Cheat Engine

[hcavolsdsadgadsg]

reread my post and hang your head in shame

[Hero]

[hcavolsdsadgadsg]

dirt 2 literally does not run without at least a dual core. it REQUIRES at least 2 cores to work at all. it also has support for 4+ cores... in which it shows little to no gain over 2 despite being threaded.

bc2 does in fact work on a single core. i'm not quite sure what you think you proved.



just because it's threaded doesn't mean it runs like horse shit. consoles have lots of hardware threads to toss around, it's almost the opposite scenario in pc land. it's possible to escape the clutches of being cpu bound in bc2 on 2 cores.

more cores can help, but unless you're on something pathetically ancient cpu wise, you shouldn't be so hideously cpu bound that it lags to the point of unplayability. but just in case, my first response was something you could do to check out exactly what is going on.

[Hero]

There is no way BFBC2 runs on a single core on max settings. I find it hard to believe it runs on max on a dual. Tri maybe.

[hcavolsdsadgadsg]

Why is it surprising that graphics settings tax the GPU more than the CPU? Even the article proves it. On a single core it still pulls a higher framerate than the console version at much higher settings. A 360 has 6 hardware threads and 3 cores I think?

The ambient occlusion setting is probably the most expensive setting there and it is handled entirely by the GPU.

[SF]

quit arguin in mah section ffs.

[Hero]

[hcavolsdsadgadsg]

BF2 did 64 on a single core so...

I'm not sure why you think 32 players blowing shit up doesn't do anything on the gpu side of things.


How can the game not run on a single core when someone already did it? I guess the hundred hours I logged with someone on a dual core meant it was running like shit for them the entire time.

[Hero]

[hcavolsdsadgadsg]

I already linked an article, the other cores are effectively disabled. They do nothing. The game runs fine.

1920 x 1080, Maximum Detail, HBAO on, DX11
I'd consider 30min 44 average pretty decent.

So it effectively outperforms its console variant on a single core while pushing over double the pixels a frame, having higher settings all around, and using the notoriously expensive HBAO setting, in DX11.

That seems pretty playable to me

[Hero]

[hcavolsdsadgadsg]

Performance obviously increases sharply from 1 to 2 cores, so I dunno where you got flawlessly from, but it does run alright on a single core given a fast enough CPU. Is almost a 20 fps minimum gain no reason? Past that, it's hardly the same gain, the big bonus is generally from the second core in all the titles shown. The console versions are capped at 30 and the PC version happily chugs that out on a single core, that's pretty plausible to me.

AA and AF would probably only narrow the gap since you're moving even further towards GPU bound. If you ran it at 640x480 or something you'd have all the weight on the CPU, but that's not a realistic view either. The game lets you set AA in game if you're using DX10 or 11 so I myself wouldn't say maximum, but that's the words of the writer.


It's a heavy title but it absolutely does not need a quad. I own the game, I've put 100 hours in it along with a bunch of people. Not everyone has a quad, nobody has had trouble.

[Fafaffy]

Damn you guys argue alot

But Hero is right, dual core AMD CPU
Got 4GB or Ram

On Assassins creed 2, it never lagged, but after installing a lot of shit, im starting to notice a little lag when I move the camera to the other side of the map.

And I know it's not my Graphics card is really good, didnt get a cheap one

[hcavolsdsadgadsg]

yet you've never posted it...

[Hero]