Working solution for Intel dual core CPUs!

---

@hugocarvalho90 wrote:

the Extreme Injector V3 that people are using in farcry 4 for working on dual core, works on dragon age inquisition, im testing right now and its working(some lags but working, better than buy a new PC :P), look in youtube for farcry 4 dual core fix, they show how to use and good play guys :D

---

Can you say what your CPU is? Does it have two or four threads? 

"The problem is that these games are not becoming optimized for more threads. I would accept it more easily if they were, and I would actually commend EA (or Ubisoft in the case of Farcry 4.) They are just running on different threads because of the architecture of the new consoles. If the new consoles had three-threaded CPU's then the games would be running on tri-cores. Don't expect these games to take full use of a desktop quad or octo-core though, because the console octo-cores are very, very, very weak and are absent of many features that PC CPU's have."

I'm not going to put forth any conspiracy theories here... the sheer numer of hardware and software purmutations on PC means you are pretty much guaranteed to find some cases of pretty much any kind of weird behavior you want to hold up whatever theory you find palatable. That is the big downside of PC gaming (hw/sw purmutations). I am able to disable any 4 cores that I want on my 8 core processor, on the fly, and the game keeps running as long as I keep 4 (any 4) on the inquisition process. That would seem to completely undermine your theory that is being assigned to specific cores (if one was prone to looking at anecdotes as evidence). *shrug*

That being said... the places where consoles and PCs overlap is clearly a place where game developers will focus efforts to prevent duplications of effort. This is usually a good thing for all gamers (developers end up with more time to work on more stuff, they get a chance to meet schedules, etc). It becomes a problem when it gets out of hand (inquisition has obvious PC control problems)... but... again... PC gamers have been complaining about games using multi-threaded CPUs poorly for years. You admit as much. If this first major effort to majorly branch out the processing threads isn't a resounding success I don't think any of us should be shocked... that doesn't make it any less of a move in the right direction. The quicker we can move PC gamers to Quad (or more cores) the quicker we can get developers onboard with actually using them. These complaints about Inquisition not working properly on dual core processors is, essentially, a cry to take a step backwards in hardware and software evolution.

Not working for Core 2 Duo. 

---

@censurely wrote:

I'm not going to put forth any conspiracy theories here... the sheer numer of hardware and software purmutations on PC means you are pretty much guaranteed to find some cases of pretty much any kind of weird behavior you want to hold up whatever theory you find palatable. That is the big downside of PC gaming (hw/sw purmutations). I am able to disable any 4 cores that I want on my 8 core processor, on the fly, and the game keeps running as long as I keep 4 (any 4) on the inquisition process. That would seem to completely undermine your theory that is being assigned to specific cores (if one was prone to looking at anecdotes as evidence). *shrug*

That being said... the places where consoles and PCs overlap is clearly a place where game developers will focus efforts to prevent duplications of effort. This is usually a good thing for all gamers (developers end up with more time to work on more stuff, they get a chance to meet schedules, etc). It becomes a problem when it gets out of hand (inquisition has obvious PC control problems)... but... again... PC gamers have been complaining about games using multi-threaded CPUs poorly for years. You admit as much. If this first major effort to majorly branch out the processing threads isn't a resounding success I don't think any of us should be shocked... that doesn't make it any less of a move in the right direction. The quicker we can move PC gamers to Quad (or more cores) the quicker we can get developers onboard with actually using them. These complaints about Inquisition not working properly on dual core processors is, essentially, a cry to take a step backwards in hardware and software evolution.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All you need to do is look at the 83 paged thread. There are multiple people who got the game working by disabling cores not enabling them. Anyway, I'll just say we should wait and see. Both CoD:AW and Far Cry 4 were not working on two-threaded CPU's and now both work on two-threaded CPU's. Dragon Age Inquisition should follow. I'm personally for developers moving development toward Quad-Cores (expect to have a new i5k next year) however I am not for this at the expense of dual-cores when much of the PC market still supports dual-cores today. I would rather a soft-transition as was the case with single-cores to dual-cores: the games just started working slower and slower on single-core CPU's. 

