Supreme Commander Uses *all* 4 Cores

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Ripped from Video ... it *belongs HERE*

Topic Title: Supreme commander Quad core ready ? CPU whore

SC *needs* more than 2 cores to run really well

and SC is the "first" :p

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

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/660-3/supreme-commander-benchmark.html
in English: http://www.behardware.com/articles/660-1/supreme-commander-benchmark.html


HardOCP:
Looking back it is very clear that scaling the cores of our Intel Core 2 Duo in Supreme Commander provides positive results. Under Windows Vista we found that Supreme Commander was not playable with a single-core CPU. We ranSupCom at the lowest possible settings, 1024x768 NoAA/NoAF with all options turned off, and the average framerate was only 10 FPS. When we enabled a second core we received a large performance improvement which provided a better gameplay experience. With dual-core we found 1280x1024 NoAA/16X AF playable with ?medium? fidelity settings. The gameplay experience was even more improved by enabling the remaining two cores giving us a quad-core processor. We were able to run the game at 1600x1200 with NoAA/16X AF and maximum in-game settings. Intel?s quad-core by far allowed the best experience in Supreme Commander with all graphical effects possible enabled and at their highest detail levels.
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,564
3
76
Just a small bit of exaggeration in the article. Tons of people run the game exceptionally well with a dual core with the game on the maximum graphical settings.
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,631
1
81
sounds like supcom is pretty well threaded. Good to know unfortuntely the next CPU I can afford is a dual core. I think the extra AIs in new games are really CPU taxing now.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: swtethan
I run the game on max settings smoothly
the purpose of this thread is NOT to create dissatisfaction with your current rig ...
... rather a 'head's up' on what 's coming ... very shortly ;)

. . . and evidently the slowdowns ONLY come at high resolutions and with huge armies on screen at once ... with DC

... but QC is still faster ... there are 3 links which rather prove it :p

 

tuteja1986

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2005
3,676
0
0
Well i did a test with that game to see how well it ran Multiplayer 8 player match.
Friends Lan : 8 player Supreme commander.
I used : Quad core X6600 @ 3.2Ghz , ATI X1650pro (very slow card .... just a tiny bit better than 6600gt) , 1GB PC6400 : 1280x720 @ all high.


I was the one that wasn't lagging in major battle when we all fought for the middle part of the map.

My second machine with X6800 @ 3.9Ghz with 1x 8800GTX was lagging in major battle but it was running at 1920x1200 @ all high.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Well i did a test with that game to see how well it ran Multiplayer 8 player match.
Friends Lan : 8 player Supreme commander.
I used : Quad core X6600 @ 3.2Ghz , ATI X1650pro (very slow card .... just a tiny bit better than 6600gt) , 1GB PC6400 : 1280x720 @ all high.


I was the one that wasn't lagging in major battle when we all fought for the middle part of the map.

My second machine with X6800 @ 3.9Ghz with 1x 8800GTX was lagging in major battle but it was running at 1920x1200 @ all high.
aha ... the OP of the Video thread ... thanks for posting and thanks for posting your experience here
--and did you say 12x7 in the first example?


i guess QuadCore is upon us!
:Q

rather suddenly ... Single Core had a Looong run ... looks like DC's will be rather short :p


 

tuteja1986

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2005
3,676
0
0
lol the future hold for us is to witness developers jumping out their windows in total sanity after trying to program for a 50 Core CPU.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,322
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: swtethan
I run the game on max settings smoothly
the purpose of this thread is NOT to create dissatisfaction with your current rig ...
... rather a 'head's up' on what 's coming ... very shortly ;)

My personality dictates that I'm always kinda dissatisfied with my current rig, and this thread just provides ammunition to my paranoia.
 

A554SS1N

Senior member
May 17, 2005
804
0
0
Oh well, my single core 3800+ has no chance..... so much for me intending to keep it a while. I ain't upgrading.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: m1ldslide1
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: swtethan
I run the game on max settings smoothly
the purpose of this thread is NOT to create dissatisfaction with your current rig ...
... rather a 'head's up' on what 's coming ... very shortly ;)

My personality dictates that I'm always kinda dissatisfied with my current rig, and this thread just provides ammunition to my paranoia.
so, is this thread ...

