Dual Core User try the following

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

So what your saying is that if i take a computer with no OS installed and put my Armed Assault disk in that it would run? Every program thats ever been made is made to run on the OS it sits on top of. Last time i checked were taking about Armed Assault and not other programs which use affintiy to asign what goes on each core.

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

So what your saying is that if i take a computer with no OS installed and put my Armed Assault disk in that it would run? Every program thats ever been made is made to run on the OS it sits on top of. Last time i checked were taking about Armed Assault and not other programs which use affintiy to asign what goes on each core.

I was obviously talking about applications under Operating Systems supporting multiprocessing which are for example every Windows since NT 4.0.

If you think that VISTAâ„¢ will magically make singlethreaded application like Arma use multi cores, then... Go and buy 'em as fast as you can after release.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

I never once said Vista will make non muti thread programs run that way. If you read again , what i did say is BIS wont  likely add support for dual cores until the OS supports it.

Alan Wake? Platforms supported: Windows Vista, Xbox 360

Wonder why?

Your talking about other games, Im taking about Armed Assault which is the here and now and to give other forum members correct information on what it takes to run Armed Assault. That they dont need to go out and spend alot of money and get the top on the line stuff when the games doesnt call for it.

They just need the right Stuff

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

I never once said Vista will make non muti thread programs run that way. If you read again , what i did say is BIS wont likely add support for dual cores until the OS supports it.

But the current OSes support it. Thats' all i have been trying to say.

[dmitri 0]

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.

So what you're saying is - if I run a multi-processor supporting application in XP, I'd have to manually set the affinity to use both cores?

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

I would set the game on core 1, this will decrease the load on core 0 which should stop the FPS spikes to a point and make it run better. But most programs that use Multi Core support are doing this threw the program itself. I miss read your statement.

[whisper 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

We understand perfectly that neither Win XP nor current games are DESIGNED to use both cores (multi-process, multi-threads, etc...)

But, case in point : I get better performance with my C2D, by making a single process (so running on only 1 core) running on it, than on a single core process. Why? Because, C2D is not only a dual-core processor, it also brings better architecture to the table, going away of the GHz run to try a way better optimized functioning.

Neither current windows nor current games are designed for dual-core, thus dual-core performance has no reason to be better than single core. Strangely, though, C2D performance beats everything else in latest tests. How come? I tell you, it's a very fine CPU, period.

I've always been an avid AMD follower, but this time, I just recognize Intel got their fact straight, and pulled up something very good. Congrats to them, and AMD will sure reply soon.

[whisper 0]

I would set the game on core 1, this will decrease the load on core 0 which should stop the FPS spikes to a point and make it run better. But most programs that use Multi Core support are doing this threw the program itself. I miss read your statement.

ProcAff power

BTW doing this didn't change anything on my ArmA performance As expected, tbh.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

Im a diehard intel fanboy, but the fact is a FX-57 with a Nvidia 8800 video card will smoke any Duel Core in armed assault all day long for half the price.  

[dotted 0]

Im a diehard intel fanboy, but the fact is a FX-57 with a Nvidia 8800 video card will smoke any Duel Core in armed assault all day long for half the price.

Prove it, then we will talk

EDIT: FX57 vs FX62, both have same clock speed per core and cache per core, still FX62 is cheaper (well in Denmark)

[NeMeSiS 11]

Im a diehard intel fanboy, but the fact is a FX-57 with a Nvidia 8800 video card will smoke any Duel Core in armed assault all day long for half the price.  

...

Im a AMD fan, still, if if anyone asks for a recommendation on PC specs i recommend a C2D, the benchmarks prove it. In both single and dual core applications the C2Ds are faster, and usually cheaper aswel. And you can run other stuff in the background without a big performance hit, which is always nice.

EDIT: linky

[LT.INSTG8R 0]

I dont know whats wrong with your setups but mine has been using both cores from the get go and I did nothing to make it happen.

You guys can get bent out of shape all ya like but theres the proof. I did not set the affinity, I just installed it and ran it. XP/AMD decided which core/cores it wanted to use and well it uses them just fine thanks

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 Windsor 2.8GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 [Dual Core] Processor so you would have the same issue as with the C2D Dual Core by intell.

whisper> Please give some thought and reread my post explaining why your not seeing a difference it is there in black and white in reguards to Armed Assault or we can agree to disagree and move on bro. Nothing personal just trying to help those better understand how there processor works

[bangtail 0]

Nothing personal just trying to help those better understand how there processor works

Except that you're not. A single core processor is an idiotic idea right now. You still havent proved your point and even if you could, going single core for one game is ludicrous. Just read the benchies in the Anand link I posted on page 2 of this thread. Again, I refer you to the almost 100% performance of the C2D over the AMD X2 5000 in Rise of Legends (This is a CPU intensive test). It leads it by an average of 30% in other games.

Multi threaded gaming will come into its own in 2007 and there are quite a few anticipated titles that will be using multiple cores under XP and Vista through their own implementation.

