Dual Core Performance Tweaks

[Xiahou]

Apologies if this has been covered before, but I don't see it anywhere. I was looking for performance tweaks for a game when I came across this. I don't have a dual core CPU (yet, but I may soon), but these settings look like they could make a big difference to those that do have them.

linky

[BDC]

The gains are quite impressive...

Of course I'm using a P3 1ghz at the moment, so not much chance of it helping me...

[BlackAxe3001]

Nice find!

I wonder why microsoft wouldn't want this pushed out to everyone. The only thing I can see is that it may decrease battery life.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896256

Lots of info in there for those who want to read it.

I would say you would be foolish not install the fix if you have a dual core or hyperthreaded processor.(edit)

[LeftEyeNine]

Great source, Xiahou. Though I'm unable to test it, I really appreciate such treasurely findings.

[Husar]

I installed this before, but didn't do any before and after tests.
There was also another patch from Microsoft concerning Dual Core Performance and energy saving mode. IIRC I didn't do any registry editing on my current install, just applied several patches or so.
I might want to check that again once I get back to my PC.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Could be a placebo effect, but my PC seems faster.

Thanks for the tip, X-man.

[Bijo]

Apologies if this has been covered before, but I don't see it anywhere. I was looking for performance tweaks for a game when I came across this. I don't have a dual core CPU (yet, but I may soon), but these settings look like they could make a big difference to those that do have them.

linky

Hmmm, interesting. BlackAxe's link too. Thanks, I'll have a good read with these

-edit-
I've hardly seen a difference, with the C2D running at 2.13Ghz, 1066 FSB, etc. At least I haven't in games. Now, a single-core CPU with higher clock speed would outperform a dual-core in games, unless they optimize them for it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Does this work on core 2 duos or are they a horse of a different color?

[Husar]

Now, a single-core CPU with higher clock speed would outperform a dual-core in games, unless they optimize them for it.

I'm not entirely sure about this because most single cores rely on outdated technology and the Core 2 Duos have outperformed the fastest AMD single cores in reviews I've seen even if the game used only one core. And a dual core will also give better performance with other programs running in the background, because it can "outsource" all the small background stuff to the single Core and concentrate on the big game with the other core.

[Bijo]

I'm not entirely sure about this because most single cores rely on outdated technology and the Core 2 Duos have outperformed the fastest AMD single cores in reviews I've seen even if the game used only one core. And a dual core will also give better performance with other programs running in the background, because it can "outsource" all the small background stuff to the single Core and concentrate on the big game with the other core.

Hmmmm. I'm not entirely sure either. If these games only use one core, which is usually the case currently, and the dual-core CPU uses one for the other background tasks, and it is supposedly faster than a single-core with higher clock speed, then I wonder what reviews you've seen. Do you have links, or better yet: is there any solid hard proof?

Hmmm, as far as I know, it seems logical to assume that if one 2.0Ghz core runs a game, and the other 2.0Ghz core runs other stuff, a single-core CPU of 3.0Ghz should beat the dual-core's game performance, yet something tells me it doesn't necessarily But fact is: still one core is being used for the game, meaning the superfast single core "should outperform" the used core of the dual core.

And if that's the current purpose of dual cores with games, to still run it with a slower single core, while tasking stuff with the other, that's in my book kinda messed up. Those games should use both cores effectively, and Micro$oft should stop promoting software development and enforcing "consumer needs" that require the system to run unnecessary stuff in the background. Avoid bloated software with bloated code.[/rant]

[Husar]

The thing about other software was meant in a positive way because I like to keep Fraps, ICQ and MSN open in the background, sometimes even Opera.
Concerning performance, the fastest single core was the FX-57 IIRC(couldn't even find that in a shop anymore) and it was outclassed by the FX-60 in almost all gaming tests I've seen(don't know whether all the games were dual core optimized) and the FX-60 is seriously outclassed by the Core 2 Duos and that is why there is a lot of reason to think that a single core of a Core 2 Duo will outclass any available single core, single cores are all based on outdated technology anyway, there is nore Core 2 Single and i think the new K8L platform from AMD will be all dual and quad cores, so the era of single cores is definitely over anyway. And games are starting to use the multi cores anyway.

