Dual Core User try the following

[omgchead 0]

Dual Core processors with Windows XP unless the program supports them wil not be running any faster than on a single core.

Dual cores are made to let you do mulitple things at once with bogging your system down. Not to make a program run any faster that doesnt support it.

Actually, Windows XP does have dual-core support, and using a dual-core CPU will give you, in come cases, significant performance gains over single-core CPUs regardless of if the OS and applications are multi-threaded. Windows XP (post-hotfix) will split tasks at least semi-intelligently between the two cores. You seem to be implying that one core will just sit there doing nothing, which is definitely not the case. Unless you have some serious driver issues, it's rarely necessary to manually set the affinity of any running thread to a specific core. This means that you can have ArmA running in it's own core, while other system processes (and whatever other applications are currently running) using the second core.

I can't think of any case in which having an entire core to itself would not improve the performance of an application. There is honestly no real reason other than cost savings to go with a single-core CPU at this point.

And, as they say, the proof is in the pudding:

[dm 9]

You guys are missing the whole point which as i stated before the topic drifted.

These are facts: Armed Assault supports only single core processors as well as the OS it sits on top of...

...Dual Core processors with Windows XP unless the program supports them wil not be running any faster than on a single core.

Dual cores are made to let you do mulitple things at once with bogging your system down. Not to make a program run any faster that doesnt support it. I have never said Dual core wont run Armed Assault but if you want great in game performance a fast single core system is what you want.

So what you're saying is:

Don't buy dual core processors as ArmA and Windows arent optimised for it

right?

Even when it has been PROOVEN that using a dual core will increase "performance" by sharing the workload across the cores? Who gives a flying fuck if the software isnt optimised for it? If it boosts framerates, then I'm all for it.

As for the whole expense argument, I have prooven that Conroes wipe the floor with the AMD counterparts (price and performance)

So really Whiskey, you're fighting for a lost cause...

[dmitri 0]

Dual cores are made to let you do mulitple things at once with bogging your system down. Not to make a program run any faster that doesnt support it. I have never said Dual core wont run Armed Assault but if you want great in game performance a fast single core system is what you want.

You..got some issues.

For the last time:

A dual core system will run a single core app (ArmA) at the SAME speed as a single core (refer to benchmarks I posted on previous page with other single core games), so WHY buy dead tech single core when future proof dual core is available and performs the same (or better if smp is supported)?

Simply put - dual core is the future. Stop giving poor\incorrect advice.

[Tobruk 0]

I would add to this, who says that ARMA won't be optimize for dual cores sometime in the future?

[bangtail 0]

You guys are missing the whole point which as i stated before the topic drifted.

These are facts: Armed Assault supports only single core processors as well as the OS it sits on top of.

So buy your statements everyone should by a new quad Core because it will be twice as fast than a dual core.    nope

Dual Core processors with Windows XP unless the program supports them wil not be running any faster than on a single core.

Dual cores are made to let you do mulitple things at once with bogging your system down. Not to make a program run any faster that doesnt support it. I have never said Dual core wont run Armed Assault but if you want great in game performance a fast single core system is what you want.

The era of single core CPUs is over. Accept it and move on! You aren't doing anyone any favours with your ill informed posts. You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about and you refuse to accept the facts that have been presented to you by myself and others.

E

[Marines 0]

Interesting article.

Quote[/b] ]Dual Core And The Future of Gaming

Bruce Gain

July 8, 2005 12:00

Intel and AMD's introductions of dual-core processors may have ushered in a new age of computing, but so far, these new architectures have done little to radically change the PC gaming experience. As our tests showed in the Pentium D 840 dual core processor works only as fast as the single-core Pentium Extreme Edition counterpart with an equal clock speed. A Pentium Extreme Edition with a faster clock speed thus runs faster than the dual core Pentium D.

