores (if available) for "higher frame rates". From the 2.3.0 patch notes (Nov. 13/07):
- The latest patch of World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade shows a
benefit on today's popular multicore processors like the Intel(r)
Core(tm)2 Duo processor family. The enhanced patch has demonstrated higher frame rates by spreading the work across both processor cores.
Yeah, I looked at it too. I just took that card because a friend had it laying around and my pc was dead in the water. But I've been contemplating a new one. Just not sure which one yet. (Probably cheap tho)
Its common to say that WoW is "more CPU limited than GPU limited". But until I see WoW devs say this--or I have the opportunity to test with a cheap-a&**, low end PCI-X video card on the new PC here--it looks here at least that WoW is...overall slow-PC limited ;).
I was using a Phenom 9500 quad-core (2.2GHz) CPU with an nVidia 9500 1GB card, and was verily disappointed in the "boost" I got over using an Athlon 2000+ with a 5500FX 256MB card. I gained, perhaps, 15FPS.
I obtained a nVidia 9800GTX+ 512MB card and only saw a boost of roughly 10FPS, if that. After replacing the Phenom with an Athlon x2 3.1GHz CPU, my framerates nearly doubled. The deciding factor was 900MHz of raw CPU power.
As to multiple cores, WoW has for a long time been able to utilize two cores (if available) for "higher frame rates". From the 2.3.0 patch notes (Nov. 13/07):
That's only because things like the sound subsystem are offloaded to the second/third/fourth core, and will not greatly improve the overall situation.
I was using a Phenom 9500 quad-core (2.2GHz) CPU with an nVidia 9500 1GB card, and was verily disappointed in the "boost" I got over using an Athlon 2000+ with a 5500FX 256MB card. I gained, perhaps, 15FPS.
I obtained a nVidia 9800GTX+ 512MB card and only saw a boost of roughly 10FPS, if that. After replacing the Phenom with an Athlon x2 3.1GHz CPU, my framerates nearly doubled. The deciding factor was 900MHz of raw CPU power.
OK cool. On a older PC (which I have been able to test), the gain with a more powerful video card and 0 other changes was more dramatic. So perhaps...its more "CPU limited" on modern PCs? According to AnandTech (a reputable site), back in 2005 "WoW is generally more GPU limited than CPU limited, but you still need a relatively fast CPU." Things may (or may not) be different these days.
Regardless of that, when you crank the resolution and/or video effects up, the video card will come more into play.
That's only because things like the sound subsystem are offloaded to the second/third/fourth core, and will not greatly improve the overall situation.
Sure, the sound subsystem won't have much of an effect on things whether or not its offloaded. If you checkmark "Use Hardware" in the Sound settings, its not offloaded at all (see below). There will be even less of an effect if you use a sound card that does everything in its own hardware, like ones that use the Creative X-Fi and (older) Audigy/2 chips (my non-shill recommendation if you don't run Linux: the Auzen X-Fi Forte 7.1). Sound processing just isn't (on average) a gigantic consumer of CPU power on modern PCs; there will be small measurable framerate differences, though.
It's certainly compatible and will take advantage of multiple cores by offloading some tasks to the additional core/s. I believe the sound system is one of those tasks (if you don't check the "hardware sound" option). You're probably not going to see an FPS difference either way, but having your second core processing the sound is of course much much faster than any on-board or add-in sound card could.
If the sound is already offloaded completely to the sound card for processing (as with the hardware sound chips noted above), it is not going to be "your second core processing the sound is of course much much fasterthan any on-board or add-in sound card could"...heh.
Then again from the above: "You're probably not going to see an FPS difference either way". But there is one comparison I can quickly find comparing single and dual core processing with WoW here.
Its not the greatest test; the machine component breakdown is not given and neither are many details. The conclusion there is that there is a significant difference: "With 2.3 gigahertz, the second core provides for up to 35 percent more performance in comparison with the simulated single core CPU. Overclocked to 3.4 GHz , the difference between one and two cores shrinks to around 20 percent."
Due to the lack of testing details and the lack of other (reputable) sites can cross reference for similar conclusions, can't really take this test at its word. So until I can spend some (of my infinite ;)) spare time testing single vs. dual cores here, the word is out here on how the scaling is on more than one core. Hope that Blizzard put it in to actually make a big difference. I'm not putting money on it, though.
So what would be a good system for WoW that isn't completely top end?
A German game hardware magazine promotes a Q8200+GTX260-216 and they argue that the multi-core is indeed good for WoW. I have conflicting posts about all this (see discussion here).
Even if WoW does not use multiple cores, there's an advantage when you're running any other program in the background.
The biggest performance boost I had, was due to adding 2 GB RAM (1 -> 3 GB). That nearly doubled my framerate in high populated zones like Dalaran and in raids.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pretty much. You will gain a benefit from upgrading your video card (obviously) but it won't be as significant as upgrading your CPU and even on that front, WoW will not take advantage of a quad core CPU. It's an old engine and despite the "upgrades" it has been receiving, there are just some things that it cannot do (without being scrapped and re-written :p)
Lets hope.
After using a circa-2003 computer through most of WoW, I was having the many of the same issues as you in WotLK 25-mans. 25s in BC (Gruuls, BT, etc.) were not a problem with a minimized, CPU-limited mod load, graphics settings on minimum and so on. But in WotLK with an even lighter average mod load--even in VoA, small-room Naxx and the like where there are not large graphic distances to render--it was mostly unplayable. I never received increased lag on 10-man raid or 5-man party deaths, though (which likely is a mod issue). And both 10-man & 5-man WotLK raids/instances were playable.
So went back and started the mod CPU testing on the updated-for-WotLK ACP raid-set mods was using (have found over time CPU use to be a larger issue creating lag than addon spam is). Testing with both OptionlessHouse & Addon Manager, nothing was eating CPU excessively. And testing with the pre-3.0-TOCed FuBar_AddonSpamFu, not much was causing spam (besides X-Perl Unit Frames (booo) and VisualHeal/LibHealComm-3.0)). As expected, as every mod in my ACP raid set was tested one-by-one for excessive CPU usage both in combat, in parties and solo in BC.
So, gave big cookies to my guild to let me head into a 25-man OS (and let me lag out) while all mods were turned off temporarily on two different weeks. Same issue; combat started and it was a slide show. Always kept things well maintained on the old PC; never had any background processes running (other than a known-efficient software firewall & the Ventrilo client), disabled unneeded Windows services, etc..
So finally--before setting foot into a 25-man raid again--assembled an updated desktop PC with modern components earlier this year. Sure enough, the first 25-man I entered was actually playable. Reenabled my raid mod set and yes, it was still playable.
So there is quite a difference between the graphics/system resources used in WotLK raids & in BC raids. Hopefully that Blizzard graphics bug they are supposedly fixing in 3.1 puts things back to a similar resource load as what BC raids used. I have doubts, though, based on Blizzard's coding history...heh.
It appears about the only option for solving such a large-WotLK-raid frame rate issue if the 3.1 bug fix doesn't fix it for you--with mods, background OS processes & your internet connection causing the problem being removed from the equation--is to use a modern, updated PC. One with a modern CPU, enough memory (at least 2GB) & a good (standalone) graphics card. I'm still looking out for CPU eaters/spam causers despite the new PC here, though :).
I'm running a 3GHz core 2 duo, 4GB of RAM with an ATI 4870 video card and 25 man raids can still drop me to 25 fps or less which isn't really acceptable since 25 fps is pretty jerky, I don't drop anywhere near that low in 10 man raids.
Intel Core i7 920 (2.66 GHz), 6 GB of RAM (on a XP Pro 32-bit OS so only 4 GB can be accessed), Nvidia GTX260 (earlier 192, not 216). Same thing, often drops down below 30 FPS in OS 25. But...that's with most graphics settings turned up a bit (other than Shadow & View Distance). And its playable even with that, which is the big thing and is acceptable here.
Still, with the age of WoW and its supposed "support" of less than top-end PCs, dropping that low in WotLK 25s with graphics turned down on a modern PC that should be able to handle things isn't good. Hope that 3.1 particle effect change makes a difference.
I still think my 3500+, 1950pro 3GB should be adequate for playability though (i.e. I'd be happy with a reliably 20 fps). Certainly I have a lot of friends who operate on comparable systems because it is quite fine for everything we do (played Fallout 3 without problems for example).
I really hope that the particle effects bug is a significant factor in this.
upgrading from dual to quad may even lower your performance because the cores on most duals run on a higher speed then in quad processor...
(like switching from a 3ghz dual to a 2.64ghz quad)
I think I7 processors automaticly overclock 2 cores if only 2 of the 4 cores are in use.
I'm hoping the particle-related tweaks they're making in 3.1 will help. I've now played WoW on 3 computers and have seen my FPS decline steadily over time due to Blizzard trying to push their ancient WoW engine far beyond what it was originally designed to do, with 90% of the burden falling on the CPU.
BTW, a good way to test whether you're CPU or GPU limited is to change your resolution to a drastically different setting (e.g., if you run at 1920x1200 or 1680x1050, try 800x600 - or vice versa). If you see no change in FPS then it's probably not your video card holding you back...
For what I just said to be correct, I'm assuming Vista (Superfetch) and/or Windows Search 4.0.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe largest FPS improvements will still occur by moving the WoW installation off the same physical disk as the Swap File.
Something seems to have noticably improved for my machine since the patch, but it's tentative. I first wanna see some raiding conditions :P
I noticed similar gains in Ulduar25. Being able to keep projected textures enabled while turning down particle density helps with raid combat slowdowns without compromising detail too much.
My new vid card seems to do a lot better, thankfully.
AMD 64 3400 2.4GHz -> Core 2 Duo E2220 2.4GHz
1GB DDR1 -> 4GB DDR2
ATi x1650Pro 256MB -> nVidia 8500GT 1024MB
32bit XP -> 64bit Win 7 (did some 32 Vista as well)
I noticed NO improvement whatsoever :( Nothing... I've not tried 3.1 since I am having trouble getting the damn patch (Rapidshare mirror, downed it twice!! went through my allowed bw today, each time it errored. Blizz BG downer -> error. So yeah.)
Other then Vista or Win7 itself, I can't think of my delimiting factor. Ya think switching to x64 XP would help any?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Project AuthorThe processor is in the same operating clock speed, even though it's Intel rather than AMD. I went from a Phenom 2.2GHz quad-core CPU to an Athlon X2 3.1GHz and nearly doubled my frame rates with only the added 900MHz. WoW is more CPU-intensive than GPU-intensive, and doesn't scale much more with multiple cores.
Maybe so. But two years ago (during the Burning Crusade) I upgraded the original ATI Radeon 9700 Pro on my old PC to a more modern Nvidia GeForce 6600GT. This was back when ATI was having (typical) driver issues which frequently crashed WoW. Both cards used the AGP slot. Framerate average outdoors & in raids went up by approx. 25% (and no more WoW crashes due to flaky video drivers). Nothing else on the system was changed.
Its common to say that WoW is "more CPU limited than GPU limited". But until I see WoW devs say this--or I have the opportunity to test with a cheap-a&**, low end PCI-X video card on the new PC here--it looks here at least that WoW is...overall slow-PC limited ;).
As to multiple cores, WoW has for a long time been able to utilize two cores (if available) for "higher frame rates". From the 2.3.0 patch notes (Nov. 13/07):
- The latest patch of World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade shows a
benefit on today's popular multicore processors like the Intel(r)
Core(tm)2 Duo processor family. The enhanced patch has demonstrated higher frame rates by spreading the work across both processor cores.
You might have actually gone backwards in the video card power department, at least according to a Tom's Hardware comparison between the two, another site with game benchmarks including both of them...and so on.
A bit of screwing isn't bad every now and then, to make sure that my comp case is still nicely locked :) <has imba screwdrivers>
Yeah, I looked at it too. I just took that card because a friend had it laying around and my pc was dead in the water. But I've been contemplating a new one. Just not sure which one yet. (Probably cheap tho)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Project AuthorI was using a Phenom 9500 quad-core (2.2GHz) CPU with an nVidia 9500 1GB card, and was verily disappointed in the "boost" I got over using an Athlon 2000+ with a 5500FX 256MB card. I gained, perhaps, 15FPS.
I obtained a nVidia 9800GTX+ 512MB card and only saw a boost of roughly 10FPS, if that. After replacing the Phenom with an Athlon x2 3.1GHz CPU, my framerates nearly doubled. The deciding factor was 900MHz of raw CPU power.
That's only because things like the sound subsystem are offloaded to the second/third/fourth core, and will not greatly improve the overall situation.
OK cool. On a older PC (which I have been able to test), the gain with a more powerful video card and 0 other changes was more dramatic. So perhaps...its more "CPU limited" on modern PCs? According to AnandTech (a reputable site), back in 2005 "WoW is generally more GPU limited than CPU limited, but you still need a relatively fast CPU." Things may (or may not) be different these days.
Regardless of that, when you crank the resolution and/or video effects up, the video card will come more into play.
Sure, the sound subsystem won't have much of an effect on things whether or not its offloaded. If you checkmark "Use Hardware" in the Sound settings, its not offloaded at all (see below). There will be even less of an effect if you use a sound card that does everything in its own hardware, like ones that use the Creative X-Fi and (older) Audigy/2 chips (my non-shill recommendation if you don't run Linux: the Auzen X-Fi Forte 7.1). Sound processing just isn't (on average) a gigantic consumer of CPU power on modern PCs; there will be small measurable framerate differences, though.
As per a (typically clueless) Blizzard poster:
It's certainly compatible and will take advantage of multiple cores by offloading some tasks to the additional core/s. I believe the sound system is one of those tasks (if you don't check the "hardware sound" option). You're probably not going to see an FPS difference either way, but having your second core processing the sound is of course much much faster than any on-board or add-in sound card could.
If the sound is already offloaded completely to the sound card for processing (as with the hardware sound chips noted above), it is not going to be "your second core processing the sound is of course much much faster than any on-board or add-in sound card could"...heh.
Then again from the above: "You're probably not going to see an FPS difference either way". But there is one comparison I can quickly find comparing single and dual core processing with WoW here.
Its not the greatest test; the machine component breakdown is not given and neither are many details. The conclusion there is that there is a significant difference: "With 2.3 gigahertz, the second core provides for up to 35 percent more performance in comparison with the simulated single core CPU. Overclocked to 3.4 GHz , the difference between one and two cores shrinks to around 20 percent."
Due to the lack of testing details and the lack of other (reputable) sites can cross reference for similar conclusions, can't really take this test at its word. So until I can spend some (of my infinite ;)) spare time testing single vs. dual cores here, the word is out here on how the scaling is on more than one core. Hope that Blizzard put it in to actually make a big difference. I'm not putting money on it, though.
A German game hardware magazine promotes a Q8200+GTX260-216 and they argue that the multi-core is indeed good for WoW. I have conflicting posts about all this (see discussion here).
The biggest performance boost I had, was due to adding 2 GB RAM (1 -> 3 GB). That nearly doubled my framerate in high populated zones like Dalaran and in raids.