Dual Core User try the following

[shinRaiden 0]

Now putting on a different hat though...

I've had my fingers on the following spec systems (ie only the last two are mine) :

--------------------

(unknown core) Amd 3800+

7600 GT SLI -> tripleHead2go (3x 1024x768)

--------------------

T2500 mobile CoreDuo (CD, not C2D, mobile version)

ATI Mobility x1300

--------------------

AMD DualCore 4600+ X2 (939)

7900GTX

--------------------

AMD Barton 2400+

6600 GT

--------------------

Everyone of these has been more than adequate not only for development, but the top three have also been confidently used to demonstrate VBS2 to customers. The point is, that all four of those systems are more than adequate, and if there has been problems, it has only been because I was screwing around with the system when I didn't need to. Nor have I bothered wasting my time trying to get the last 1% performance pwnage.

[bangtail 0]

ArmaMark proves nothing at all, other than the single instance of an isolated test on a unique system located in a black hole. It is both unscientific, and spurious in sourcing - given the limited ability to both log and compensate for the eccentricities of both the hardware platform and the abuser mashing the buttons in gluttonous lust.

C2D's for all the testing done so far - perhaps present in greater quantities to justify their recent spending guilt - appear to be uniformly faster. Contrary to any reliable testing methodologies, there is no cohesive explanation of gross or net performance, nor plausible reasoning as to why ArmA has a performance differential between disimilar hardware architectures.

Therefore, as this flamewar is devoid of rational reasoning and is firmly uprooted in illogical fallacies, I hearby declare a war of extermination on carrots, since that has just as much rightful place in the most glorious intellectual exercise.

Arma-mark proves nothing at all? It proves that C2D is the fastest CPU for ArmA ad nauseam. Why is it so hard for Whiskey and yourself to accept the facts? I'm not trying to justify my purchase, I only went to C2D after it had been out for a few months (and saw that it was beating EVERY CPU in EVERY test on EVERY site). The simple fact is that its the fastest desktop processor out there. Thats it, thats all! You can call it "unsicentific" and "spurious" as much as you want, but it won't change the facts of this particular argument! The evidence is plastered all over this thread and all over the web!

E

[shinRaiden 0]

1) you can't interchange Intel and AMD cpu's, therefore you are testing and contrasting cpu/mobo/ram combo's, not cpu's.

2) Armamark has no knowledge of the system particulars or other software running. It can't report or discover other optimizations or hinderances that maybe impacting performance for better or for worse. If I had a C2D and tried running ArmA at the same time I was burning a DVD, moving a half dozen torrents, and reauthoring another DVD video, and I had abysmal FPS, does that mean an AMD cpu is better?

If on the other hand I had a dual cpu FX-74, cryo-cooled into stellar orbit, a stripped down minimal Windows2000 system with every hyper-aggressive reg hack and defrag with Arma running off a SATA RAID'ed RAM drive pushing 8800 GTX SLI's, would that indicate that Core2Duo's are useless? Absolutely not.

The point is that those defending the Core2Duo are not making a suitablely educated defense of their choice, and those on the AMD side, rather than mounting a sensible defense are fighting fog with FUD. That's why this has become a nonsense fan-boy flame-war, rather than any useful discussion on how to make Arma work better, since making it work best is subjective and irrational.

[bangtail 0]

1) you can't interchange Intel and AMD cpu's, therefore you are testing and contrasting cpu/mobo/ram combo's, not cpu's.

2) Armamark has no knowledge of the system particulars or other software running. It can't report or discover other optimizations or hinderances that maybe impacting performance for better or for worse. If I had a C2D and tried running ArmA at the same time I was burning a DVD, moving a half dozen torrents, and reauthoring another DVD video, and I had abysmal FPS, does that mean an AMD cpu is better?

If on the other hand I had a dual cpu FX-74, cryo-cooled into stellar orbit, a stripped down minimal Windows2000 system with every hyper-aggressive reg hack and defrag with Arma running off a SATA RAID'ed RAM drive pushing 8800 GTX SLI's, would that indicate that Core2Duo's are useless? Absolutely not.

