• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
matamor

Dual & Quad cores performances

26 posts in this topic

Are we gonna see new implementations in the future to include a load balancing for dual & quad cores?

This game mainly relies on CPU Performance then after on your video card. Thing is, you could have the best video card with 8 gigs on DDR3 but if your quad core run at 1.5ghz each, you never gonna get all the performances you wish to have flirting.

Or maybe I miss something and there is a fix somewhere already implemented but I doubt it...

Leave your idea and your comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven’t had a CPU problem last 2-3 years tbh.

At the moment my 2500K is running at 4.1 GHz on auto-overclock, can push that to 4.5 if necessary without any problems.

It's running stable and very fast, other cores doing other tasks.

Not a programmer but as far as I understand you have to rebuild the game from the beginning for multicore support, I don't think it’s needed anymore, normal hardware’s have now passed the game requirements. (we just need it to be 64bit...)

Took some 10 years.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you just replied by saying your core is oc to 4.1 ghz.

how did this help

Try again, CPU bought 2011 drives the game perfectly(1 core of 4), were is the problem? We want CRS to rebuild all code for people not willing to upgrade from hardware bought pre-2009?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try again' date=' CPU bought 2011 drives the game perfectly(1 core of 4), were is the problem? We want CRS to rebuild all code for people not willing to upgrade from hardware bought pre-2009?[/quote']

My system is 06/2011 btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try again' date=' CPU bought 2011 drives the game perfectly(1 core of 4), were is the problem? We want CRS to rebuild all code for people not willing to upgrade from hardware bought pre-2009?[/quote']

A game from 2001 needs hardware from 2009+? Funny. The game needs to be optimized to embrace modern technology rather than simply overkilling it with a 4.1GHz processor and god knows what else. Seems kinda primitive to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A game from 2001 needs hardware from 2009+? Funny. The game needs to be optimized to embrace modern technology rather than simply overkilling it with a 4.1GHz processor and god knows what else. Seems kinda primitive to me.

First: Game was BORN 2001, it is in constant development, in the beginning hardware was really lacking.

A Sandy bridge processor running at 4.1 or at stock speed is not overkilling anything, its standard inexpensive hardware running this game fine with 1 core, stated above.

It is a very special game with very special coding for sure, if it’s perfectly optimized? You know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for participing to my squad nights, I'm going to connect back my old dual cores 2.2ghz that I have overclocked to 2.7ghz in order to have a decent fps in game. I bought this one in 2008 with a 9400GT and I have more fps that my current Liano A8-3500M quad cores with 8 gigs DDR3 and dual graphics cards that I couldn't not even crossfire.

.em sadpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First: Game was BORN 2001' date=' it is in constant development, in the beginning hardware was really lacking.[/color']

A Sandy bridge processor running at 4.1 or at stock speed is not overkilling anything, its standard inexpensive hardware running this game fine with 1 core, stated above.

It is a very special game with very special coding for sure, if it’s perfectly optimized? You know?

Regardless, with my setup, I should not be running this game at 10 fps in a small battle (16 guys on our side, not sure about the other side)

AMD Phantom II Black Edition 3.2ghz quad-core

GeForce GTX 260 (using settings from a guide posted in one of the stickys for)

6GB DDR3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless, with my setup, I should not be running this game at 10 fps in a small battle (16 guys on our side, not sure about the other side)

AMD Phantom II Black Edition 3.2ghz quad-core

GeForce GTX 260 (using settings from a guide posted in one of the stickys for)

6GB DDR3

My system specs:

Phenom II 940 OC'd to 3.4ghz

4gb OCZ Reaper

XFX HD4870

Win 7 64 bit

For the most part I keept a minimum of 30 FPS. I don't care how high they go as long as I can maintain at least 30 without any stuttering or frame by frame game play.

BUT, every now and then I do drop to 10 FPS and stay there. This mainly occurs in large cities like Antwerp, Brussels, Liege, Lux, Trier, etc.

Every since 1.31 and the introduction of indestructible buildings the lag in cities has been horrible!! I mention the buildings because that is the key difference in the cities.

Is this happening to you ALL of the time or just in larger cities?

I also have to run all my card settings and game settings on lowest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My system specs:

Phenom II 940 OC'd to 3.4ghz

4gb OCZ Reaper

XFX HD4870

Win 7 64 bit

For the most part I keept a minimum of 30 FPS. I don't care how high they go as long as I can maintain at least 30 without any stuttering or frame by frame game play.

BUT, every now and then I do drop to 10 FPS and stay there. This mainly occurs in large cities like Antwerp, Brussels, Liege, Lux, Trier, etc.

Every since 1.31 and the introduction of indestructible buildings the lag in cities has been horrible!! I mention the buildings because that is the key difference in the cities.

Is this happening to you ALL of the time or just in larger cities?

I also have to run all my card settings and game settings on lowest.