Of course, we won't discount how Windows XP is already equipped to take advantage of AMD and Intel's dual-core designs by accommodating a significant number of program threads. This means that, in addition to those many nagging programs that start up every time you boot up your PC, you can run many more processor-intensive programs without worrying about your PC slowing down as much, compared to single-core CPU platforms. You can thus frag away at those hideously scary adversaries in Doom III, while in the background you download a video file, run Outlook Express and keep dozens of Web browser and word processor documents open with less risk of your PC glitching up.

Still, dual core processing, like 64 bit computing, is mostly in wait of applications as well as games to harness its power. However, according to AMD and Intel, graphics vendors and game developers, it is just a matter of months before 3D game graphics see a new age in gaming power and intelligence.

"Developers who take the time and effort to multi-thread their games should allow you to one day really get twice as much CPU power," Richard Huddy, manager, ISV Relations, for ATi in Europe, Middle East and Africa. "The [benefits] will vary from a handful of a percent of a performance improvement, to dramatically different physics and AI."

Dual-core processing should, in the short-term, theoretically help remedy many of the more aggravating facets of 3D gaming, as game developers begin to take advantage of the multi-threading capabilities afforded by the CPU architecture.

Some of the benefits will be noticeable, such as improvements in game physics - which in many cases could stand a lot of improvement. Waterfalls and lakes should eventually begin to approach how they sparkle in reality. Instead of just a generic artist's rendition of the same black hole that is left by every blast with few, if any, other effects, you may see the effects everywhere - crumbling walls and shattered glass in adjacent structures, or body parts of the game's characters scattered around the scene. You might pelt a door with bullets, and see detailed splinters of wood go flying.

These improvements to game physics, of course, require significant boosts from the CPU, in tandem with the capabilities of high-end graphics cards. Multi-core processors can supposedly help pick up the load from the graphics chips.

"What we are seeing with multi-cores is the ability to thread by data instead of by task," Dave Everitt, European products and platforms manager for AMD. "You divide the data up into separate threads, and run the same code on the data. That really does bring benefits."

When you shoot someone or something, the boost in CPU strength with multi-core threads could help end what Nick Triantos, chief software architect for Nvidia, calls the "rag doll" effect.

"You shoot a guy, and he literally looks like a rag doll when he falls down," Triantos said. "There is a lot to be added to improve that physics model."

So what should we expect? Specifically, Unreal 2007 should see some of these benefits upon its release by next year, its developers say.

"Unreal 2007 should offer a thousands times more detail: more polygons and particles, more shaders and more of everything. The door made of 400 polygons before will be made of 40,000 polygons," said Mark Rein, vice president for Epic Games, the developer of the Unreal graphics engine and game series. "With Unreal 2004, we might have had a character with 3,500 polygons. Now, with the next generation of the Unreal engine, that character might have 7,500 polygons. All of this has to do with the latest technology of the graphics cards, but obviously you need to have a lot of CPU horsepower as well."

So you want to see calm, glimmering water just before you generate mayhem by decimating a bridge over a lake? "There is no reason not to have more water physics now that we have more CPU capabilities," Rein said.

However, look for more subtleties as well. "The story of multi-core is that you can't pinpoint just one thing that improves," Epic Games' Rein said. "We need much more CPU horsepower that we can apply to make a lot of subtle improvements to games."

In the area of artificial intelligence (AI), characters may get smarter. A guard in Hitman, for example, often only has a perplexed gaze on his face before he automatically tries to kill you. Characters from other games run around aimlessly without taking much stock in your presence, or they react very little among themselves. Employing dual core threads may make characters a lot smarter.

"Better AI will mean you have more opponents cooperating with another, finding better paths moving across the landscape to you, and defending territories more successfully against attacks from other players," said Richard Huddy, manager, ISV relations for ATi in Europe, Middle East and Africa.

Dual core architectures can also mean more of everything with which to interact in a game. "Instead of having 10 vehicles in the game, perhaps we will have 40 or 50. We will have the ability to have swarms and hordes with a lot of [autonomous] crowd behavior," Epic Games' Rein said. "These are things that we will see happening from an AI perspective."