[Bijo]

I took out some words with [...] that I thought unnecessary to our argument :)

Concerning performance, the fastest single core was the FX-57 IIRC [...] and it was outclassed by the FX-60 in almost all gaming tests I've seen(don't know whether all the games were dual core optimized)

But I've read that in single-threaded programs (which is what many games were and are still using) the FX-57 would win.

and the FX-60 is seriously outclassed by the Core 2 Duos and that is why there is a lot of reason to think that a single core of a Core 2 Duo will outclass any available single core,

Hmmmm, I find this peculiar logic in itself. Because the C2D (assuming the information is correct) would beat the FX-60, doesn't necessarily mean one C2D core would beat a single-core CPU. It still depends on whether the software is optimized, which is an important factor.

single cores are all based on outdated technology anyway, [...] And games are starting to use the multi cores anyway.

They are indeed starting to use more cores, true, now, implying they didn't do so much before. Single cores use outdated technology, so did/do the games; it didn't/doesn't matter. Dual cores use new technology, but if the game doesn't use this technology effectively, what's the point (besides future-proofing your system)?

Still, fact remains: a slower core of a dual-core CPU is used for a game, or a faster single-core CPU is used for a game. When I look at those "recommended specs" I usually see something in the sense of Pentium 4 3.0Ghz or equivalent (or something like that, or higher speed). I never see anything on the game box or in the manual or readme files about dual cores, which are supposedly better CPUs, because those games aren't designed for it - they still use one core.
It then makes sense to think that a fast 3.xGhz single-core CPU would beat a 1.xx/2.0Ghz single core of a dual-core CPU.


I think we should find some kind of list of games that are optimized for dual-core CPUs

I also think we should take into consideration other factors of the system, especially hard disks. For instance: if you have dual-core, run a game with background tasks, the hard disk plays an important part.


-edit-
About the dual-core tweak:
I've used System Restore to have my system back to how it was before I used the "tweak" and it now seems faster. When I actually did the tweak back then it really seemed slower.

-edit2-
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=983781
Found another link to this tweaking thing.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ive been told to ignore the ghz rating in comparing single core to dual, especially when it concerns Core 2 Duos. Even at a lower rating they say it runs faster and cooler than a single core witha much higher rating.

[Xiahou]

I know it's not completely authoritative, but I like the CPU charts at Tom's Hardware- they make it easy to compare a range of processors under various tasks and get a general idea where they stand. Here's the link for the CPU charts if anyone's interested.

Does this work on core 2 duos or are they a horse of a different color?

I'm guessing it would be the same for any multi-core processor.

[Xiahou]

Well, I tried this on my new PC and am disappointed to say that it made little difference.

I saw an improvement of about 30 marks in 3dMark06... which is pretty insignificant. I wonder if installing the AMD CPU driver makes for most of the performance gains? I did that ahead of time, since it was included on my mobo CD- that could possibly explain why I saw so little difference.

[BlackAxe3001]

Note 2: The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer was AMD's answer to Microsoft's Multi-Core fix... originally, to get the hotfix, one would have to email Microsoft to get it... screw that. Therefore, AMD released their Optimizer to give the public (with AMD CPUs) a way to utilize both cores. If you install the AMD Optimizer and it works without problems, then you would NOT have to install the the WinXP hotfix.

That is why you didn't get any improvement. You already had it installed via AMD's driver/optimizer.

[HughTower]

I've performed these tweaks on my new E6300 PC & benchmark before & after with no discernible difference in performance. Also, during the CPU test on 3dmark06, my FPS hovered around 0-1 fps, surely this can't be right? Anyone with any clever ideas?

[Xiahou]

I've performed these tweaks on my new E6300 PC & benchmark before & after with no discernible difference in performance. Also, during the CPU test on 3dmark06, my FPS hovered around 0-1 fps, surely this can't be right? Anyone with any clever ideas?

The 3dMark06 murdered my CPU as well. Regardless, the CPU marks were more than doubled on my new 4400+ x/2 than they were on my old 3600+ Venice core. The Venice ran the cpu test at a painful to watch 0 fps, whereas the new CPU at least kept it running between 0-1.

The difference in on screen FPS wasn't much, but it did run noticeably smoother- if still very slow, and the CPU score increase was quite significant.