... a service ...

... or not?


:p


Accord99 thanks for the English ... i was just looking at the benchmarks
... ;)
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,733
7
0
SupCom doesn't require a quad core CPU. My dual core E6600 runs SupCom at 1680x1050 with all settings except for AA maxed out, liquid smooth. My video card is an X1900XT, hardly top of the line any more.
 

HopJokey

Platinum Member
May 6, 2005
2,110
0
0
Originally posted by: Bateluer
SupCom doesn't require a quad core CPU. My dual core E6600 runs SupCom at 1680x1050 with all settings except for AA maxed out, liquid smooth. My video card is an X1900XT, hardly top of the line any more.
Mark Helz apoppin isn't saying that SupCom requires a quad core CPU for decent gameplay, just that the extra cores do indeed provide a significant boost. His point was that the it looks like game developers are starting to take advantage of quad core parts.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: HopJokey
Originally posted by: Bateluer
SupCom doesn't require a quad core CPU. My dual core E6600 runs SupCom at 1680x1050 with all settings except for AA maxed out, liquid smooth. My video card is an X1900XT, hardly top of the line any more.
Mark Helz apoppin isn't saying that SupCom requires a quad core CPU for decent gameplay, just that the extra cores do indeed provide a significant boost. His point was that the it looks like game developers are starting to take advantage of quad core parts.
true ... and thank-you

one thing to note .. running "smoothly" at a particular resolution does not depend on the video card ... it is much more governed by your CPU ... so an x850xt would probably also run SupCom smoothly at 16x10 with DC E6600 ... just with much less *details* and no AA/AF
. . . with a 8800GTX in the same rig, you would get max details and probably maxed out AA but precious few FPS over the x1950xt at 16x10.

and you would be *limited* in your max [and minimum] FPS by not having the 3rd and 4th cores enabled in an otherwise identical rig
 

Woofmeister

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,384
0
0
Thanks apoppin (I've said that on other occasions haven't I?). If the Mods aren't paying attention at least you are.

Up until the Enthusiast article, I would have called Quad Core a waste of money. More than that, given how hot Quads run compared to Core 2 Duo, I would have called a Quad purchase a serious mistake for anyone thinking of overclocking. Now, I'm thinking of buying the QX6700 when the April price drops roll around.

Alan Wake and Unreal Tournament 3 beckon.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Thanks apoppin (I've said that on other occasions haven't I?). If the Mods aren't paying attention at least you are.

Up until the Enthusiast article, I would have called Quad Core a waste of money. More than that, given how hot Quads run compared to Core 2 Duo, I would have called a Quad purchase a serious mistake for anyone thinking of overclocking. Now, I'm thinking of buying the QX6700 when the April price drops roll around.

Alan Wake and Unreal Tournament 3 beckon.
this is SO important to enthusiasts ... i am glad to be of service

i am figuring ... sometimes next year .... we are gonna see a *leap* ... like we did with DX8 > DX9 ... sure we will see Crysis and some other nice DX10 patched games this year ... but then there is gonna be *a game* ... maybe Alan Wake - DX10/Vista only and multi-threaded, that will just *blow* us away ... and an A64/8800gts will only be good for *med* details and slow ... a Core2/8900gtX will get faster ... but we will *need* QC and SLI or Xfire to make it an extraordinary experience

i think everyone upgrades after that

this is my prediction based on what i see in the gaming industry

[excellent] pre-made Game Engine dev kits are *so polished* it now takes only *one* year to bring a game from "concept to gold" whereas before it took two or three

Dev Kits for DX 10 have been out for about a year, and Alpha HW and emulators long before that ... so ... only another year or ... max two ... for a virtual DELUGE of DX10/multi-threaded games ...

the *first* multi-threaded game using 4 cores is already here ... if one cares to notice ... the *others* can't be far behind

what dev wants to look like he is old-fashioned? ... they always offer the latest .. and the Crysis Devs were quoted as saying it would bring the fastest DC CPU and SLI to its knees - with *everything maxed* at high resolution. Of course it is still playable on a lesser rig.