Renewed attempts by vendors to offer dual graphics cards, in addition to Intel and AMD's dual-core processor launches, have fueled speculation about whether graphics processor makers may follow suit and harness dual-core capabilities in their processor designs. However, dual core processing is nothing new, graphic processor vendors say. Through the long-established use of parallelism in their designs, graphics chipmakers say their devices have in fact employed multi-core capabilities for years.

"We have been producing multi-core processors for five or six years now, ever since we've had multiple vertex pipes or multiple pixel pipes," ATi's Huddy says . "If you were able to X-ray it, you could pick out the four quad pipes on one of our processors and see them as physically distinct."

According to NVIDIA's Triantos, graphics processors have historically offered a significantly greater level of parallelism than anything the CPU vendors have yet to plan. "For example, a GeForce 6800 has 16 parallel pipelines, while x86 processors might grow to as many as four cores over the next few years," he said. " We do this because graphics is inherently a parallel-processing-friendly workload, so we get great benefit from having multiple cores."

The great benefits we will see and experience in gaming that multi-core processors offer are not here yet, of course; they remain in the realm of speculation. At the same time, programmers face a new set of tasks and challenges to harness the full potential of multi-core processing - which is far from being a slam dunk.

"Right now it is very complex, which is why programmers must be very careful in deciding which threads are reasonable to run on multi-core processors, and which aren't," Epic Games' Rein said.

Moving from a monolithic to a dual- or multi-core CPU platform involves addressing a whole new level of complexities, such as conflicting threads or loops that could potentially bring a game to a halt. "It means looking at your engine and considering the things that can go off on their own and then come back and synchronize with their partners, as opposed to thinking: I've got the big game loop and it will do all of the work," commented Kim Pallister, an engineering manager for Intel. "Because multi-threads can run in different orders - such as thread A finishing before thread B - you have to write really robust code to make sure it doesn't crash. This manifests itself as really good engineering practices within your company."

According to Pallister, "the day of the hacker is over. It means no longer saying 'hey, I've put together a nifty demo, let's put a box around it and ship it,' " he said.

Even if programmers are able to harness the full power of dual core designs, 100% improvements in performance are not likely, especially in the near term.

"If Intel goes to two cores, they won't get a 2x improvement, although they might get 30%. And when they go to four cores, they may only see an additional 5% to 10% improvement," NVIDIA's Triantos said. "We will continue to make faster and faster graphics cards that offer 2x improvements in performance, but you won't see a 2x improvement in overall game performance in many cases. But by having the multi-core CPUs, we can finally get the machines more balanced to keep up with the graphics."

When Intel introduced HyperThreading a few years ago, the opportunity for game developers to take advantage of the capability of multi-threads in a single-core processor was limited to Intel platforms. With both Intel and AMD coming on board with dual-core devices, programmers are looking at a future where almost all PC systems will have eventually adopted a dual-core platform.

The advent of the new Xbox and PlayStation 3 with multi-core processors will create that much bigger a multi-core market for game developers.

"With this generation of games, a lot of games will be cross-platformed for PC and consoles. So the economics of game development has led to it being more common for guys to ship more products as possible," Intel's Pallister said. "With the next generation of game consoles coming out, which are multi-processor boxes, game developers must create applications that in order to be competitive and look their best, will need to be multi-threaded on all the platforms they are targeting. Suddenly the incentive gets that much bigger."

PC gamers are well acquainted with the disappointment of almost cut-and-paste versions of PlayStation or Xbox games that are poorly adapted for the PC platform, such as the recent release of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for PC. There is thus a chance that games written for multi-core console platforms will lend themselves better to the PC experience.

"The big difference now going over to the next generation is that we are seeing multi-core processors on the PlayStation 3 and the Xbox 360, with a lot more CPU and graphics power. Both systems are significantly more powerful than the big-money PCs you can build today," Epic Games' Rein says. "So what is exciting is when people go to create games for those environments, to take advantage of what those systems can do. Now, for example, instead of having single hardware threads for the Xbox, they are going to have two or maybe four hardware threads."

