Dual Core User try the following

[WhiskeyBullets]

Since armed assault does not use both cores you should try this to make it run  on a single core.

If running a Dual Core processor, load up Armed Assault, press alt-tab to go to your desktop. Open up task Manger by pressing CTRL+ALT+DEL Once! Then right click on arma.exe and set its Affinity to 1, Basically this tells it to use only processor 1, not 0 and 1.

Let me know if you notice any improvements. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Update: Try Using Core 1 being that the OS and everything else runs on core 0

[twoodster]

Nope, made it slower for me http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif Core 2 Duo 6600

[|rsi|super64]

Ya i already tried this in the past. I too noticed a drop in performance. Went back to 2 cores and performace returned. I'll stay with 2. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[WhiskeyBullets]

Well you always need a base line to fix a problem and will start with that. This is for Intel and AMD processors.

The next step to try is the following Hotfix from Microsoft for
Gaming Issues with Dual Core processors

SYMPTOMS
When you try to run a game on a Microsoft Windows XP-based computer that is using a dual-core processor, game performance may be poor. For example, you may experience any one of the following symptoms:
• The game stops responding during game play.
• The game stops responding during the rendering process.
• Game performance is slow.

CAUSE
These performance issues may sometimes occur if the game was not designed for use on computers that use dual-core processors. The performance issues occur because the game cannot correctly capture timing information.

Heres the Link to the Hotfix
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/909944/

[JRMZ]

will try that one thanx m8

[van Nistelrooy]

Absolutely no difference for me.

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif

[MachoMan]

I highly doubt this will fix anything for arma, using the method of timing isn't used in modern games. (Remember the old games that ran faster on a new pc.)

Setting the affinity is also unlikely to work, since windows will send the game process to the least busy core.

[WhiskeyBullets]

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. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif

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.

[van Nistelrooy]

Well, I don't say that I'm telling the truth. I just wanna be sure that my power supply is the reason of why the game doesn't run like I wish to.

I precise that my game runs perfectly except near foliage.
I can see a lot of people who have very good computers that are in the same case of me.

I'll order a 650W power supply on monday, and then we will se if you were right (and I really hope so).

I spend 500€ in a new graphic card, 42€ for the german version of ArmA, and soon 130€ for a new power supply. I add that I'll buy ArmA again when it will be released in my coutry (about 50€ I think).

So look at this: finally, I'll spend more than 700€ to play ONE game. That's why I'm a bit frustrated and why I wanna be sure of the result.

[dmitri]

I doubt your PSU will affect performance.

If components in your system aren't getting power, its more likely that system instability or reboots might occur..but not slow downs near a specific game object. I have a 500 watt PSU, overkill for my components - I also suffer slow down near foliage.

Shading detail set to low will solve your problems.

[LT.INSTG8R]

I doubt your PSU will affect performance.

If components in your system aren't getting power, its more likely that system instability or reboots might occur..but not slow downs near a specific game object. I have a 500 watt PSU, overkill for my components - I also suffer slow down near foliage.

Shading detail set to low will solve your problems.
While I agree loweing shaders should help his "foilage performance" your PSU can very well effect performance as some GFX cards when not getting enough power will kick into a lower clock mode.

[MachoMan]

Well, psu's have nothing to do with your suggested fix.

Anyway, on the topic of psu's, I suggest you take a look here: http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculator.jsp
If you fill it in you'll see 600W is over the top. 385W may be a bit short tho. I suggest you buy a good 500W supply from an A brand manufacturer.

Reading this (http://www.silentpcreview.com/article28-page1.html) may also help.

[[bbs]]

On my Dual Core I use a utility called SMP Seesaw to quickly isolate arma.exe on a single proc, putting all other processes on the other proc. This has been pretty effective for me giving ArmA almost full reign of its own proc.

SMP Seesaw (http://www.mlin.net/SMPSeesaw.shtml)

[WhiskeyBullets]

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.

[whisper]

Latest Dual Core Intel aren't just great because they are dual-core http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif They are great for themselves, great speed, overclockable without too much issue, no thermal problem, well, very good CPUs.
Don't feel sad for us http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[BangTail]

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.
ROFLMAO, talk about misinformation!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=15

Please note the Rise of Legends scores (these are CPU intensive). The high end Core 2 Duos are close to 100% faster than the single core AMD processors. I dont know about you, but I think 100% is a pretty big difference  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif

E

PS : I appreciate your sympathies http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
PPS : Clock speed is irrelevant, JFYI.

Ex : C2D 6300 @<hidden> 1.86 ghz = AMD X2 5000 @<hidden> 2.6 ghz

[dmitri]

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.
What is this?

Do you think dual cores = processor speed x 2? 2ghz becomes 4 ghz? You obviously need to do some reading..

Windows XP DOES support dual cores. Go to your device manager, look under computer. If you have dual cores you&#39;ll see "multiprocessor PC". Sure, XP isn&#39;t expressly written to take advantage of the second core, but it certainly is compatible and will facilitate using apps that do support the second core. Heck, it had no problem with an old Intel Xeon 2 cpu machine I used years ago. Why would it have issues now? I suppose you&#39;re one of those people who looks under the performance tab in task manager and sees "50%" cpu usage and assumes the machine is running at "half-strength". I really hope this isn&#39;t the case.....

In the end, the only thing that would aid in Armed Assault&#39;s performance is if IT supported dual cores, NOT the OS.

Alongside my single core machines, I certainly notice no decrease in performance working on dual core. Performance is either increased or the same depending on software. Try working with CG applications, Maya, 3dsmax.. I could never go back to single core machines. My render times have gone from 3 minutes a frame to 1:30 minutes - for little additional financial investment.

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/goodnight.gif

[WhiskeyBullets]

You guys need to do a little research http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Microsoft&#39;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. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif

[whisper]

I wonder how, then, I can set processor affinity for processes on my Core 2 Duo under XP Pro http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif I must have a very special version of Windows.
Or not.

BTW the point still remains, that 1 core of Core 2 Duo still >> AMD single core, or other Intel single Core. For a very little price difference.
Like I said, don&#39;t be sad for us http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Goldenwings2002]

The fastest single core AMD processor is an AMD FX-57. I should know because I was contemplating on buying this chip but chose not to because I thought I was being lied to and went with a C2D e6700. Guess I should have listened to the advice of a person whom worked for microsoft for many years after all. He knew what he was talking about...

This guy can get twice the FPS of any person out there with a dual core processor in Microsoft Flight Simulator X & 2004.

[BangTail]

The fastest single core AMD processor is an AMD FX-57. I should know because I was contemplating on buying this chip but chose not to because I thought I was being lied to and went with a C2D e6700. Guess I should have listened to the advice of a person whom worked for microsoft for many years after all. He knew what he was talking about...

This guy can get twice the FPS of any person out there with a dual core processor in Microsoft Flight Simulator X & 2004.
Errrr FSX is an unoptimized piece of trash. No offense&#33; I dont know how true your claims are but I&#39;ll keep my C2D http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif Why? Because it smokes any CPU in gaming performance. It is up to 100% faster than anything else on offer in some games.

E

[BangTail]

You guys need to do a little research http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Microsoft&#39;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. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif
No, you do&#33; What he is saying is entirely correct. While the OS may not directly, it supports applications/games that are. Secondly, Vista, which is only a month away, is a multi processor OS. Thirdly, if you look at the benchmarks in my above post you will see that C2D is faster than any single core CPU, and in most cases by a significant margin.

E

[WhiskeyBullets]

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Eda Mrcoch]

OS doesn&#39;t matter in this case.

The ball is on application&#39;s side of court. If it is multithreaded, it can harness more cores, but if it is not, the OS scheduler can&#39;t do, like you said, anything than switch cores inefficently (no matter if you got WinXP Home, WinXP Pro, W2K, Linux, anything...). No hyped VISTA can save you if the app cannot distribute its load to more threads. So it is only ArmA&#39;s matter, not WinXP&#39;s. There are tons of multithreaded programs that can use dualcore nowadays.

[BangTail]

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
ROFL, two words - Alan Wake&#33; And there are plenty of others, further to that, they are not "3 to 4 years away".

E

[WhiskeyBullets]

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? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif 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]

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? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif 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 VISTA™ will magically make singlethreaded application like Arma use multi cores, then... Go and buy &#39;em as fast as you can after release. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

[WhiskeyBullets]

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? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Eda Mrcoch]

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&#39; all i have been trying to say.

[dmitri]

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&#39;re saying is - if I run a multi-processor supporting application in XP, I&#39;d have to manually set the affinity to use both cores?

[WhiskeyBullets]

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]

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
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&#39;s a very fine CPU, period.
I&#39;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]

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
BTW doing this didn&#39;t change anything on my ArmA performance http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif As expected, tbh.

[WhiskeyBullets]

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.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[dotted]

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. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
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) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif

[NeMeSiS]

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.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
...

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 (http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/page12.html#games)

[LT.INSTG8R]

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.

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7297/corearmavq5.th.jpg (http://img502.imageshack.us/my.php?image=corearmavq5.jpg)

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif

[WhiskeyBullets]

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif

[BangTail]

Nothing personal just trying to help those better understand how there processor works http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif
Except that you&#39;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 @<hidden> 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 Ł100.00 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&#33;

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

[WhiskeyBullets]

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif

Or Prove it with Facts that im wrong not sit here and type it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif

[BangTail]

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif

Or Prove it with Facts that im wrong not sit here and type it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif
Ermmm, it&#39;s you who needs to prove it. Given to the fact that the C2D outperforms AMD in EVERY game benchmark, I don&#39;t see why ArMA is the exception. You keep saying it is, but you haven&#39;t shown any evidence to that effect.

Secondly, even if you are correct, and the evidence I have seen would indicate that you&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s faster/better. Right now, that is indisputedly Intel, in 6 months, who knows http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

E

[dmitri]

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif
You&#39;re not helping anyone.. beyond coming off as haughty http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

In practical terms, I see no difference in ArmA&#39;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.html?modelx=33&model1=472&model2=471&chart=168)
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm....art=170 (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=472&model2=471&chart=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]

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&#39;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]

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&#39;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&#39;t hold water.

E

[DM]

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. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Err... what?

FX-57, Ł519.91 (http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/92846)

Conroe E6600, same shop, Ł199.53 (http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/112706)

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

(Note: Sure, if you get the X6800 you&#39;ll be looking to pay around Ł600, but when the "standard" Conroes perform so well AND OC easily, why "waste" the money?)

[BangTail]

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.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Err... what?

FX-57, Ł519.91 (http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/92846)

Conroe E6600, same shop, Ł199.53 (http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/112706)

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

(Note: Sure, if you get the X6800 you&#39;ll be looking to pay around Ł600, but when the "standard" Conroes perform so well AND OC easily, why "waste" the money?)
Further to that, 6300 = Ł94.99 and can be easily overclocked to X6800 speeds with no extra cooling and very minor volt mods.

E

[dmitri]

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&#39;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&#33; This hotfix is the solution&#33; "

Guess it truly was a fatal flaw..something the entire gaming community is concerned about..oh..no..must..return..dual..core.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Now, onto your F.E.A.R. post.. This game alledgedly supports dual cores, but its clear from benchmarks that it doesn&#39;t.
Had you looked harder, you would&#39;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&#39;t acknowledge that? I see your theory disappearing beneath the waves. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[stingfish74]

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 Athlon™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]

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&#39;ve seen are engine related, slowdown around foliage etc. This problem has been reported by users with single and multi cores.

You shouldn&#39;t experience any problems, in fact, you should see a significant boost in those games that support&#92;have been patched to support multiple processors.

Try the app at the top of this page: http://www.amd.com/us-en....00.html (http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_9706,00.html)

[WhiskeyBullets]

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. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif 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.

[omgchead]

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.
Actually, Windows XP does have dual-core support, and using a dual-core CPU will give you, in come cases, significant performance gains over single-core CPUs regardless of if the OS and applications are multi-threaded. Windows XP (post-hotfix) will split tasks at least semi-intelligently between the two cores. You seem to be implying that one core will just sit there doing nothing, which is definitely not the case. Unless you have some serious driver issues, it&#39;s rarely necessary to manually set the affinity of any running thread to a specific core. This means that you can have ArmA running in it&#39;s own core, while other system processes (and whatever other applications are currently running) using the second core.

I can&#39;t think of any case in which having an entire core to itself would not improve the performance of an application. There is honestly no real reason other than cost savings to go with a single-core CPU at this point.

And, as they say, the proof is in the pudding:
http://images.gubbish.org/cpu.png

[DM]

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...

...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.
So what you&#39;re saying is:

Don&#39;t buy dual core processors as ArmA and Windows arent optimised for it

right?

Even when it has been PROOVEN that using a dual core will increase "performance" by sharing the workload across the cores? Who gives a flying fuck if the software isnt optimised for it? If it boosts framerates, then I&#39;m all for it.

As for the whole expense argument, I have prooven that Conroes wipe the floor with the AMD counterparts (price and performance)

So really Whiskey, you&#39;re fighting for a lost cause...

[dmitri]

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.
You..got some issues.

For the last time:

A dual core system will run a single core app (ArmA) at the SAME speed as a single core (refer to benchmarks I posted on previous page with other single core games), so WHY buy dead tech single core when future proof dual core is available and performs the same (or better if smp is supported)?

Simply put - dual core is the future. Stop giving poor&#92;incorrect advice.

[Tobruk]

I would add to this, who says that ARMA won&#39;t be optimize for dual cores sometime in the future?

[BangTail]

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.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif  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.
The era of single core CPUs is over. Accept it and move on&#33; You aren&#39;t doing anyone any favours with your ill informed posts. You clearly don&#39;t have a clue what you are talking about and you refuse to accept the facts that have been presented to you by myself and others.

E

[Marines]

Interesting article.


Quote[/b] ]Dual Core And The Future of Gaming

Bruce Gain

July 8, 2005 12:00

Intel and AMD&#39;s introductions of dual-core processors may have ushered in a new age of computing, but so far, these new architectures have done little to radically change the PC gaming experience. As our tests showed in the Pentium D 840 dual core processor works only as fast as the single-core Pentium Extreme Edition counterpart with an equal clock speed. A Pentium Extreme Edition with a faster clock speed thus runs faster than the dual core Pentium D.

Of course, we won&#39;t discount how Windows XP is already equipped to take advantage of AMD and Intel&#39;s dual-core designs by accommodating a significant number of program threads. This means that, in addition to those many nagging programs that start up every time you boot up your PC, you can run many more processor-intensive programs without worrying about your PC slowing down as much, compared to single-core CPU platforms. You can thus frag away at those hideously scary adversaries in Doom III, while in the background you download a video file, run Outlook Express and keep dozens of Web browser and word processor documents open with less risk of your PC glitching up.

Still, dual core processing, like 64 bit computing, is mostly in wait of applications as well as games to harness its power. However, according to AMD and Intel, graphics vendors and game developers, it is just a matter of months before 3D game graphics see a new age in gaming power and intelligence.

"Developers who take the time and effort to multi-thread their games should allow you to one day really get twice as much CPU power," Richard Huddy, manager, ISV Relations, for ATi in Europe, Middle East and Africa. "The [benefits] will vary from a handful of a percent of a performance improvement, to dramatically different physics and AI."

Dual-core processing should, in the short-term, theoretically help remedy many of the more aggravating facets of 3D gaming, as game developers begin to take advantage of the multi-threading capabilities afforded by the CPU architecture.

Some of the benefits will be noticeable, such as improvements in game physics - which in many cases could stand a lot of improvement. Waterfalls and lakes should eventually begin to approach how they sparkle in reality. Instead of just a generic artist&#39;s rendition of the same black hole that is left by every blast with few, if any, other effects, you may see the effects everywhere - crumbling walls and shattered glass in adjacent structures, or body parts of the game&#39;s characters scattered around the scene. You might pelt a door with bullets, and see detailed splinters of wood go flying.

These improvements to game physics, of course, require significant boosts from the CPU, in tandem with the capabilities of high-end graphics cards. Multi-core processors can supposedly help pick up the load from the graphics chips.

"What we are seeing with multi-cores is the ability to thread by data instead of by task," Dave Everitt, European products and platforms manager for AMD. "You divide the data up into separate threads, and run the same code on the data. That really does bring benefits."

When you shoot someone or something, the boost in CPU strength with multi-core threads could help end what Nick Triantos, chief software architect for Nvidia, calls the "rag doll" effect.

"You shoot a guy, and he literally looks like a rag doll when he falls down," Triantos said. "There is a lot to be added to improve that physics model."

So what should we expect? Specifically, Unreal 2007 should see some of these benefits upon its release by next year, its developers say.

"Unreal 2007 should offer a thousands times more detail: more polygons and particles, more shaders and more of everything. The door made of 400 polygons before will be made of 40,000 polygons," said Mark Rein, vice president for Epic Games, the developer of the Unreal graphics engine and game series. "With Unreal 2004, we might have had a character with 3,500 polygons. Now, with the next generation of the Unreal engine, that character might have 7,500 polygons. All of this has to do with the latest technology of the graphics cards, but obviously you need to have a lot of CPU horsepower as well."

So you want to see calm, glimmering water just before you generate mayhem by decimating a bridge over a lake? "There is no reason not to have more water physics now that we have more CPU capabilities," Rein said.

However, look for more subtleties as well. "The story of multi-core is that you can&#39;t pinpoint just one thing that improves," Epic Games&#39; Rein said. "We need much more CPU horsepower that we can apply to make a lot of subtle improvements to games."

In the area of artificial intelligence (AI), characters may get smarter. A guard in Hitman, for example, often only has a perplexed gaze on his face before he automatically tries to kill you. Characters from other games run around aimlessly without taking much stock in your presence, or they react very little among themselves. Employing dual core threads may make characters a lot smarter.

"Better AI will mean you have more opponents cooperating with another, finding better paths moving across the landscape to you, and defending territories more successfully against attacks from other players," said Richard Huddy, manager, ISV relations for ATi in Europe, Middle East and Africa.

Dual core architectures can also mean more of everything with which to interact in a game. "Instead of having 10 vehicles in the game, perhaps we will have 40 or 50. We will have the ability to have swarms and hordes with a lot of [autonomous] crowd behavior," Epic Games&#39; Rein said. "These are things that we will see happening from an AI perspective."

Renewed attempts by vendors to offer dual graphics cards, in addition to Intel and AMD&#39;s dual-core processor launches, have fueled speculation about whether graphics processor makers may follow suit and harness dual-core capabilities in their processor designs. However, dual core processing is nothing new, graphic processor vendors say. Through the long-established use of parallelism in their designs, graphics chipmakers say their devices have in fact employed multi-core capabilities for years.

"We have been producing multi-core processors for five or six years now, ever since we&#39;ve had multiple vertex pipes or multiple pixel pipes," ATi&#39;s Huddy says . "If you were able to X-ray it, you could pick out the four quad pipes on one of our processors and see them as physically distinct."

According to NVIDIA&#39;s Triantos, graphics processors have historically offered a significantly greater level of parallelism than anything the CPU vendors have yet to plan. "For example, a GeForce 6800 has 16 parallel pipelines, while x86 processors might grow to as many as four cores over the next few years," he said. " We do this because graphics is inherently a parallel-processing-friendly workload, so we get great benefit from having multiple cores."

The great benefits we will see and experience in gaming that multi-core processors offer are not here yet, of course; they remain in the realm of speculation. At the same time, programmers face a new set of tasks and challenges to harness the full potential of multi-core processing - which is far from being a slam dunk.

"Right now it is very complex, which is why programmers must be very careful in deciding which threads are reasonable to run on multi-core processors, and which aren&#39;t," Epic Games&#39; Rein said.

Moving from a monolithic to a dual- or multi-core CPU platform involves addressing a whole new level of complexities, such as conflicting threads or loops that could potentially bring a game to a halt. "It means looking at your engine and considering the things that can go off on their own and then come back and synchronize with their partners, as opposed to thinking: I&#39;ve got the big game loop and it will do all of the work," commented Kim Pallister, an engineering manager for Intel. "Because multi-threads can run in different orders - such as thread A finishing before thread B - you have to write really robust code to make sure it doesn&#39;t crash. This manifests itself as really good engineering practices within your company."

According to Pallister, "the day of the hacker is over. It means no longer saying &#39;hey, I&#39;ve put together a nifty demo, let&#39;s put a box around it and ship it,&#39; " he said.

Even if programmers are able to harness the full power of dual core designs, 100% improvements in performance are not likely, especially in the near term.

"If Intel goes to two cores, they won&#39;t get a 2x improvement, although they might get 30%. And when they go to four cores, they may only see an additional 5% to 10% improvement," NVIDIA&#39;s Triantos said. "We will continue to make faster and faster graphics cards that offer 2x improvements in performance, but you won&#39;t see a 2x improvement in overall game performance in many cases. But by having the multi-core CPUs, we can finally get the machines more balanced to keep up with the graphics."

When Intel introduced HyperThreading a few years ago, the opportunity for game developers to take advantage of the capability of multi-threads in a single-core processor was limited to Intel platforms. With both Intel and AMD coming on board with dual-core devices, programmers are looking at a future where almost all PC systems will have eventually adopted a dual-core platform.

The advent of the new Xbox and PlayStation 3 with multi-core processors will create that much bigger a multi-core market for game developers.

"With this generation of games, a lot of games will be cross-platformed for PC and consoles. So the economics of game development has led to it being more common for guys to ship more products as possible," Intel&#39;s Pallister said. "With the next generation of game consoles coming out, which are multi-processor boxes, game developers must create applications that in order to be competitive and look their best, will need to be multi-threaded on all the platforms they are targeting. Suddenly the incentive gets that much bigger."

PC gamers are well acquainted with the disappointment of almost cut-and-paste versions of PlayStation or Xbox games that are poorly adapted for the PC platform, such as the recent release of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for PC. There is thus a chance that games written for multi-core console platforms will lend themselves better to the PC experience.

"The big difference now going over to the next generation is that we are seeing multi-core processors on the PlayStation 3 and the Xbox 360, with a lot more CPU and graphics power. Both systems are significantly more powerful than the big-money PCs you can build today," Epic Games&#39; Rein says. "So what is exciting is when people go to create games for those environments, to take advantage of what those systems can do. Now, for example, instead of having single hardware threads for the Xbox, they are going to have two or maybe four hardware threads."

As you read this article, a team of game developers somewhere in China, the U.S. or Europe is probably slaving away in a PC game development lab. These developers hope to one day harness the true eye-candy physics potential of multi-core CPUs, which will be coupled with the best of the best yet-to-be-launched ATi or NVIDIA graphics card.

However, it remains to be seen whether dual- and multi-core processing will indeed usher in a new age in PC gaming as soon as this year - as vendors claim - or whether noticeable and tangible improvements in your PC gaming experience due to dual core processing might not happen for a couple of years, as our intelligence suggests. As it stands now, we have plenty of fodder in the way of performance improvement promises from vendors. But we must wait to discover whether we will be truly dazzled, disappointed or just satisfied enough to invest in a dual-core CPU platform and next-generation game and graphics card with only incremental at best improvements.

Article (http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/07/08/dual_core_and_the_future_of_gaming/)

[Odie3]

Well, I just went from a AMD FX-53 to a AMD FX-60 Dual Core. The clock speed between these to processors is not that much [2.4 vs 2.6 Ghz]. However, to say that you will not get anything out of having a dual core in Win XP is not true at all.

In my case my whole computer experience is so much better. Granted this does not mean ArmA runs better. But alt-tabbing is out of ArmA [or any other game for that matter] is so much better or darn near perfect. Its like alt-tabbing from Firefox to Microsoft word. I would also say that boot up time is about 25~30% faster [from power on to logged in with all startup crap running].

So for me updating to Dual Core was well worth it. Then again I only played &#036;275 US for my FX-60. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Bunks]

Just a bit of FYI, newer Nvidia cards are designed to put more stress on the sytem&#39;s CPU to do graphical functions and does utilize both cores for that process. Whereas, ATI puts more stress on the GPU itself. Arma may be a single threaded game but it still will see a performance boost, at least rendering and fill, from dual core processors. Once ArmA is optimized for current hardware configs, I bet we will see C2D with Nvidia cards be on the high end of the perfomance spectrum.

[WhiskeyBullets]

Well i figured i give you 2 a day to cool off a little and maybe come to your sences http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif

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&#39;t know if Windows Vista&#39;s Task Manager keeps the core affinity tools that WS 2003 has.)

And You don&#39;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&#39;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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif

Whiskey has left the building http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif

[olemissrebel]

Google "SMP Seesaw" It&#39;s a tool that allows you to shift programs over and between the processors with relative ease

[BangTail]

Well i figured i give you 2 a day to cool off a little and maybe come to your sences http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif

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&#39;t know if Windows Vista&#39;s Task Manager keeps the core affinity tools that WS 2003 has.)

And You don&#39;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&#39;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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif

Whiskey has left the building http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif
Listen, I know you have trouble with this concept, but Dual core CPUs outperform single core CPUs in SMP and non SMP apps/games alike. Video drivers for example, get a 20% (in some cases) performance boost from Dual core processors. Please stop spreading what amounts to BS about a subject you CLEARLY don&#39;t have a clue about.

E

PS : Are you just mad because you can&#39;t afford a new system? I&#39;m being totally serious here&#33; Do you keep up with whats going on in the PC world? You say programmers will "rightly" continue to program for single core? Most of the big releases of 2007 are multi core optimized. Do you live on planet earth? Get a grip&#33; You can keep talking, but sadly nothing you are saying is a current or future reality.

[[ZG]BUZZARD]

To: WhiskeyBullets

Dear Sir,

Having read through the thread I&#39;m forced to ask myself why you suggest, in the very first page of this thread, for multi-core CPU users to set ArmA to run on a non-default core, if I understood it correctly, since according to your stated oppinion, there is no use in doing whatsoever because Windows XP, even Professional Edition, doesn&#39;t give any advantage to multi-core CPU users. I am by no means versed in the technical aspect of computing, but I&#39;m lead to believe that the bottom line is: Running a game implies running an OS first and foremost as well, and therefore, one is in any case running two distinct applications. And since you suggest that Windows XP Professional users should move the ArmA application to a different core not specified for it by the OS by default, that statement somehow should acknowledge that there is an advantage in having a multi-core CPU. Please correct me if this logic as presented in this way is in any way wrong.

Best Regards,

TX3RN0BILL

[DM]

PS : Are you just mad because you can&#39;t afford a new system? I&#39;m being totally serious here&#33; Do you keep up with whats going on in the PC world? You say programmers will "rightly" continue to program for single core? Most of the big releases of 2007 are multi core optimized. Do you live on planet earth? Get a grip&#33; You can keep talking, but sadly nothing you are saying is a current or future reality.
Its either that or he&#39;s a die-hard AMD fanboi.

Seriously, every single benchmark anyone has done so far has the C2D at least level with, if not way out infront of any FX-57.


And You don&#39;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.
Urm... no? Since running windows is one task and running ArmA is another task. So one core can handle windows, the other ArmA. Thats gonna give you improved performance, which it does, which has been prooven it does and which has been documented that it does.


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.
As long as programs are single threaded they wont be OPTIMISED for multi-core processors. That does not necessarily mean that you will not see an advantage in using a multi-core processor (which AGAIN has been prooven and documented by pretty much every tech site out there)... The FX-57 is now outdated and outclassed by the new C2D Intel processors, tech moves on, live with it...


Just because you have 2 cpus doesn&#39;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.
Now this, like most of the rest of your posts is where your argument falls down, since you start contradicting yourself (again). Yes, having 2 cpu&#39;s doesnt give you a magical speed boost. It DOES let you multi-task more efficiently. And since as soon as you boot windows up you&#39;re multi-tasking this IS going to give you a performance boost. As for "but programs people", what? That makes no sense.... Its not hype, its not junk, its documented and prooven fact that using a multi-core CPU WILL give you improved performance.


Armed Assault does not now or will support dual core processors. <<< Fact
The bold part is fact, but unless you&#39;re lead programmer at BI, I would hold off any future predictions. You&#39;ll just end up making yourself look even more stupid. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[wasserkool]

Considering most people here have really crappy sytems, (athlon XPs, Pentium 4s with Radeon 9200, 9600, 9800 or Geforce 6xxx), they are just jealous of us dual core users and thus coming up with inchoherent arguements to defend their pity piece of sh&#124;t systems.

[LT.INSTG8R]

Meh, I keep saying this http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif (theres a pic somewhere in this silly thread)My PC has been running ArmA on BOTH cores since the moment I installed it and runs FINE&#33; Do I have any illusions that it runs "faster"?...er...no, but it most certainly runs and it using ALOT of both those cores(over 50% alot of the time) so that basically means that any Single Core PC is going to be well and truly pegged at 100% and to me serves no advantage over mine that has at least another 40-60% left on my Dual Core rig to handle anything else I need it to do, where as a single core is gonna start to thrash and stuggle trying to keep up with anything else besides ArmA

[dmitri]

Considering most people here have really crappy sytems, (athlon XPs, Pentium 4s with Radeon 9200, 9600, 9800 or Geforce 6xxx), they are just jealous of us dual core users and thus coming up with inchoherent arguements to defend their pity piece of sh&#124;t systems.
A truly constructive, uplifting post. Disappear please.

I think this thread is past its sell by date. Quick, someone lock it before Whiskey returns..&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[BangTail]

A truly constructive, uplifting post. Disappear please.

I think this thread is past its sell by date. Quick, someone lock it before Whiskey returns..&#33;  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Yah, we all know that C2D and to a lesser extent, X2 (at present anyway) are the way of the future. You can lead a horse to water but you can&#39;t make him drink http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif Its been said enough times in this thread.

/me looks for thread locking key http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

E

[disappointed]

I say whiskybullits gets his info from the magic 8 ball and need to be stoned while we chant witch witch witch http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif

[WhiskeyBullets]

[ZG]BUZZARD Good question


Quote[/b] ]Having read through the thread I&#39;m forced to ask myself why you suggest, in the very first page of this thread, for multi-core CPU users to set ArmA to run on a non-default core, if I understood it correctly, since according to your stated oppinion, there is no use in doing whatsoever because Windows XP, even Professional Edition, doesn&#39;t give any advantage to multi-core CPU users. I am by no means versed in the technical aspect of computing, but I&#39;m lead to believe that the bottom line is: Running a game implies running an OS first and foremost as well, and therefore, one is in any case running two distinct applications. And since you suggest that Windows XP Professional users should move the ArmA application to a different core not specified for it by the OS by default, that statement somehow should acknowledge that there is an advantage in having a multi-core CPU. Please correct me if this logic as presented in this way is in any way wrong

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&#39;s which is run threw the front side bus AMD&#39;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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/welcome.gif

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.


Quote[/b] ]Meh, I keep saying this (theres a pic somewhere in this silly thread)My PC has been running ArmA on BOTH cores since the moment I installed it and runs FINE&#33; Do I have any illusions that it runs "faster"?...er...no, but it most certainly runs and it using ALOT of both those cores(over 50% alot of the time) so that basically means that any Single Core PC is going to be well and truly pegged at 100% and to me serves no advantage over mine that has at least another 40-60% left on my Dual Core rig to handle anything else I need it to do, where as a single core is gonna start to thrash and stuggle trying to keep up with anything else besides ArmA


Ever wonder why you show both cores at 50% when you run Armed Assault. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[BangTail]

Denial, it&#39;s not just a river in Egypt&#33;  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

Whats absolutely hysterical (and pathetic) is that you have been presented with benchmarks of non dual core optimized games running twice as fast on dual core (Rise of Legends) and yet still you persist with this lunacy. Friend, for an Xmas present I suggest you ask for a "Clue".

E

[LT.INSTG8R]

Ever wonder why you show both cores at 50% when you run Armed Assault. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Er no not really I understand completely but do YOU understand that if my TWO cores are running at 50% or better then your Single Core is absolutely pinned leaving ZERO Overhead to do anything else(but hey if thats your "advantage" to single core you enjoy it)
ArmA runs well over 50% of each core(up to 70% at times)

Grumbles as he is forced AGAIN to dig up the picture.....

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/7297/corearmavq5.th.jpg (http://img502.imageshack.us/my.php?image=corearmavq5.jpg)

Again this picture is taken on the Start screen and well you can clearly see both cores being used and well If I do the math there, that sure looks alot like 111% usage to me. So I ask you. where is your single core CPU gonna get that extra 11%??
I rest my case

[DM]

Denial, it&#39;s not just a river in Egypt&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

Whats absolutely hysterical (and pathetic) is that you have been presented with benchmarks of non dual core optimized games running twice as fast on dual core (Rise of Legends) and yet still you persist with this lunacy. Friend, for an Xmas present I suggest you ask for a "Clue".

E
Amen to that.

I just cant see how you can continue to argue the point when hard evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Yes, current OS and software are not optimised for dual core, but they still see the performance gains regardless. I can&#39;t understand how you&#39;re not getting that?

[BangTail]

No point trying to reason with this guy. My firm belief is that he cant afford a new system so he&#39;s decided to try and invalidate everyone else&#39;s purchase. I hate to say it, but that&#39;s what it sounds like. It&#39;s like trying to argue the World isn&#39;t round Whiskey, it&#39;s not even up for debate.

E

[DM]

No point trying to reason with this guy. My firm belief is that he cant afford a new system so he&#39;s decided to try and invalidate everyone else&#39;s purchase. I hate to say it, but that&#39;s what it sounds like. It&#39;s like trying to argue the World isn&#39;t round Whiskey, it&#39;s not even up for debate.

E
I don&#39;t think thats the case, since he&#39;s argueing that the more expensive (x3) FX-57 processor is better. It would make sense if he was argueing for a cheaper processor, but the C2D "win" in that respect too...

Hardcore AMD fanboi me thinks http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

(But then why ignore the AMD X2 chips? - Maybe he has an FX-57 and wants to be the most powerful on the forum?)

[BangTail]

No point trying to reason with this guy. My firm belief is that he cant afford a new system so he&#39;s decided to try and invalidate everyone else&#39;s purchase. I hate to say it, but that&#39;s what it sounds like. It&#39;s like trying to argue the World isn&#39;t round Whiskey, it&#39;s not even up for debate.

E
I don&#39;t think thats the case, since he&#39;s argueing that the more expensive (x3) FX-57 processor is better. It would make sense if he was argueing for a cheaper processor, but the C2D "win" in that respect too...

Hardcore AMD fanboi me thinks http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

(But then why ignore the AMD X2 chips? - Maybe he has an FX-57 and wants to be the most powerful on the forum?)
Yah, I see your point there. Fanboi&#39;s are always fun&#33;&#33; I make it a point to buy what&#39;s best and I do alot of research beforehand. For example, right now I am running an 8800 GTX, if the R600 is substantially better, I&#39;ll switch to that&#33; I couldn&#39;t care less what brand name is stamped on it&#33;

E

[SpaceAlex]

Don&#39;t have any problems with my dual-core. I don&#39;t know why so many people have problems with it. It&#39;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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif (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&#39;t had a single problem with it. App&#39;s that don&#39;t support it (there are plenty that do, though), just use only one core, instead of two. That&#39;s it. There&#39;s nothing else to it.

Also, if a game doesn&#39;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&#39;s no need to feel sorry for those with a dual-core. You should be more sorry for those that don&#39;t have it. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

[Bunks]

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 (http://paladin.madtrax.cc/armamark/generator.php?doc=index&lang=en)

[Special Ed]

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 &#39;reccomened&#39; 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]

Not dual core problem.

E

[WhiskeyBullets]

This link is for benchmarks with the FX-57 against Dual Core AMD&#39;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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[BangTail]

ROFLMFAO, are you still going? Look at the Armamark scores FFS and get a clue. Admit you are wrong and move on  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif  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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif

E

[DM]

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&#39;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&#39;re just making yourself look more and more stupid...

[BangTail]

What&#39;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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/goodnight.gif

[Marines]

What&#39;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  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/goodnight.gif
LOL&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif

I&#39;ve been hangin&#39; back, waiting for someone to pick up on that.

[dmitri]

This link is for benchmarks with the FX-57 against Dual Core AMD&#39;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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Dual core Core 2 Duo vs FX-57 (single threaded games):
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm....art=168 (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=431&model2=481&chart=168)
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm....art=169 (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=431&model2=481&chart=169)
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.htm....art=167 (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=431&model2=481&chart=167)

Notice how some cheap dual core X2&#39;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 (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=431&model2=481&chart=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 (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=431&model2=481&chart=174)

From your dated 2005 article that doesn&#39;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&#39;re testing the same basic mix of application types that we&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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 (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=431&model2=481&chart=165)

Heck, I&#39;m not sure that bench even had the patch installed. Nonetheless, look at the dual cores fly&#33;

Enjoy the reading http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[BangTail]

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif He&#39;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&#39;s Kingdom"

Yah, I know, sounds alot like the 2nd coming http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif That would be another miracle&#33; http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif

E

[Marines]

This is definitely one of the better threads I&#39;ve read in awhile. I think I&#39;ll rip my X2 from it&#39;s motherboard and toss it into the trash. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[NeMeSiS]

This is definitely one of the better threads I&#39;ve read in awhile. I think I&#39;ll rip my X2 from it&#39;s motherboard and toss it into the trash. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
If only he would talk in &#39;rebl man engrish&#39;, then this would probably be the best tread there is http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

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. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

[twoodster]

This argument is completely pointless. Fact of the matter is - it runs pretty shite on any processor http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[BangTail]

Runs fine here, no performance problems to speak of&#33;

E

[WhiskeyBullets]

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

[DM]

Yeah, anyone can edit the biki pages http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

"Unknown if Dual-core CPU&#39;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]

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

[DM]

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]

why would i admit i was wrong when im 100% correct http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif

[olemissrebel]

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]

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&#39;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]

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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

[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. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif 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]

why would i admit i was wrong when im 100% correct http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/notworthy.gif
No offense but you really are an idiot. In life, it&#39;s important to be able to admit one&#39;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

[Bunks]

Seriously, Whiskey you need to stop now. You have gone beyond the point of ridiculous to insane. You sound like Baghdad Bob telling reporters how the Iraqi army was slaughtering US forces while the building he was in was surrounded by US troops. I mean cmon dude, get real. The facts are right there in print you listed yourself. C2D and Nvidia cards will rule ArmA in performance. Thats becasue Nvidia cards use dual cores to improve performance. Even in (get this) single threaded applications .

What I found offensive was you telling a guy to buy a new power supply based on watts alone. Not one symptom he listed was an indication of power issues. You were right that he needed more power with that rig, but you were wrong in your diagnosis. Watts mean nothing in PSU, its all about amps and stability. Ive seen 600watt PSU with 45A on the 3V rails and 15A on the 12v rails. Basically a 350 watt PSU with too much power on low volt rails. So by you not even asking him the amps showed me you know nothing about the subject but told him to spend &#036;&#036;&#036; as if you were an authority. For that alone (if I were an admin) I would have pulled your account.

So please, if your incaplbe of admitting your wrong, then deleting your account would suffice instead http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

[WhiskeyBullets]

lol ethne your computer knowledge would fit on the head of a pin. You seemed to want to make this personal which is sad. i never made this personal from the start but you only want to keep insulting, which is fine. The main reason i started this thread is to help the users out there know why dual core was not what the game required and to educate them as to why. So keep with the insults im quite enjoying them because at the end of the day i will be right and you would be wrong. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif

[DM]

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.
What the hell... more crap? I&#39;ve just looked through the entire troubleshooting forum, and the only mention of vram issues I can find is of people with high-end cards (8800 or 7950GX2) not using all the vram (stutters as textures get loaded and dumped) and people with low end cards having issues as their cards struggle to load/dump the textures onto their limited vram. Most people having these issues are also using single core Athlons or P4&#39;s...


Good luck with threating me with a warning level because everything i stated in this thread is 100% correct. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif and the forum admins know it.
It wasn&#39;t a threat, and it certainly wasnt a threat of warning levels. It was simply refering to the Biki sysops who would be speaking to whom ever edited the specs page to read "dual core not supported" which is untrue.

[BangTail]

lol ethne your computer knowledge would fit on the head of a pin. You seemed to want to make this personal which is sad.  i never made this personal from the start but you only want to keep insulting, which is fine. The main reason i started this thread is to help the users out there know why dual core was not what the game required and to educate them as to why. So keep with the insults im quite enjoying them because at the end of the day i will be right and you would be wrong. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/xmas_o.gif
Really, I&#39;ve been in Networking since I was 16. I&#39;ve owned my own business since I was 19. I am now 35. I&#39;m not taking it personally at all, I&#39;m just sick and tired of watching you lie to people. If my computer knowledge would fit on the head of a pin, the space where your computer knowledge would fit must be immeasurably smaller.

One thing I can do which you seem to have a very serious problem doing, is accepting fact. Fact that is plastered across every Tech site on the WWW. C2D is absolutely without equal at present. It wipes the floor with your poxy little FX-57 in any and every test. Please STFU now, you really have nothing else to say.

E

[NeMeSiS]

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.
I dont have any issues with VRAM usage? My game works fine, and my PC outperforms PCs with similiar specs but only one core. All the tests prove it. Whats wrong with you? How can you ignore all those tests? Do you think we made them all up? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

[dmitri]

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
This is comical.

From the foliage thread:
whiskeybullets: what type of power supply are you using?

Me thinks someone has a power supply fetish. The horror...The horror...

[BangTail]

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
This is comical.

From the foliage thread:
whiskeybullets: what type of power supply are you using?

Me thinks someone has a power supply fetish. The horror...The horror...
Yes, you really have to wonder how retarded this guy is? I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever seen someone be so wrong for so long with absolutely no intention of accepting the reality. Most of us would touch the hot stove, realise it was hot and step back. This guy would hold on until his whole arm had burned off, the whole time refusing to admit it was hot http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif

E

[shinRaiden]

Ahem....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v643/shinraiden/junk/mugabeve5.jpg

There is inadequate data on Armed Assault performance, and none of it was done on clean-room machines. Therefore it is all entirely spurious and utterly useless. I frankly don&#39;t care if you&#39;re running it on a WINE VM on an IBM Z/9 or your PDA. The point is those numbers mean absolutely nothing to anyone. The only person that gives a damn is the sales dude who&#39;s laughing about how you blew all your beer money buying cooked sand from him to float his beer money.

Now for the technical flamage. The entire dual-core hardware transition is an idiotic attempt to short-circuit the dereliction of duty by the software designers. In this sense Microsoft is not wholely to blame, as the Unix world in large part has failed to make any cohesive attempts at standardized multitasking capabilities, and academia again proves their lethargic uselessness by speculating in theoretical realms devoid of practical reality.

System virtualization has recently gained prominence as a method to increase hardware utilization by bypassing the virtual software limitations and operating multiple concurrent OS sessions, well within the capabilities of the hardware. But that&#39;s for all intents and purposes a hack, not an enhancement. If the underlying foundation were truely functional, there wouldn&#39;t be a need for virtualization.

Similarly with multi-core systems. The problems actually lie in the software side of the world. Intel tried to hack around it in hyperthreading in the Pentium side of their R&D house and other predictive preprocessing, but that remained artificial guesswork, and the only reason Pentiums maintained positive performance was their high clock speed.

AMD on the other hand fixed the external bottlenecks in standard memory controller and local buses, which resulted in a net performance comparable to the Pentiums. That&#39;s the key point there, that while the internal mechanisms were dynamiclly different, the net result was very close, unless your myopic narrow-mindedness was focused solely on the last one half of one percent or less in ultimate performance.

The Core series is an entirely new architecture, and does a number of things differently. Most significantly though, is that they took some lessons from their work on mobile-specific designs and realized that shorter pipelines not only solved their heat problems, but it also helps for speed as well. Combined with Intel&#39;s cache-based compensation for memory interface throttling, the net results have been remarkable, for now.

AMD&#39;s response has been a marketing one, and if you note many of the recent review whores&#39; sites, AMD&#39;s consistently maintain their price for performance lead for normal, sane, or otherwise sensiblely minded people who don&#39;t live the thug or chav life.

From early hints, it appears though that AMD is pushing down the distributed core path though, potentially further than Intel is. The fallout from the ATI merger is that the industry - like it or not - is headed in the route of the Cell, in replacing the CPU and GPU with essentially a bunch of intermediate processing units that are distributable for different tasks. Also, while virtualization is presently focused on multiple OS sessions, it&#39;s quite likely that there will be a shift to process sessions running packages in a pseudo-OS structure.

Going back to the original point however, all the new machines are Core2Duo boxes, and all the old machines have low performance. This is neither statistically functional, or reflective of actual performance. As far as I&#39;m aware, the only consideration of multi-tasking or multi-threading at BIS has been solely to increase executable compile time, and nothing more.

So when you spam crappy numbers, do your numbers reflect the altered performance of Windows, the altered performance of Armed Assault, the hidden load of spyware and malware on your system, the altered state of your hardware realigning the earth&#39;s magnetic field twisting the cross-talk out of your network cables, or just the altered state of the mixed cocktail of drugs and booze?

[WhiskeyBullets]

Well i guess since my thread has been hyjack again into power supply questions now i guess i need to go in to detail on how a power supply works for a computer system.

Power supplys require by the manufacturers spec to get the correct wattage to each device to be pluged directly into the wall outlet. Now if you plug your system into an outlet strip you will not be getting the correct wattage to supply what the power supply needs. So for instance a 350 watt power supply will act like a 300 watt power supply and for each device you have pluged into the outlet strip will drop the wattage supplied to the power supply. So if said user still has issues then you look at the wattage required by the devices he has.

Some causes for underpowered devices are as follows:
Crash to destops when loading a program
Video card Issues
OS issues [BSOD]
Hard Drive issues

Now if these happen then you need to get high wattage power supply and thats why i suggested a 600 Watt one to the other forum member. Most computer upgrades done by the user fail to update there power supply to save money and by not going with a 500 Watt one makes it easy to upgrade in the future without buying another power supply at a high wattage.

Most power supply issues do not show up unless it is under high load which Armed Assault gives you.

Now if the computer has enough wattage to supply all devices under heavy load and then some you start to look at video card which the forum member was having issues with.

The main issue with underpower video card underload is after the program starts and runs for a time it will start showing artifacts and then crash to desktop or lockup. Now then i would look to see if the rail the the extra power required by the most video cards to was supplying the correct wattage to it. There shouldnt be anything on that rail plugged into that rail not even a case fan.

So now "IF" im getting the correct wattage threw my power supply and to all my devices[I.E. Video card] then its either a driver issue or dead video card or that the program itself doesnt support it.

If you have ever ordered a High End System from a High End Builder http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif they require it to be plug into the wall outlet only.

[DM]

First
http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/cats/techcat.jpg
Seems to be an accurate description of WB... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

Second, aside from a single reference to your repeated statements of "two words >> power supply" from other threads, there arent any references to power supplies in this thread.

Third, woah there highspeed. Sharing an extension lead with other items will NOT downgrade the performance of your PSU. That just goes to show your further ignorance on the subject of computers.

Please, stop now, you really are making yourself look like more and more of an idiot with every post...

[WhiskeyBullets]

Quote[/b] ]Second, aside from a single reference to your repeated statements of "two words >> power supply" from other threads, there arent any references to power supplies in this thread.

Look at the above post


Quote[/b] ]Third, woah there highspeed. Sharing an extension lead with other items will NOT downgrade the performance of your PSU. That just goes to show your further ignorance on the subject of computers.

How much money would you like to bet on that http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[olemissrebel]

Now, now highspeed, let&#39;s not all go down to my level and be the forum jackass. It&#39;s obvious that there are opposing viewpoints. Step back and ask yourself, who really gives a damn? Is it really worth refreshing this page just to see what the next guy will write? ...Probably not.

[Shadow]

DeadMeatXM2, ethne and olemissrebel, if you cant discuss this topic in a more civilized manner I&#39;ll be happy to PR you.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif
Shinraiden and DeadMeatXM2, that kind of off-topic pictures you posted are just childish.
Stick to the topic.

[DM]

Quote[/b] ]Second, aside from a single reference to your repeated statements of "two words >> power supply" from other threads, there arent any references to power supplies in this thread.

Look at the above post
I see 1 reference to a post of yours in another thread, then a page ago I see a person taking offense to your power supply recommendations. I hardly call that a thread jack. Infact you seem to be the one jacking your own thread as you&#39;ve run out of argument...



Quote[/b] ]Third, woah there highspeed. Sharing an extension lead with other items will NOT downgrade the performance of your PSU. That just goes to show your further ignorance on the subject of computers.

How much money would you like to bet on that http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Actually, quite a lot.

You see, the power supply&#39;s ability to generate the power needed is not affected by the number of other appliances sharing the socket. What IS effected is the total amount of power that the socket can provide to the power supply for it to be able to do its job.

The reason "high end builders" will reccomend that their "high end rigs" be plugged straight into the wall socket is that the voltage type in the US means that running a lot of demanding (read: power hungry) electrical appliances off of an extension lead can draw so much current so as to cause the extension lead to overheat and catch fire. (This also effects any other country which uses 110V power supplies).

There is also the issue of overloading the wall outlet by plugging dozens of high-drain appliances into extension cords, causing them to trip the circuit breakers. Again, nothing to do with the PSU being able to do its job...

And I&#39;m not even American http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif (in ref to the US building codes/power supplies)

Edit: And to stay on topic, Shin, yes the results arent "clean room" results. But since the C2D&#39;s are generally outperforming any other processor, we can make the assumption (I know, assumptions = the devil) that the C2D&#39;s are providing the best performace.

I think the initial point of the thread is somewhat lost, but to sum it up:

Who cares if the extra performance is being achieved by "nefarious" means, as long as the C2D&#39;s are providing the sort of performance documented by both "dirty" results such as ArmA-Mark and "clean" results such as the various "review whores" then it can not be argued that the outdated FX-57 will provide you with the "best ArmA experience" because its been prooven that the C2D&#39;s outperform it.

[WhiskeyBullets]

Deadmeat who changed the Biki now, guess you or whoever needed to and thats really sad. You or whoever should have left it to what it was by what BIS Stated Not your or whoevers option.

[Shadow]

Deadmeat who changed the Biki now...
Discussions about the Biki content goes on the discussion pages at the Biki-site, not here.

[WhiskeyBullets]

rgr understood, will go threre to find out who changed it

[DM]

Deadmeat who changed the Biki now, guess you or whoever needed to and thats really sad. You or whoever should have left it to what it was by what BIS Stated Not your or whoevers option.
If you read the comment I made upon changing the Biki page (yes I did update it) you will see I edited out the phrase which stated that "Dual-core CPU&#39;s are unsupported" which is NOT true, since if they weren&#39;t supported the game simply wouldnt run.

And the previous edit (which introduced the "Dual-core unsupported" quote) was NOT made by a member of the BI staff, but by someone by the name of JustinSavidge.

And what i edited it to is not opinion, its fact. The fact that ArmA is not dual-core optimised, but it will run on dual-core cpu&#39;s.

[WhiskeyBullets]

Quote[/b] ]And what i edited it to is not opinion, its fact. The fact that ArmA is not dual-core optimised, but it will run on dual-core cpu&#39;s.

So does that mean it will run worse, the same or better that single core support?

[DM]

Quote[/b] ]And what i edited it to is not opinion, its fact. The fact that ArmA is not dual-core optimised, but it will run on dual-core cpu&#39;s.

So does that mean it will run worse, the same or better that single core support?
It means it&#39;ll RUN, which is the truth not an opinion.

Whereas unsupported means it will NOT run.

As for the better/worse/the same, its clear from the linked ArmA-Mark results that C2D fill the top 24 spots, with a single Athlon in the middle of them. From that, you can draw your own conclusions, but it appears to me that C2D provides better performance than any of the other listed CPU&#39;s...

[WhiskeyBullets]

I have to give you credit Dead on admiting you changed the it, Second that in your opinion is what it is.

But Dont you think at this moment that there might be issues related to dual core and it should be set more as "undetermined as of now" in case there "are" issues and let the person viewing it make the choice.

[Special Ed]

Heres what helped me, generally speaking (ive gained about 10 fps overall) - dual core user

Got nHancer for use with my Nvidia Geoforce 6800 256mb card, I now can actually turn on both cores for Arma, as well as turning V-Synch off and also setting &#39;quality&#39; settings in there to &#39;performance&#39; This right here has done most of the fps gain.

Then, ive found a few key things (for me anyhow) in the Arma video options.

Of course, I got rid of shadows, disabled. They eat up too many fps.
I though having done that, shading detail would matter not, but it does, big time.
Shading detail is another big fps eater, and imho is not neccessary, I set it to very low. This gained an easy 3 fps, if not more.
Left object detail and also texture detail to normal, I found setting texture detail to very low will cause distant shrubs and whatnot to turn into bloby looking when viewed with scope or binocs, about 1 fps difference noticed for each texture detail setting, so considering the graphical difference for each setting for their cost, I went for normal.
Object detail does kill fps too, but, each setting makes a considerable difference in appearance of stuff in game, so personally I went for average cost and kept normal.
Terrain detail is set to very low, basically because ive noticed little difference in overall quality of game play due to this setting, and I lose between 2 and 3 fps per setting.
Anisotropic Filtering, only difference ive noticed in gameplay is if its set to very high or not, very high setting appears to add in a very little bit of detail to all trees and whatnot(focus on a tree and change it back and forth, ull see small change), also costs me around 3 - 4 fps for very high, so I said forget it. I set it to low, not worth the difference imho.
Antialiasing, set to very high, noticed if anything an increase of 1 fps from disabled/low to setting it to very high, no idea really what it does, nor have I noticed any dif in gameplay, but if very high doesent seem to hurt anything...
Overall quality is set to very high, imho havent messed with this one that much, so ill leave that to each his own to decide whatever on that.

Also, of course, all the other stuff suggested, got updated spyware removals, updated defragger, turn off virus stuff.

Thats that

[DM]

Well its not opinion, as many users are using C2D (or AMD X2) CPU&#39;s and having no problems. That can hardly be an opinion. Even Suma has said (I think) somewhere that arma isnt dual core optimised. But at the end of the day it DOES work on dual core.

So saying ArmA is "not optimised for dual core" is much more fair than saying ArmA is "unknown if dual core is supported" since that implies that ArmA wont work on dual core CPU&#39;s, which it clearly does.

Its much more fair to simply state that it&#39;ll work on dual core than it is to state that its "unknown if it will even work" on dual core, as that will dissuade people with dual core rigs from even trying the game.

The biggest problem I see with this WHOLE thread seems to be a misunderstanding of the words "Optimised" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=optimized) and "Supported" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supported).

Whilst ArmA (or windows) isnt dual-core optimised, it does support dual-core. And with C2D&#39;s new architecture, C2D is consistently providing better results.

[BangTail]

This thread needs to be closed now. It is a pointless debate because there is NO debate. C2D is the fastest desktop processor out there for Arma. Arma-mark proves this. It&#39;s also the fastest desktop processor available for anything else. Refusing to accept this is very much the same thing as refusing to accept the sun will rise tomorrow.

E

[shinRaiden]

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&#39;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.

[shinRaiden]

Now putting on a different hat though...

I&#39;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&#39;t need to. Nor have I bothered wasting my time trying to get the last 1% performance pwnage.

[BangTail]

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&#39;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&#39;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&#33; You can call it "unsicentific" and "spurious" as much as you want, but it won&#39;t change the facts of this particular argument&#33; The evidence is plastered all over this thread and all over the web&#33;

E

[shinRaiden]

1) you can&#39;t interchange Intel and AMD cpu&#39;s, therefore you are testing and contrasting cpu/mobo/ram combo&#39;s, not cpu&#39;s.

2) Armamark has no knowledge of the system particulars or other software running. It can&#39;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&#39;ed RAM drive pushing 8800 GTX SLI&#39;s, would that indicate that Core2Duo&#39;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&#39;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]

1) you can&#39;t interchange Intel and AMD cpu&#39;s, therefore you are testing and contrasting cpu/mobo/ram combo&#39;s, not cpu&#39;s.

2) Armamark has no knowledge of the system particulars or other software running. It can&#39;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&#39;ed RAM drive pushing 8800 GTX SLI&#39;s, would that indicate that Core2Duo&#39;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&#39;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&#39;m no Intel fanboy mate, I buy what&#39;s best. If AMD release a better CPU, I&#39;ll be right there, similarly if the R600 is better than the 8800 GTX I have now, I&#39;ll have one of those&#33;

I don&#39;t try to burn DVDs or compress video when I&#39;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&#39;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]

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&#39;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&#39;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 (http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/29/geforce_8800_needs_the_fastest_cpu/):


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]

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&#39;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&#39;ve read a lot into this thread.

A poster was spreading misinformation. A few of us posted concise replies (they&#39;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&#39;t feel we have any problems related to our dual cores.. or at least any problems that might be related haven&#39;t been discovered yet. The game doesn&#39;t support multiple processors&#92;cores - therefore dual core isn&#39;t all that relevant to ArmA.

That&#39;s all.


"Intel rox, AMD sux"

In this thread? All I&#39;ve seen is 1 person criticising dual cores and a multitude on the defense. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

[Dwarden]

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

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 (http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/1/e/f1ecd771-cf97-4d98-9a1b-b86e3f24e08f/multicore_hyperthread_brief.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&#39;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) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif what about some benches

[Kronzky]

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+)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/Kronzky/cpus.gif
I guess this requires no further explanation... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[WhiskeyBullets]

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]

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&#39;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&#39;s not like their clockspeed is a lot lower to begin with) They simply kick Athlons&#39; (ANY Athlon&#39;s) butt in gaming.  The FX is obsolete, please get it through your head.

[Dwarden]

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

http://www.microsoft.com/downloa....lang=en (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=B0FF829D-C427-4F40-BC56-F481837EFFBE&displaylang=en)

[Countfloyd]

ok downloading thanks...

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

[Sailindawg]

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&#39;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&#39;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]

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&#39;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&#39;s not like their clockspeed is a lot lower to begin with)  They simply kick Athlons&#39; (ANY Athlon&#39;s) butt in gaming.  The FX is obsolete, please get it through your head.
Forget about it, the guy is banned for his stubbornness http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif


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]

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&#39;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&#39;s not like their clockspeed is a lot lower to begin with) They simply kick Athlons&#39; (ANY Athlon&#39;s) butt in gaming. The FX is obsolete, please get it through your head.
Forget about it, the guy is banned for his stubbornness http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif


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&#33; (http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2610&p=7)

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

[NeMeSiS]

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&#39;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&#39;s not like their clockspeed is a lot lower to begin with)  They simply kick Athlons&#39; (ANY Athlon&#39;s) butt in gaming.  The FX is obsolete, please get it through your head.
Forget about it, the guy is banned for his stubbornness http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif


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&#33; (http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2610&p=7)

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. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

[Sailindawg]

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&#39;m done with this.

[NeMeSiS]

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&#39;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 ---&#62; multiple cores = I agree&#33; (that was your point)
ArmA--&#62;xbox360engine--&#62;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?  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif

[SandVoss_NL]

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]

since when is ArmA all of sudden multi core supporting ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
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]

see next post. Formatting was off.

[Sailindawg]

@<hidden>


Quote[/b] ]ArmA--&#62;xbox360engine--&#62;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&#39;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&#39;m not doing that. I&#39;m just trying to figure out if this game is worth my hard earned cash, should it ever be available in the USA.

[NeMeSiS]

...
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 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
(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 &#39;fathoming&#39; 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&#39;s just my style sometimes (when i see completely random/uninformed &#39;facts&#39; 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 &#39;fact&#39; 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/&#39;name calling&#39;, 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 &#39;dumb asses&#39;. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

EDIT#35132598: If you have any more problems regarding me, lets PM, this doesnt really belong in this topic http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

EDIT#35132599: This just jumped into my mind: Thanks to those lie-spreading &#39;dumb asses&#39; we are having this useless argument, does that make them dumbasses or what? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Sailindawg]

I accept your apology. However, I&#39;m quickly coming to the conclusion that what&#39;s makes this game perform the way it does, is it&#39;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 &#036;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]

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&#39;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&#39;t be developing multi-threaded solutions for their game engine, that&#39;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.

[NeMeSiS]

I accept your apology.  However, I&#39;m quickly coming to the conclusion that what&#39;s makes this game perform the way it does, is it&#39;s ported xbox engine.
Possible, lets assume it does, then what would cause the lower perfomance (dissapointing performance compared to other games)?
All we really know is that the game is optimized to use as few RAM as possible (because xbox 64mb blabla), would that cause it?
Someone tested it a few days ago and there was a noticable FPS difference between an old ATA and an SATA HD, but still the SATA HD doesnt seem a magical solution.

When flying around it would be logical to have alot of HD loading (streaming terrain, introduced in OFPE), however, i dont have a significant slowdown or &#39;hangs&#39; (that occur when the HD suddenly needs to load something from the HD, try spawning a unit that hasnt been pre-loaded in the memory yet) even when flying around at top-speed. To be honest the whole situation confuses me...

[Sailindawg]

Quote[/b] ]Possible, lets assume it does, then what would cause the lower perfomance (dissapointing performance compared to other games)?

Not trying to be overly negative, but the only answer to that question is: it&#39;s how the game is programmed. The game needs a much more powerful engine rather than the older xbox engine you have alluded to.

Regarding the differing performance with differing hard drives, that all comes down to data in, data out and the increased bandwidth that each drive offers. The faster drives can move data more efficiently to feed the cpu as it makes the calculations the game is calling for. Again, as you say, it&#39;s not a huge performance gain from drive to drive. But when a game will only render at an average of 30 fps, any increase helps and will appear significant.

