Running a single core application on a dual core cpu?

Status
Not open for further replies.

korrupt

Posts: 666   +2
So I have a game called Soldier of Fortune 2: Double Helix. Its a single core game, but at current it is running using both cores. I'm asuming making it run off one core will warrant a significant performance increase, but I am clueless as to what to do.

My CPU is a e6300

Any replies appreciated:D

Korrupt
 
Are you certain? I was told by a computer guru that I would at least get 10% performance increase.
 
"overstress one core"? Please explain..

korrupt: open Task Manager, rght-click your SoF2 process and select "Set Affinity". Tick only one of your cores.
 
Thanks:D

Will this mean every time I start it it will run on single core, or do I need to do this every time? And in your opinion, will it increase performance?

Korrupt
 
Try starting the game with and without both cores enabled and both times open the console with the "~" key, then type in "/cg_drawFPS 1" and see if you get a difference. My guess = no.
 
korrupt said:
Will this mean every time I start it it will run on single core, or do I need to do this every time?
Yes, you have to do this every time you run the game. You need some third-party app to make it happen every time you run the game.

Whether this makes things faster.. That is hard to say. Just try it and see what it does on your system. :)

BTW, after setting the affinity, try setting the process priority to realtime too. That should make sure no other process can run on this "dedicated" core..
 
Nodsu said:
"overstress one core"? Please explain..

korrupt: open Task Manager, rght-click your SoF2 process and select "Set Affinity". Tick only one of your cores.
I ran folding@home, and it ran on core #1, now that core is a constant 1-2C hotter than the other.
 
Well, if you had run folding@home on both cores, they both would be 0.5-1C hotter?
 
And remember that Intel technology, something like "Shared cache".

Since SOF2 uses only one core, then that core has 2MB of L2 cache available.
And with AMD's, if you have a 3800+ X2 for example, each core has its own 512KB cache, so it would perform similar to a 3200+ Venice Athlon 64.

Intel is smart :D
 
Yay for trolling.
wolfram said:
And remember that Intel technology, something like "Shared cache".

Since SOF2 uses only one core, then that core has 2MB of L2 cache available.
And with AMD's, if you have a 3800+ X2 for example, each core has its own 512KB cache, so it would perform similar to a 3200+ Venice Athlon 64.
Erm.. That 2M of shared cache is still trashed by all the other active processes on the second core. Where's the smarts in that?

Not to mention that smaller cache = faster cache. So would you like sth big and slow shared with everything else or sth small and fast dedicated to you?

Not to mention that the huge cache is there only because Intel CPUs lack the on-chip memory controller and the CPU-memory interface is horribly slow. AMD just doesn't need so much cache because it has a better design :)
 
So korrupt, did it give any noticeable performance boost? Higher framerate? Faster load times? Anything?
 
korrupt said:
So I have a game called Soldier of Fortune 2: Double Helix. Its a single core game, but at current it is running using both cores. I'm asuming making it run off one core will warrant a significant performance increase, but I am clueless as to what to do.

My CPU is a e6300

Any replies appreciated:D

Korrupt


Holy crap thats an old game, I use to have that one a couple years ago.
Nice and bloody, thats the best kind
 
Nodsu said:
Yay for trolling.Erm.. That 2M of shared cache is still trashed by all the other active processes on the second core. Where's the smarts in that?

Not to mention that smaller cache = faster cache. So would you like sth big and slow shared with everything else or sth small and fast dedicated to you?

Not to mention that the huge cache is there only because Intel CPUs lack the on-chip memory controller and the CPU-memory interface is horribly slow. AMD just doesn't need so much cache because it has a better design :)

Very true indeed
 
Nodsu said:
Yay for trolling.Erm.. That 2M of shared cache is still trashed by all the other active processes on the second core. Where's the smarts in that?

Not to mention that smaller cache = faster cache. So would you like sth big and slow shared with everything else or sth small and fast dedicated to you?

Not to mention that the huge cache is there only because Intel CPUs lack the on-chip memory controller and the CPU-memory interface is horribly slow. AMD just doesn't need so much cache because it has a better design :)

You're correct Nodsu. I agree that AMD has a better design. I don't know why Intel didn't use an on-chip memory controller. Much faster, less latencies, and it would be easier to choose a mobo :)
And Intels would be even faster than AMDs :)
 
A little off-topic, but aren't the E6600 Intel chips blowing everything away in benchmarks, especially for gaming? How does that institute a bad design compared to AMD?

I am an AMD enthusiast as well, I just state facts and go by real world performance rather than theory.
 
The entire PC industry is an example of how an absolutely horrible design can be a success if enough money is thrown at it.

Intel just happens to have the resources to apply better manufacturing technology and waste more silicon.
 
I know this is an oldddd topic but I am kinda havin same problems
it lags in game video is kinda blury when turning corners and fast movment
I have a m2n-e SLI board with a dual core AMD 4000+,1 gig ram,nvidia 8500GT video card(going to 8600GT soon) please help
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back