Here's a video of FC4 running on a two-threaded CPU. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MXLpRs77uI

Many articles on the internet were declaring the release of that game as the death of true dual-cores, but there it is running pretty smoothly. 

Asked on the main page, but got no answer. Is the problem related to having just 2 real cores or the entire Core 2 series of processors. I wanna upgrade from the E8400 to the Q9400 which has 4 real cores, but is still called Core 2 Quad Q9400 i believe... I can do the upgrade, but would like to know if its gonna make a difference...

I fully support folks finding ways to jury rig software to do things they aren't designed to do! I've never said otherwise. Heck... if you can figure out a way to get Inuisition to work on my TI-83 graphing calculator I would kiss you! I just think it's wise to leave the conspiracy theories at the door when possible. I also think it's wise to encourage folks to take minimum system requirements seriously... and not to encourage folks to act all indignant with software developers when the software won't work on systems that clearly don't meet all of those clearly described minimum system requirements. *shrug*

"Asked on the main page, but got no answer. Is the problem related to having just 2 real cores or the entire Core 2 series of processors. I wanna upgrade from the E8400 to the Q9400 which has 4 real cores, but is still called Core 2 Quad Q9400 i believe... I can do the upgrade, but would like to know if its gonna make a difference..."

That should resolve your problem! It won't resolve any other places where you might not meet minimum (still need to have enough HDD space, if your GPU isn't relatively new, etc) but it will bring your CPU in to line with the minimum CPU requirements.

That being said... if you wait long enough folks will probably eventually figure out a way to shoe-horn this game on to dual core processors. If I were you, however, I would just do the upgrade. It is probably worth it (although you're stepping down slightly in processor frequency you will probably be better future-proofed).

---

@censurely wrote:

I fully support folks finding ways to jury rig software to do things they aren't designed to do! I've never said otherwise. Heck... if you can figure out a way to get Inuisition to work on my TI-83 graphing calculator I would kiss you! I just think it's wise to leave the conspiracy theories at the door when possible. I also think it's wise to encourage folks to take minimum system requirements seriously... and not to encourage folks to act all indignant with software developers when the game won't work on systems that don't meet all of those minimum system requirements. *shrug*

---

Can you pull-out what the conspiracy theory is in my posts? Honestly, it is well-substantiated by the releases of other contemporary games (I wasn't even speaking solely about DA:I.) Far-Cry 4's problem was that it was running its main processes on thread #3, which is the fourth coded thread and two-threaded CPU's only have thread #0 and #1. I'm assuming this injector just re-coded the game so that the main processes ran on thread #0 or thread #1. The game obviously wan't developed to run all four-threads for performance, it just runs on the fourth-thread because the CPU's they used to develop and test the game had four threads and they assumed that was a constant. That is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. CoD:AW had a similar problem. I'm then extrapolating, knowing what I've read from the 83 paged thread that the same thing will be revealed with DA:I. Yes, it is only speculation, but not a conspiracy theory, as my statement was generally speaking of recent game releases and not any specific game release. 

As of system requirements, maybe it's the responsiblity of the publishers to take them seriously, and then the consumer will as well. Up until now (and even afterwards) minimum requirement just meant , "will not give customer support if you have that hardware." That is it. Knowing that, I think Bioware/EA would have aleviated a lot of strife if they just put in bold, "Game will only function on CPU's with equal to or more than four threads."  Hell, it even seemed they didn't know what the game would run on and didn't even test it out and try, as they were surprised that i3's ran the game and thought only CPU's with four real cores would. Maybe publisher's system requirements would be taken more seriously if they added a hard-requirement option (absolutely necessary to run the game) and a soft-requirement (ideal requirements to run the game at lowest settings with a resonable framerate and no bugs.) As it is now, the system requirements aren't taken seriously because they aren't very accurate and tell us very little information we need to know other than how well will our PC probably run the game. 

"As of system requirements, maybe it's the responsiblity of the publishers to take them seriously, and then the consumer will as well. Up until now (and even afterwards) minimum requirement just meant , "will not give customer support if you have that hardware." That is it. Knowing that, I think Bioware/EA would have aleviated a lot of strife if they just put in bold, "Game will only function on CPU's with more than four threads."  Hell, it even seemed they didn't know what the game would run on and didn't even test it out and try, as they were surprised that i3's ran the game and thought only CPU's with four real cores would. Maybe publisher's system requirements would be taken more seriously if they added a hard-requirement option (absolutely necessary to run the game) and a soft-requirement (ideal requirements to run the game at lowest settings with a resonable framerate and no bugs.) As it is now, the system requirements aren't taken seriously because they aren't very accurate and tell us very little information we need to know other than how well will our PC probably run the game. "

That is crazy. You want them to add a "no really... this is actually required" requirement? Requirement means requirement. If you get lucky and the software works below those requirements we, as reasonable human beings, count ourselves lucky. You don't make the completely irrational leap of "well, I guess requirement will never mean requirement in this context since they didn't this time... at least on some of the requirements (obviously some of the requirements really are required)". The nature of computers (massive HW/SW permutation) means that if software developers want to write a succint list of requirements (not convoluted using technical jargon most consumers don't understand) there will be exceptions to the requirement list. I don't really think there is a way around that. Those exceptions are awesome when they work out... but when they don't work out for you that is your problem, not the developers. They warned you... clearly.

"I'm then extrapolating, knowing what I've read from the 83 paged thread that the same thing will be revealed with DA:I. Yes, it is only speculation, but not a conspiracy theory, as my statement was generally speaking of recent game releases and not any specific game release. "

Just reflect on what you are essentially saying here for a minute... "a handful of people posting over and over in a thread said such and such", I then tenuously connected these anecdotes to other anecdotes forming a big "web" of anecdotes. That is, more or less, the exact definition of a conspiracy theory.

😕mileysurprised:

---

@censurely wrote:

That is crazy. You want them to add a "no really... this is actually required" requirement? Requirement means requirement. If you get lucky and the software works below those requirements you count yourself lucky. You don't make the completely irrational leap of "well, I guess requirement will never mean requirement in this context". The nature of computers (massive HW/SW permutation) means that if software developers want to write a succint list of requirements (not convoluted using technical jargon most consumers don't understand) there will be exceptions to that list. Those exceptions are awesome when they work out... but when they don't work out for you that is your problem, not the developers.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem is that requirements almost never really mean requirements. It's not that sometimes they don't mean requirements, it is that is almost always true that the word "requirement" is stretched and distorted. For example, many games that required Quad-Cores, before now could not only run, but run on high settings 30fps with the best dual-cores. Nobody would take system requirements seriously after experiencing that. My proposal was made considering the knowledge that they don't have time or resources to test out the game on hardware for the "actual" requirement, and it honestly doesn't mean much to try. However, if certain things are absolutely necessary to run the game, they should list them out for the consumer's benefit, and thefore to their (the publisher's) own PR benefit. The best thing the publisher can do for its image is to be entirely honest. When the consumer comes back to the publisher and complains that their GPU doesn't have shader model 5.0 or a quad-core CPU and can't run the game, the publisher has more reputation and leverage when on their box it says, This game will not run without a GPU which supports shader model 5.0 or a Quad Core CPU. It is no more a mess or confusing than listing a specific CPU as a minimum requirement. How the hell does somebody know if their CPU is better than that CPU listed? If I go to CPU boss my Pentium G3258 has massively better total performance (considering all threads) than a Core 2 Quad. Should I assume my CPU should run the game better than a Core 2 Quad, if I were the layman? Of course I might. But if they listed, "this game absolutely requires a Quad-Core to run", I think - as a layman - I would understand that much better.