this util has been around for a long time, just not by Razor, i have used it previously on a system with 2gb ram and win7. It freed up enough resources to run some games smoothly that wouldn't otherwise. Its worthwhile if your system is on the borderline of running something smoothly. It does nothing for a specced up system.
[citation][nom]Pennanen[/nom]Why all the down votes? :cIts true though, only poor people need this kind of programs.[/citation]
Completely NOT true... a HUGE majority of desktop users run prebuilt systems & not all of them are cheap, but they aren't optimally configured for speed. A new, expensive PC (prebuilt obviously) will be filled with bloatware & have all the defaults still set. (I'm not great at explaining,sorry)
I wonder how thorough this program will be and how efficient it will be (and other similar programs) at distinguishing which processes to disable. Does it go by usage or is there a targeted database leaving the core necessary processes only needed by the operating system and games?
I liked the idea of AMD fusion but having an intel cpu, I cannot use
Hope all goes well, will be very interested in Razer's success. Much easier to click a button rather than disable one by one.
My desktop runs games incredibly, but my laptop (HP Pavilion g7 1150-us, i3-370m, Intel HD 3000 Graphics)... Let's just say gaming was the last thing on my mind when I purchased it. I try running SWTOR on absolute lowest setting possible, but trying to play in a group, WZ, when the light is seeping through a crack in the ceiling... I can go on, but anything other than solo questing is borderline impossible.
Will this program be able to distinguish between things such as MMO mouse drivers/AV software? Or is it "Kill everything except the OS and the game"?
[citation][nom]vittau[/nom]Can you still get a noticeable improvement by shutting down unnecessary services on a modern system?Can anyone provide any interesting benchmarks on this subject?[/citation]
Although I don't have benchmarks, I can tell you from a long power-user-level gaming experience that things like this generally do more harm than good. Win7 generally does a decent job of not having system-slowing services unless you installed them yourself, like iTunes and whatnot. And even then, the performance gain is minimal unless you're low on RAM (these unnecessary services tend to hog memory, not processor cycles). However, using a tool like this will barely do a thing compared to an actual hardware upgrade, and probably be 100% placebo if there is any improvement.
The only actually useful feature I see is driver updating, which I prefer to do manually. My driver already alerts me when there is a new version, though, so that's not needed either.
For enthusiasts this type of software is pretty much hoax, as the systems are so powerful the difference don't matter. However on a non-tweaked system where the resources are at the breaking point i don't doubt this can be applied with somewhat noticeable results.
The big question is however... why spend money on software when that money could be spent on the hardware and do the tweaks manually to get twice the results!
[citation][nom]JacekRing[/nom]I wish there was a utility that could take your multi-core system and make it run like a single core. Or at least let you specify how many cores to combine into a single core as a LOT of games still are not multi-threaded and run like shit because of it.[/citation]
That's not how cores work. You're literally asking for the impossible. Let's examine what would happen if you tried. We've got two cores, A and B.
1. A fetches an instruction to execute.
2. B fetches an instruction to execute.
3. A decodes the instruction
4. B decodes the instruction
5. A begins executing the instruction
6. B tries to execute the instruction, but realizes it needs output from A.
?. A finishes its instruction.
?. B can now begin executing its instruction now that A is done.
?. A fetches the next instruction, but needs B's output
And so on and so forth. What you end up with is a lot of communication between cores so each core has the necessary data (lots of overhead) and a huge number of stalls where one core can't do anything because it needs to wait on another one to finish. If you did manage to even make this work, it would be slower than just using a single core.
Yes, there are instructions which don't depend on each other (we say that these can be executed "out of order"), but modern processors can already execute those in parallel using only a single core. That's the benefit of a pipeline, you can execute a large number of instructions simultaneously, and can even have pipeline stages communicate with each other so you don't have to wait for an instruction to be completed before continuing (for example, use the output of a stage directly rather than wait for an operation to be written to the cache).
What little speedup there could be from this is already obtained by modern pipelines, which don't suffer the crippling problems of attempting to execute the same code across two cores simultaneously.