As you read this article, a team of game developers somewhere in China, the U.S. or Europe is probably slaving away in a PC game development lab. These developers hope to one day harness the true eye-candy physics potential of multi-core CPUs, which will be coupled with the best of the best yet-to-be-launched ATi or NVIDIA graphics card.

However, it remains to be seen whether dual- and multi-core processing will indeed usher in a new age in PC gaming as soon as this year - as vendors claim - or whether noticeable and tangible improvements in your PC gaming experience due to dual core processing might not happen for a couple of years, as our intelligence suggests. As it stands now, we have plenty of fodder in the way of performance improvement promises from vendors. But we must wait to discover whether we will be truly dazzled, disappointed or just satisfied enough to invest in a dual-core CPU platform and next-generation game and graphics card with only incremental at best improvements.

Article

[Odie3 0]

Well, I just went from a AMD FX-53 to a AMD FX-60 Dual Core. The clock speed between these to processors is not that much [2.4 vs 2.6 Ghz]. However, to say that you will not get anything out of having a dual core in Win XP is not true at all.

In my case my whole computer experience is so much better. Granted this does not mean ArmA runs better. But alt-tabbing is out of ArmA [or any other game for that matter] is so much better or darn near perfect. Its like alt-tabbing from Firefox to Microsoft word. I would also say that boot up time is about 25~30% faster [from power on to logged in with all startup crap running].

So for me updating to Dual Core was well worth it. Then again I only played $275 US for my FX-60.

[Bunks 0]

Just a bit of FYI, newer Nvidia cards are designed to put more stress on the sytem's CPU to do graphical functions and does utilize both cores for that process. Whereas, ATI puts more stress on the GPU itself. Arma may be a single threaded game but it still will see a performance boost, at least rendering and fill, from dual core processors. Once ArmA is optimized for current hardware configs, I bet we will see C2D with Nvidia cards be on the high end of the perfomance spectrum.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

Well i figured i give you 2 a day to cool off a little and maybe come to your sences

But Getting back to the point heres something else to chew on.

Even with Core 2 Duo , there will *still* be a rather large amount of single-core processors in service. It will take a while before multicore outnumbers single-core in the field, even with Intel dropping prices like so many cluster munitions. Until multicore outnumbers single-core, programmers have literally no reason to assume a multicore target (even for games); therefore, the programmers will continue to (correctly) program for the majority processor: single-core. At the OS level, task-monitoring tools (such as Windows Task Manager) are, however, where the ground floor for multicore support can be added rather easily. Windows Task Manager can *already* detect multiple cores (either physical or virtual); what it lacks (on the desktop side) is core-affinity management for underlying tasks. (This is where Windows Server 2003 differs dramatically, as Task Manager in WS 2003 allows for core affinity or even specifically running an application on a specific numbered core, though the default is for core affinity. I don't know if Windows Vista's Task Manager keeps the core affinity tools that WS 2003 has.)

And You don't get more power, only more multi tasking. So this is just pointless unless your about having the latest junk and like to show off. Really as long as programs are single threaded its like saying your 2 core cpu is better because it has two cores then one. If you compare one core2 solo to a FX-57, the FX-57 rapes any CPU at that speed. Just because you have 2 cpus doesn't mean you get some special 50% speed boost. The speed is always the same, your abillity to do 2 things at once is not. But programs people. So this junk is just hype from  these two.

Armed Assault does not now or will support dual core processors. <<< Fact

Merry Christmas

Whiskey has left the building

[olemissrebel 0]

Google "SMP Seesaw" It's a tool that allows you to shift programs over and between the processors with relative ease

[bangtail 0]

Well i figured i give you 2 a day to cool off a little and maybe come to your sences

But Getting back to the point heres something else to chew on.

