Dark Messiah and core2duo?

[eyeballpauluk]

hey all.

This is more a tech question, than a problem.

I had a look at task manager for a few minutes worth of action while I had been playing DM.

It shows that the 1st core is hardly getting used at all, while the 2nd core is almost 100% usage!

Is this normal? Is there a way to use both cores I checked what the mm.exe can use, and its set up to utilise core 0 and 1, so I thought Ii would see both cores getting used.

This may be a daft question...but its the first duallcore processor I have had, so I am not 100% sure how many games/applications actually use both!

If it helps, Im using an e6600 2.4 (OC'd to 3.01).

Thanks.

[BlindNero]

Hi. NO games use both cores, and/or successfully use 'multithreaded'.
Dual core in the first place is meant for Windows to devide the tasks over the two. So while you're gaming, 1 core is dedicated to the game and the other to all other tasks running on the background.

[eyeballpauluk]

ah ok no probs..cheers BN

[BlindNero]

Wel it IS a good point you make. Developments are going into that direction trying to use more than 1 of a quadcore or deviding multithreaded tasks over 8, 16 or more cores!
But for now, making DM run on both cores is impossible, you can't force Windows to do that.

[BlindNero]

I use C2D E6600 too, running @ 3.4.

Originally posted by BlindNero:

Loaded Mainpage takes 833MB, peak 837 MB
DM-RAM-usage-highest-1600x1200_01. (http://home.planet.nl/%7Edekk0819/downloads/DM-RAM-usage-01.jpg)

Loaded level takes 1.25 GB, peak 1.28 GB
DM-RAM-usage-highest-1600x1200_02. (http://home.planet.nl/%7Edekk0819/downloads/DM-RAM-usage-02.jpg)

Flyover cutscene 1.28 GB
DM-RAM-usage-highest-1600x1200_03. (http://home.planet.nl/%7Edekk0819/downloads/DM-RAM-usage-03.jpg)

Gaming at same spot 1.30 GB
DM-RAM-usage-highest-1600x1200_04. (http://home.planet.nl/%7Edekk0819/downloads/DM-RAM-usage-04.jpg)

Gaming at other location stays between 1.2 and 1.3 GB.
DM-RAM-usage-highest-1600x1200_05. (http://home.planet.nl/%7Edekk0819/downloads/DM-RAM-usage-05.jpg)

[eyeballpauluk]

thats strange...

games/apps should be built to make use of multicores....then the more cores the better...PC's are still a little bit behind...

hopefully with quads soon to be more mainstream, and with dx10 etc etc then we will see this become more and more "the norm"

as for the RAM stats, does that mean anymore than 2gb ram wont make a difference?

[BlindNero]

We posted at the same moment! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Yes yes, when more cores work different tasks of the game at the same time more complicated tasks are possible.

Yes, more than 2 GB RAM is overkill for games. Only rendering programs like Photoshop, Maya, CAD benefit from about 3 GB* on WindowsXP 32-bit, up to 8 GB on XP-64 bit.

* that is 2 GB per application, 1 GB for Windows. If i refind the microsoft link that says that i'll post it.

[eyeballpauluk]

damn...i have XP 32bit and vista 32bit..can i not use 4gb? cos i just ordered 2gb extra to take me to 4gb...

[BlindNero]

Hey it's never a waste.
1. You'll have more than 2 GB while keeping dual channel (if you have that), that's only possible with identical pairs.
2. You'll have full 2 GB for your heavy application (f.i. videorendering).
You can always buy XP- or Vista 64-bit (but there's no reason for games).

[BlindNero]

From: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223
Performance, Architectural Limits and RAM

On any computer system, as load (number of users, amount of work being done) increases, performance (how long it takes to do each task) will decrease, but in a non linear fashion. Any increase in load (demand) beyond a certain point will result in a dramatic decrease in performance. This means that some resource is in critically short supply and has become a bottleneck.

At some point, the resource in critical short supply can not be increased. This means an architectural limit has been reached. Some commonly reported architectural limits in Windows include:

1. 2 GB of shared virtual address space for the system
2. 2 GB of private virtual address space per process
3. 660 MB System PTE storage
4. 470 MB paged pool storage
5. 256 MB nonpaged pool storage

The above applies to Windows 2003 Server specifically (from Knowledgebase article 294418), but also apply to Windows XP and Windows 2000.

From http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007.../Default.aspx?loc=en (http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/03/VistaKernel/Default.aspx?loc=en) :
Windows and the applications that run on it have bumped their heads on the address space limits of 32-bit processors. The Windows kernel is constrained by default to 2GB, or half the total 32-bit virtual address space, with the other half reserved for use by the process whose thread is currently running on the CPU. Inside its half, the kernel has to map itself, device drivers, the file system cache, kernel stacks, per-session code data structures, and both non-paged (locked-in physical memory) and paged buffers allocated by device drivers.
Test 32 bit vs. 64 bit: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-versus-Windows-o...sus-64bit-1349.shtml (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-versus-Windows-or-32-bit-versus-64bit-1349.shtml)

[eyeballpauluk]

well i shall have 4*1gb sticks of g.skill ddr2 800 blah blah