Will FM 2010 Better Utilize Dual Core?

[bardock]

Right now I have a problem where FM starts to get choppy during a match soon as one of my CPUs hits 100%, while the other one never passes 10%.

I've got the AMD 4600+ Dual Core (2.4GHz), and threading is enabled.

Has anyone had the same problem?

If not is there anything I'm missing?

[Geronimo360]

Mine both run at similar levels, never more than 15% in it.

[bardock]

That's weird.

I've just checked and again I find that it's only using one of the cores after it starts up. During start up both cores kick in.

[spartans5]

My desktop uses all 4 of my cores very equally, and it even handles every league in the game , that's a fun game

[bardock]

What OS are you guys running?

Edit:-

After testing it some more I notice that 1 core is active during the match but it changes to 2 when I'm (it's) making changes.

Same thing happens when the game is processing. One core does the processing.

[spartans5]

Vista Ultimate, but will upgrade to Windows 7 on 10/22/09

[Eles Gergo]

My desktop uses all 4 of my cores very equally, and it even handles every league in the game , that's a fun game

What kind of system do you have?

[spartans5]

Its custom built, but its an Intel Quadcore processor, 2.83 GHz

[SAFC1]

I currently have a intel core i7 2.93 ghz processor

1GB ATI graphics

8GB DDR3 Ram ... and mine works fine haha !

But i take my laptop with me to college .. it has core 2 duo .. works fine

[Svenc]

What OS are you guys running?

Edit:-

After testing it some more I notice that 1 core is active during the match but it changes to 2 when I'm (it's) making changes.

Same thing happens when the game is processing. One core does the processing.

Did you try downloading AMD's dual core fix? Running an X2 myself and never seen this happen. And I'm on FM08 still.

[FM1000]

I have 2 g ram and dual-core procesor on 1.6 GHZ and both procesors are at 90-100% all the time.The game is quite slow.And i play only 3 leagues with small data base.

[Brian Shanahan]

I have 2 g ram and dual-core procesor on 1.6 GHZ and both procesors are at 90-100% all the time.The game is quite slow.And i play only 3 leagues with small data base.

If you are running Vista it akes up a lot of RAM. You could try downloading Game Booster off IOBit, I find it a good programme myself, as it closes down all unneeded programmes that were running in background. It saved a lot of RAM/processor space and cleared all the choppiness I suffered watching games on 3D.

[FM1000]

If you are running Vista it akes up a lot of RAM. You could try downloading Game Booster off IOBit, I find it a good programme myself, as it closes down all unneeded programmes that were running in background. It saved a lot of RAM/processor space and cleared all the choppiness I suffered watching games on 3D.

I'm running XP and i downloaded GameBooster but it didnt make any big difference.

[bardock]

Did you try downloading AMD's dual core fix? Running an X2 myself and never seen this happen. And I'm on FM08 still.

AMD optimizer you mean?

I tried that once but for some reason my computer became unstable.

[Arsenal_Fan_1986]

This is an interesting read. I'm thinking of getting a new laptop and never really thought much of 'dual' or 'quad' core before, just passed it off as a fancy selling word lol.

I'm not gonna hi-jack the thread and ask which laptop should I get, I have enough knowledge to at least make that decision. But I just wandered which is better, lets say a 3.2Ghz processor or a dualcore both at 1.6Ghz.

The total speed is 3.2 in each case I'm just curious to know if it's more beneficial over 2 processors.

[bardock]

Dual Core especially if you are a multi-tasker. You know music, internet, FM all at the same time.

Think of it this way. It's easier/more efficient for 2/4 average guys to lift a big heavy object than one really strong guy.

Edit: Actually that example is kind of wrong. what I should've said was it's better for 2/4 guys to lift smaller things than one big guy going back and forth. As for the big heavy object they'd basically be equal, but that'd really be down to the applications programming.

Thing is right now there's a little issue with Dual Core and windows that I seem to suffer from. There's a hotfix available but it's for the XP x86 system and I'm running x64.

If you plan on running XP x64 then you'd need to contact Microsoft so they can direct you to the hotfix (apparently it's not available to the public) and it should solve your problem. If you plan on running windows 7 then you should be fine. I can't see windows not sorting this out by windows 7. Might've even been sorted out in Vista, but I'm not too sure about that.

[Svenc]

This is an interesting read. I'm thinking of getting a new laptop and never really thought much of 'dual' or 'quad' core before, just passed it off as a fancy selling word lol.

I'm not gonna hi-jack the thread and ask which laptop should I get, I have enough knowledge to at least make that decision. But I just wandered which is better, lets say a 3.2Ghz processor or a dualcore both at 1.6Ghz.

You might be interested in reading this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

Since single core processors are now becoming fairly obselete, I'd think your're talking about a Pentium4 at 3.2 or thereabouts. Any modern dual core processor would give that a good raping in most applications, 1.6 Ghz clock speed or no. Furthermore, there's really no point in going anything lower than dualcore if you're buying a NEW machine these days - unless you're only running elderly software and single core applications. FM utilizes up to 4 cores now, I think, and benefits from more cores than just one in either case.

The total speed is 3.2 in each case I'm just curious to know if it's more beneficial over 2 processors.

Also, this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core A dual-core processor is not 2 times a single core processor. Or its performance. Or anything. It's an entirelly different chip architecture, allowing software to be programmed in very different ways.

AMD optimizer you mean?

I tried that once but for some reason my computer became unstable.

What's your system like anyway? Did you notice similar happening in other games?

[AJ1]

Core i7 @ 3.6ghz, 6gb RAM, GTX275, Windows 7 Ultimate - Super quick no problems

[Arkim]

Core i7 @ 3.6ghz, 6gb RAM, GTX275, Windows 7 Ultimate - Super quick no problems

At least 2/2.5GB of that RAM is going to waste, just for the OS itself. If you get yourself running XP 64bit, imagine the speed and leagues you could run. Still a nice setup you got though.

[Indi75]

At least 2/2.5GB of that RAM is going to waste, just for the OS itself. If you get yourself running XP 64bit, imagine the speed and leagues you could run.

Oh dear, someone else who hasn't a clue.

Would you care to quantify the term 'going to waste'?

[bardock]

What's your system like anyway? Did you notice similar happening in other games?

Other games run smoothly, but I don't play that many games to be honest, especially not graphic intensive games. Problem just seems to happen with FM.

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 x2 4600+ (2.4GHz)

GPU: Palit 7900 GS.

OS: XP x64

4GB Ram

I know the GPU isn't top end but it's more than enough to run FM. I can watch highlights in 3D with no problems. The problem only seems to occur when core 1 hits 100%. Core 2 barely ever passes 10% most of the time not even 1%. I figure any change in core 2 is a direct result of another application requiring processing.

[Arkim]

Oh dear, someone else who hasn't a clue.

Would you care to quantify the term 'going to waste'?

Can you save us the petty remarks and do the research yourself? Small hint; system requirements for Windows 7.

Like I said, just for the OS itself.

[DietSpam]

XP might use less RAM, but it's notoriously difficult to find drivers for it's 64bit version. Where as now, people realize that games and all the rest of it are getting far more demanding, and thus more people are getting more than 4GB of ram and need to use 64bit version. That's why we are seeing more drivers for these versions. If only Cisco would make it's VPN client compatible with 64bit versions of Windows, i'd be happy. Until then VMWare on Unity. It's great.

[Svenc]

Other games run smoothly, but I don't play that many games to be honest, especially not graphic intensive games. Problem just seems to happen with FM.

But that doesn't tell much, now does it? I think the issue was more with a second core not being utilized by a program that should do so. I'm playing FM08 and this one uses both cores - does this only occur during match days or during the entire game? I know you've long since uninstalled this, but I've also no idea if there's an issue with your version of XP and AMD's dual core optimizer, I've got no problem with that at all on XP 32bit SP2.

Can you save us the petty remarks and do the research yourself? Small hint; system requirements for Windows 7.

Like I said, just for the OS itself.

Man, and I thought they were aiming to lower that. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-system-requirements-hardware-rc,7701.html Of course, time has moved on since Vista had been released - you can get 4GB of memory for the price of FM easily.

[Arkim]

Man, and I thought they were aiming to lower that. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-system-requirements-hardware-rc,7701.html Of course, time has moved on since Vista had been released - you can get 4GB of memory for the price of FM easily.

Told you. I personally don't like the direction MS is taking with Windows; eye-candy. I'm all for having a good looking OS, but this whole futuristic look is kind of lame, at least for me. I thought XP was a great OS that was light on hardware and functioned absolutely great. If they could only build on it.

[Indi75]

Can you save us the petty remarks and do the research yourself? Small hint; system requirements for Windows 7.

Like I said, just for the OS itself.

Go away and read up on Windows 7 Memory utilisation, and then rethink use of the words going to waste.

I've got a 4GB machine and the OS resides in under 1GB of Memory when idle, it uses a little more on my 8GB machine, but that's normal as memory usage increases with meory controller requirements.

Hardly wasted either. My point, petty in your eyes or not, still stands.

[Arkim]

Go away and read up on Windows 7 Memory utilisation, and then rethink use of the words going to waste.

I've got a 4GB machine and the OS resides in under 1GB of Memory when idle, it uses a little more on my 8GB machine, but that's normal as memory usage increases with meory controller requirements.

Hardly wasted either. My point, petty in your eyes or not, still stands.

All I did was post my opinion and also added a "wink" icon, maybe you didn't see it. Maybe you didn't read the last part of my post either. I said it is "still a nice setup" which clearly meant just that nothing else. Clearly those were indications of that and weren't intended as a provoking post.

I've done my fair share of reading on W7 as well as use the beta and I'm not speaking sideways, so before you do start posting and accusing, I would suggest you ease up on your "go away" attitude.

Take care.

Edit: I think you meant to say 6GB instead of 8GB, but that's beside the point.

[bardock]

But that doesn't tell much, now does it? I think the issue was more with a second core not being utilized by a program that should do so. I'm playing FM08 and this one uses both cores - does this only occur during match days or during the entire game? I know you've long since uninstalled this, but I've also no idea if there's an issue with your version of XP and AMD's dual core optimizer, I've got no problem with that at all on XP 32bit SP2.

The optimizer from AMD's website is apparently notoriously unpredictable.

Some people on the AMD forum say it works like a charm while others say it messes up their system. I unfortunately fall under the second category.

It's not being utilized during the match, and when the game is processing after I click continue. The other core does kick in when it's implementing confirmed tactical changes though. The fact that the second core does kick every now and then makes me believe that there should be a simple fix out there.

This is what happens during a match or when processing - http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy321/basdock/DualCore.jpg

XP has trouble utilizing certain dual core CPUs so Microsoft have released the hotfix I might've mentioned. I'm hoping the Microsoft Hotfix will solve this problem. Problem is the x64 version is not available for download on their website. I sent them an e-mail yesterday, I'm hoping they'll send me the link tomorrow.

I Installed my brother's world in conflict and played for an hour, ran perfectly fine.

These are it's minimum requirements.

Operating System - Microsoft Windows XP/Vista

CPU - 2.0 GHz Or Higher, 2.2 GHz For Vista, if dual-core: Any Intel or AMD

Memory - 512MB, 1GB for Vista

Hard Drive Space 8GB or more

Media - DVD-drive

Graphics Hardware - 128MB video RAM Direct X 9.0c Compatible

Sound Hardware - Direct X 9.0c Compatible

Network - Cable, DSL or Better

I'm thinking if that game can run flawlessly then FM should too.

[Arsenal_Fan_1986]

Svenc, Thanks for the links to the wiki. I'll read them later as I'm off to work in 10mins. There's a few things on a CPU spec that makes no sense to me but I'm sure them pages will clear it up.