The point is that those defending the Core2Duo are not making a suitablely educated defense of their choice, and those on the AMD side, rather than mounting a sensible defense are fighting fog with FUD. That's why this has become a nonsense fan-boy flame-war, rather than any useful discussion on how to make Arma work better, since making it work best is subjective and irrational.

Nah, as an average that test clearly shows the C2D to be the fastest. I'm no Intel fanboy mate, I buy what's best. If AMD release a better CPU, I'll be right there, similarly if the R600 is better than the 8800 GTX I have now, I'll have one of those!

I don't try to burn DVDs or compress video when I'm gaming ta very much. People who make up these arguments are reaching, trying to find some obscure way to swing an incontrovertible debate. The indisputable facts speak for themselves. I'm not going to argue it anymore as I have realized that it is a futile endeavour.

A great man once said "You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink"

E

[shinRaiden 0]

Your post shows that you clearly failed to grasp what I posted in your support. Whether that was deliberate or in ignorance I suppose that remains to be seen.

Column A has ArmaMark numbers, Column B has CPU's. Your sample only reflects systems tested, and makes no indications of the total statistical population or deviations.

Nowhere is there any mention of software or hardware external to Arma that can impact the score by 1 point or a 1000. ArmaMark is incapable of reporting those things.

My point was that I've seen the same numbers you have. I have yet to hear any rational reason for why the numbers are the way they have come in so far, other than nonsense like "Intel rox, AMD sux".

-edit-

This further illustrates my point, though you may fail to see the connection. From Toms:

Quote[/b] ]While on one hand we could have reviewed the GeForce 8800GTX and GTS on an Intel Conroe based platform, we also have to keep the data we generate relevant to other reviews and data previously published. In an effort to make sure the comparisons in graphics cards were as "apples to apples" as possible, we decided to publish the initial data using the AMD Athlon FX-60 system we have been using for the majority of 2006.

[dmitri 0]

The point is that those defending the Core2Duo are not making a suitablely educated defense of their choice, and those on the AMD side, rather than mounting a sensible defense are fighting fog with FUD. That's why this has become a nonsense fan-boy flame-war, rather than any useful discussion on how to make Arma work better, since making it work best is subjective and irrational.

You've read a lot into this thread.

A poster was spreading misinformation. A few of us posted concise replies (they're in there..somewhere) debunking his opinions on dual core performance in games.

As to the lack of ArmA on dual core discussion... Its because most of us don't feel we have any problems related to our dual cores.. or at least any problems that might be related haven't been discovered yet. The game doesn't support multiple processors\cores - therefore dual core isn't all that relevant to ArmA.

That's all.

"Intel rox, AMD sux"

In this thread? All I've seen is 1 person criticising dual cores and a multitude on the defense.

[Dwarden 1124]

from MS

Quote[/b] ]

Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per processor.

Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor.

see way detailed info http://download.microsoft.com/downloa....ief.doc

if You want to utilize e.g. four dual-cores (new Xeons or Opterons) You need go for W3k (up to 32 multi-core processors) or other multi processor enabled server system from MS ...

sumup: XP Pro (32/64) are capable to take advantage of two multi-core processors while XP Home only of one multicore cpu...

multi-core thread balancing performance is of course better at W3k than WXP but only by certain margin (not worth for normal end user to bother with) ...

---

now to something related to ArmA and multiple cores ... several "non multi core enabled" games was able in past "improve" theirs performance by multi-threaded file operations

(background reads / writes on another core) etc.

as example lets mention PlanetSide and also Oblivion (yet Oblivion was designed with more cores already in mind for more than just this task)

i can imagine ArmA "already" use some or "one day" will utilize these ways ...

p.s. even i was and i'm still AMDATI fan i prefer to use and sell C2D now

(AMD is now only good with EE both single and dual-core series for quiet systems, FX is overpriced joke with 0.25% sales) ...

and if You dare to fight about theirs speed (AMDvsINTELvsW/E) what about some benches

[kronzky 5]

Since there are some who suspect/claim that a dual-core CPU will only use one core for the main task, and the second core basically just sits there idling, doing perhaps some minor background jobs, I logged my CPU activity during a 15 minute gaming session (with about 30 units running around in an urban area, with lots of explosions going on).

Here it is: (Athlon 64 X2 3800+)

I guess this requires no further explanation...

[WhiskeyBullets 0]

Heres a Dual Core Gaming Fix Guide for AMD processors that might help some people having issues.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=983781

[MamiyaOtaru 1]

Blah Blah Single core is just as good for games as dual core just because most games only use one core blah blah therefore why bother with a Core 2 use an AthlonFX with one blah blah blah

FFS, I know this is an old post but I can't stand it anymore.

Yes, a single core AthlonFX will run a game at the same speed as a dual core AthlonFX with the same clockspeed assuming there are no other programs running.  Of course, there are.  Your OS processes, any virus scanners, whatever.  Other stuff is running.  With a dual core proc, all this stuff can run on a different core, leaving the second entirely to the game, and that is an actual tangible improvement over a single core with the same clock speed.

Of course, this ignores architecture differences.  For instance everyone knows Athlons ran games better than Pentium 4s even though the Pentiums had better clockspeeds.  Well, the situation is reversed now.  Clock for clock the Core 2s are the new champs (and it's not like their clockspeed is a lot lower to begin with) They simply kick Athlons' (ANY Athlon's) butt in gaming.  The FX is obsolete, please get it through your head.

[Dwarden 1124]

as addon to V4 of KB896256 i suggest get KB924441 for AMD cpus

http://www.microsoft.com/downloa....lang=en

[Countfloyd 0]

ok downloading thanks...

But hope that BIA would give us a patch for supporting Dual Cores Processors

[sailindawg 0]

People, if you have a dual processor, run Riva Tuner, run the Hardware Diagnostic in OSD running the snap-ins for cpu utilization. Both core's utilization will show up in the OSD while running the game. Riva Tuner relays cpu utilization directly from the Windows API.

What I have found is that ARMA does utilize both cores. When one core reaches ~90%, the other other core utilization goes up to ~30-40%. ARMA seems to use a dual core cpu as well as other games such as Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter.

My cpu is an AMD 4400+. I have installed the Miscrosoft Hotfix for dual cpu's, the 1.3.20 driver AMD driver Version and the AMD Dual Core Optimizer driver (version 1.0.0.0083). I am also running on a clean install of the operating system.

I would find it odd that ARMA would not use a dual core cpu. The game engine it utilizes is base upon an XBox 360 engine. An XBox 360 utilizes a triple core cpu with one core handling only physics calculations. I have found that ARMA does make use of both cores.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Blah Blah Single core is just as good for games as dual core just because most games only use one core blah blah therefore why bother with a Core 2 use an AthlonFX with one blah blah blah

FFS, I know this is an old post but I can't stand it anymore.

Yes, a single core AthlonFX will run a game at the same speed as a dual core AthlonFX with the same clockspeed assuming there are no other programs running.  Of course, there are.  Your OS processes, any virus scanners, whatever.  Other stuff is running.  With a dual core proc, all this stuff can run on a different core, leaving the second entirely to the game, and that is an actual tangible improvement over a single core with the same clock speed.

Of course, this ignores architecture differences.  For instance everyone knows Athlons ran games better than Pentium 4s even though the Pentiums had better clockspeeds.  Well, the situation is reversed now.  Clock for clock the Core 2s are the new champs (and it's not like their clockspeed is a lot lower to begin with)  They simply kick Athlons' (ANY Athlon's) butt in gaming.  The FX is obsolete, please get it through your head.

Forget about it, the guy is banned for his stubbornness

Quote[/b] ]game engine it utilizes is base upon an XBox 360 engine. An XBox 360 utilizes a triple core cpu with one core handling only physics calculations.

Oh it does? Thats new, got a real source? (not the whiny dumbasses at this forum)

[sailindawg 0]

Blah Blah Single core is just as good for games as dual core just because most games only use one core blah blah therefore why bother with a Core 2 use an AthlonFX with one blah blah blah

FFS, I know this is an old post but I can't stand it anymore.