DX10 clears out the cheap gamers from the serious ones ... sure there will be games *available* for DX9 in 3-4 years ... just like there are games still "playable" on DX8 ... in 2007. ... but less incentive for Devs to code for their pathway. :p
 

Conky

Lifer
May 9, 2001
10,709
0
0
I played the demo for SC, or started to play it anyway, and I didn't run into any issues running the game at full details with a measly 7900GS-256mb and a C2D running at 3.2GHz. It just wasn't my style of game... I'm an FPS junky who appreciates a racing game thrown in now and again but mostly FPS.

I don't see Crysis or Alan Wake as being the driving force for quad-core upgrades but rather O/S upgrades to Vista. I'm not sure I'm ready for Vista or, to be precise, it's not ready enough for me. ;)
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Conky
I played the demo for SC, or started to play it anyway, and I didn't run into any issues running the game at full details with a measly 7900GS-256mb and a C2D running at 3.2GHz. It just wasn't my style of game... I'm an FPS junky who appreciates a racing game thrown in now and again but mostly FPS.

I don't see Crysis or Alan Wake as being the driving force for quad-core upgrades but rather O/S upgrades to Vista. I'm not sure I'm ready for Vista or, to be precise, it's not ready enough for me. ;)
you'd never notice from just beginning SC ... it with massive armies onscreen that Quad Core begins to show its advantages over dual. ;)

and it *doesn't* have to be AW ... just an example ... FarCry got a lot of people to upgrade to new HW ... as did D3 ... there *will* be that one killer game - or games - that does the same for QC ...

i guarantee it

and i am just saying that it will be sooner than later ... QC's advantage is not on the distant "horizon"

it is here
 

Woofmeister

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2004
1,384
0
0
Here's an interesting question. Assuming this thread is correct and even as of August there will be no 1333MHz FSB quad cores, would you still be better off buying an E6850 for gaming even with games designed to take advantage of multiple cores?

Intel has made this all so complicated. Remember when you just bought the fastest/best overclocking processor you could afford?
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Here's an interesting question. Assuming this thread is correct and even as of August there will be no 1333MHz FSB quad cores, would you still be better off buying an E6850 for gaming even with games designed to take advantage of multiple cores?

Intel has made this all so complicated. Remember when you just bought the fastest/best overclocking processor you could afford?
i dunno ... that is for each person to answer

i am on a *need to* upgrade basis ...

when i need to upgrade i will decide then

knowing what i know now about Quad core complicates things ... a bit ...
but i believe *my* upgrade path will become totally clear --after Barcelona is released ;)

i'd rather know that the gaming trend is toward multi-core then stumble about upgrading blindly in *hopes* of playing next gen games very well. :p

in fact ... STALKER is supposedly optimized for Quad core

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/stalker_mainstream_3d_performance/page9.asp
So that does it for Part 1 of our S.TA.L.K.E.R. performance eval. In Part 2 we?ll be taking a look at high-end cards, and in Part 3 we?ll examine CPU performance. Supposedly S.TA.L.K.E.R. takes advantage of quad-core CPUss We?ll be putting this to the test shortly!
 

aigomorla

Cases and Cooling Mod PC Gaming Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 28, 2005
18,046
851
126
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Here's an interesting question. Assuming this thread is correct and even as of August there will be no 1333MHz FSB quad cores, would you still be better off buying an E6850 for gaming even with games designed to take advantage of multiple cores?

Intel has made this all so complicated. Remember when you just bought the fastest/best overclocking processor you could afford?
i dunno ... that is for each person to answer

i am on a *need to* upgrade basis ...

when i need to upgrade i will decide then

knowing what i know now about Quad core complicates things ... a bit ...
but i believe *my* upgrade path will become totally clear --after Barcelona is released ;)

i'd rather know that the gaming trend is toward multi-core then stumble about upgrading blindly in *hopes* of playing next gen games very well. :p

in fact ... STALKER is supposedly optimized for Quad core

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/stalker_mainstream_3d_performance/page9.asp
So that does it for Part 1 of our S.TA.L.K.E.R. performance eval. In Part 2 we?ll be taking a look at high-end cards, and in Part 3 we?ll examine CPU performance. Supposedly S.TA.L.K.E.R. takes advantage of quad-core CPUss We?ll be putting this to the test shortly!

OMG i swear if i see another QX Stalker combo, ima scream.

I had absolute nightmares with that combo in OCing i couldnt break 400fsb. And then the stupid board NERFed on me, and would reset bios each time i shut down.

I think they addressed the quadcore issue, however, EVGA implimented it with there A1 revision. I dont hear ASUS with a stalker revision. :X


Anyhow, currently my system thanks to my fubard AR EVGA, (im starting to hate 680i, but i have the A1 ready to go) at 3.2ghz-> 3.6ghz on dual 7900GT @ 700mhz in sli. I dont lag at all in supreme with max settings on 1600x1200.

So what was that guy saying he calls shins? This C2D is seriously that much faster then my Opty 175 @ 3.080ghz so id upgrade to a E6300. That would seriously clear your shutter issues. Also your video card maybe.... im still waiting for next gen ATI stuff to come out b4 i step on the 8800GTX / 2900 X-fire bandwagon.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: aigomorla
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Woofmeister
Here's an interesting question. Assuming this thread is correct and even as of August there will be no 1333MHz FSB quad cores, would you still be better off buying an E6850 for gaming even with games designed to take advantage of multiple cores?

Intel has made this all so complicated. Remember when you just bought the fastest/best overclocking processor you could afford?
i dunno ... that is for each person to answer

i am on a *need to* upgrade basis ...

when i need to upgrade i will decide then

knowing what i know now about Quad core complicates things ... a bit ...
but i believe *my* upgrade path will become totally clear --after Barcelona is released ;)

i'd rather know that the gaming trend is toward multi-core then stumble about upgrading blindly in *hopes* of playing next gen games very well. :p

in fact ... STALKER is supposedly optimized for Quad core

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/stalker_mainstream_3d_performance/page9.asp
So that does it for Part 1 of our S.TA.L.K.E.R. performance eval. In Part 2 we?ll be taking a look at high-end cards, and in Part 3 we?ll examine CPU performance. Supposedly S.TA.L.K.E.R. takes advantage of quad-core CPUss We?ll be putting this to the test shortly!

OMG i swear if i see another QX Stalker combo, ima scream.

I had absolute nightmares with that combo in OCing i couldnt break 400fsb. And then the stupid board NERFed on me, and would reset bios each time i shut down.

I think they addressed the quadcore issue, however, EVGA implimented it with there A1 revision. I dont hear ASUS with a stalker revision. :X


Anyhow, currently my system thanks to my fubard AR EVGA, (im starting to hate 680i, but i have the A1 ready to go) at 3.2ghz-> 3.6ghz on dual 7900GT @ 700mhz in sli. I dont lag at all in supreme with max settings on 1600x1200.

So what was that guy saying he calls shins? This C2D is seriously that much faster then my Opty 175 @ 3.080ghz so id upgrade to a E6300. That would seriously clear your shutter issues. Also your video card maybe.... im still waiting for next gen ATI stuff to come out b4 i step on the 8800GTX / 2900 X-fire bandwagon.
OK ... i read your post twice ... three times and i have absolutely *no* idea what you are talking about
:confused:

STALKER is a video game ... :p
... huh?
 

Sphexi

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2005
7,280
0
0
Umm...I've played it pretty extensively, on a E6300 with no OC'ing, 7950GT, and run it on max settings 1280x1024, it runs great. To be honest, I prefer oldschool TA though, in SC the gameplay itself seems to kind of drag on, and I can't figure out how to get the screen to scroll slower :(
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,902
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Sphexi
Umm...I've played it pretty extensively, on a E6300 with no OC'ing, 7950GT, and run it on max settings 1280x1024, it runs great. To be honest, I prefer oldschool TA though, in SC the gameplay itself seems to kind of drag on, and I can't figure out how to get the screen to scroll slower :(
we are not talking at LOW resolutions :p
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY