Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dual Core supported games . . .

Last response: in Video Games
Share
February 3, 2006 12:08:44 PM

Some games that have dual core support...

Age of Empires III

Black & White 2

Call of Duty 2

City of Villains by NCSoft

Doom3 by IDsoftware

F.E.A.R. by Vivendi (allegedly enabled, but real world no real performance increase to FPS, tho it still performs)

Peter Jackson’s King Kong

Prey 1.2 & 1.3 by Take2

Quake 4 by IDsoftware

Quake 5 (promised when released)

Serious Sam 2 by Croteam

Splinter Cell by Tom Clancy

Supreme Commander by Gas Powered Games Corp.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (on pre-order)

The Movies

Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter

Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six 3

Tony Hawk’s American Wasteland

Unreal Engine 3

Vangauard Saga of Heros

World of Warcraft



Can you think of some more to add to the list? . . .

Probably every game released in 2006 and on will support dual core to some extent.

and I believe quite a bunch more are supported or fixing to get support via patch... so the list is growing, and any popular game in the planning is sure to have dual-core support.

Not to mention ATI's and nVidia's graphic drivers are multi-threaded giving an additional boost to dual core performance.

If you run anti-virus or software firewalls as a service, this is not an as much of a negative impact on speed, since they are multi-threaded and also benifit from dual core by running background services on the second processor...

this is good news to dual core buyers and fluid motion like gaming with all the effects on high.
February 3, 2006 6:10:10 PM

Oh come on. You can't put games on the list that aren't even out. Also, F.E.A.R. does not support dual core or 64-bit. :(  I wish it did though because I love the game.
February 3, 2006 6:35:03 PM

Intel has revealed that on August 24th, 2005 that top new gaming titles such as,,, City of Villains from NCSoft, and F.E.A.R. from Vivendi are optimized for dual core processors.


Here is a good example of a 2.4GHz clocked dual core chip (represents a X2-4800 or the equivalent Opteron 180) comes amazingly close to matching the more expensive FX-55 chip? 8O
It beats a single core Athlon64 4000+ CPU at same frequency of 2.4GHz in every benchmark??? 8O

This was done over 7 months ago, and today the difference is even greater due to game patches.
The point is dual core is the better choice for gaming performance wise now and in especially in the future.
Here the margins beating single core chips at the same speed by 2% to 4% due mainly to offloading operating system tasks and allowing the game to operate uninterrupted on the other core. Now if you were to include multi-threading game patches or have the games written multi-threaded from inception, then you have the potential of 20% to 80% performance increase with dual core.











Reference...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/pentium4-670...
Related resources
February 6, 2006 9:06:49 PM

Where did you get the information that WoW should be included on this list?

I'm not trying to argue, but WoW is one of the games (along with Doom3) that I can't get to stop giving me problems. I'm running an x2 4800, which gave me the "benny hill stutter" in every game I played. So I fixed a few (cod2, bf2) with ms hotfixes and amdx2 drivers, but WoW (which I spend the most time playing) is still plagued. I reinstalled xp32 and (I don't understand this) bf2 and cod2 played perfectly without any patches whatsoever. But of course, WoW is still stuttering.

I really don't know what to do at this point. You don't spend $800 on a processor for mediocre performance from a game that is less demanding than others that run fine. Of course, AMD won't help. And running on the promise that patches would arrive soon enough to fix these issues, I hung on to it past the point where I could do any time of return.

Well, I'm one of those people that wishes they'd bought an FX-57 instead. Don't get me wrong, I love my x2, but like I said, would you put up with crap performance from one of the best processors that money can buy?

Anyway, where'd you get that info? I ask because I'm desperate to find a fix, seeing as how I'm stuck with this proc now. Maybe blizz made a patch that got away from me? A long shot, but I'm desperate...
February 6, 2006 9:33:22 PM

Quote:
Where did you get the information that WoW should be included on this list?

I'm not trying to argue, but WoW is one of the games (along with Doom3) that I can't get to stop giving me problems. I'm running an x2 4800, which gave me the "benny hill stutter" in every game I played. So I fixed a few (cod2, bf2) with ms hotfixes and amdx2 drivers, but WoW (which I spend the most time playing) is still plagued. I reinstalled xp32 and (I don't understand this) bf2 and cod2 played perfectly without any patches whatsoever. But of course, WoW is still stuttering.