Even with Core 2 Duo , there will *still* be a rather large amount of single-core processors in service. It will take a while before multicore outnumbers single-core in the field, even with Intel dropping prices like so many cluster munitions. Until multicore outnumbers single-core, programmers have literally no reason to assume a multicore target (even for games); therefore, the programmers will continue to (correctly) program for the majority processor: single-core. At the OS level, task-monitoring tools (such as Windows Task Manager) are, however, where the ground floor for multicore support can be added rather easily. Windows Task Manager can *already* detect multiple cores (either physical or virtual); what it lacks (on the desktop side) is core-affinity management for underlying tasks. (This is where Windows Server 2003 differs dramatically, as Task Manager in WS 2003 allows for core affinity or even specifically running an application on a specific numbered core, though the default is for core affinity. I don't know if Windows Vista's Task Manager keeps the core affinity tools that WS 2003 has.)

And You don't get more power, only more multi tasking. So this is just pointless unless your about having the latest junk and like to show off. Really as long as programs are single threaded its like saying your 2 core cpu is better because it has two cores then one. If you compare one core2 solo to a FX-57, the FX-57 rapes any CPU at that speed. Just because you have 2 cpus doesn't mean you get some special 50% speed boost. The speed is always the same, your abillity to do 2 things at once is not. But programs people. So this junk is just hype from  these two.

Armed Assault does not now or will support dual core processors. <<< Fact

Merry Christmas

Whiskey has left the building

Listen, I know you have trouble with this concept, but Dual core CPUs outperform single core CPUs in SMP and non SMP apps/games alike. Video drivers for example, get a 20% (in some cases) performance boost from Dual core processors. Please stop spreading what amounts to BS about a subject you CLEARLY don't have a clue about.

E

PS : Are you just mad because you can't afford a new system? I'm being totally serious here! Do you keep up with whats going on in the PC world? You say programmers will "rightly" continue to program for single core? Most of the big releases of 2007 are multi core optimized. Do you live on planet earth? Get a grip! You can keep talking, but sadly nothing you are saying is a current or future reality.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

To: WhiskeyBullets

Dear Sir,

Having read through the thread I'm forced to ask myself why you suggest, in the very first page of this thread, for multi-core CPU users to set ArmA to run on a non-default core, if I understood it correctly, since according to your stated oppinion, there is no use in doing whatsoever because Windows XP, even Professional Edition, doesn't give any advantage to multi-core CPU users. I am by no means versed in the technical aspect of computing, but I'm lead to believe that the bottom line is: Running a game implies running an OS first and foremost as well, and therefore, one is in any case running two distinct applications. And since you suggest that Windows XP Professional users should move the ArmA application to a different core not specified for it by the OS by default, that statement somehow should acknowledge that there is an advantage in having a multi-core CPU. Please correct me if this logic as presented in this way is in any way wrong.

Best Regards,

TX3RN0BILL

[dm 9]

PS : Are you just mad because you can't afford a new system? I'm being totally serious here! Do you keep up with whats going on in the PC world? You say programmers will "rightly" continue to program for single core? Most of the big releases of 2007 are multi core optimized. Do you live on planet earth? Get a grip! You can keep talking, but sadly nothing you are saying is a current or future reality.

Its either that or he's a die-hard AMD fanboi.

Seriously, every single benchmark anyone has done so far has the C2D at least level with, if not way out infront of any FX-57.

And You don't get more power, only more multi tasking. So this is just pointless unless your about having the latest junk and like to show off.

Urm... no? Since running windows is one task and running ArmA is another task. So one core can handle windows, the other ArmA. Thats gonna give you improved performance, which it does, which has been prooven it does and which has been documented that it does.

Really as long as programs are single threaded its like saying your 2 core cpu is better because it has two cores then one. If you compare one core2 solo to a FX-57, the FX-57 rapes any CPU at that speed.

As long as programs are single threaded they wont be OPTIMISED for multi-core processors. That does not necessarily mean that you will not see an advantage in using a multi-core processor (which AGAIN has been prooven and documented by pretty much every tech site out there)... The FX-57 is now outdated and outclassed by the new C2D Intel processors, tech moves on, live with it...

Just because you have 2 cpus doesn't mean you get some special 50% speed boost. The speed is always the same, your abillity to do 2 things at once is not. But programs people. So this junk is just hype from these two.

