Where Can I download Core Maximizer?

[ArmyoftheDead]

All I pull up when I search are old links that no longer have it.

Additionally, I have windows 7 but I hear that it does and doesn't work with it but I would just like to try for myself.

[Instinkt]

Exactly. I wonder why this bug happens in SCFA on steam and NFSHP. I had it on both games on 2 machines, and that fixed it.

[DeathPhoenix2]

Sheppard, the Core Maximizer fixes issues on core load balances. In my case, the change is extremely obvious! Instead of having 1-2 cores not used, they are at 100% when it starts lagging when too much is required from CPUs.

Also, if you want to tell me I don't know Jack Poupidoupi about this, I'm professionnaly qualified to tell you: Go back to school...

[Instinkt]

deathphoenix2, what cpu/mainboard chipset do you use? my i5 2500k fails to reach 100% on any core, i suspect the bottleneck somewhere else, maybe ram bandwitdh...

[Sheppy]

Originally posted by DeathPhoenix2:

Also, if you want to tell me I don't know Jack Poupidoupi about this, I'm professionnaly qualified to tell you: Go back to school...

You don't know Jack Poipidoupi about it.

[DoomyG (AKA Doomguardian)]

So this core maximizer will improve performance, still?

[[BWC] Stig]

Sorry for answering this old post... But Core Maximizer (v1.03) does work for my family and myself under Windows 7 Pro, 64-bit. If requested, I'll post my TLDR on this topic here.

I'm also curious about the current state of CM downloads. I'm looking for sites where others can safely download it.

Edit:
Thanks to samcan244 (from Derbyshire, UK), here's a working link for Core Maximizer download!
http://www.moddb.com/mods/total-mayhem1/downloads/good-ais-and-tools-for-fa

[speed2]

Core Maximizer was for Windows XP, on newer systems it's just a placebo

[[BWC] Stig]

Well, I'm glad it's a placebo for you. It works just great for many others, heh.

There's two ways to prove that it not only makes a difference, it greatly minimizes the bog down when there's more than 1000-1500 units on-screen.

[speed2]

it does only if you're on win xp

[Instinkt]

I've tested it on win7 back in the day and it was still better then the stuff the os does on its own.

[Sheppy]

the scientific illiteracy here is astonishing, even after all those years

[[BWC] Stig]

Well, unless you have some helpful comments, or even some proof, I'm not sure your comments are constructive, Sheppy.

[[BWC] Stig]

Here's some screenshots to show that there is a difference with and without Core Maximizer running. This is the first proof (I mentioned previously).
https://steamcommunity.com/id/Stig626/images/?appid=767


The second proof was with actual play-testing with my family. With Core Maximizer, the game slowed down to about -3 speed when the game was saturated with units (at around 1000+). Without Core Maximizer, gameplay slowed down to about -10 speed when the game was saturated with units.

All tests were conducted on Intel processor systems with Windows 7 Pro, 64-bits. These computers are at least 4 years old.

[Instinkt]

@Stig Well, I totally agree. From personal experience. I bet those naysayers simply follow the mantra windows should do a pretty good job so it cant be that core maximizer works. Yea SHOULD...

Fact is, when I disabled one core(usually the main core) for a game thread in task manager and then enabled it again, task manager would show a way more even utilisation between cores. That could be reproduced EVERY TIME, i.e. in NFSHP. Ingame, I would notice much smoother gameplay, and I would notice it if I forgot to do it. Core maximizer, as far as I know, does basically the same, put threads on different cores, and additionally, tries to move all threads away from the main game thread (which is, what windows should do on its own).

I can only suspect that older games for some reason do not work well with windows thread management(aka seem to partially block it), and that is the reason why manual thread placement works in those cases.

There is still the limit the main thread places on the core it maximizes, nobody disputes that. As well as that no tool can make a game use more threads then it is coded to use.

So: YES, Sheppy and speed2 SHOULD be right, and probably are for newer games, but NO, personal experience tells a very different story (for supreme commander and NFSHP, those were the only games where I tried it and noticed that it helped).

[speed2]

That screenshot is not proving much, well only that you don't know how it works.

Back in the days of Win XP, if you run multithreaded game like FA. It could run all the threads on a single core.
Win Vista and newer system are smarter and they spread the thread among the other cores. Especially if they dain a lot of CPU power.

Now to FA, there are 2 major threads that make CPUs sweat. One is sim, that includes all in-game simulation and AI, second a bit less cpu consuming is ren, which does all the rendering and UI. All the other thread for sounds and what not are very minor.

So assuming most of the people have 4cores, the game won't magically run faster if you use this tool that was made for Win XP.

Only thing it could do is very slight FPS increase if it switches the ren thread to some other core than the first one.

Also to note: cpu doen't need to run the single thread on the same core all the time, it can switch it to other cores. The overall CPU usage of the game is same, it looks like you still have some performance left looking at the task manager (since its showing average usage on the cores) but you don't. For the above reasons.

Hope this helps