«

Sleepy wrote:
>
>
> "carrera d'olbani" <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com...
>> I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core
>> processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the
>> message saying that "the game requires at least a 2.2 GHz processor,
>> and this processor is 1.9 GHz. Continue anyway ?".
>>
>> So, my question is: does the game utilize the second core (and how do
>> I know if it does) ? And generally, how do I know if the rpogram/
>> computer is using the second core ?
>>
>
> that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at
> 1.9ghz it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate. the
> Source engine that HL2 uses doesn't currently use dual-core CPUs
> properly but that will change later this year. Valve have promised to
> release an update when HL2 Episode 2 is released that will add proper
> dual-core functionality to the game engine.
Uh, no.

Chris B. wrote:
> Sleepy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "carrera d'olbani" <> wrote in message
>> news: oups.com...
>>
>>> I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core
>>> processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the
>>> message saying that "the game requires at least a 2.2 GHz processor,
>>> and this processor is 1.9 GHz. Continue anyway ?".
>>>
>>> So, my question is: does the game utilize the second core (and how do
>>> I know if it does) ? And generally, how do I know if the rpogram/
>>> computer is using the second core ?
>>>
>>
>> that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at
>> 1.9ghz it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate. the
>> Source engine that HL2 uses doesn't currently use dual-core CPUs
>> properly but that will change later this year. Valve have promised to
>> release an update when HL2 Episode 2 is released that will add proper
>> dual-core functionality to the game engine.
>
> Uh, no.

An extraordinarily good comeback. Bravo. Encore! Encore!

On Jul 3, 10:53 am, carrera d'olbani <dolb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core
> processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the

Hey STEAM LOVER, CRAP STEAM INFECTED HL2 in not the only Game made for
the PC!
Don't you ever play anything else MORON?

And btw stop CROSSPOSTING your CRAP STEAM INFECTED posts to others
groups!
Your STEAM ORGY! ORGY! ORGY! BELONGS ONLY TO ALT.GAMES.HALF-LIFE!

pc games wrote:
> On Jul 3, 10:53 am, carrera d'olbani <dolb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core
>> processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the
>
> Hey STEAM LOVER, CRAP STEAM INFECTED HL2 in not the only Game made for
> the PC!
> Don't you ever play anything else MORON?
>
> And btw stop CROSSPOSTING your CRAP STEAM INFECTED posts to others
> groups!
> Your STEAM ORGY! ORGY! ORGY! BELONGS ONLY TO ALT.GAMES.HALF-LIFE!


Pot, kettle, moron

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:53:40 +0100, Shawk <.3guesses>
wrote:

>pc games wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 10:53 am, carrera d'olbani <dolb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core
>>> processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the
>>
>> Hey STEAM LOVER, CRAP STEAM INFECTED HL2 in not the only Game made for
>> the PC!
>> Don't you ever play anything else MORON?
>>
>> And btw stop CROSSPOSTING your CRAP STEAM INFECTED posts to others
>> groups!
>> Your STEAM ORGY! ORGY! ORGY! BELONGS ONLY TO ALT.GAMES.HALF-LIFE!
>
>
>Pot, kettle, moron

You can tell it's getting round to "that time of the month" can't you?

--
Rob

"John Weiss" wrote:
> "carrera d'olbani" wrote...
>
>> So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core
>> processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ??
>
> The answer is "Maybe..."
>
> The Core2Extremes are arguably the best performing machines around. OTOH,
> if you're on a budget, you have to balance CPU, RAM, and GPU.
>
> If all you want to do is play a current-generation single-CPU-aware game,
> maybe a higher clock speed single-core CPU would have been better. For
> general use, though, dual-core CPUs have the edge.

Yep. I'm using a single chip (AMD64 3700+), and it handles all of the
latest games without a problem (even ET:QW). Eventually, games will
actively use the second core (physics and whatnot), but until something
comes of that, and in a game that I am actually interested in, I'm sticking
to my single core.

Jon

On Jul 5, 2:50 am, "Jon Danniken" <jonREMOVETHISdanni...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "John Weiss" wrote:
> > "carrera d'olbani" wrote...
>
> >> So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core
> >> processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ??
>
> > The answer is "Maybe..."
>
> > The Core2Extremes are arguably the best performing machines around. OTOH,
> > if you're on a budget, you have to balance CPU, RAM, and GPU.
>
> > If all you want to do is play a current-generation single-CPU-aware game,
> > maybe a higher clock speed single-core CPU would have been better. For
> > general use, though, dual-core CPUs have the edge.
>
> Yep. I'm using a single chip (AMD64 3700+), and it handles all of the
> latest games without a problem (even ET:QW). Eventually, games will
> actively use the second core (physics and whatnot), but until something
> comes of that, and in a game that I am actually interested in, I'm sticking
> to my single core.

I feel the advantage of double core is that the switching between the
running programs occurs more smoothly (e.g. switching between the
running game and the windows desktop). This is a whole new experience.
With all the other "houskeeping" tasks redistributed by Windows to the
second core, the first core can concentrate entirely on running the
game (I presume), and the 1.9 GHz processor can be equvalent to 3 GHz,
which is already good.

I noticed that the players of Half-Life 2 (and of other Steam-
distributed games) have a quarter of their machines with dual cores,
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

"carrera d'olbani" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> On Jul 3, 10:09 pm, "Sleepy" <nos...@here.com> wrote:
>
>> that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at
>> 1.9ghz
>> it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate.
>
> It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz
> (just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an
> application together, their performance is equivalent to the
> performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz
> + 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600
> (kHz) is derived from.
>
> So, you are saying that Half-Life 2 does not utilize the two-core
> architecture well ? Essentially, your saying means that only one core
> (processor) is running the application, i.e. a 1.9 GHz processor. This
> could be too slooow. Maybe this is an explanation why the game feels
> too slow sometimes, compared with using my previous single-processor
> computer (even if I put the image quality settings on minimum).
>
> So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core
> processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ??
>

dual-core is *definitely* the way to go so you made the right choice - no
question about it.

HL2 currently doesnt utilize multicore CPUs well but that will change in a
month or two.

Valve are working on adding *hybrid threading* to the source engine which
will make good use of both cores.

Most games that currently support multicores only use coarse threading -
offloading one or two functions to the 2nd core. ie the 1st core does the
rendering of graphics (90% of the work) and the 2nd core does physics and
sound (10%) - in this case you only get a 10% boost in performance at best.
Valves' hybrid threading approach will yield a much better increase than
that.

whats the rest of your system? what RAM and graphics card do you have?

"Jon Danniken" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "John Weiss" wrote:
>> "carrera d'olbani" wrote...
>>
>>> So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core
>>> processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ??
>>
>> The answer is "Maybe..."
>>
>> The Core2Extremes are arguably the best performing machines around.
>> OTOH, if you're on a budget, you have to balance CPU, RAM, and GPU.
>>
>> If all you want to do is play a current-generation single-CPU-aware game,
>> maybe a higher clock speed single-core CPU would have been better. For
>> general use, though, dual-core CPUs have the edge.
>
> Yep. I'm using a single chip (AMD64 3700+), and it handles all of the
> latest games without a problem (even ET:QW). Eventually, games will
> actively use the second core (physics and whatnot), but until something
> comes of that, and in a game that I am actually interested in, I'm
> sticking to my single core.
>
> Jon
>

I recently went from a AMD64 3700 (san diego with 1mb L2cache) to a x2 3800
(socket9390 and games performance is about the same atm. Windows
multitasking is however a whole lot better and worth going to dual-core for
all on its own IMHO.

The only ppl so far to add *real* dual-core support to their engine is ID
and latest patches for Doom 3 and Quake 4 add a significant performance
boost.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page4.asp
that should work for ET:QW too of course.

I play DOD:Source myself so Im looking forward to the hyrbid threading patch
that should be out soon.

carrera d'olbani wrote:
> On Jul 3, 10:09 pm, "Sleepy" <nos...@here.com> wrote:
>
>> that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at 1.9ghz
>> it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate.
>
> It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz
> (just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an
> application together, their performance is equivalent to the
> performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz
> + 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600
> (kHz) is derived from.
>

That'd be MHz, and no, it's not where the performance rating is derived
from. It's quite an easy matter to google this.

> So, you are saying that Half-Life 2 does not utilize the two-core
> architecture well ?

No, he's saying it doesn't utilise it at all. It's written to use a
single core/single CPU, and that's all it will use.

> Essentially, your saying means that only one core
> (processor) is running the application, i.e. a 1.9 GHz processor.

Only one core is running the application, yes.

> This
> could be too slooow.

You really need to do some reading as to what the 3600+ really means.
It'll explain to you why you may be in error here, too. Speed in GHz is
no longer a valid measure of CPU performance. CPUs are changing, and the
refinements in how they work are what is brining performance up more
than just raw speed. Use benchmarks to compare CPUs now, not GHz.

> Maybe this is an explanation why the game feels
> too slow sometimes, compared with using my previous single-processor
> computer (even if I put the image quality settings on minimum).

Have a look at how your new CPU compares to your old CPU in gaming
benchmarks. There are too many other factors, such as RAM type and
speed, motherboard, etc, to make the conclusion you're heading towards.

Regards,

Ari

--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/