Happens to me in small towns mostly, especially when a lot of trees are visible. The larger cities actually give me less problems. I don't really know what gives, I've even tried all settings on low and I still get horrible fps. I'm running at 1920x1200 resolution btw. I guess I have to turn that down, even though I'd hate to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Happens to me in small towns mostly' date=' especially when a lot of trees are visible. The larger cities actually give me less problems. I don't really know what gives, I've even tried all settings on low and I still get horrible fps. I'm running at 1920x1200 resolution btw. I guess I have to turn that down, even though I'd hate to.[/quote']

Turning the resolution down might give you a couple FPS extra but not much. I know because I tried. What graphics card are you running? If you are using an AMD card such as a 4 or 5k series, make sure the card is clocking UP when the game is running.

I have a 4870 that by default runs at a slower speed to keep it cooler. When a game is running it should clock up to 700mHz for GPU and 900Mhz for memory clock but for some reason it doesn't do it in WWIIOL. It WILL in other games but not this one.

I can't help but wonder if because the game runs on mostly CPU power that it isn't triggering the Gfx card to clock up and thus some things in the game do not render properly or fast enough and so the game lags. What I do is clock it up manually to what it should go to anyway. After I do that the game runs ok for the most part but will still lag in larger cities.

Check this out and see what you come up with.

Edited by stdyhand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD?:confused:

You guys must be kidding! AMD is not near Intel. This game needs CPU POWER, only INTEL have the CPUs for this game. Jez, have you all been sleeping last 5 years?

/Kubel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be fun to play a map with 2003 or 2004 version - that would stop allot of complain about this game - it's really a big upgrade we have today :-)

And we should have an Fps at 1000+...

Btw - if someone have Win 7 64bits you should really should get more then 4 GB Ram - it's really cheap today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would be fun to play a map with 2003 or 2004 version - that would stop allot of complain about this game - it's really a big upgrade we have today :-)

And we should have an Fps at 1000+...

Btw - if someone have Win 7 64bits you should really should get more then 4 GB Ram - it's really cheap today.

I don't understand why you specifically mention Windows 7. According to every major PC website I've visited says Vista uses more memory than 7 and no one maxes out 4GB in this game with multiple programs running. So what benefit is there to more memory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand why you specifically mention Windows 7. According to every major PC website I've visited says Vista uses more memory than 7 and no one maxes out 4GB in this game with multiple programs running. So what benefit is there to more memory?

Disabled swap file.

Dataram RAMDisk for someting (browser cache, adobe cache, logs, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disabled swap file.

Dataram RAMDisk for someting (browser cache, adobe cache, logs, etc.).

I don't get it either. What are you referring to by "disabled swap file" and how does that effect performance? I've never maxed out 4 gigs in this game either. I have maxed out 2 before but not 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the dual cores were coming out they exhibited no interest in coding/accounting for them....

even though it was obvious it was the future

so NOW there are 8 core processors becoming common and many programs can also use the graphic cards with stuff like CUDA as being even many more processing cores...

it takes SKILL to code for multiple cores...orders of magnitude greater then coding something that only runs on 1 core

also the game has hit the LIMITS of 32 bit programing...the game has had to condense stuff to fit into the space that 32bit OS allows programs to operate in and the data it can adress...as I understand it that why they CAN"T put new units into the game

it's not like 64 bit OS weren't forseen as the future also

game desperately needs to get rid of 32 bit legacy support and be FULLY 100% coded for 64bit OS and account for multiple CPU/GPU cores..ths is the FUTURE OF GAMING and computer coding in general

Edited by Vampress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question is TRULY baffling to me.

Why do I get a better framerate with a CPU literally a SIXTH the speed of yours? My CPU is an AMD Athlon 3200+. It runs at 2.0 GHz. The clock isn't even supported by SetFSB anymore. I run the game at 30 FPS without activity, 20 with a large-scale battle (varies on what i'm looking at sometimes though, runs at a MINIMUM of 10)

Yet somehow, you get a LOWER framerate with a BETTER CPU?

How does that even work?

Are you guys exaggerating or something..?

Mabye i'm just used to getting low framerates or something, I don't know.

(Also, don't be like OH MY GOSH THAT IS A BAD CPU. UPGRADE IT NOW. I have parts ordered right now, actually.)

Edited by bran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

framerate depends a great deal on your graphics resolution when your talking about lower end systems....

you have to keep all settings the same if your going to compare framerates...ie 1080P resolutions and graphics cards settings. comparing 2560x1600 to 800x600 would be pointless as an example...

game does have a benchmark test that should be used for comparisons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AMD?:confused:

You guys must be kidding! AMD is not near Intel. This game needs CPU POWER, only INTEL have the CPUs for this game. Jez, have you all been sleeping last 5 years?

/Kubel

I should not need a 4.1 GHz cpu to run this game effectively, AMD, Intel, or ACME as far as I'm concerned. The game is just outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I should not need a 4.1 GHz cpu to run this game effectively' date=' AMD, Intel, or ACME as far as I'm concerned. The game is just outdated.[/quote']

read this thread again from above: This game needs CPU power!

Go play fancy shot em up game = you need GPU power.

Only problem with this game it needs to go 64 bits, not many games are 64 bit so its not outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.