WhiskeyBullets

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.

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

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

Update on the System Requirements Hmm looks interesting http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_System_Requirements

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

[ZG]BUZZARD Good question 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. Ever wonder why you show both cores at 50% when you run Armed Assault.

I think most coop guys should be thanking us CTF/CTI guys for keeping the game alive because it was us. I always get a kick out of a few here on the forums saying we should just play CS and go away. Wouldnt that be a sad day Since i have had Armed Assault i keep getting the feeling that it was rushed out to beat some other game that close to being release. Its just my view but i think alot of these forum members that go on about Armed Assault being perfect and better than OFP will be the same ones coming into the new game saying how great it is. Just my view Whiskey has left the building

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

Unplug the computer and monitor from the strip and plug them directly into the wall outlets and let me know if you have any issues that we can work on from there.

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.

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

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

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

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. Â

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.

Viperlein if you could do me a favor and tell me what your power supply wattage is and if you have your computer plug directly into the outlet and or into a outlet strip.

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

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.

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

You guys need to do a little research Microsoft's official word about multiple processors across all its products is that they are licensed by physical processor socket, not by the number of cores on each processor. For instance, if you buy a single-CPU license for SQL Server 2005, that license is valid no matter how many cores are in that one CPU. Likewise, Windows XP Home will only work with one socket at a time regardless of its cores or threading potential, and XP Professional will recognize up to two sockets. It does recognize both cores but it doesnt set the correct timings meaning it doesnt support dual cores on a single socket. Meaning the only way for it to use two sockets is by having two seperate chips sockets on your motherboard and to be using windows xp pro to do it

The overall problem with Dual Core Processors either AMD or Intell is the OS that they both run on. Windows XP doesnt support dual core processor thats why you either have to set the program affinity to one core or the other. Now once you do that your program will run like its on a single core processor and that means it will run at what your chip is spec at either 2.4,2.6.2.93 Ghz. If i was building a systems today knowing that for the next three years i would be using windows xp and that armed assault doesnt support dual core processors it would be the following spec. Processor: Fastest Single Core [ AMD FX Processor ] Video Card: Fastest PCIE Single [ Non SLI or Crossfire] Memory: 2 GB DDR or DDR2 Hard Driver: Anything with a 16MB Cache Power Supply: 600W I feel bad for all the people that ran out and bought these processors thinking that it will make a difference that are still using windows xp. Thats why Vista will be a must upgrade for dual core users because it "WAS" designed to use it. The Down side is there isnt much driver support yet for Vista and it might take a while for it to happen. That way after 3 years Vista will be worth upgrading to dual core but just not right now.

Placebo is correct that it is a DirectX file you can use the following program to uninstall it. DirectX 9 Uninstaller http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=522 Then reinstall for the link Placebo supplied

i have armed assault on another computer that has almost the same spec as yours and i get 30 to 35 FPS. Ill let you know my setting to see if this helps you.

This would be a good point if you were to assume that everyone with a computer has all there drivers up to date and there computer meet all the specs required by the manufacturers. But 95% of all computer owners are what we call average in the knowlegde on how to upkeep there systems with the majority not knowing what a driver is and why they need to update it. These reasons game manufacturers deal with issues like " My game doesnt work" from people that purchase the game. Heres a perfect exsample and i use van Nistelrooy to show why most game issues are user created. If you look at his specs you will see that he has everything to run the game with no problems. Now the one thing he has left off is the power supply which is only 385 Watts. Ive told him the issues with his system are the power supply and that he needs to upgrade to 600 Watt one. But as you see he still thinks its the game thats causes the issue. Im not picking on him but this goes to the point on the 95% rule. The reason im trying to help people is that i am assuming that they dont know instead of assuming they do.

Per Nvidia 93.71 Release Notes you can try the following to see if this fixes SLI gaming issues. When dealing with the Registry always create a restore point incase you have to roll back your computer. V e r s i o n 9 3 . 7 1 There may be intermittent application compatibility issues with dual core CPUs. If you experience this issue, first make sure you have downloaded and installed the dual core patches from your CPU manufacturer and from Microsoft. The Microsoft knowledge base article is available at:http:// support.microsoft.com/?id=896256. If you still experience problems you can attempt to work around these by toggling off NVIDIA’s multithread optimizations using the following instructions: 1 Launch regedit and determine the current primary display card by looking in HKey_Local_Machine\Hardware\DeviceMap\Video and note the GUID (global unique identifier assigned by Windows), which is the long string in brackets { } at the end of the entry ʺ\device\video0ʺ. 2 Look in HKey_Local_Machine\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Video\{GUID}\0000 where {GUID} is the number derived from the previous step. 3 Open the ʺ0000ʺ directory and create a new DWORD called OGL_ThreadControl and give it a value of 2. This will disable multithreading in the driver for all OpenGL applications. 4 If you want to disable driver multithreading for all Direct3D applications– In the same ʺ0000ʺ directory, create a new DWORD called WTD_EXECMODEL and give it a value of 0. Let me know if you have any issues