Back in the day it was just simple to know what was better for your computer. My first real computer using windows was a mighty 200Mhz CPU and 32mb Ram and I think that cost my mum £500 lol.

[Svenc]

I know what you mean - judging a computer's performance based on its clock speed has never been as wrong as it is now - and still computer's are being sold on their clock speeds to your average person. But thinking about it, clock speed never was that telling to begin with. I was always a little puzzled why my 386 clocking in at a whopping 40Mhz was beaten by a friend's 486 computer. After all, that was snoozing around with like 25Mhz. How could that be? Of course, with processors now going by names like Intel Corei7, Athlon Phenom and thereabouts and consisting of one to four cores, this has become more complicated than it ever was.

The optimizer from AMD's website is apparently notoriously unpredictable.

This is what happens during a match or when processing - http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy321/basdock/DualCore.jpg

XP has trouble utilizing certain dual core CPUs so Microsoft have released the hotfix I might've mentioned. I'm hoping the Microsoft Hotfix will solve this problem. Problem is the x64 version is not available for download on their website. I sent them an e-mail yesterday, I'm hoping they'll send me the link tomorrow.

I Installed my brother's world in conflict and played for an hour, ran perfectly fine.

These are it's minimum requirements.

Operating System - Microsoft Windows XP/Vista

CPU - 2.0 GHz Or Higher, 2.2 GHz For Vista, if dual-core: Any Intel or AMD

Memory - 512MB, 1GB for Vista

Hard Drive Space 8GB or more

Media - DVD-drive

Graphics Hardware - 128MB video RAM Direct X 9.0c Compatible

Sound Hardware - Direct X 9.0c Compatible

Network - Cable, DSL or Better

I'm thinking if that game can run flawlessly then FM should too.

Yeah, but it is utilizing your second core as it should do? By the way, no expert here, but that screenshot of yours doesn't look that off to me - if at all. It's not as if any program would suddenly utilize both cores at 80% just like that at any point. Judging from the FM09 demo, the match engine is a bit choppy in terms of viuals anyway. Until then that hotfix is your best bet, I guess...

[bardock]

I've been keeping an eye on the usage for the past couple of hours. I've found that both cores work in tandum for a while. At some point something happens to the second core that makes it drop the load resulting in the choppy 2D engine.

I found a thread in the technical issues forum that describes the same problem. The only constant in that thread is that everyone complaining about this problem has a CPU from the AMD Athlon 64 X2 family.

Svenc expert or not you've been helpful. It's been kind of frustrating having to deal with this on my own so if anything you've aleviated some of that frustration.

[Indi75]

All I did was post my opinion and also added a "wink" icon, maybe you didn't see it. Maybe you didn't read the last part of my post either. I said it is "still a nice setup" which clearly meant just that nothing else. Clearly those were indications of that and weren't intended as a provoking post.

I've done my fair share of reading on W7 as well as use the beta and I'm not speaking sideways, so before you do start posting and accusing, I would suggest you ease up on your "go away" attitude.

Take care.

Edit: I think you meant to say 6GB instead of 8GB, but that's beside the point.

Sorry Arkim, I'm tarring you wish the brush of a mac fanboi, icabal, or one who simply believes everything bad written about windows and then uses it as fact to sound intelligent.

I understand what you are saying, and rather than simply disagree I should have gone into some detail on the way in which XP made extensive and slow use of the HDD page file for a lot of it's processes. Vista pushed much of this into memory making it slicker, albeit Vista's bulk counteracted against any major improvement.

In 7, especially with Readyboost added, almost all of the read/write is done to either memory or readyboost cache and I'm amazed I've been able to install the 7 RC on some older machines and still have it perform well.

Now I just wish the OEM's would stop selling 32bit OS's. The CPU's are all 64bit now, and the OEM's are just slowing the march of progress.

(There's 2 machines. My laptop is 4GB, and my desktop is 8GB. I think if I went i7 I'd need to get 12GB, which - with an entire platform change - is a little beyond my desire to splash at the moment, however tempting.

[nine_iron]

Beefier Rig than mine, i fall short on the ram and my i7 is the 920 version.

Still mine whoops the game into submission!

My motherboard max is 12 GB, currently on 6

FM10 needs to be able to handle quad core and i7 systems as now most gamers have at least a low end quad or high end dual core

[Lazylen]

Im dying to get some info on my CPU wether it will be smart or playable to select almost all leagues in FM10

Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 2.40 GHz

3 gb Ram

32 bit OS Vista

Nvidea 8800GT 1GB

Also, is it true a Quad Core will make FM10 run faster then FM09?

[Indi75]

Im dying to get some info on my CPU wether it will be smart or playable to select almost all leagues in FM10

Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 2.40 GHz

3 gb Ram

32 bit OS Vista

Nvidea 8800GT 1GB

Also, is it true a Quad Core will make FM10 run faster then FM09?

I'd say the only thing woth looking at there is a 64bit copy of Windows 7 (about £60) in October and that will allow you to use more than 3.5GB of RAM. You can pick up 4GB quite cheaply too!

Your Quad should do nicely, as for faster, technnically yes, but it's all dependent on the users overall system, I've seen my E6850 batter a Quad Core in FM procesing times but that's all down to Motherboard, Memory, Hard Drive Speeds, and overall system set up.

[merak43]

have any one of you guys with amd tryed the amd dualcore optimicer? i have amd but xp and have no problem (both is on 100%) when playing.

i think this is it cdubble check to be sure as i am at work i can not check for my self http://support.amd.com/us/Pages/dynamicDetails.aspx?ListID=c5cd2c08-1432-4756-aafa-4d9dc646342f&ItemID=153

[x42bn6]

I'd like to see SI use the processors much more efficiently in a creative way. I'm thinking of using all but one of your cores to process future fixtures and events while you're busy looking at your next opposition, scouting, gloating over your opposing manager or setting up training and so on (the remaining core does this work). So when you hit continue all that is required is to execute the "transaction" of events and fixtures without doing all the complicated logic, leading to a near-instant continue.

To an extent this is possible with one core and multiple threads but will ensure your processor usage is 100% all the time (but nevertheless doing useful work).

Of course, you cannot process too far in advance as it requires space but if you have a quad-core, you'll probably have tons of RAM anyway which would help.

[Lazylen]

Thnx for the answer Indi, and Windows 7 only 60 pounds? Thought it would be a lot more expensive. But i will look in to it when the time comes. Thnx

[Arkim]

Sorry Arkim, I'm tarring you wish the brush of a mac fanboi, icabal, or one who simply believes everything bad written about windows and then uses it as fact to sound intelligent.

I understand what you are saying, and rather than simply disagree I should have gone into some detail on the way in which XP made extensive and slow use of the HDD page file for a lot of it's processes. Vista pushed much of this into memory making it slicker, albeit Vista's bulk counteracted against any major improvement.

In 7, especially with Readyboost added, almost all of the read/write is done to either memory or readyboost cache and I'm amazed I've been able to install the 7 RC on some older machines and still have it perform well.

Now I just wish the OEM's would stop selling 32bit OS's. The CPU's are all 64bit now, and the OEM's are just slowing the march of progress.

(There's 2 machines. My laptop is 4GB, and my desktop is 8GB. I think if I went i7 I'd need to get 12GB, which - with an entire platform change - is a little beyond my desire to splash at the moment, however tempting.

There's nothing wrong with losing your cool, but as you said, a detailed constructive reply would of been a better option.

I've said it before on these forums and I'll say it again, I'm not a fan of the Mac movement at all. I've been a Windows user for a long time. I just hate the direction MS is taking with its toll on system requirements, but I guess that's technological advancement, isn't it?

I'd honestly switch to a Linux distro permanently in a heartbeat if FM was ported to Linux. For now, dual booting between XP and Linux will be just fine for me however.