To any of you who are planning on buying a new CPU anytime soon, this guy is dead wrong and you will regret basing your purchase on his information. I am in no way trying to insult you Whiskey but you really are misinformed on this subject.

E

PS : I own two C2Ds, 1 x 6300 @ 3.2 Ghz and 1 x QX6700 Quadro. I havent tested the Quadro yet, its still in the box but I can tell you that I paid Å100.00 for my 6300 and Im getting the performance of a CPU that costs almost 6 x as much. Further to that, its an air overclock requiring no extra cooling and a tiny overvolt. You just cant beat that, PERIOD!

Armed Assault absolutely flies on my rig with no affinity switching or anything.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

Quote[/b] ]Again, I refer you to the almost 100% performance of the C2D over the AMD X2 5000 in Rise of Legends. It leads it by an average of 30% in other games.

Once again what are we taking about, Armed Assault i hope.

People are asking what you need to run Armed Assault, Not every other game. If you look at the forums above i think it says Bohemia Interactive.

If i use myself as a exsample as to what an old OFP player wants is real game performance. Not what this game will do or that one will do. If you play alot of different games go for the dual core and have at it. I only play OFP and now Armed Assault because nothing else compairs to it. I have played the BF Series, COD and U name it once or twice.

Maybe it just me

Or Prove it with Facts that im wrong not sit here and type it

[bangtail 0]

Quote[/b] ]Again, I refer you to the almost 100% performance of the C2D over the AMD X2 5000 in Rise of Legends. It leads it by an average of 30% in other games.

Once again what are we taking about, Armed Assault i hope.

People are asking what you need to run Armed Assault, Not every other game. If you look at the forums above i think it says Bohemia Interactive.

If i use myself as a exsample as to what an old OFP player wants is real game performance. Not what this game will do or that one will do. If you play alot of different games go for the dual core and have at it. I only play OFP and now Armed Assault because nothing else compairs to it. I have played the BF Series, COD and U name it once or twice.

Maybe it just me

Or Prove it with Facts that im wrong not sit here and type it

Ermmm, it's you who needs to prove it. Given to the fact that the C2D outperforms AMD in EVERY game benchmark, I don't see why ArMA is the exception. You keep saying it is, but you haven't shown any evidence to that effect.

Secondly, even if you are correct, and the evidence I have seen would indicate that you're not, why would you base a PC purchase on one game? (unless that is ALL you plan on doing with your PC).

If ArmA follows the trend of EVERY other game out there, and none of them are optimized for dual core (as you've pointed out), the C2D is faster. It may also interest you to know, since you are using the 8800 as an example, that the 8800 is very dependant on CPU horsepower. It makes absolutely no sense that a comparitively slow AMD processor coupled with an 8800 would outperform a significantly faster Intel processor with the same GPU.

TBH, you sound like a bit of a fanboy who is refusing to face facts. Myself, I buy what's faster/better. Right now, that is indisputedly Intel, in 6 months, who knows

E

[dmitri 0]

AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 Windsor 2.8GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 [Dual Core] Processor so you would have the same issue as with the C2D Dual Core by intell.

whisper> Please give some thought and reread my post explaining why your not seeing a difference it is there in black and white in reguards to Armed Assault or we can agree to disagree and move on bro. Nothing personal just trying to help those better understand how there processor works

You're not helping anyone.. beyond coming off as haughty

In practical terms, I see no difference in ArmA's performance between a single AMD cpu and equivalently clocked (or model numbered..) dual core AMD processors.

Have a look at: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm....art=168

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm....art=170

I assume Serious Sam 2, F.E.A.R. do not support multiple cores. Compare the single cored AMD 3800+ and the AMD 3800+ X2..

The dual is either the same, slightly ahead (on single core apps, Serious Sam 2, FEAR), or far ahead (multicore supporting games, Quake 4, Call of duty 2) - only exception being Unreal Tournament where the x2 lags a few frames behind.

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

Its not the case and the exsamples you listed here some things you might want to read.

F.E.A.R. from Vivendi is optimised for dual core processors.

Heres the Link

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/08/24/city_villains_fear_dual_core/

Serious Sam 2 this is some interested reading looks like about the same issues dual core users are having with Armed Assault.

Heres the link.

http://forums.seriouszone.com/showthread.php?t=44791

Quote[/b] ]If ArmA follows the trend of EVERY other game out there, and none of them are optimized for dual core (as you've pointed out), the C2D is faster

In multi tasking yes it is, when using it in a game that not optimized for dual core its not.

[bangtail 0]

Its not the case and the exsamples you listed here some things you might want to read.

F.E.A.R. from Vivendi is optimised for dual core processors.

Heres the Link

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/08/24/city_villains_fear_dual_core/

Serious Sam 2 this is some interested reading looks like about the same issues dual core users are having with Armed Assault.

Heres the link.

http://forums.seriouszone.com/showthread.php?t=44791

Quote[/b] ]If ArmA follows the trend of EVERY other game out there, and none of them are optimized for dual core (as you've pointed out), the C2D is faster

In multi tasking yes it is, when using it in a game that not optimized for dual core its not.