[NeMeSiS]

Not trying to be overly negative, but the only answer to that question is: it&#39;s how the game is programmed.  The game needs a much more powerful engine rather than the older xbox engine you have alluded to.
Well indeed the engine is programmed the way its currently is, and if we cant optimize the engine for our PCs, then we have to optimize the PC for our engines http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
There are always small things we can do to get a (small) performance increase and its probably the only thing we can do about it, they arent going to completely change the engine in a patch.
So if we know where to start with optimizing our PCs we already have done half of the work. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Sailindawg]

Not trying to be overly negative, but the only answer to that question is: it&#39;s how the game is programmed. The game needs a much more powerful engine rather than the older xbox engine you have alluded to.
Well indeed the engine is programmed the way its currently is, and if we cant optimize the engine for our PCs, then we have to optimize the PC for our engines http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
There are always small things we can do to get a (small) performance increase and its probably the only thing we can do about it, they arent going to completely change the engine in a patch.
So if we know where to start with optimizing our PCs we already have done half of the work. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
OPF, that&#39;s what I have been doing. That&#39;s what I have liked about pc gaming. Sometimes I think I enjoy tweaking a game more than actually playing it&#33; PC gaming is all about playing around with a game&#39;s settings, etc.. to get it to perform at it&#39;s best, the way the game developers wanted it to be seen.

Unfortunately, D3D games aren&#39;t like the easier OpenGL games. OpenGL games generally have a very handy ,cfg file to play around with. This D3D game doesn&#39;t. One is limited to the endless variety of driver, monitor and ingame settings to play around with to optimize the game for one&#39;s own pc. Which is currently what I have been doing. Stay tuned.

[Dwarden]

@<hidden>

about Your HDD confusion, i already tried explain that multiple times ...

it&#39;s not just about HDD raw speed and interface ...
(and that vary by drive generation, firmware revision and so on)

it&#39;s also about CPU usage while utilizing that interface controller , see example :

some cheap VIA SATA eats X % CPU and in RAID mode 2*X %
now NVIDIA SATA eats X*0.9 % and in raid mode 1.7*X %,
then some Intel controller eats X*0.5 % and in RAID mode 1.5*X%
yet some profi standalone controller with offload processor and own memory eats only X*0.1% and in RAID mode 1.1*X% from CPU) ...

not to mention other stuff like bus saturation on different chipsets and so on ...

p.s. Sailin ... about that .cfg stuff You are wrong there is no problem to get very well "configurable" via config files D3D games same as OpenGL and vice versa
(ie: see games on Epic Unreal Engine (fully configurable D3D8, D3D9, OpenGl and software rendering)...

this is all up to developer decision ... nothing more nor less

[ZiggyJinx]

Dual Core Optimizer (http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_13118,00.html)

Yeah i got 40-50 fps gain with this...... yeah i wish http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
when are they gunna sort this game out so it runs at a good 60-70 fps or is this wishful thinking.

[Sailindawg]

Quote[/b] ]p.s. Sailin ... about that .cfg stuff You are wrong there is no problem to get very well "configurable" via config files D3D games same as OpenGL and vice versa
(ie: see games on Epic Unreal Engine (fully configurable D3D8, D3D9, OpenGl and software rendering)...

@<hidden>

I&#39;m confused by your post. If I was not clear, then fine. In older OpenGl games such as Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, one could easily find a .cfg, open it in Wordpad and edit away. All cvars and variables were either boolian values or numeric equivalents. With the advent of D3D games, one generally needed to know console commands, for example, in BF42, given the file structure, if one wanted to lock fps at a certain rate, one would have to use a console command while in the game.

More recent D3D games have file structures with obscure (proprietary) extensions. Some of these files are easily opened on Wordpad and modified. GRAW is a good example of this with the .xml files.

ARMA uses .pbo extensions and puts the user defined information/profiles in the My Documents folder. However, the values used in armaprofile folder are obscure. Some seem to be boolian values while others are whole number values. There are no commands specific for system memory utilization or fps related commands as found in other game config files.

The only tweak for this game has been a target line tweak that has worked fine.

This is what I was commenting on. Back to your comment, this game engine is not based upon any version of the Unreal Engine. If it was, it would run incredibly well.

[Dwarden]

@<hidden>

i wonder if i should bother to post ... you seems to be lost case ... continuously reversing subject and people words or simply fail to understood what others said ...

i&#39;m gunna http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/pistols.gif myself to get some http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/goodnight.gif instead http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/banghead.gif

[Baddo]

If a game has a configuration file easily editable by users is not dependant on the used graphics implementation, I really wonder why people start to compare OpenGL to Direct3D based on if a game has a configuration file or not...? It really is upto the programmers of the game how do they choose to do it.

Please stop that kind of talk it&#39;s just silly http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Sailindawg]

Thank you Dwarden. I take that as a compliment from you. The performance issues of this game are quite obvious. I&#39;m glad you enjoy the game.

[Kroky]

All we really know is that the game is optimized to use as few RAM as possible (because xbox 64mb blabla), would that cause it?
I would wish the game would use more RAM. Or at least that there would be an option to make the game use more RAM.

I upgraded my PC to 4GB RAM (before ArmA came out) in the hope this would help the performance. But it uses in maximum 1,3 GB RAM while game is running. I&#39;m absolutely not impressed by the performance of the game and the streaming technology is something for XBOX and other consoles but not for PC.

Often I see textures popping up while moving ingame. If BIS decided to use streaming technology it should at least preload the textures more far ahead so that you couldn&#39;t hardly see it.

I will try RAID (on SATA) and lets see how it improves the performance.

My system:

AMD Athlon X2 4400+ at 4800+ (Optimizer installed)
Asus A8N-E (BIOS rev. 1013)
4 GB Kingston RAM
GeForce 7950GT (93.71 forceware)
Seagate Barracuda on SATA
Direct X 9.0c december edition

[Dwarden]

All we really know is that the game is optimized to use as few RAM as possible (because xbox 64mb blabla), would that cause it?
I would wish the game would use more RAM. Or at least that there would be an option to make the game use more RAM.

I upgraded my PC to 4GB RAM (before ArmA came out) in the hope this would help the performance. But it uses in maximum 1,3 GB RAM while game is running. I&#39;m absolutely not impressed by the performance of the game and the streaming technology is something for XBOX and other consoles but not for PC.

Often I see textures popping up while moving ingame. If BIS decided to use streaming technology it should at least preload the textures more far ahead so that you couldn&#39;t hardly see it.

I will try RAID (on SATA) and lets see how it improves the performance.

My system:

AMD Athlon X2 4400+ at 4800+ (Optimizer installed)
Asus A8N-E (BIOS rev. 1013)
4 GB Kingston RAM
GeForce 7950GT (93.71 forceware)
Seagate Barracuda on SATA
Direct X 9.0c december edition
use commandline switch -maxmem=999

then load in editor sahrani or run some cutscene etc ...

it&#39;s easy to push ArmA to use over 800MB of system memory

some people use values 1000-1400 but i noticed game is then more prone to crashing ...

[Kroky]

I found that the ArmA Launcher Kegetys has made has an option of maximum use of system memory. I pushed the bar to the far end to 2048MB but my over all RAM usage (including that for Windows) is never over 32%, which means about 1,3GB RAM.

Will try the command line you suggested.

EDIT:

Ok apparently the -maxmem=XXX command is the same as used in Kegetys ArmA launcher.

When running the same mission without that command my system uses 23% of RAM, when setting the command even to max (2048MB RAM) it uses 32% of RAM.

Didn&#39;t experience any crashes, most probably because I&#39;ve 4GB installed, and since Windows uses about 500MB and ArmA maxmem is set now to 2048MB, there are still about 1500 MB RAM left in worst case.

I would like to have a command to preload texture into RAM instead of the streaming technology. Or the two combined. Let&#39;s say the most used textures into RAM the other load/unload from HDD.

[Dwarden]

what You use to monitor ArmA process memory usage ...

[Kroky]

Since I&#39;ve got a Logitech G15 Keyboard, I&#39;m using LCD Studio to display the data on the LCD display of the keyboard. The most of the data LCD Studio is grabbing from Riva Tuner with enabled Hardware monitor.

But yesterday I experienced a CTD too after setting the maxmem setting to 2048MB, so right now I&#39;m trying it on 999MB.

[m1c4d0]

Latest Dual Core Intel aren&#39;t just great because they are dual-core http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif They are great for themselves, great speed, overclockable without too much issue, no thermal problem, well, very good CPUs.
Don&#39;t feel sad for us http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif
Sure they are great man but there is no point to use them, because XP can not handle them great. Vista seems to be good for dual core procs but when I tried to run for example Call of Duty 2 on Vista, I&#39;ve noticed that WinXP is doing much better perfomance than Vista. So, it&#39;s really sad to realize all this stuff http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif