Supreme Commander benchmarks

[locutus12]

Originally posted by: Roguestar
WHOA THERE

No need to wade in at the deep end handing out punches because Lonyo made the 'mistake' of associating intel with "fast processor". He's right that the Core 2 line are the current best desktop CPUs and as such will be less of a bottleneck for your graphics card if you've got an 8800GTX. No-one's saying that an AMD owner should throw away their perfectly good 4400+ X2 yet.

i didnt mean to give the impression that i required a boxing match, although i will admit i do have a rather abbrasive posting style at times, usually when the "I" word is mentioned.

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Woah, lots of 's.
I am also currently running a 3200+ and my last 3 purchases of processors were AMD. I am saying that the numbers show you need a very fast processor for good performance, and AMD just doesn't have one at the moment. They are adequate, and I never said anyone should throw any processor away.

understood

but dont worry, Barcelona will be here soon which will end Conroes little party and should be capable of matching penryn. AMD may be losing money faster than a drunken gambler but there gaining something much more valuable and more harmful to intel. Market share.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: Lonyo
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=620&p=1

Basically towards the end of the game, 4GB RAM helps.
A fast Intel processor is almost necessary with any graphics card.
Graphics cards aren't all that important really.
Overclocking is good.

im sure you mean a fast processor, not a fast "intel" processor. Theres no reason for high end AMD owners to go throw there CPU`s away and turn to the devil incarnate just for an extra 4fps. also remember 4 gig helps "under Vista" youl find very little difference with 4 gig under XP due to a rather inefficient memory controller in the operating system.

A 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo gets about 30fps with low settings. Which is just playable.

In gaming performance (from the Anandtech 6000+ article), the 6000+ loses to the 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo.

You need a fast Intel processor because you need almost the fastest processors there are The fact is that even the top end AMD is slower for games than a more mid-range Intel proc, and a mid-range Intel proc struggles, thus you need a high end Intel processor for optimal play
Also, 4 fps in a game where you're struggling for 25 is quite a lot

A fast processor for this game is a fast Intel processor. An average processor for this game is a medium Intel or a fast AMD, and a bad processor is almost anything else


Woah, lots of 's.
I am also currently running a 3200+ and my last 3 purchases of processors were AMD. I am saying that the numbers show you need a very fast processor for good performance, and AMD just doesn't have one at the moment. They are adequate, and I never said anyone should throw any processor away.

Uh... just no. That's wrong.

 

[codingmonkey]

Hi everyone,

Reading some of your posts really makes me sad. When you guys say that you experience no slowdown I assume you mean that your getting something over at least 30 fps in large battles? I'm very confused as to why my system has so much trouble with this game. During large battles I'll start seeing something like 5-10 fps (from FRAPS). I spent $1500 on this beast and I'm quite disappointed because of this game. Every other game I benched has performed really well at max settings, but not this game.

I used to play with dual monitors at max settings but it was way too much. I switched to playing with a single monitor and medium settings and I'm still getting 15-20 fps in large battles. I was playing multiplayer last night and spoke to a person with a 7900 GT who had no trouble playing at _max_ settings (I believe max AA as well), but had a single monitor. What's going on here? Is it crappy nVidia 8800 drivers or something else?

 

[BitByBit]

My own experiences with SC are pretty good on this system: I'm running an X2 @ 2.5GHz with an x1950 Pro 512 and 2GB, and I've been playing it at max detail and 2X AA. Towards the end of missions I do get some slowdown, especially when I've hit the unit limit (although it's still playable).

Has anyone else noticed that this game has serious pathing issues? I've never known an RTS where sending a large group of units to another point on the map actually causes them to go round in circles.

 

[sjandrewbsme]

The issues I noticed seem to be mostly with patrol routing. Some units will just stop in the middle of their patrol whereas others will fly/drive way out of the way for an engagement.

I guess as is typical, you're stuck micromanaging.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

This game seems to destroy even the fastest of setups.

The only way to keep the game above 30fps was to play at 1280x1024 on low settings with a C2D above 2.6ghz and a GTX.

 

[ayabe]

Game runs fine on my rig, little slow down when I hit unit max, but there's a lot of people who are too hung up on FPS, 30fps is completely fine for an RTS. Some may disagree, but most major RTS's produce similar performance when they are first released, it's just the way it goes. If you can't handle playing any game below 60fps then PC gaming is not for you.