Supreme Commander @ 1920 x 1200

Muhadib

Member
Jan 11, 2005
168
0
0
My computer isn't junk but this game still lags me when playing 4 player 20 x 20 maps 1000 units.

Anybody have hardware that does not? (At 1920 x 1200)

If your rig can handle it post your hardware please. I'm guessing the lack of a second processor is killing me.
 

Tegeril

Platinum Member
Apr 2, 2003
2,906
5
81
Plays smoothly with long multiplayer games for me with max settings at 1920x1200.
 

Golgatha

Lifer
Jul 18, 2003
12,392
1,058
126
Originally posted by: Tegeril
Plays smoothly with long multiplayer games for me with max settings at 1920x1200.

Given the rig in your sig, I would have to say DUUHHHHHHHH!!!

Runs fine for me on an Intel C2D E6600@3.0Ghz, 2GB RAM, and X1900XTX.
 

theYipster

Member
Nov 16, 2005
137
0
0
No problems with Supreme Commander 1920x1200 w/ all options on and 4x AA. Does it slow down when there are thousands of units on the screen? A bit, but find me a computer that doesn't. Otherwise it's perfectly smooth.
--------------------
Intel C2D E6600 @ 3.6Ghz / Tuniq Tower 120 / 4GB G.Skill PC-6400 (800Mhz, 4-4-4-12) / eVga nForce 680i A1 / 2x 8800 GTX / Creative X-Fi Platinum Edition / Array 1: 1TB (2x 500 WD SE16 Raid-0) / Array 2: .5TB (2x 250 WD Raid-0) / Silverstone Zeus 850Watt PSU / Silverstone TJ-09 Case / Vista Ultimate x64

Mark.
 

StopSign

Senior member
Dec 15, 2006
986
0
0
Originally posted by: Muhadib
My computer isn't junk but this game still lags me when playing 4 player 20 x 20 maps 1000 units.

Anybody have hardware that does not? (At 1920 x 1200)

If your rig can handle it post your hardware please. I'm guessing the lack of a second processor is killing me.
Looking at your sig... Do you only have 512 MB of memory?
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
it's the cpu power...

2.8 opty and x1800xt lag badly... stuck a 3800 x2@2.5 in and now it performs better than a 3.0 a64 and an 8800gts...

this game really can use the dual core...

$120 @ newegg for the 3800...
 

tuteja1986

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2005
3,676
0
0
The game is heavily Multi-thread and you will see good performance from a Quad core CPU. Same problem you will face with Stalker...

http://au.gamespot.com/features/6166198/p-6.html

You will see much bigger performance boost in Stalker and Supreme commander if you had QX6600 @ 3.0Ghz , 1GB RAM , x1950XT/7900GTX ... then you would with AMD 148 @ 2730 MHZ , 2GB RAM , 8800GTX.
 

Muhadib

Member
Jan 11, 2005
168
0
0
Originally posted by: cubeless
it's the cpu power...

2.8 opty and x1800xt lag badly... stuck a 3800 x2@2.5 in and now it performs better than a 3.0 a64 and an 8800gts...

this game really can use the dual core...

$120 @ newegg for the 3800...


Hey thanks, this is the kind of information I was looking for.
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
1GB is kind low for that game even. From what I have been reading, dual-core makes a significant difference in playing this game.
 

tuteja1986

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2005
3,676
0
0
Originally posted by: aka1nas
1GB is kind low for that game even. From what I have been reading, dual-core makes a significant difference in playing this game.

I can tell the game isn't ram whore and doesn't have memory leak problem at all. Its an threaded whore which uses 3 thread effectively. So even a Dual core lags behind :( ...
 

Golgatha

Lifer
Jul 18, 2003
12,392
1,058
126
Originally posted by: aka1nas
1GB is kind low for that game even. From what I have been reading, dual-core makes a significant difference in playing this game.

Yeah, I'd say his cheapest and best upgrade would be to a dual-core setup and then closely followed by the move to 2GB of memory. Might suggest selling the 2x512MB memory and get 2x1GB sticks if you upgrade the RAM and want to overclock the dual-core setup.
 

Matt2

Diamond Member
Jul 28, 2001
4,762
0
0
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Originally posted by: aka1nas
1GB is kind low for that game even. From what I have been reading, dual-core makes a significant difference in playing this game.

I can tell the game isn't ram whore and doesn't have memory leak problem at all. Its an threaded whore which uses 3 thread effectively. So even a Dual core lags behind :( ...

I cant believe you keep recommending people buy a quad core processor for one game. That's probably the worst advice ever.

I ran a few tests using Core 2 Quad and Duo processors and noticed that the second, third or fourth cores did very little when compared to the first. In the most intense battles the first core would operate at around 90 ~ 100% where as additional cores worked between 20 ~ 50%. Of course this helps, but evidently Supreme Commander is not designed to fully utilize multi-core processors, or at least we have not seen it do so.

Taken from biostud's link in the post above this one.
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
sc burns both cores on my 3800@2.5 @ 100%... this is with "an 81x81 map and 8 players" doing a test (the kids are doing the setup and playing, i just get to make the pc's fast)... my kid sez it still starts to lag about 30 minutes or so in when everybody gets a lot of units...

the kids think that this game is doing so much with stuff that's not even on the screen that it is munching the cpu... i thought it was an interesting concept... maybe they run the physics for explosions and such for off screen stuff? that would seem kind of wasteful...
 

dunno99

Member
Jul 15, 2005
145
0
0
I was in the beta and have the retail of the game, so I've been tracking the performance progress over time (didn't get to play in the Alpha...my connections with people weren't good enough). I have to say, this game is a total CPU hog. People may want to claim ping, bandwidth, GPU, or what not, but the fact is, the CPU is the bottleneck.

To put it simply, the entire synchronization issue has been solved a long time ago (look back to Starcraft and maybe even before) -- don't send the state of the game, just send the actions of the players, which results in much less information being sent over the network (both ping and bandwidth matters, in this case). This issue was the problem that plagued the original TA.

Some people may also want to claim GPU, but the simple fact is this: I have an Athlon 2500+. Yes, it's very, very old (relatively speaking), but I don't make others on the net suffer with my CPU (i.e. I won't play online unless I use a better computer or get a better one). However, we all know units and explosions are still rendered when we PAUSE the game. So what I did as a test was build about 500 units (and boy did it take me a long time), have them shoot at the enemy, but pause just before I actually kill the enemy to get the maximum number of "things" rendered on screen. And guess what? I can scroll around perfectly smooth, both zoomed in and out. Guess what else? I have a 6600GT on AGP. I suppose we can rule out the GPU here too.

I also have about a gig of RAM, so that rules out disk swapping.

What're we left with? Yes, my Athlon 2500+. So let's just end the discussion here. If you have single core, don't expect to play with 2000 units in game with silky smooth fps. Get a dual core if you don't want to make other people online suffer from your computer.

Cheers.
 

Nightmare225

Golden Member
May 20, 2006
1,661
0
0
Originally posted by: cubeless
sc burns both cores on my 3800@2.5 @ 100%... this is with "an 81x81 map and 8 players" doing a test (the kids are doing the setup and playing, i just get to make the pc's fast)... my kid sez it still starts to lag about 30 minutes or so in when everybody gets a lot of units...

the kids think that this game is doing so much with stuff that's not even on the screen that it is munching the cpu... i thought it was an interesting concept... maybe they run the physics for explosions and such for off screen stuff? that would seem kind of wasteful...

No, that kind of wasteful programming would bring any system for the next few years down to its knee. This game is just extremely demanding.
 

Matt2

Diamond Member
Jul 28, 2001
4,762
0
0
Any game that eats up a 3GHZ C2D + 8800GTX can go to hell.

Core2Quads be damned, how about we pay $5 more a game each and in return, developers start doing their job by programming games better.
 

Ichigo

Platinum Member
Sep 1, 2005
2,158
0
0
Er, why is it that if SC won't run at 1920x1200 at max settings for you, the game must suck? The CPU has to calculate everything onscreen (every projectile, etc.). It's a demanding game, don't play it if you don't want.

Also, dual cores have been proven to be hugely significant in running this game. You can argue core utilization all you want, but at the end of the day it'll likely turn an unplayable to a playable experience for the majority.
 

aka1nas

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2001
4,335
1
0
The game does at least some sort of physics/collision detection. Destroyed aircraft that crash to the ground can damage units and structures. I lost the last UEF mission because I finally took out the flying saucer and it crashed into the Black Sun Cannon I was supposed to defend!
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
OP: My rig is essentially identical to yours, except I have an 8800GTS 320MB. It runs very smoothly at 1920x1200 w/ 4XAA enabled. :)
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
Originally posted by: Matt2
Any game that eats up a 3GHZ C2D + 8800GTX can go to hell.

Core2Quads be damned, how about we pay $5 more a game each and in return, developers start doing their job by programming games better.


heresy!!!