Yes, a single core AthlonFX will run a game at the same speed as a dual core AthlonFX with the same clockspeed assuming there are no other programs running. Of course, there are. Your OS processes, any virus scanners, whatever. Other stuff is running. With a dual core proc, all this stuff can run on a different core, leaving the second entirely to the game, and that is an actual tangible improvement over a single core with the same clock speed.

Of course, this ignores architecture differences. For instance everyone knows Athlons ran games better than Pentium 4s even though the Pentiums had better clockspeeds. Well, the situation is reversed now. Clock for clock the Core 2s are the new champs (and it's not like their clockspeed is a lot lower to begin with) They simply kick Athlons' (ANY Athlon's) butt in gaming. The FX is obsolete, please get it through your head.

Forget about it, the guy is banned for his stubbornness

Quote[/b] ]game engine it utilizes is base upon an XBox 360 engine. An XBox 360 utilizes a triple core cpu with one core handling only physics calculations.

Oh it does? Thats new, got a real source? (not the whiny dumbasses at this forum)

OFP, before you get negative read THIS!

I do not appreciate negative comments regarding fellow posters in a Tech Support Forum.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Blah Blah Single core is just as good for games as dual core just because most games only use one core blah blah therefore why bother with a Core 2 use an AthlonFX with one blah blah blah

FFS, I know this is an old post but I can't stand it anymore.

Yes, a single core AthlonFX will run a game at the same speed as a dual core AthlonFX with the same clockspeed assuming there are no other programs running.  Of course, there are.  Your OS processes, any virus scanners, whatever.  Other stuff is running.  With a dual core proc, all this stuff can run on a different core, leaving the second entirely to the game, and that is an actual tangible improvement over a single core with the same clock speed.

Of course, this ignores architecture differences.  For instance everyone knows Athlons ran games better than Pentium 4s even though the Pentiums had better clockspeeds.  Well, the situation is reversed now.  Clock for clock the Core 2s are the new champs (and it's not like their clockspeed is a lot lower to begin with)  They simply kick Athlons' (ANY Athlon's) butt in gaming.  The FX is obsolete, please get it through your head.

Forget about it, the guy is banned for his stubbornness

Quote[/b] ]game engine it utilizes is base upon an XBox 360 engine.  An XBox 360 utilizes a triple core cpu with one core handling only physics calculations.

Oh it does? Thats new, got a real source? (not the whiny dumbasses at this forum)

OFP, before you get negative read THIS!

I do not appreciate negative comments regarding fellow posters in a Tech Support Forum.

That page doesnt say anything about ArmA being based on a xbox360 engine, ArmA engine is based on the OFP:E engine which is an xbox game.

And im sorry, but im tired of reading the same bullshit over and over again.

[sailindawg 0]

Quote[/b] ]That page doesnt say anything about ArmA being based on a xbox360 engine, ArmA engine is based on the OFP:E engine which is an xbox game.

OPF, you are a flamer and non-helpful poster to this thread. I apologise if English is your second language.

HOWEVER, the link I posted DESCRIBED the XBox 360 cpu that you so derisively stated to one of my posts:

Quote[/b] ]Quote

game engine it utilizes is base upon an XBox 360 engine. An XBox 360 utilizes a triple core cpu with one core handling only physics calculations.

Oh it does? Thats new, got a real source? (not the whiny dumbasses at this forum)

The XBox 360 DOES utilize a 3 core cpu. That WAS the point of my post, along with the fact that YOU are not HELPFUL. I have not posted one flame, accusation or opinion that is not based upon fact. I have been gentlemanly and honorable in all my posts. YOU sir, should be equally as well.

I'm done with this.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Quote[/b] ]That page doesnt say anything about ArmA being based on a xbox360 engine, ArmA engine is based on the OFP:E engine which is an xbox game.

OPF, you are a flamer and non-helpful poster to this thread.  I apologise if English is your second language.

HOWEVER, the link I posted DESCRIBED the XBox 360 cpu that you so derisively stated to one of my posts:

Quote[/b] ]Quote

game engine it utilizes is base upon an XBox 360 engine.  An XBox 360 utilizes a triple core cpu with one core handling only physics calculations.

Oh it does? Thats new, got a real source? (not the whiny dumbasses at this forum)

The XBox 360 DOES utilize a 3 core cpu.  That WAS the point of my post, along with the fact that YOU are not HELPFUL.  I have not posted one flame, accusation or opinion that is not based upon fact.  I have been gentlemanly and honorable in all my posts.  YOU sir, should be equally as well.

I'm done with this.

...

I fully, 100% agree that the xbox360 has more cores, and i enver said that this isnt true.

All i said was that ArmA has NOTHING, 0, ZERO, NADA, NIETS, NICHTS, etc to do with the xbox360, and i really dont understand what the whole xbox360 discussion has to do on an ArmA forum.

Yes the xbox360 uses multiple cores, and thats a good thing, i wish more PC games used multiple cores, but ArmA is NOT a xbox360 game, so why this whole discussion?

I think you misunderstood the point of my previous post, i quoted the following:

Quote[/b] ]game engine it utilizes is base upon an XBox 360 engine.  An XBox 360 utilizes a triple core cpu with one core handling only physics calculations.

What i wrote was directed at the following part:

Quote[/b] ]game engine it utilizes is base upon an XBox 360 engine.  An XBox 360 utilizes a triple core cpu with one core handling only physics calculations.

You however, talked about this:

Quote[/b] ]game engine it utilizes is base upon an XBox 360 engine.  An XBox 360 utilizes a triple core cpu with one core handling only physics calculations.

So

xbox360 ---> multiple cores = I agree! (that was your point)

ArmA-->xbox360engine-->ArmA uses multiple cores = I disagree, The link between ArmA and xbox360engine is false, the ArmA engine is based on an old xbox game. (That was my point)

Friends again?  

[Jezza_NL 0]

Weird how they didnt take dual-core processors into account. At least on the latest generation of laptops this is becoming a fairly common feature.

[Dwarden 1124]

since when is ArmA all of sudden multi core supporting ?

Operation FlashPoint : Elite was XBOX 1 (single core console) based game and ArmA "roots" from that one ...

but to explain Your 2nd core usage:

A) OS balancing moves other applications threads from 1st core to less utilized 2nd

B) Your videocard drivers supports multi core (both NVIDIA and ATI do it)

[sailindawg 0]

see next post. Formatting was off.

[sailindawg 0]

@OFP

Quote[/b] ]ArmA-->xbox360engine-->ArmA uses multiple cores = I disagree, The link between ArmA and xbox360engine is false, the ArmA engine is based on an old xbox game. (That was my point)

You are making a conclusion that was never stated in the original thread. I never tried to say that ARMA was dual threaded or multi threaded. I put out the observation, that when running the game, both of my cores were active.

Dwarden is more accurate here:

Quote[/b] ]A) OS balancing moves other applications threads from 1st core to less utilized 2nd

B) Your videocard drivers supports multi core (both NVIDIA and ATI do it)

I do understand that how the game runs is influenced by the Dual Core Optimizer driver, the AMD dual core driver and the dual core optimized, SLI optimized vid card drivers that I'm running.

At the point in which I posted, the previous posters were stating that their dual core processors were not utilizing both cores when running the game. My observations showed otherwise. Which was my point.

Regarding multi threaded games and single threaded games, will a single threaded game benefit from a multicore cpu?

A dual core can run it a bit more efficiently than a single core cpu, but you are not going to see a double boost in fps/performance because of the dual cores. A single threaded application will be loaded a bit more efficiently by the dual core cpu. The application may appear to run more smoothly as compared to running it on a single core cpu. However, the dual core will not give one an incredible boost in fps/performance by itself. How a game runs is dependent on how well/efficient the game engine can generate the 3D environment and calculate changes as gaming situations change.

Again OFP, I only ask that you stop making red herring arguments, mock other posters and generally disrespect others as they try to fathom the performance of this game.

What separates civilized peoples from non-civilized peoples is the ability to accept other points of view, regardless whether or not you are in agreement. Obviously, you really enjoy this game and take what other people are saying as an affront to what you enjoy. I'm not doing that. I'm just trying to figure out if this game is worth my hard earned cash, should it ever be available in the USA.