I really don't know what to do at this point. You don't spend $800 on a processor for mediocre performance from a game that is less demanding than others that run fine. Of course, AMD won't help. And running on the promise that patches would arrive soon enough to fix these issues, I hung on to it past the point where I could do any time of return.

Well, I'm one of those people that wishes they'd bought an FX-57 instead. Don't get me wrong, I love my x2, but like I said, would you put up with crap performance from one of the best processors that money can buy?

Anyway, where'd you get that info? I ask because I'm desperate to find a fix, seeing as how I'm stuck with this proc now. Maybe blizz made a patch that got away from me? A long shot, but I'm desperate...


dont hijack posts :twisted: , start a new thread...

but that sounds more like your OS is infected with viruses/spyware or adware, rather than the games you are running i have a 4400X2(basically the same chip as you) and i have no problems...if you want to talk more start a new thread.

p.s

mod you can delete this if you want.

and nice work RichPLS..
February 7, 2006 12:00:50 AM

To RichPLS, I apologize if you feel I've hijacked your thread. And to echo flakes, yes, ty for the list. I appreciate the advocacy for dual cores and gaming. Believe me, that's why I bought one.

However, I think it's a good idea to warn people of potential issues. These issues will be rectified sooner if more people are aware of them. Otherwise, the differentiating factor between the dual core crowd and the single core crowd will depend soley on who got a bunk chip and who didn't.

and flakes, sent you a pm...
February 7, 2006 7:37:55 AM

Rich

Maybe I'm not understanding completely but in order to make your comment stick about dual core being the preferred game architecture now, you really need to come up with some more recent data.

If you look at the information you posted, it's even reversed in some sense. The dual core 4800+ should be able to outperform the FX-55 in case of good multi-threaded applications/games.

Designing a multi-threaded application that will really utilize multi-core processors is far from trivial and it is somewhat unlikely that games like F.E.A.R. are fully geared towards that aspect, simply because these games have been in development for years and for most of that time the developers had no access to multi core processors. They probably had a multi processor development environment which is basically the same thing when designing multi threaded applications, but multi core has its peculiarities that can really drag you down in the mud if you don't handle it right. Multi core chips share a lot of the databuses and this will have its performance penalty when you are trying to convert a multi-threaded application from being multi processor optimized to multi core optimized.

If you think a little more ahead, the Xbox360 chip has even more peculiarities in terms of the cores which aren't all the same, as well as the Cell processor (which PS3 will use), which has its own complications. In the longer run you will see a battle coming between general multi-core processors and dedicated processors like a GPU or a physics PU. What will be almost as important as the hardware will be the ease of use of the development environment and how well it will support multi-core and manage a lot of the down to earth work when handling multi threading.

Maybe we should stop a bit there because we're getting into hardware rather than gaming which is the primary focus for this forum. In short, it will take a lot more time before we will really start to see the benefits of multi core gaming, but it is coming, and it will be pushed by the industry, simply because they need a new reason for us to continue upgrading our systems or getting new ones.
February 7, 2006 7:31:55 PM

Here is a more current Dual Core Benchmark
Dated Jan 2006

Once again, the Athlon64 4000+ at 2.4GHz is the bottom of the ranks in AMD chips compared to dual core.



Poor Performance with Dual Core on WinXP


Even if the game can only take advantage of one of the two cores on the X2 or Opteron dual core, either cores is certainly more than powerful enough for today’s games and equivalent to the same MHz single core mate.

Performance wise, I believe the Athlon64 X2 4800+ is the fastest overall processor on the market today. Most multi-threaded applications position the 4800+ at the top of the benchmark charts, only the Athlon64 FX-60 beats it. And the 4800+ chip is only a small amount behind the FX.
Performance wise, imo the 4800+ averages better than Intel’s dual-core Pentium-D/EE processors when handling single threaded applications, which may be of interest and something to consider regarding gamers thinking of one for the economics of the 820/920 chip.
February 7, 2006 10:35:38 PM

Ok, referring to the difference between the X2 4800 and the FX-60, if the 4800 was to be oc'ed to 2.6Ghz (FX-60 spec), could you expect the same performance as you'd get from the stock FX-60? Or is there more to the FX line that makes it, well, an FX? The FX's are supposed to be AMD's premere gaming proc. Is that only because of clocks?
February 7, 2006 11:08:16 PM

The only difference between the FX-60 and the Opteron 180 or the Athlon64 4800+ is the additional 200MHz of clock speed and an unlocked multiplier, every thing else is the same.
February 8, 2006 12:46:11 PM

Thanks for that article. Good read.

