Dual Core User try the following

[SpaceAlex 0]

Don't have any problems with my dual-core. I don't know why so many people have problems with it. It's true that i have some dual-core drivers installed on my system, although i doubt they actually do anything, other than taking my HD space (i used the proc. withut the drivers for 2 months and had no problems... but i kept them in just to make sure it would stay that way).

I have been using dual-core processors since they were released, and haven't had a single problem with it. App's that don't support it (there are plenty that do, though), just use only one core, instead of two. That's it. There's nothing else to it.

Also, if a game doesn't support dual-core (well actually windows task manager and logitech G15 LCD display tell me that ArmA is using both cores, so i guess the many dual-core drivers i have installed (nvidia, MS, dual core optimizer...) actually make a difference), it will still run better on the recent dual cores, because none of the existing single-core processors match the top dual-core (C2D, and even FX-60) in performace.

So really, there's no need to feel sorry for those with a dual-core. You should be more sorry for those that don't have it.

[Bunks 0]

If you want to feel sorry for Dual core users, just go to Arma Mark and see which sets are all on the top of the performance lists.

Benchmarks

[Guest]

Interesting issues here also, dual core user.

A freind of mine has a p4 2.0 ghz, geoforce 6800 256 mb, and I have same, cept mine is 3.0 ghz, and mine is duel core.

I am getting about half the performance in Arma that he is?

I get average of 25 fps when not zooming in on woods areas, or in woods areas. I drop to crap when in wooded areas, or when zooming in on such, if theres fighting going on, if I zoom in on groups that are distant, goes down to like 12 fps.

Hes getting like no lag at all lol.

Im using the 'reccomened' driver for my card for Arma, cleaned up my system, lowered almost every Arma setting, including removal of shadows.

So, conclusion, Dual core maybe? This is too bad, cause if I cant fix this, going back to ofp, where its smooth playing even with huge battles and ffur mod on.

[bangtail 0]

Not dual core problem.

E

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

This link is for benchmarks with the FX-57 against Dual Core AMD's and Non C2D intell Processors in single core design games.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-fx57/index.x?pg=1

I will be posting C2D Benchmarks in single core games tonight

Enjoy the reading

[bangtail 0]

ROFLMFAO, are you still going? Look at the Armamark scores FFS and get a clue. Admit you are wrong and move on  

     x 2

3 to 4 FPS faster than an X2 4800, a chip that is 2 YEARS OLD, and all the other comparisons there are to similary aging processors. Yet again, you have succeeded in proving nothing. If you are buying a CPU now, C2D is the way to go, not single core antiques like yours    

E

[dm 9]

Oh.. My... God...

Give up already... Conroes have been prooven to outperform everything else, single or dual core, over and over and over. Every tech site there is currently claims Conroe to be "king" for any PC application, single or dual core optimised.

Any Conroe/C2D results you post will be skewed, as they wont usse 6800's for their graphics cards, so the benchmarks will be out of line.

The FX-57, powerful as it is, is out dated, and on its way out. Dual core is the future (and is 1/3rd of the price of the FX-57)

Let it go, you're just making yourself look more and more stupid...

[bangtail 0]

What's even funnier is the date of the article he linked to :

"by Scott Wasson — June 27, 2005"

Todays date for your reference : December 22nd, 2006

I can go get articles from 1995 that say that the Pentium Pro is the fastest processor available Whiskey

[Marines 0]

What's even funnier is the date of the article he linked to :

"by Scott Wasson — June 27, 2005"

Todays date for your reference : December 22nd, 2006

I can go get articles from 1995 that say that the Pentium Pro is the fastest processor available Whiskey  

LOL!

I've been hangin' back, waiting for someone to pick up on that.

[dmitri 0]

This link is for benchmarks with the FX-57 against Dual Core AMD's and Non C2D intell Processors in single core design games.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-fx57/index.x?pg=1

I will be posting C2D Benchmarks in single core games tonight

Enjoy the reading

Dual core Core 2 Duo vs FX-57 (single threaded games):

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm....art=168

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm....art=169

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm....art=167

Notice how some cheap dual core X2's are beating the expensive FX-57 in single threaded apps.

And the coup de grace. Optimized for dual core, Quake 4:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm....art=166

Core 2: 181 fps

FX-57: 106 fps

3DMark06 Cpu test. Even the cheapest dual core AMD X2 beats the expensive FX-57:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm....art=174

From your dated 2005 article that doesn't include Core 2 duos:

"Beyond that, dual-core processors are simply newer and better products. The results from our test suite, which is admittedly loaded up with multithreaded applications, leave no doubt about that. We're testing the same basic mix of application types that we've tested for years now, and many of them benefit greatly from having a second CPU core onboard. The Pentium D 820 sells for under a quarter the cost of the FX-57, yet it gave the FX-57 a run for its money in a number of scenarios on the preceding pages. More importantly, the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is a wondrous thing—and still the fastest CPU you can drop into a 939-pin socket. If you must sink a grand into the purchase of a new CPU, for Pete's sake, let it be the X2 4800+ and not the FX-57. Your multithreaded performance will be better, and your quotient of creamy smoothness for multitasking will rise exponentially."

I'd love to see your Call of Duty 2 benchmark. Please post. You see, the latest COD2 patch is, ahem, optimized for dual core:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm....art=165

Heck, I'm not sure that bench even had the patch installed. Nonetheless, look at the dual cores fly!

Enjoy the reading

[bangtail 0]

He'll be back with some more nonsense rest assured. Probably something along the lines of "In the year 2007 on February 21st at exactly 3:41 p.m, the FX-57 will return to earth and reclaim it's Kingdom"

Yah, I know, sounds alot like the 2nd coming That would be another miracle!

E

[Marines 0]

This is definitely one of the better threads I've read in awhile. I think I'll rip my X2 from it's motherboard and toss it into the trash.

[NeMeSiS 11]

This is definitely one of the better threads I've read in awhile. I think I'll rip my X2 from it's motherboard and toss it into the trash.

If only he would talk in 'rebl man engrish', then this would probably be the best tread there is

WhiskeyBullets, seriously, drop it already, there is no way you can disprove all those C2D vc 64/X2 benchmarks. You are just spreading false information and possibly tricking people into buying a crappy PC, dont do it.

[twoodster 0]

This argument is completely pointless. Fact of the matter is - it runs pretty shite on any processor

[bangtail 0]

Runs fine here, no performance problems to speak of!

E

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

Update on the System Requirements Hmm looks interesting

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_System_Requirements

[dm 9]

Yeah, anyone can edit the biki pages

"Unknown if Dual-core CPU's are supported."

Last time I checked, ArmA works on dual-core processors, its simply not optimised for dual-core.

If you did edit that biki page, I would expect to be hearing from a sysadmin, since you are still spreading false information.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

lol..i didnt edit it... sometimes when truth looks them in the face some people still miss it.

[dm 9]

lol..i didnt edit it... sometimes when truth looks them in the face some people still miss it.

I think that applies to you more than the rest of us.

ArmA runs on dual-core, and it runs better on dual-core. The ArmA-Mark results proove that.

Are you finally going to admit that the FX-57 (or any single core) is not going to give you the best ArmA performance, or are we going to have to keep on with this pointless argument? (which was over when the first lot of test results were posted)

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

why would i admit i was wrong when im 100% correct

[olemissrebel 0]

Pending another warning level, are you really that much of an idiot? So basically my 3.whatever Core Duo is going to run Armed Assault exactly the same as a single core 3.whatever? Riiiight.

[dm 9]

why would i admit i was wrong when im 100% correct

Things you ARE correct on:

* Win XP is not optimised for dual core.

* ArmA is not optimised for dual core.

Things you are NOT correct on:

* FX-57 will give you the best performance of any CPU when playing ArmA. Unless you've got a liquid nitrogen/oxygen cooling system, a fresh install of windows and are overclocked to like 9ghz you are NOT going to get comparable performance out of a single core.

* The difference between supported and optimised. Neither windows XP (Home or Pro) or ArmA are optimised for dual core. They DO, however, both support dual core, otherwise they simply wouldnt work when using a dual core cpu.

Seriously, how big do we have to spell the facts out to you that Conroe is the way forward and the FX-57 is on its way to being an overpriced paperweight?

[NeMeSiS 11]

Update on the System Requirements Hmm looks interesting

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_System_Requirements

Looks like you step on your own toe there mate; when we look at the ArmAMark results we see that all the top scores are made by people who have a C2D

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

it all boils down to this the game was design for the spec listed above, why do you think that dual core users are having issues with VRAM usage. Its simple really it is the TIMING affect affecting different devices.

Good luck with threating me with a warning level because everything i stated in this thread is 100% correct. and the forum admins know it.

BIS it seems doesnt want to take the heat in reguards to the dual core issues but its not there fault they made the game with the spec posted.

[bangtail 0]

why would i admit i was wrong when im 100% correct

No offense but you really are an idiot. In life, it's important to be able to admit one's mistakes and move on. We all make mistakes after all. You started a misleading thread that could have been instrumental in causing some consumers to make a very bad choice CPU wise.

You have been PROVEN wrong over and over again. At one point this thread was actually quite funny but your ongoing denial of the cold hard facts is becoming irritating.

E