[NeMeSiS 11]

...

Well you said it yourself, the game doesnt use the 2nd core efficiently, the drivers/OS do which in the end helps the game, but the game itself doesnt use it

(But we already knew this since the release...)

Quote[/b] ]Again OFP, I only ask that you stop making red herring arguments, mock other posters and generally disrespect others as they try to fathom the performance of this game

Well, their is nothing wrong 'fathoming' the performance of the game, but when people just start talking the same bullshit ("discussions") over and over again (game is based on xbox360//game uses memory innefficient//game loading constantly from HD causing performance slowdowns (well, could be possible, if you are on an old, slow, full HD, but in that case its no suprise)//etc), then we will never find a solution to anything.

Really, i like discussing these things, but every time people come up with complete bullshit (sorry for that word), which doesnt lead anywhere except another useless discussion.

Anyway, my post got quite messy and it didnt really turn out how i wanted it to be, so lets just get back ontopic.

EDIT: Oh and believe me, i never call anyone dumbasses except when i absolutely feel the need (Im not sure if you totally understood my previous posts, but the only people who i called dumbasses are those who deserve it, a la this topicstarter who eventually got banned for it).

Ive no idea why you call me disrespecting either, i might have been a little agressive, but that's just my style sometimes (when i see completely random/uninformed 'facts' about ArmA having a 360 engine for example).

And well, i really thought for a second that you were trying to defend the above mentioned 'fact' by trowing in a link about the 360. (which would make no sence whatsoever)

Anyway, if you feel offended in any way by my behaviour/'name calling', i apologize, but please, never believe what is written here, i believe that you didnt make this up but read it on this forum (by your writing style/giving sources for other things), however, it is not true, it has been made up by those 'dumb asses'.

EDIT#35132598: If you have any more problems regarding me, lets PM, this doesnt really belong in this topic

EDIT#35132599: This just jumped into my mind: Thanks to those lie-spreading 'dumb asses' we are having this useless argument, does that make them dumbasses or what?

[sailindawg 0]

I accept your apology. However, I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that what's makes this game perform the way it does, is it's ported xbox engine. My choice is to accept as is and enjoy or choose another title.

I understand that developing a game is quite expensive. In articles written on the subject, I have seen figures as high as $10 million to develop, market and put to market a game such as GRAW. I wish BIS the best and will keep an eye out for their future releases.

[baddo 0]

Hi,

this single-threaded discussion is quite interesting, lots of heated emotions, scheduling of tasks, factual and infactual information. Just what we need on a cold Saturday evening of January.

What we have, based on what BIS developer has said and what we know otherwise:

1) Armed Assault is a single-threaded application.

2) A single-threaded application can only run on a single core of a processor at any one time. It cannot suddenly split in half to utilize more processor cores if it was not designed to do so.

3) Operating systems which support multi-core processors can and will distribute processes/threads between cores to balance load. This is where we get the biggest benefit (other than better processor architecture design) from using a multi-core processor with Armed Assault, even when we know 1) is true.

4) Armed Assault has nothing to do with other processes/threads being made to run on other cores by the operating system.

5) Multi-threaded programming is much much more complicated than single-threaded programming. If in doubt, take a look at a book about the subject. You can, for example, create a multi-threaded application which runs slower than the similar application as a single-threaded application on a multi-core processor by just not doing a good enough job.

6) From previous point it is a natural consequence that turning a single-threaded application into a multi-threaded application just doesn't happen automagically. Expecting Armed Assault turning into a multi-threaded application through patches is not a realistic expectation.

As paying customers we have, of course, the right to demand support for modern hardware like multi-core processors from Bohemia Interactive Studio products. I have absolutely no doubt that Bohemia Interactive Studio developers wouldn't be developing multi-threaded solutions for their game engine, that's the only way they can keep up with the development of hardware and customer expectations.

What comes to my mind as a first thing to put into another thread would be a resource manager. All resource file loading could be done on other core than where the main application is running on. But that is upto the people at Bohemia Interactive Studio if they will make such things happen in a patch for Armed Assault or in a next game title.

Thanks for reading,

Baddo.