It basically shows though that games aren't yet optimized for dual core yet (although the processors themselves are good enough to equal a single processor performance, utilizing one core) and as I said earlier it will take some doing until we will see significant optimizations appear.
February 8, 2006 9:39:50 PM

I agree with your assessment. But that is no where near indicating that dual core for games is a waste. If you are an enthusiast gamer or a multi-use PC user and want the best performance, dual core is definitely the best solution to consider due to developing performance enhancements now and in the coming months. With business apps like Office and web creation, PhotoDraw, AutoCad and the likes, dual core has been integrated for years. I can not recommend a non dual core to anyone but strictly budget oriented gamers with little concern for tomorrow. Any reference that you look, if performance is the focus, dual core is at the top of the charts.
February 9, 2006 5:57:52 AM

Fully agreed. I never implied (i think?) that I would not recommend buying dual core now if gaming is your favorite thing. That article you posted showed that the newer dual cores do gaming just as well. I think I remember reading some tests with the first dual cores getting out, that they actually performed worse than single core processors, which was understandable because the cores individually were inferior to the better single core processors out at the time. With the latest generation the individual cores are no longer inferior to a single core proc (right?), and tests show that the shared buses etc don't degrade performance, so all is set to just move over if you want to have the latest thing, and you get the better performance when running multiple apps as a bonus. The main concerns now are price and being future proof (for games).
February 10, 2006 4:49:41 AM

Quote:
Oh come on. You can't put games on the list that aren't even out. Also, F.E.A.R. does not support dual core or 64-bit. :(  I wish it did though because I love the game.


HEY i thought FEAR had dual thread support. it is either THG or you that is lying to me...
February 25, 2006 4:02:07 PM

F.E.A.R. does not currently does not recieve a performance increase from dual core processors.
Also think about what you're saying, "comes amazingly close to matching an FX-55" The speed difference is only 200MHz, so I would expect this in any case.

As firing squad said
Quote:

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.
March 12, 2006 5:22:02 AM

Rich,

Help me out. I've read many forums on this. I can't get BF2 to work. It works in single player mode, but will not connect to a server for more than 5 seconds.

I've set the Affinity to 0 on bf2.exe. It was suggested to do the opposite on e~5000 file. I've updated pb, set bf2.exe to compatibility mode. Uninstalled and reinstalled with the new 1.21 patch. Tried high priority, low priorty.

Nothing works. Please help.

Specs:
AMD FX 60 Dual Core
NVIDIA 7900 GTX 512mb SLI
ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe Mobo
CORSAIR XMS PRO 2GB
WD 150GB SATA 150, 10K RPM
Windows X64
March 12, 2006 5:12:47 PM

I don't have that game ;( but maybe someone will chime in...

BTW, I am envious of your system tho, It rocks! :D 
March 12, 2006 6:33:02 PM

GOT IT TO WORK!!!! No Processor Affinity change required. It works on both cores!!!

All I did was install the Special Forces Expansion pack, then it automatically patched with version 1.1, so I repatched with 1.21 and whammo, it worked!

I'm really surprised, everything is working including printer drivers.

This card is insane!! I can see like I've never seen before. The monster machine lives!!

Thanks anyway. I hope others will benefit from this if they have this problem.
March 14, 2006 8:36:45 PM

Well, if we'ew also in the business of counting games that aren't even finished yet, why is The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion not included on the list? The developers of that game have repeatedly stated that the game, on either a console or the PC, will take advantage of having multiple hardware theads, virtual or physical. It was mentioned at both an interview with Evil Avatar, as well as an interview with Bit-Tech. These were also referenced in a more recent interview, one with Beyond3D. I think it's a fairly safe idea to add the game to the list.
March 14, 2006 10:12:08 PM

Quote:
BTW, I am envious of your system tho, It rocks! :D 


WOW!
That thing is nice! And crazy expensive too!
March 15, 2006 3:55:06 AM

Excellent!
March 15, 2006 3:55:42 AM

Added, and thanks...
March 15, 2006 7:26:39 PM

Quote:
Added, and thanks...

Certainly welcome. It turns out that "thread scheduling" was necessary to get decent performance on the Xbox 360; each core provides only about 1.6. "P" (Pentium 4 W/HT equivalent) However, that's still 4.8 "P" for all three, an admirable ammount for proabbly any game in the next five years, and far better suited than a 733MHz Celeron was in 2004, as was the case of the original Xbox...

