Have you compared to how it runs with only 1 CPU? You can right click on the process and use the "affinity" setting to restrict it to 1 CPU.
From the graph it looks like it's running about 40% on one CPU and 60% on the other, so it doesn't look like it's really utilizing multiple CPUs. That behavior is an artifact of how multitasking is handled by the OS.
Periodically the game process gets interrupted and goes back into a queue waiting for it's turn to continue running.
Whenever the operating system's process scheduler decides it's time to resume executing the game process, it will dispatch it to whichever CPU is convenient at the time. The process will end up bouncing between CPUs because of that.

I don't know what the utilization numbers were though, so I could be misreading the graph. If it ever runs above a full CPU worth of total utilization then that would mean it must be running some threads on each CPU concurrently.

shamino wrote:

Have you compared to how it runs with only 1 CPU? You can right click on the process and use the "affinity" setting to restrict […]
Show full quote

Have you compared to how it runs with only 1 CPU? You can right click on the process and use the "affinity" setting to restrict it to 1 CPU.
From the graph it looks like it's running about 40% on one CPU and 60% on the other, so it doesn't look like it's really utilizing multiple CPUs. That behavior is an artifact of how multitasking is handled by the OS.
Periodically the game process gets interrupted and goes back into a queue waiting for it's turn to continue running.
Whenever the operating system's process scheduler decides it's time to resume executing the game process, it will dispatch it to whichever CPU is convenient at the time. The process will end up bouncing between CPUs because of that.

I don't know what the utilization numbers were though, so I could be misreading the graph. If it ever runs above a full CPU worth of total utilization then that would mean it must be running some threads on each CPU concurrently.

I have not yet. But task manager has stated that the game is uesing 60% cpu usage at times witch would lead me to believe that its using both. I'll try letting it only use one cpu and report back.
It very well be a multi threaded app. And not have true smp suport.

Ok so I set it to only use one cpu and the games fps went way down and the cpu usage was at 100% on the one cpu.

Cool, if the FPS went down (and nothing else CPU heavy was running in the background) then that confirms it. It must be running multiple concurrent threads and truly utilizing both CPUs. Thanks for posting back.

Very cool. Nice 'discovery' saturn. .. It makes me wonder now if EAW runs faster on a fast dual piii system vs a slower HT p4 system.

My guess is that the p4 system would be faster but I guess I won't know until I give it a try one day when I have some spare time.

Anyways...good to know it takes advantage of a dual piii setup.

Given that one cpu is hardly used I'm betting that it's built with the P4 with hyper threading in mind. I dont think is has true dual cpu support but is rather taking use of both threads. Also the FPS only went down in bigger battles and when there are a lot of units on the playing field or whatever you want to call it. It was not much, but I did notitic it. The second cpu was doing nothing when I disabled it and nothing else was running on the system.

Also steam recommends a Intel Pentium Dual Core CPU.