Dual Core User try the following

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

Since armed assault does not use both cores you should try this to make it run  on a single core.

If running a Dual Core processor, load up Armed Assault, press alt-tab to go to your desktop. Open up task Manger by pressing CTRL+ALT+DEL Once! Then right click on arma.exe and set its Affinity to 1, Basically this tells it to use only processor 1, not 0 and 1.

Let me know if you notice any improvements.

Update: Try Using Core 1 being that the OS and everything else runs on core 0

[twoodster 0]

Nope, made it slower for me Core 2 Duo 6600

[super64 0]

Ya i already tried this in the past. I too noticed a drop in performance. Went back to 2 cores and performace returned. I'll stay with 2.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

Well you always need a base line to fix a problem and will start with that. This is for Intel and AMD processors.

The next step to try is the following Hotfix from Microsoft for

Gaming Issues with Dual Core processors

SYMPTOMS

When you try to run a game on a Microsoft Windows XP-based computer that is using a dual-core processor, game performance may be poor. For example, you may experience any one of the following symptoms:

• The game stops responding during game play.

• The game stops responding during the rendering process.

• Game performance is slow.

CAUSE

These performance issues may sometimes occur if the game was not designed for use on computers that use dual-core processors. The performance issues occur because the game cannot correctly capture timing information.

Heres the Link to the Hotfix

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/909944/

[JRMZ 0]

will try that one thanx m8

[van Nistelrooy 0]

Absolutely no difference for me.

[MachoMan 0]

I highly doubt this will fix anything for arma, using the method of timing isn't used in modern games. (Remember the old games that ran faster on a new pc.)

Setting the affinity is also unlikely to work, since windows will send the game process to the least busy core.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

This would be a good point if you were to assume that everyone with a computer has all there drivers up to date and there computer meet all the specs required by the manufacturers.

But 95% of all computer owners are what we call average in the knowlegde on how to upkeep there systems with the majority not knowing what a driver is and why they need to update it. These reasons game manufacturers deal with issues like " My game doesnt work" from people that purchase the game.

Heres a perfect exsample and i use van Nistelrooy to show why most game issues are user created.

If you look at his specs you will see that he has everything to run the game with no problems. Now the one thing he has left off is the power supply which is only 385 Watts. Ive told him the issues with his system are the power supply and that he needs to upgrade to 600 Watt one. But as you see he still thinks its the game thats causes the issue. Im not picking on him but this goes to the point on the 95% rule.

The reason im trying to help people is that i am assuming that they dont know instead of assuming they do.

[van Nistelrooy 0]

Well, I don't say that I'm telling the truth. I just wanna be sure that my power supply is the reason of why the game doesn't run like I wish to.

I precise that my game runs perfectly except near foliage.

I can see a lot of people who have very good computers that are in the same case of me.

I'll order a 650W power supply on monday, and then we will se if you were right (and I really hope so).

I spend 500€ in a new graphic card, 42€ for the german version of ArmA, and soon 130€ for a new power supply. I add that I'll buy ArmA again when it will be released in my coutry (about 50€ I think).

So look at this: finally, I'll spend more than 700€ to play ONE game. That's why I'm a bit frustrated and why I wanna be sure of the result.

[dmitri 0]

I doubt your PSU will affect performance.

If components in your system aren't getting power, its more likely that system instability or reboots might occur..but not slow downs near a specific game object. I have a 500 watt PSU, overkill for my components - I also suffer slow down near foliage.

Shading detail set to low will solve your problems.

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

I doubt your PSU will affect performance.

If components in your system aren't getting power, its more likely that system instability or reboots might occur..but not slow downs near a specific game object. I have a 500 watt PSU, overkill for my components - I also suffer slow down near foliage.

Shading detail set to low will solve your problems.

While I agree loweing shaders should help his "foilage performance" your PSU can very well effect performance as some GFX cards when not getting enough power will kick into a lower clock mode.

[MachoMan 0]

Well, psu's have nothing to do with your suggested fix.

Anyway, on the topic of psu's, I suggest you take a look here: http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculator.jsp

If you fill it in you'll see 600W is over the top. 385W may be a bit short tho. I suggest you buy a good 500W supply from an A brand manufacturer.

Reading this may also help.

[[bbs] 0]

On my Dual Core I use a utility called SMP Seesaw to quickly isolate arma.exe on a single proc, putting all other processes on the other proc. This has been pretty effective for me giving ArmA almost full reign of its own proc.

SMP Seesaw

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

The overall problem with Dual Core Processors either AMD or Intell is the OS that they both run on.

Windows XP doesnt support dual core processor thats why you either have to set the program affinity to one core or the other. Now once you do that your program will run like its on a single core processor and that means it will run at what your chip is spec at either 2.4,2.6.2.93 Ghz.

If i was building a systems today knowing that for the next three years i would be using windows xp and that armed assault doesnt support dual core processors it would be the following spec.

Processor: Fastest Single Core [ AMD FX Processor ]

Video Card: Fastest PCIE Single [ Non SLI or Crossfire]

Memory: 2 GB DDR or DDR2

Hard Driver: Anything with a 16MB Cache

Power Supply: 600W

I feel bad for all the people that ran out and bought these processors thinking that it will make a difference that are still using windows xp. Thats why Vista will be a must upgrade for dual core users because it "WAS" designed to use it. The Down side is there isnt much driver support yet for Vista and it might take a while for it to happen. That way after 3 years Vista will be worth upgrading to dual core but just not right now.

[whisper 0]

Latest Dual Core Intel aren't just great because they are dual-core They are great for themselves, great speed, overclockable without too much issue, no thermal problem, well, very good CPUs.

Don't feel sad for us

[bangtail 0]

The overall problem with Dual Core Processors either AMD or Intell is the OS that they both run on.

Windows XP doesnt support dual core processor thats why you either have to set the program affinity to one core or the other. Now once you do that your program will run like its on a single core processor and that means it will run at what your chip is spec at either 2.4,2.6.2.93 Ghz.

If i was building a systems today knowing that for the next three years i would be using windows xp and that armed assault doesnt support dual core processors it would be the following spec.

Processor: Fastest Single Core [ AMD FX Processor ]

Video Card: Fastest PCIE Single [ Non SLI or Crossfire]

Memory: 2 GB DDR or DDR2

Hard Driver: Anything with a 16MB Cache

Power Supply: 600W

I feel bad for all the people that ran out and bought these processors thinking that it will make a difference that are still using windows xp. Thats why Vista will be a must upgrade for dual core users because it "WAS" designed to use it. The Down side is there isnt much driver support yet for Vista and it might take a while for it to happen. That way after 3 years Vista will be worth upgrading to dual core but just not right now.

ROFLMAO, talk about misinformation!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=15

Please note the Rise of Legends scores (these are CPU intensive). The high end Core 2 Duos are close to 100% faster than the single core AMD processors. I dont know about you, but I think 100% is a pretty big difference  

E

PS : I appreciate your sympathies

PPS : Clock speed is irrelevant, JFYI.

Ex : C2D 6300 @ 1.86 ghz = AMD X2 5000 @ 2.6 ghz

[dmitri 0]

The overall problem with Dual Core Processors either AMD or Intell is the OS that they both run on.

Windows XP doesnt support dual core processor thats why you either have to set the program affinity to one core or the other. Now once you do that your program will run like its on a single core processor and that means it will run at what your chip is spec at either 2.4,2.6.2.93 Ghz.

If i was building a systems today knowing that for the next three years i would be using windows xp and that armed assault doesnt support dual core processors it would be the following spec.

Processor: Fastest Single Core [ AMD FX Processor ]

Video Card: Fastest PCIE Single [ Non SLI or Crossfire]

Memory: 2 GB DDR or DDR2

Hard Driver: Anything with a 16MB Cache

Power Supply: 600W

I feel bad for all the people that ran out and bought these processors thinking that it will make a difference that are still using windows xp. Thats why Vista will be a must upgrade for dual core users because it "WAS" designed to use it. The Down side is there isnt much driver support yet for Vista and it might take a while for it to happen. That way after 3 years Vista will be worth upgrading to dual core but just not right now.

What is this?

Do you think dual cores = processor speed x 2? 2ghz becomes 4 ghz? You obviously need to do some reading..

Windows XP DOES support dual cores. Go to your device manager, look under computer. If you have dual cores you'll see "multiprocessor PC". Sure, XP isn't expressly written to take advantage of the second core, but it certainly is compatible and will facilitate using apps that do support the second core. Heck, it had no problem with an old Intel Xeon 2 cpu machine I used years ago. Why would it have issues now? I suppose you're one of those people who looks under the performance tab in task manager and sees "50%" cpu usage and assumes the machine is running at "half-strength". I really hope this isn't the case.....

In the end, the only thing that would aid in Armed Assault's performance is if IT supported dual cores, NOT the OS.

Alongside my single core machines, I certainly notice no decrease in performance working on dual core. Performance is either increased or the same depending on software. Try working with CG applications, Maya, 3dsmax.. I could never go back to single core machines. My render times have gone from 3 minutes a frame to 1:30 minutes - for little additional financial investment.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

You guys need to do a little research

Microsoft's official word about multiple processors across all its products is that they are licensed by physical processor socket, not by the number of cores on each processor. For instance, if you buy a single-CPU license for SQL Server 2005, that license is valid no matter how many cores are in that one CPU. Likewise, Windows XP Home will only work with one socket at a time regardless of its cores or threading potential, and XP Professional will recognize up to two sockets.

It does recognize both cores but it doesnt set the correct timings meaning it doesnt support dual cores on a single socket.

Meaning the only way for it to use two sockets is by having two seperate chips sockets on your motherboard and to be using windows xp pro to do it

[whisper 0]

I wonder how, then, I can set processor affinity for processes on my Core 2 Duo under XP Pro I must have a very special version of Windows.

Or not.

BTW the point still remains, that 1 core of Core 2 Duo still >> AMD single core, or other Intel single Core. For a very little price difference.

Like I said, don't be sad for us

[Goldenwings2002 0]

The fastest single core AMD processor is an AMD FX-57. I should know because I was contemplating on buying this chip but chose not to because I thought I was being lied to and went with a C2D e6700. Guess I should have listened to the advice of a person whom worked for microsoft for many years after all. He knew what he was talking about...

This guy can get twice the FPS of any person out there with a dual core processor in Microsoft Flight Simulator X & 2004.

[bangtail 0]

The fastest single core AMD processor is an AMD FX-57. I should know because I was contemplating on buying this chip but chose not to because I thought I was being lied to and went with a C2D e6700. Guess I should have listened to the advice of a person whom worked for microsoft for many years after all. He knew what he was talking about...

This guy can get twice the FPS of any person out there with a dual core processor in Microsoft Flight Simulator X & 2004.

Errrr FSX is an unoptimized piece of trash. No offense! I dont know how true your claims are but I'll keep my C2D Why? Because it smokes any CPU in gaming performance. It is up to 100% faster than anything else on offer in some games.

E

[bangtail 0]

You guys need to do a little research

Microsoft's official word about multiple processors across all its products is that they are licensed by physical processor socket, not by the number of cores on each processor. For instance, if you buy a single-CPU license for SQL Server 2005, that license is valid no matter how many cores are in that one CPU. Likewise, Windows XP Home will only work with one socket at a time regardless of its cores or threading potential, and XP Professional will recognize up to two sockets.

It does recognize both cores but it doesnt set the correct timings meaning it doesnt support dual cores on a single socket.

Meaning the only way for it to use two sockets is by having two seperate chips sockets on your motherboard and to be using windows xp pro to do it

No, you do! What he is saying is entirely correct. While the OS may not directly, it supports applications/games that are. Secondly, Vista, which is only a month away, is a multi processor OS. Thirdly, if you look at the benchmarks in my above post you will see that C2D is faster than any single core CPU, and in most cases by a significant margin.

E

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

Well ill make this as simple as possible for everyone.

Windows XP Home Edition = not supported by dual core processors either Intel or Amd

Reason: Windows XP Home Edditon supports Single Socket Motherboads using a Single Core Processor. There no way to set the core affinity which causes the load timing between the two cores to be out of whack.

Side Effect: This interns causes frame rates to go up and down.

Windows XP Pro or MCE Edition = not supported by dual core processors either Intel or Amd

Reason: Windows XP Pro or MCE Edition Supports Double Socket Motherboards using Two Single Core Processors. The only way to get a dual core processor to work is by setting the affinity of the program to be used too the other core which is not being used by the OS.

Side Effect: This causes your system resorces to be split between the two cores so now your program will run like its on a single core computer running at half the speed. So a C2D Processor thats 2.66 X2 will act like a Single 2.6 processor running the game.

So if you Add this in to that Armed Assault Doesnt Support Dual Core Processors and that Windows XP doesnt this leads to one question.

Having the Right tool for the job. Which is what i stated before is a Single Core processor. Dual Core support will be more than likely GAME 2 and with VISTA but that is 3 to 4 years out.

Sometimes microsoft guys let there buddys know the truth

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

OS doesn't matter in this case.

The ball is on application's side of court. If it is multithreaded, it can harness more cores, but if it is not, the OS scheduler can't do, like you said, anything than switch cores inefficently (no matter if you got WinXP Home, WinXP Pro, W2K, Linux, anything...). No hyped VISTA can save you if the app cannot distribute its load to more threads. So it is only ArmA's matter, not WinXP's. There are tons of multithreaded programs that can use dualcore nowadays.

[bangtail 0]

Well ill make this as simple as possible for everyone.

Windows XP Home Edition = not supported by dual core processors either Intel or Amd

Reason: Windows XP Home Edditon supports Single Socket Motherboads using a Single Core Processor. There no way to set the core affinity which causes the load timing between the two cores to be out of whack.

Side Effect: This interns causes frame rates to go up and down.

Windows XP Pro or MCE Edition = not supported by dual core processors either Intel or Amd

Reason: Windows XP Pro or MCE Edition Supports Double Socket Motherboards using Two Single Core Processors. The only way to get a dual core processor to work is by setting the affinity of the program to be used too the other core which is not being used by the OS.

Side Effect: This causes your system resorces to be split between the two cores so now your program will run like its on a single core computer running at half the speed. So a C2D Processor thats 2.66 X2 will act like a Single 2.6 processor running the game.

So if you Add this in to that Armed Assault Doesnt Support Dual Core Processors and that Windows XP doesnt this leads to one question.

Having the Right tool for the job. Which is what i stated before is a Single Core processor. Dual Core support will be  more than likely GAME 2 and with  VISTA but that is 3 to 4 years out.

Sometimes microsoft guys let there buddys know the truth

ROFL, two words - Alan Wake! And there are plenty of others, further to that, they are not "3 to 4 years away".

E