At any rate, the same programming came over the PC, since after all, dual-cores were looking hot, and it is supposed to be the most advanced game of at least the year 2006. (though Unreal Tournament 2007 will have at least a complaint to lodge in its own time)
March 24, 2006 8:09:37 PM

You can add Football Manager 2006 to that list (called Worldwide Soccer Manager 2006 in the US).
March 24, 2006 9:17:06 PM

Counter Strike Source and DOD run great too!!

Specs:
AMD FX 60 Dual Core
Dual NVIDIA 7900 GTX 512mb SLI
ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe Mobo
CORSAIR XMS PRO 2GB
WD 150GB SATA 150, 10K RPM
Windows X64
April 10, 2006 8:31:59 PM

The dual core processors cost more for the same clock frequency. So my question is: does it make sense to buy them if you consider the same price not the same clock for comparison?
April 10, 2006 9:10:51 PM

cool post and WoW I heard was duel core aware but I dont think it really helps
April 12, 2006 5:56:59 PM

I can't stand it when scheduled events like my AV, Malware detector, or defrag go off while gaming. Dual core solves this problem!!! My FX 60 Dual core is working flawlessly.

Considering the cost is not that much more and eventually more software will take advantage of it, I'd say it's worth every penny.
April 12, 2006 7:32:07 PM

Oblivion is a multithreading game that does improve with a dual core. the reason being they used adaptive coding which basically means its EXACTLY the same game as the xbox version, and cause the codes buit to use all three processors of the xbox it can adapt itself to use a dual core, of you can turn certain multithreaded things on and off in the ini file.
April 12, 2006 9:38:11 PM

Quote:
The dual core processors cost more for the same clock frequency. So my question is: does it make sense to buy them if you consider the same price not the same clock for comparison?

It depends on the game in question. If you play older games, those that are single-core only, why are you even looking for such processors? An Athlon64 3000+ will cost you about $100US, and handle Half-Life2 or Doom3 at up to 60fps on practically any settings. (graphics card willing)

However, for newer games, like even Quake 4, but most prominently Oblivion, the performance advantage of going to multi-core chips is undeniable. It's gotten to the point that I think that any single-core Athlon64 more powerful than the 3700+ is a waste of money. Sure, you can go from 117 to 119FPS with an FX-55 over a 4800+ in Half-Life2, but that matters little; it's the fact that in Oblivion, the 4800+ would get some 55fps compared, to, say, 30fps for the FX-55 has a lot more meaning.

In other words, the old argument that "single core processors are better for gaming" simply no longer applies, now that we're starting to play games that were released after 2004.
April 13, 2006 8:11:04 AM

Another game for the list: Serious Sam 2

Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-game...

In general, I would like to see the sources for the claims that the games on the list perform so well with dual core CPUs. My own searching has shown up the opposite - in fact worse performance by a dual core CPU for a game than its single core equivalent (the source above gives many such examples). Why would that be?

Elsewhere, Call of Duty 2 with the dual core patch only improves by 10%, measured by FPS.

I am particularly interested in Battlefield 2 stats to prove that it works so much better with a dual core cpu, as I now ordered myself one on the basis amongst others of the list posted here. Again, the source quoted above shows the opposite.
April 13, 2006 1:42:46 PM

Regarding BF2, it seems that all the problems I've read about are in regards to the X2 dual cores. My success with BF2 is with the FX60 dual core. Not sure if that makes the difference but the FX processor was designed with the gamer in mind.

I'm sure the preformance increase I experienced was mainly due to the 7900 GTX 512mb card, which allows me to see all the way across the map when flying. However, things like IM, and AV can go off in the background without interferring at all due to the dual core proc. This is what made it all worth it for me.

One other note about BF2. It seems like it doesn't like to have the files defragmented. Everytime I defragment, the first time I log on, it instantly kicks me out. I finally went into the exceptions and excluded the EA games folder and it does not do that anymore.
April 16, 2006 1:16:27 PM

Till now, the don't even know how to split the game physics to a seperate CPU core, what eats power ingame besides Graphics, is Physics, took them long enuf to discover, which Agiea done great with their software physics engine.
April 21, 2006 3:19:30 PM

Quote:
Regarding BF2, it seems that all the problems I've read about are in regards to the X2 dual cores. My success with BF2 is with the FX60 dual core. Not sure if that makes the difference but the FX processor was designed with the gamer in mind.

