• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Jan 26, 2006
1.302
0
If you set the application to run on a single core, rather than use all four, there is a significant difference. I run HOI3 and V2 on my quad core rig and it seems to do fine when I set it to run on a single core.
 
Last edited:
Well, whether it would run slower would depend on how fast the individual cores of each processor is. The Clausewitz engine is AFAIK limited to using one core, meaning the remaining 3 cores would be left unused.
 
If you set the application to run on a single core, rather than use all four, there is no significant difference. I run HOI3 and V2 on my quad core rig and it seems to do fine when I set it to run on a single core.

I've noticed a significant difference by prioritizing to only one core. Not trying to say your wrong Najs, just saying that I've noticed a difference with my rig.

Contradicting yourself? :p
Well, I am sure that the engine is limited to one CPU core, so prioritizing to one core should mean you order your computer to do what it's already doing. If it works out for you though, great.
@EvilFishtank: I'd go with a quad, those are more future-proof and should run Paradox games better in the future when they switch engine.
 
Najs is right - the Victoria 2 game engine isn't multi-thread capable.

If you're buying this computer solely to run a Paradox game, going with the option that has the highest speed concentrated into a singular processor would be best at the moment.
 
If you set the application to run on a single core, rather than use all four, there is a significant difference. I run HOI3 and V2 on my quad core rig and it seems to do fine when I set it to run on a single core.

Tried this just now, can't see much difference. Any difference I am seeing could very well be perceptual.

Najs is right - the Victoria 2 game engine isn't multi-thread capable.

If you're buying this computer solely to run a Paradox game, going with the option that has the highest speed concentrated into a singular processor would be best at the moment.

@_@

Do they even sell single core processors any more?

As for "highest speed"- there's no easy way to measure that. Clock speed is an almost entirely irrelevant metric, and the relevent ability of different architectures is hard to quantify.
 
If you set the application to run on a single core, rather than use all four, there is a significant difference. I run HOI3 and V2 on my quad core rig and it seems to do fine when I set it to run on a single core.

How do you do that?
 
@_@

Do they even sell single core processors any more?

As for "highest speed"- there's no easy way to measure that. Clock speed is an almost entirely irrelevant metric, and the relevent ability of different architectures is hard to quantify.
Yes they do, and they give measurements that should form at least guidelines even if they aren't specfic enough for your taste.
 
Assuming it works the same as for Deus Ex, you should be able to go into Task manager -> Processes -> right click on V2.exe -> set affinity -> uncheck everything but one core.

This is for XP, by the way.

Thanks!
 
Why on earth would it make a difference to run it on core 3 instead of core 1 or 2? I am very curious about this.
I am no expert, but perhaps overhead? All that data/memory needs to spread over cores.
 
That is true and would explain why 4 cores are not 4x faster than a single one (althought they certainly should be faster).

But why would the core 3 by itself be faster than Core 0 or 1?
 
That is true and would explain why 4 cores are not 4x faster than a single one (althought they certainly should be faster).

But why would the core 3 by itself be faster than Core 0 or 1?
No idea, but knowing Microsoft, it's a fair guess they have hardcoded some of their OS stuff to the first cores.
 
if you want a short answer it's yes and no. it depends. you have to keep in mind that one core from a single core cpu is faster that one core from a doual core cpu which is faster from one core from a quad core cpu. Also, keep in mind that L2 cache or L3 cache will be used by all cores. So, a 4 mb (for example) l2 cache can be used by 4 cores, 2 or 1 but in the end it depend on the application's access patterns.
So if each core is about 3 GHz for both processors, does this mean that the quad core is twice as fast as the dual core processor? The answer is no! This is the main misconception that people have about multi-core processors. You don't multiply the speed of one core by the number of cores to get the "total" speed of a multi-core processor. The two processors in this example actually perform more or less at the same speed. less than 1% of software on the market can utilize multiple cores, which means that most of your programs (probably all of them) can only run in one at a time. This means that the speed of your programs are fully dependent on the speed of a single core. You might be thinking "well, what if I'm running multiple programs at the same time?" The reality is, most programs can perform a task faster than you can switch to another program. The most notable exception to this rule is video editing software, which usually does utilize all of your cores.

Realistically, you will not notice a difference in speed between a system with a dual core processor and a system with a quad core processor, unless you are running video editing programs.

So what does all of this mean? Don't waste your money on a quad system unless you create and edit videos professionally, or run specialty software that can utilize all of your cores.(not the case of victoria) You are much better off putting your money towards a dual processor or system with more GHz and a higher L2 cache.
 
What you are saying is of course correct.

But we were discussing as to why one of the 4 cores can potentially be faster than another one.