Now this, like most of the rest of your posts is where your argument falls down, since you start contradicting yourself (again). Yes, having 2 cpu's doesnt give you a magical speed boost. It DOES let you multi-task more efficiently. And since as soon as you boot windows up you're multi-tasking this IS going to give you a performance boost. As for "but programs people", what? That makes no sense.... Its not hype, its not junk, its documented and prooven fact that using a multi-core CPU WILL give you improved performance.

Armed Assault does not now or will support dual core processors. <<< Fact

The bold part is fact, but unless you're lead programmer at BI, I would hold off any future predictions. You'll just end up making yourself look even more stupid.

[wasserkool 1]

Considering most people here have really crappy sytems, (athlon XPs, Pentium 4s with Radeon 9200, 9600, 9800 or Geforce 6xxx), they are just jealous of us dual core users and thus coming up with inchoherent arguements to defend their pity piece of sh|t systems.

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

Meh, I keep saying this (theres a pic somewhere in this silly thread)My PC has been running ArmA on BOTH cores since the moment I installed it and runs FINE! Do I have any illusions that it runs "faster"?...er...no, but it most certainly runs and it using ALOT of both those cores(over 50% alot of the time) so that basically means that any Single Core PC is going to be well and truly pegged at 100% and to me serves no advantage over mine that has at least another 40-60% left on my Dual Core rig to handle anything else I need it to do, where as a single core is gonna start to thrash and stuggle trying to keep up with anything else besides ArmA

[dmitri 0]

Considering most people here have really crappy sytems, (athlon XPs, Pentium 4s with Radeon 9200, 9600, 9800 or Geforce 6xxx), they are just jealous of us dual core users and thus coming up with inchoherent arguements to defend their pity piece of sh|t systems.

A truly constructive, uplifting post. Disappear please.

I think this thread is past its sell by date. Quick, someone lock it before Whiskey returns..!

[bangtail 0]

A truly constructive, uplifting post. Disappear please.

I think this thread is past its sell by date. Quick, someone lock it before Whiskey returns..!  

Yah, we all know that C2D and to a lesser extent, X2 (at present anyway) are the way of the future. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink Its been said enough times in this thread.

/me looks for thread locking key

E

[disappointed 0]

I say whiskybullits gets his info from the magic 8 ball and need to be stoned while we chant witch witch witch

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

[ZG]BUZZARD Good question

Quote[/b] ]Having read through the thread I'm forced to ask myself why you suggest, in the very first page of this thread, for multi-core CPU users to set ArmA to run on a non-default core, if I understood it correctly, since according to your stated oppinion, there is no use in doing whatsoever because Windows XP, even Professional Edition, doesn't give any advantage to multi-core CPU users. I am by no means versed in the technical aspect of computing, but I'm lead to believe that the bottom line is: Running a game implies running an OS first and foremost as well, and therefore, one is in any case running two distinct applications. And since you suggest that Windows XP Professional users should move the ArmA application to a different core not specified for it by the OS by default, that statement somehow should acknowledge that there is an advantage in having a multi-core CPU. Please correct me if this logic as presented in this way is in any way wrong

It as boils down to timing between the two cores. Dual core processors on a single socket motherboard were never meant for XP [Home,PRO or MCE] they were meant for VISTA but with the delays in that OS platform they had to Release them anyways.

To get correct timings for a game that was design for a single core processor you have to set the Affinity to the other core. Now once you do that the side effect is your spliting your systems resouces between the two cores.

This will ineffect split your computer into two, now this will effect how your systems memory runs. With AMD memory controller being on the die instead of intell's which is run threw the front side bus AMD's dual core processor handle the timing issues better but still is effected by the over all timing issue.

Why do you think that Mircosoft has a Windows Server Edition and then has windows XP versions. For the other to be right then there would be one version of the OS that handles everything. Servers would be running XP if there single core applications would  run faster but they cant because Mircosoft cripled XP support for it.