Actually, the only way an Athlon64 FX processor differs from ordinary Athlon64 and Athlon64 X2 chips, is that the FX, aside from usually being availible in higher-power offerings than traditional-line chips, happens to have the processor clock speed multipliers unlocked, making it possible to overclock the CPU without overclocking anything else, which generally makes for better overclocking options.

Quote:
Till now, the don't even know how to split the game physics to a seperate CPU core, what eats power ingame besides Graphics, is Physics, took them long enuf to discover, which Agiea done great with their software physics engine.

Well, there's a lot more taking up processing aside from physics and graphics, but you are correct that physics are a major weight on the CPU. the PhysX card does help alleviate these problems, but I doubt that will be the direction of the future; over a year and a half later, and still no cards availible, and only a few titles that CAN use it, but don't need it. And plenty of titles with competing engines that look just as great; dare I say... Oblivion? Or even just Half-Life2? Havok is quite a lot, even thought it's based off of the CPU. And with quad-core chips coming later this year from Intel, and then later from AMD, we're heading even further into multi-threading.
July 29, 2006 12:31:29 AM

Dual-core computing is an unwanted technology that is being foisted onto us because Intel and AMD have hit the wall with cooling problems.

Both are pitching it as the next best thing since sliced bread, but the fact is that they don't really have any other choice without now going on to really exotic and expensive heat-removal systems for their single-processor technology.


I am in no hurry to buy a dual core system, because the gaming market is clearly not ready for it. Why blow big bucks right now for the latest and greatest if it's going to take another six months to a year for even half of the popular games to fully utilize multiple cores?

And the performance of two processors is never equal to a single processor of the combined speed, because there are background tasks that need to be done to distribute work evenly across the processors, and keep everything properly synchronized.

Even for software that is specifically designed to be fully threaded, it's not uncommon to see only 80% or lower performance gains with a second CPU, 60% or less gained with a 3rd CPU, and so on.
July 29, 2006 7:46:40 AM

Where's DAS KEYBOARD when you REALLY need it.

And it was it's first post. Good god delete this flame bait already.
July 30, 2006 11:46:40 PM

Dual core isn't all that much different from having dual processors, and dual-CPU Intel systems have been available for at least TEN YEARS now. Yet in all this time, no game company has ever bothered to write their code so that it can use multiple processors.

Back in 1996 you could buy a motherboard that could be outfitted with two Pentium-Pro CPUs, effectively doubling onboard processing power vs available maximum processor speeds.

Unreal Tournament '99 could definitely have been written to be dual-CPU capable. Dual-processor systems were commonly available to support this. But it didn't happen, and it hasn't happened with any other game up to this point.

How long have we had hyperthreading, which no game has bothered to utilize, either?

Game companies (and everyone else) have had the opportunity to write multi-CPU software for years now. What gamer would not have hopped onto a dual P-III system years ago if it could've meant a near doubling of their gaming performance?


The fact is that writing fully threaded software is HARD, much harder than traditional single-thread, single-CPU software, and programmers have either avoided it or not bothered with it because it takes so much more work to do correctly.

Now, unfortunately, they HAVE to do it, and this is going to drag out development time while programmers are forced to learn how to split up their old code to run properly across multiple CPUs.

Dual-core is not going to be the end of this. If the only way around the thermal barrier is to spread heat out across several CPUs, then perhaps 8-way or 16-way may be coming in a few years. The programming required gets incredibly complicated, and if not done correctly the gains for each additional CPU will be minimal.

The only programs that currently really use 8+way is arcane and expensive stuff like Oracle database servers and supercomputing simulations, but that level of processing complexity is likely going to be forced onto the gaming market in time.

With the heat issues there won't be any other choice to get more performance.
September 12, 2006 10:34:50 AM

What about Company of Heroes? I believe I've read this game will be "dual-core ready?
October 25, 2006 12:15:20 PM

Quote:
What about Company of Heroes? I believe I've read this game will be "dual-core ready?


Most likely that will be the case.
December 5, 2006 1:48:14 PM

ok guys, it's now early december - any news on gaming on dual cores? yeah, i've read the posts here, paid attention, but still don't think i've found a definite answer to a question that's been bothering me recently

will oblivion run faster if i switch to x2 3800+? i now have 3200+ and 7900gtx - how much better performance can i expect?

also - what about other titles? epsecially fps like hl2, q4 and so on?

maybe my reading skills are not up to today's standards but i just seem to can't get a definite answer... :roll:

cheers!
January 2, 2007 1:24:08 AM

Just registering to the site...but wanted to put in my two cents.

After my Intel HT system got hosed in late September, I decided to go with an AMD setup. However, I wasn't able to find a dual core AMD processor. As I had time sensitive data, I got a Athlon 64 3800+ and BFG mainboard setup.

After building the new system, I went and loaded XP Pro. I then got my internet running and re-downloaded Steam. Having bought Sin Episodes, I checked out the performance. Sound stuttering that I have had in the game at the beginning of a level was virtually gone.

I then found an Athlon 64 X2 4200+ and decided to try that processor in tthe setup. Re-ran S:E and found that the stuttering had returned. Apparently, S:E (or any Source based game) is not optimized for dual core from the get go.

Other games on the list (I didn't know that BF2 had a single-player component. Hmmm...) work just dandy with the dual core. The only exception other than S:E to this is the original F.E.A.R. (Extraction Point seems to have dual-core support built in).

All in all, dual core support is catching on in a great way. I just wish a patch would come out for the original F.E.A.R. and Source games. Anyone with a fix for any of this, could you tell me how to do this?
January 15, 2007 8:06:47 PM

Are you guys sure that BF2 has dual core support? The only places I can find that say it does in in threads like these in other forums. I can't find any official word that it does. I can find official word that it does not though:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/battlefield_2142_cp...
(read the second paragraph)
Since Battlefield 2142 is based on the same game engine as its predecessor, Battlefield 2, BF2142 has not been programmed to take advantage of multi-threading. This means that the second core found in the latest dual-core CPUs sits unused in Battlefield 2142.

So has there been a patch since then to allow BF2 to use both cores?
I can't find it anywhere using google
January 15, 2007 8:11:03 PM

Company of Heroes asks that you double check your OS is updated with the latest dual-core drivers (I have an AMD 64x2 4400+).

When the game is running, load is balanced between the two cores around 50%-75%. By comparison, Half-Life 1: Counter-Strike only uses 100% of core 1.
January 19, 2007 3:40:31 PM

The Unreal3 Engine utilizes multi-cores. Someone has posted that Rainbow Six Vegas does support dual-core.
January 19, 2007 5:00:56 PM

I've found that games that offer a "console" mode for running a hosted server are in fact capable of using multiple CPUs -- even if the normal game is not multi-core capable.

Take the ol' Unreal Tournament '99 (the original):
- start it from the command line as a dedicated server
- use XP Task Manager to set affinity to CPU 0
- start the regular game
- use XP Task Manager to set affinity to CPU 1
- from the regular game, type "connect localhost" or "connect 127.0.0.1"

Bam, now you're running the graphics engine solely on CPU 1 while the game engine runs solely on CPU 0, and they both coexist on the same dual-core system without any problem. :D 

It may not quite work the way you'd expect in single-player mode since the dedicated server isn't normally intended for single-player mode. It's usually set up for multiplayer only.

This shows that for some older games it is possible to make them at least dual-CPU capable, even if they don't directly appear to be capable of it -- but you have to do some gymnastics to make it work.
February 15, 2007 11:47:16 PM

Supreme Commander, too, I think. Or at least, I hope, 'cos I'm counting on my e4300 to give me a few more frames...
March 5, 2007 2:20:46 PM

Quote:
Company of Heroes asks that you double check your OS is updated with the latest dual-core drivers (I have an AMD 64x2 4400+).

When the game is running, load is balanced between the two cores around 50%-75%. By comparison, Half-Life 1: Counter-Strike only uses 100% of core 1.


Cool i didn't knew that :D 
thanks! :D 
April 18, 2007 11:53:01 PM

Battlefield 2

Battlefield 2: Special Forces << Is an mod not an new game

Battlefield 2142 is an update of Battlefield2 (same bugs) just new maps and titan mode

Battlefield 2 is not muti threded remove them from the list

if the user is even in here to modify the first post any more (probly not as its not been modiflyed for 1 yr)

this post needs unstickying if its not been updated for an bit

i post later on with an new thread that be more up to date
April 20, 2007 10:53:43 PM

List is modified... Thanks...
I will try to keep it current...
!