Equally, there are many games that are not dual core optimised that perform far better on C2D processors. Rise of legends is one of the best examples. In the CPU intensive tests that I linked before on page 2 of this thread, the 6800 is approaching 100% improvement over the AMD X2 5000. Your argument doesn't hold water.

E

[dm 9]

Im a diehard intel fanboy, but the fact is a FX-57 with a Nvidia 8800 video card will smoke any Duel Core in armed assault all day long for half the price.

Err... what?

FX-57, Å519.91

Conroe E6600, same shop, Å199.53

And you were saying "half the price" goes which way?

(Note: Sure, if you get the X6800 you'll be looking to pay around Å600, but when the "standard" Conroes perform so well AND OC easily, why "waste" the money?)

[bangtail 0]

Im a diehard intel fanboy, but the fact is a FX-57 with a Nvidia 8800 video card will smoke any Duel Core in armed assault all day long for half the price.  

Err... what?

FX-57, Å519.91

Conroe E6600, same shop, Å199.53

And you were saying "half the price" goes which way?

(Note: Sure, if you get the X6800 you'll be looking to pay around Å600, but when the "standard" Conroes perform so well AND OC easily, why "waste" the money?)

Further to that, 6300 = Å94.99 and can be easily overclocked to X6800 speeds with no extra cooling and very minor volt mods.

E

[dmitri 0]

Its not the case and the exsamples you listed here some things you might want to read.

F.E.A.R. from Vivendi is optimised for dual core processors.

Heres the Link

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/08/24/city_villains_fear_dual_core/

Serious Sam 2 this is some interested reading looks like about the same issues dual core users are having with Armed Assault.

Heres the link.

http://forums.seriouszone.com/showthread.php?t=44791

You're reaching.

Sound issues with dual core machines in Serious Sam 2?

In your thread, posted by a SS2 developer:

"and the game has been tested on dual core and dual CPU Intels before, all without problems."

And if you had bothered to read the rest of the SS2 thread:

"The hotfix worked perfectly for me and no more audio studdering at all in my system below."

"Edit: I got the right hotfix for my system and it worked! This hotfix is the solution! "

Guess it truly was a fatal flaw..something the entire gaming community is concerned about..oh..no..must..return..dual..core.

Now, onto your F.E.A.R. post.. This game alledgedly supports dual cores, but its clear from benchmarks that it doesn't.

Had you looked harder, you would've found many reviews that mention this fact:

"There aren’t any threading optimizations that we know of in F.E.A.R. So, it’s little surprise that the dual-core chips behave more like single-core processors in the game benchmark. Despite advanced physics and AI, it looks like we’ll have to keep waiting to see performance advantages from multi-core chips."

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/fear_cpu_performance/page4.asp

Did you notice the Tomshardware bench I posted was in fact 1 fps faster on a dual core? Wonder why you didn't acknowledge that? I see your theory disappearing beneath the waves.

[stingfish74 0]

i just bought a new computer, AMD 64 5000 dual core. will having dual core impact my performace when playing ARMA?

Here is what I bought:

AMD X2 5000+

2.6 GHz

512KB + 512KB

socket AM2

Question 1. From reading these threads, will i loose performance when playing arma w/ a dual core?

Question 2. IF i must only use 1 core, will it still = 2.6 or is that cut in half? i guess im confused on the dual cores after reading some of these posts. the AMD = 5000, if i run dual core doe it then = 2500? that would make my current AMD 64 3200 a better performer.

Question 3. the computer i purchased will have 2GIG DDR2 RAM. is DDR2 slow or not to par?

oh crap, i may have made a mistake. here is the computer i just bought:

CPU: (Socket AM2) AMD Athlonâ„¢64 X2 5000+ Dual-Core CPU w/ HyperTransport

Technology

6X DVD+/-R/+/-RW + CD-R/RW DRIVE DUAL LAYER

FAN: AMD ATHLON64 CERTIFIED CPU FAN & HEATSINK + 3 EXTRA CASE FANS

HDD: Single Hard Drive (250GB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 8MB Cache 7200RPM HDD

MOTHERBOARD: (Socket AM2)ABIT KN9 SLI nForce 570 SLI MCP Chipset DDR2/800

SATA-II RAID 16x PCI-Express MBoard w/GbLAN,USB2.0,&7.1Audio

MEMORY: (Req.DDR2 MainBoard)2GB (2x1GB) PC6400 DDR2/800 Dual Channel Memory [+180] (Corsair XMS2

Xtreme Memory w/ Heat Spreader

MODEM: NONE

PF-500 500Watt Power Supply

NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GT 512MB 16X PCI Express Video Card

[dmitri 0]

Looks good to me. Core 2 duo is the better option CPU-wise (simply faster), but your system looks fine. I have dual core and single core machines, ArmA runs the same on both.

Most issues I've seen are engine related, slowdown around foliage etc. This problem has been reported by users with single and multi cores.

You shouldn't experience any problems, in fact, you should see a significant boost in those games that support\have been patched to support multiple processors.

Try the app at the top of this page: http://www.amd.com/us-en....00.html

[WhiskeyBullets 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.