Micro AI on 2nd CPU ?

[smiley_ie 7]

I have a quad core 2.4 and bought a Zalman CNPS9500 for 40.00 euro and it clocks to 3.2 runs fine its a good cheap way for an upgrade.   2.4 quad is now only 150.00 euro

[Hawk666 0]

Currently I can provide only an estimation, for final words you still have to wait for later:

Our intention is to scale at least to some extent to quad cores (this means with quad cores you should have either better performance in some scenes than in dual cores). Therefore the game should run better on Quad Core compared to Dual Core assuming they both run at the same frequency.

...

@Suma:

Is it planned to provide the possibility to benefit from multi-core in scripts too or is this automatically handled by the engine (I mean the Spawn command for example)

I'm thinking of running a complex algorithm in background etc.

[Barely-injured 0]

Ah good i just got my Q6600 quad core system especially for Arma II of course it is a 2.4 so it could use some overclocking in the future.

Thanks Suma  

[sparks50 0]

Thanks Suma, sounds hard

[gL33k 0]

right... so a 3.3 quad core it is then  

definitly !

[Bushmonkey 0]

right... so a 3.3 quad core it is then  

definitly !

I wish i had the money to get out of my Pentium D 2.8Ghz!!!

[mark82101 0]

I've buyed a new pc (ArmA run very very well with all very high and 8000m of visibility):

Intel Core2 Duo E8500 @3,16 Ghz

Asus P5Qc (chipset p45)

4gb RAM Corsair PC6400 (2x2gb) XMS2 DHX Cas4

Powercolor ATI Radeon HD 4870 512mb GDDR5

Am I ready for ArmA 2?    

[froggyluv 2136]

I've buyed a new pc (ArmA run very very well with all very high and 8000m of visibility):

Intel Core2 Duo E8500 @3,16 Ghz

Asus P5Qc (chipset p45)

4gb RAM Corsair PC6400 (2x2gb) XMS2 DHX Cas4

Powercolor ATI Radeon HD 4870 512mb GDDR5

Am I ready for ArmA 2?    

Good to hear- just ordered pretty much same system yesterday like an hour before reading Suma's response  Doh!- Q6600 was within my grasp...

I'll be more than happy with those settings you got but if Arma2 gets a major boost from quad I may double up as they'll be nice and cheap by then

[mark82101 0]

I've buyed a new pc (ArmA run very very well with all very high and 8000m of visibility):

Intel Core2 Duo E8500 @3,16 Ghz

Asus P5Qc (chipset p45)

4gb RAM Corsair PC6400 (2x2gb) XMS2 DHX Cas4

Powercolor ATI Radeon HD 4870 512mb GDDR5

Am I ready for ArmA 2?    

Good to hear- just ordered pretty much same system yesterday like an hour before reading Suma's response  Doh!- Q6600 was within my grasp...

I'll be more than happy with those settings you got but if Arma2 gets a major boost from quad I may double up as they'll be nice and cheap by then

Good to ear for me too that another one have my similiar configuration So, if Quad core will be better than Dual in ArmA2, we can put quad core cpu in future

Asus P5Qc can use they!

But with this conf. for me we are ok

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Currently I can provide only an estimation, for final words you still have to wait for later:

Our intention is to scale at least to some extent to quad cores (this means with quad cores you should have either better performance in some scenes than in dual cores). Therefore the game should run better on Quad Core compared to Dual Core assuming they both run at the same frequency.

That said, you can get higher frequency Dual Core for the same money as you could get Quad Core. My prediction is 3.3 GHz Dual Core will most likely run the game better than 2.5 GHz Quad Core, while both will cost you approximately the same.

One thing to note: different  scenarios / workloads may show different performance patterns - e.g. it is possible missions with huge numbers of units will runner better on 2.5 GHz Quad Core than 3.3 GHz Dual Core.

Disclaimer: this is only a prediction and things can still change before the game is released.

I wonder if this is effected in any way by O/S, I read somewhere that Vista64 (wich i use) will detect the number of cores and then, if greater than 1, will devote one core to memory instructions. I don't actualy know much about it, so I'm curious to know if it would be better to have a quad if running Vista64. Personaly, I'm hoping to upgrade anyway (currently running an E6700) but the more reasons, the easier it is to rationalise.

[nubbin77 0]

Suma, thanks for the quick and informative response. I understand any and all disclaimers until a final released product. This is certainly in line with what I was expecting.

[Dark SudoNix 1]

yea but I think all this is bullsh*t... First of all, not all of us are made of money. Not all of us can just go out and purchase a new computer just for this game. That would be about rediculous if you did reguardless. Isnt quad core a newer thing. I mean, i know it has been around for a while, but it has just recently hit the market. So, why in the hell would you make it where the game is directed more towards a quad core system when the average person only has a single or dual...? that just seems like a horrible marketing idea... "Hey, ARMA2. The greatest military simulation of all time. but, If you dont have an expensive ass quad core system, then tough sh*t"... I the consumer shouldnt have to go invest hundreds of dollars to play one video game. I'm sure Im not the only one that thinks that... Yea, Arma & OFP are really great games / sims but, Im not about to invest no more than 39.99 - 49.99 (which is what the game itself will cost) to play it.

[Dark SudoNix 1]

on another note. I take this game to heart. Because military is my profession.

[mr_centipede 31]

I think Suma didnt said that it wont run on dual core, he just said it would be better if you had a quad core. The real question was, ARMA 2 is optimized for dual core, so ppl ask whethere you would get a better performance if you had a quad core, or just the same with dual core regardless how many core you had...

So thats how I understand it

Thank you

[Dark SudoNix 1]

to me it seemed like they were saying it is being made towards quad

[gL33k 0]

Currently I can provide only an estimation, for final words you still have to wait for later:

Our intention is to scale at least to some extent to quad cores (this means with quad cores you should have either better performance in some scenes than in dual cores). Therefore the game should run better on Quad Core compared to Dual Core assuming they both run at the same frequency.

That said, you can get higher frequency Dual Core for the same money as you could get Quad Core. My prediction is 3.3 GHz Dual Core will most likely run the game better than 2.5 GHz Quad Core, while both will cost you approximately the same.

One thing to note: different  scenarios / workloads may show different performance patterns - e.g. it is possible missions with huge numbers of units will runner better on 2.5 GHz Quad Core than 3.3 GHz Dual Core.

Disclaimer: this is only a prediction and things can still change before the game is released.

I wonder if this is effected in any way by O/S, I read somewhere that Vista64 (wich i use) will detect the number of cores and then, if greater than 1, will devote one core to memory instructions. I don't actualy know much about it, so I'm curious to know if it would be better to have a quad if running Vista64. Personaly, I'm hoping to upgrade anyway (currently running an E6700) but the more reasons, the easier it is to rationalise.

it's not impossible. As forbid to arma.exe one of my two core , make FPS go from 43 to 31fps. 33% slower.

[Killbert 0]

to me it seemed like they were saying it is being made towards quad

Quad core processors are at the moment under utilized by most programs. All Suma said was that they are able to use those extra cores somewhat. This is nothing but positive, it won't take anything away from people using 2 cores. 2 core system is infact the best value to run ArmA2.

[Dark SudoNix 1]

well, im just saying that, unless I have a quad then I wont get the full potential of the game.. which I understand that they want to make it as good as they can. but, that means that i wont get the FULL effect unless I have quad

[LFO 0]

that is *not exactly* what suma said. just reread his statement:

he said that a quadcore may be better supposed it runs with the same speed than a dualcore. but if the dualcore is clocked higher than the dualcore is the better option:

Quote[/b] ]My prediction is 3.3 GHz Dual Core will most likely run the game better than 2.5 GHz Quad Core, while both will cost you approximately the same.

so just oc your dualcore and you'll be probably fine.

[waylay00 0]

I am to buy new PC soon:

Intel E8500 Core 2 Duo

ASUS P5Q Pro

4GB Corsair DDR2

eVGA nVidia GTX 260

But if Arma2 will take advantage of quad core, then I might have to reconsider CPU choice. Can't wait to play Arma2 and Empire: Total War.

[jakerod 254]

well, im just saying that, unless I have a quad then I wont get the full potential of the game.. which I understand that they want to make it as good as they can. but, that means that i wont get the FULL effect unless I have quad

Thats similar to saying that you won't get full use of a road because the road can support cars going 250 mph but you don't own a Ferrari FXX.

Also can be worded as: Unless I have a Ferrari FXX then I wont get the full potential of the road.. which i understand that they want to make it as good as they can. but, that means that i wont get the FULL effect unless I have a Ferrari FXX.

Note: I actually know nothing about cars but according to the wiki article I just read while writing this post the Ferrari FXX can go 250mph.

[ArMoGaDoN 0]

Anyone planning to make an addon for the Ferrari FFX then?

[PuFu 4600]

I got the following rig, and i am not that worried about my arma 2 performance, although i might upgrade it AFTER release:

E6600 (running stock @2.4, OCed to 3Ghz) - my reliable 1.5 years old cpu.

4GB DDR2

4870 512 GDDR5

If you want to upgrade specifically for arma2 (and maybe OFP2) i would say hold your horses. The Q9450 was 200e more expensive 2 months ago, same goes for the e8500/8600..I prefer to see what i can run before running to the first PC store and getting me a new rig (the celeron, and pentium D to be excluded here)

I am looking forward to actually seeing a quad CPU utilized though...

[Dark SudoNix 1]

You used a f*ckin road as an example?!? Are you serious? That makes no sense. Not at all. If you have a 32 bit processor. or even a dual core (intel, which isnt actually a 64bit at all) it still wont compare to the performance of a 64bit. At all. I mean, that is pretty obvious. Not, A road made for fast cars??? cause any car can drive on a road. Unfortunately, correct me if Im wrong, but computers arent like cars. I may be wrong though. Cause im pretty sure a windows 95 era (maybe pushing 32 bit.) "car" cannot drive on the same "road" as a windows vista era (over clocking 64bit) "car". I might be wrong...

[NeMeSiS 11]

You used a f*ckin road as an example?!? Are you serious? That makes no sense. Not at all. If you have a 32 bit processor. or even a dual core (intel, which isnt actually a 64bit at all) it still wont compare to the performance of a 64bit. At all. I mean, that is pretty obvious. Not, A road made for fast cars??? cause any car can drive on a road. Unfortunately, correct me if Im wrong, but computers arent like cars. I may be wrong though. Cause im pretty sure a windows 95 era (maybe pushing 32 bit.) "car" cannot drive on the same "road" as a windows vista era (over clocking 64bit) "car". I might be wrong...  

His point is still good, you really, really dont need the best quad core out there to get the full potential out of the game, a fast dual core will perform more then good enough.