To disappointed<<<lol

I still have to say again that dual core processors are great in programs that are designed for them and that the future lies there but thats after Vista comes out and the programers start utilizing it which makes the switch 3 to 5 years out.

Quote[/b] ]Meh, I keep saying this (theres a pic somewhere in this silly thread)My PC has been running ArmA on BOTH cores since the moment I installed it and runs FINE! Do I have any illusions that it runs "faster"?...er...no, but it most certainly runs and it using ALOT of both those cores(over 50% alot of the time) so that basically means that any Single Core PC is going to be well and truly pegged at 100% and to me serves no advantage over mine that has at least another 40-60% left on my Dual Core rig to handle anything else I need it to do, where as a single core is gonna start to thrash and stuggle trying to keep up with anything else besides ArmA

Ever wonder why you show both cores at 50% when you run Armed Assault.

[bangtail 0]

Denial, it's not just a river in Egypt!  

Whats absolutely hysterical (and pathetic) is that you have been presented with benchmarks of non dual core optimized games running twice as fast on dual core (Rise of Legends) and yet still you persist with this lunacy. Friend, for an Xmas present I suggest you ask for a "Clue".

E

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

Ever wonder why you show both cores at 50% when you run Armed Assault.

Er no not really I understand completely but do YOU understand that if my TWO cores are running at 50% or better then your Single Core is absolutely pinned leaving ZERO Overhead to do anything else(but hey if thats your "advantage" to single core you enjoy it)

ArmA runs well over 50% of each core(up to 70% at times)

Grumbles as he is forced AGAIN to dig up the picture.....

Again this picture is taken on the Start screen and well you can clearly see both cores being used and well If I do the math there, that sure looks alot like 111% usage to me. So I ask you. where is your single core CPU gonna get that extra 11%??

I rest my case

[dm 9]

Denial, it's not just a river in Egypt!

Whats absolutely hysterical (and pathetic) is that you have been presented with benchmarks of non dual core optimized games running twice as fast on dual core (Rise of Legends) and yet still you persist with this lunacy. Friend, for an Xmas present I suggest you ask for a "Clue".

E

Amen to that.

I just cant see how you can continue to argue the point when hard evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Yes, current OS and software are not optimised for dual core, but they still see the performance gains regardless. I can't understand how you're not getting that?

[bangtail 0]

No point trying to reason with this guy. My firm belief is that he cant afford a new system so he's decided to try and invalidate everyone else's purchase. I hate to say it, but that's what it sounds like. It's like trying to argue the World isn't round Whiskey, it's not even up for debate.

E

[dm 9]

No point trying to reason with this guy. My firm belief is that he cant afford a new system so he's decided to try and invalidate everyone else's purchase. I hate to say it, but that's what it sounds like. It's like trying to argue the World isn't round Whiskey, it's not even up for debate.

E

I don't think thats the case, since he's argueing that the more expensive (x3) FX-57 processor is better. It would make sense if he was argueing for a cheaper processor, but the C2D "win" in that respect too...

Hardcore AMD fanboi me thinks

(But then why ignore the AMD X2 chips? - Maybe he has an FX-57 and wants to be the most powerful on the forum?)

[bangtail 0]

No point trying to reason with this guy. My firm belief is that he cant afford a new system so he's decided to try and invalidate everyone else's purchase. I hate to say it, but that's what it sounds like. It's like trying to argue the World isn't round Whiskey, it's not even up for debate.

E

I don't think thats the case, since he's argueing that the more expensive (x3) FX-57 processor is better. It would make sense if he was argueing for a cheaper processor, but the C2D "win" in that respect too...

Hardcore AMD fanboi me thinks

(But then why ignore the AMD X2 chips? - Maybe he has an FX-57 and wants to be the most powerful on the forum?)

Yah, I see your point there. Fanboi's are always fun!! I make it a point to buy what's best and I do alot of research beforehand. For example, right now I am running an 8800 GTX, if the R600 is substantially better, I'll switch to that! I couldn't care less what brand name is stamped on it!

E