Nope. You’re over-simplifying, and reading things you want from responses which they aren’t actually saying (not just mine).
The missing context is there’s also a host involved and presumably it’s running other processes. Say you have 2 plugins.. Each using 70% of a 2 core CPU, leaving 30% free on each core. Now, what will your host be able to fit more easily into the remaining resources? One plugin using 60% CPU, or two plugins using 30% CPU each?
Because HALion allows control over the amount of cores, in theory, you can set it to 2 cores and it might still fit in the remaining 30% for each core. But not only might this approach conflict with a host (especially a non-Steinberg one
), it also assumes perfect scaling Vs single core - which is never the case. That’s why, when you see benchmarks, their multi-core results aren’t just a simple multiple of the single core score times the number of cores. Additional cores carry additional overhead. One of many things you appear not to be grasping. 
Apparently it wasn’t as silly when you brought it up first, whilst complaining Falcon won’t do multi-core.You also keep on bringing up Diva which is silly
What you likely didn’t expect is that it serves as an excellent example of a feature you’d want to avoid using unless it was the only way to stop a single core overloading, which is basically the only situation where you could reasonably argue a NEED for multi-core support anyway.This doesn’t really apply a whole lot to Falcon, since you’d normally only ever get to that point by layering, for which you can also use extra instances.
Anyway, we're clearly going in circles at this point, so I'll step off and wish you luck.. 
).
