For SupCom, what kind of CPU is needed?

[Jax Omen]

SupCom is the most CPU-limited game I can think of >_>

Basically, I own two copies of the game (One I bought on release, one came with my current GPU when I bought it a year ago).

When I upgrade my girlfriend's computer, I'd like to put SupCom on it as well so we can play it together.

My E6600 seems to be unable to handle large maps at all, the game only stays smooth on medium maps with no more than 4 players.

Does this game really require quadcores to be playable on large maps? Wtf?

 

[OCGuy]

No a nice and high-clocked dual core will be fine. Look at any FPS tests and you will see that a quad-core adds very few.

Supcom is a game that people with quad-cores throw out there to justify them buying a tech that is still 1-2 years ahead of it's time (for gaming, anyway).


That isnt to say that if you find a good deal on a Q6600 you shouldnt do it. Im just saying the more expensive quads out there are a little rediculous compared to a higher-clocked dual core for almost 1/2 the price.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
No a nice and high-clocked dual core will be fine. Look at any FPS tests and you will see that a quad-core adds very few FPS.

Supcom is a game that people with quad-cores throw out there to justify them buying a tech that is still 1-2 years ahead of it;s time (for gaming, anyway).

Very few fps tests use large maps with 1000+ units and active AI, if there is benefit to quad core that is where it would be seen.

They all use replays to show off the strength of quad cores (which i agree is wrong).

 

[aka1nas]

IME, a dual-core fell down hard when trying to host an 8-player LAN game in SupCom when I last played it.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: aka1nas
IME, a dual-core fell down hard when trying to host an 8-player LAN game in SupCom when I last played it.

And how did you isolate the game "Falling down" to the processor alone. Why couldnt it be the RAM and/or GPU? What dual-core was this and at what clock speed?

 

[Zap]

I think there's a difference between "requires" and "maxed out units/maps." I played SupCom a couple times when it came out. We did 4 player LAN games on large maps, and I thought it played just fine on my single core A64 at the time. With my current Core 2 Duo rig, I've played 8 player LAN games on huge maps just fine, and the games were hosted on someone else's Core 2 Duo. I think only time it chugged a bit was when someone moved 200+ units all at once. That doesn't happen all the time so I think it's acceptable performance.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

HardOCP did an article showing the differences between 1,2, and 4 cores on a QX6700.

It looks like 1 -> 2 -> 4 gives a decent boost each time.

A $200 Q6600 OC'd would seem to give good bang for the buck to run SupCom.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: aka1nas
IME, a dual-core fell down hard when trying to host an 8-player LAN game in SupCom when I last played it.

And how did you isolate the game "Falling down" to the processor alone. Why couldnt it be the RAM and/or GPU? What dual-core was this and at what clock speed?

High-clocked Dual-core Opty (2.8 Ghz) with 4GB of RAM and a X1900XT. Wasn't anywhere near maxing out on RAM and the GPU generally held-up well in that game. They've probably optimized the game since I last played it, so it might scale better now. At the time, the only one of us that could host a playable 8 player session had the same RAM and GPU, but had a QX7600.

 

[aigomorla]

*sigh* cuz of this stupid game look at my signature.

I hate LAG. And this game gets a lot of it expecially when your max'd on settings and your playing a uber big map. 80km x 80km. With POP Cap set at 750-1000 with 7 AI's on Adaptive.

Also when your playing against AI its very important.


Quadcore = Almost definitely needed. A dualcore cant keep up with units Max'd and things on patrol.

GPU = Powerful. If you get nuked, or You nuke someone, prepare for Lag of Death.


Anyhow, my system will still lag with max settings when i get nuked. Though its very small, but it does shuttle a little.

It all depends on what your definition of playable is. But from my first hand experience, this dualcore might not be enough. Oh wellz, its only holding its place for a wolfdale when i find one i want. :T

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
No a nice and high-clocked dual core will be fine. Look at any FPS tests and you will see that a quad-core adds very few.

Supcom is a game that people with quad-cores throw out there to justify them buying a tech that is still 1-2 years ahead of it's time (for gaming, anyway).


That isnt to say that if you find a good deal on a Q6600 you shouldnt do it. Im just saying the more expensive quads out there are a little rediculous compared to a higher-clocked dual core for almost 1/2 the price.

Sorry but people who say the things i bolded are people that havent played the game. :T

Also One thing reviews dont account for is overclocking. The difference on the game vs 2.4ghz quad vs a 3.2ghz quad is great. From 3.2ghz -> 3.7ghz is another difference.

Basically you'll see the most noticible difference from 2.4ghz stock vs 3.6ghz.

From 3.7ghz to 4.25 i also saw a difference, but im looking at the yorkfield because of its greater cache. Meaning if you went Q6600 from 3.7-4.25(not possible) You probably wouldnt see much of a difference.

From 4.0ghz+ the game is insane. :T

 

[OCGuy]

Your comparison is invalid unless you OC a dual-core to 4.25 and run benchmarks. Noone is saying that Quad-cores suck. But most people would rather OC a dual-core to 4.25ghz, and spend the $$ they save from not buying a QX9650 (your sig) on a better GPU.

 

[Gillbot]

From what i've seen so far, there was better performance from a lower clocked Quad than a higher clocked Dual. I'm about to find out first hand though as I just sold off my 4GHz+ E3110 and am in the process of buying a Q6600 to replace it.

 

[Jax Omen]

Added description.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Your comparison is invalid unless you OC a dual-core to 4.25 and run benchmarks. Noone is saying that Quad-cores suck. But most people would rather OC a dual-core to 4.25ghz, and spend the $$ they save from not buying a QX9650 (your sig) on a better GPU.

Please, let me hear your objections.

For the record, Persephone was designed around supreme commander. The price tag is quite large to play that game flawlessly on max settings on a 24inch LCD @ 1980x1200 resolution.

Although my pricetag is still cheaper compared to a full blown crysis rig dual 9800GX2's. <grin>
Sorry not stepping into that territory.

I do have both high end possible GPU configs.

And How does my scenario not compare any?

Lets think about it.

DualCore + 8800GT OC In SLI.

vs

Quadcore + HD3870 Slight OC in Xfire.


According to your statement, the game is more GPU dependant,
The 8800GT system should be faster then. Why? because everyone knows Nvidia Spanks and Slaps ATI's butt. Expecially when comparing 8800GT's in SLI against a HD3870 Xfire rig. So the Nvidia rig obviously has larger power in gaming.

[Care to debate?]

But guess what? Its NOT. Why? cuz the game is very cpu dependant. So This is why im telling you, that you probably havent even touched the game. I can throw a 9800GX2 on a Wolfdale and MAX out settings. That will probably die, although when i get nuked it would be super pretty and super smooth!

Also overclocking, yes the yorkfield is a lot faster then the conroe. But its not that far off. The highest i got that conroe up b4 the raid failed was 3.4ghz.

There isnt much gaming difference between the two unless its a processor heavy game. where comparing between a 3.4ghz dualcore vs a 4.25ghz quadcore.

[Also Tested by ME personally].

Care to shoot anything else?


Lastly Ocguy, dont think im being mean or rude. I just dont like it when people start talking about something they dont own or have like they know it inside and out.

Paper specs are always different from user specs.

If you dont believe me, RUN the game yourself and MAX everything. A 9800GX2 would die without a quadcore on full settings.

World Of Conflict, is nothing like supreme commander IMO. Supreme Commander after 1 hour and max unit and max map and max gfx settings will seriously make you cry.

Look at the OP's first post he edited.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
I hate LAG. And this game gets a lot of it expecially when your max'd on settings and your playing a uber big map. 80km x 80km. With POP Cap set at 750-1000 with 7 AI's on Adaptive.
...
It all depends on what your definition of playable is.
...
to play that game flawlessly on max settings on a 24inch LCD @ 1980x1200 resolution.

I guess those statements pretty much sum it up. The games I've played have been capped at around 250 units and had no AI. They've been LAN games only, and I don't think I've even gone over 100 units before I lost (yup, lost every time). Also, my monitor is lower resolution and as for IQ, basically whatever the game installs with. Only thing I do is set the resolution to native for my monitor.

 

[Jax Omen]

It just feels so WRONG to play such a large-scale game on smaller maps with lower unit caps V_V

I guess I'll stick with Starcraft until I can get quadcores for me and Kitty

 

[v8envy]

Now we need someone with a mac or skulltrail rig to try and benchmark supcom for us. 8 cores would settle this.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: v8envy
Now we need someone with a mac or skulltrail rig to try and benchmark supcom for us. 8 cores would settle this.

It doesn't need to be settled, 4 cores > 2 cores, there's no need to have an 8 core test to show more cores is better...besides, the game would have to be able to scale well beyond 4 cores which it may not (I'm definitely not a SupCom expert)

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: v8envy
Now we need someone with a mac or skulltrail rig to try and benchmark supcom for us. 8 cores would settle this.

It doesn't need to be settled, 4 cores > 2 cores, there's no need to have an 8 core test to show more cores is better...besides, the game would have to be able to scale well beyond 4 cores which it may not (I'm definitely not a SupCom expert)

doubt the game would play any better with more then 4 cores.

As i said if your using a quadcore you become gpu limited when your oponents use experimental weapons on you. Or nuke you.

The worst is getting hit by a cybran rapid fire artilery. Those rocket projectiles really make a lot of eye candy when they explode and theres a very large frequency of it. I usually love using that on my oponents to lag them out, while my team mates come in and sweep them up.

The game needs processor power if your going to play it to its max. Personally game like supreme commander needs endurance. You need th exploit the game to its full demenisions to truely enjoy that war game.

being limited to 100 unit max pop with almost no resources, and a small dinky map, unable to exploit tier 3 tech, sucks butt for a game of that calibur.

 

[phexac]

Every benchmark out there shows that a higher-clocked dual core performs better with Supreme Commander than a lower-clocked quad. How do you account for that?

 

[Jax Omen]

Because, as he said, the benchmarks are NOT run on large maps with lots of units. They're run on small maps with no AI.

Why? I have no idea. My guess is the benchmarkers are morons and don't realize how to benchmark an RTS.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
The game needs processor power if your going to play it to its max. Personally game like supreme commander needs endurance. You need th exploit the game to its full demenisions to truely enjoy that war game.

being limited to 100 unit max pop with almost no resources, and a small dinky map, unable to exploit tier 3 tech, sucks butt for a game of that calibur.

Dunno, but some of the games I've played haven't lasted very long. Typical of RTS multiplayer, people have a build order and rush with cheap units for quick/easy wins.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Jax Omen
Because, as he said, the benchmarks are NOT run on large maps with lots of units. They're run on small maps with no AI.

Why? I have no idea. My guess is the benchmarkers are morons and don't realize how to benchmark an RTS.

You sum'd it up very nicely for me.


And a rush map means no tier 3 tech. It takes about a good 7 min to get tier 3 up and thats if your fast. And thats a solo factory provided you have a ton or resources to spare, and your team mates are watching your back.

I like to play like a turtle in those maps unless im pissed, which means tech 1 land / plane rushes.

But the game is more enjoyable on AI on a big open map using a Mavor class artilery [takes 45min ALONE to build] and nukes.

God nukes take forever to build in this game as well unless your the bad guys with that experimental nuke launcher.

 

[themisfit610]

The benchmarkers don't know how to benchmark such a large scale RTS in the context of how its hardcore fans play it online.

To do this you really do have to use the largest maps, with all player slots filled, and literally thousands of units moving all at once.

Supcom is extremely CPU limited. You won't get into games online if you have a single core processor. Large games are usually quad only. The game really does "lag" if anyone with a slow CPU is playing. Trust me. I can't seriously play online with my friend who has a 3800+ X2 because it lags so bad when he's on. Remove him (everyone else with high clocked C2Ds or C2Qs) and it plays perfectly. And its definitely not internet latency. He pings under 50 each time.

~MiSfit

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: themisfit610
The benchmarkers don't know how to benchmark such a large scale RTS in the context of how its hardcore fans play it online.

To do this you really do have to use the largest maps, with all player slots filled, and literally thousands of units moving all at once.

Supcom is extremely CPU limited. You won't get into games online if you have a single core processor. Large games are usually quad only. The game really does "lag" if anyone with a slow CPU is playing. Trust me. I can't seriously play online with my friend who has a 3800+ X2 because it lags so bad when he's on. Remove him (everyone else with high clocked C2Ds or C2Qs) and it plays perfectly. And its definitely not internet latency. He pings under 50 each time.

~MiSfit

It's not "lag", it's the whole simulation slowing down to below real time speed. The SupCom networking model is peer-to-peer with all clients required to always be synchronized to each other. Every client runs the same simulation, which means the game can go no faster than the client slowest at running the simulation.

 

[Jax Omen]

that is "lag", as perceived by the player. Their game is slowing down.

It is NOT network lag, which is what you're getting at.