Who said Supereme Commander runs faster with a quad-core?

[lopri]

My brief observation via FRAPS tells me that's not the case AT ALL. If anyone can provide a proper method to benchmark, I would appreciate it.

 

[swtethan]

benchmark at 800x600 resolution..... why do you have the 8800 on the slower machine?

 

[Yanagi]

In order to make the CPU work harder you have to decrease the GPU workload.

Decrease resolution to absolute minimum and turn off as much non physic related as posible.


Also make sure to have you fastest avaliable graphics card to minimize the risk of beeing GPU bottlenecked.

 

[HopJokey]

Originally posted by: lopri
My brief observation via FRAPS tells me that's not the case AT ALL. If anyone can provide a proper method to benchmark, I would appreciate it.

What resolution are you running at? I think the 8600GT is a big bottleneck.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

This thread is a classic, and a perfect example of why Quads are totally worthless for current gaming.

Everybody touts SC as being the best example of gaming using 4 cores, but to actually put 4 cores to use you need a pair of 8800gtx's running in SLI at the lowest crap resolution with no eye candy

Just what I always wanted, $1000+ of video cards and a 24" monitor so I can run 800x600 with no eye candy, but I'm utilizing my 4 cores by god!!! :laugh:

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
This thread is a classic, and a perfect example of why Quads are totally worthless for current gaming.

Everybody touts SC as being the best example of gaming using 4 cores, but to actually put 4 cores to use you need a pair of 8800gtx's running in SLI at the lowest crap resolution with no eye candy

Just what I always wanted, $1000+ of video cards and a 24" monitor so I can run 800x600 with no eye candy, but I'm utilizing my 4 cores by god!!! :laugh:

Here's an idea: instead of staking your opinion entirely on thread posted by a random forum user, who backs up their claim with a 'brief observation' and absolutely no data provided, read a review instead.

QX6700
8800GTX SLI
2GB RAM
Supreme Commander

1600x1200, Graphics Settings: High, 0x/16x AA/AF
4 Cores Enabled: 15/84/34 FPS Min/Max/Avg
2 Cores Enabled: 10/67/21.9 FPS Min/Max/Avg
1 Core Enabled: 2/38/9.4 FPS Min/Max/Avg

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
This thread is a classic, and a perfect example of why Quads are totally worthless for current gaming.

Everybody touts SC as being the best example of gaming using 4 cores, but to actually put 4 cores to use you need a pair of 8800gtx's running in SLI at the lowest crap resolution with no eye candy

Just what I always wanted, $1000+ of video cards and a 24" monitor so I can run 800x600 with no eye candy, but I'm utilizing my 4 cores by god!!! :laugh:

Here's an idea: instead of staking your opinion entirely on thread posted by a random forum user, who backs up their claim with a 'brief observation' and absolutely no data provided, read a review instead.

QX6700
8800GTX SLI
2GB RAM
Supreme Commander

1600x1200, Graphics Settings: High, 0x/16x AA/AF
4 Cores Enabled: 15/84/34 FPS Min/Max/Avg
2 Cores Enabled: 10/67/21.9 FPS Min/Max/Avg
1 Core Enabled: 2/38/9.4 FPS Min/Max/Avg

pwned.

 

[stogez]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
This thread is a classic, and a perfect example of why Quads are totally worthless for current gaming.

Everybody touts SC as being the best example of gaming using 4 cores, but to actually put 4 cores to use you need a pair of 8800gtx's running in SLI at the lowest crap resolution with no eye candy

Just what I always wanted, $1000+ of video cards and a 24" monitor so I can run 800x600 with no eye candy, but I'm utilizing my 4 cores by god!!! :laugh:

Here's an idea: instead of staking your opinion entirely on thread posted by a random forum user, who backs up their claim with a 'brief observation' and absolutely no data provided, read a review instead.

QX6700
8800GTX SLI
2GB RAM
Supreme Commander

1600x1200, Graphics Settings: High, 0x/16x AA/AF
4 Cores Enabled: 15/84/34 FPS Min/Max/Avg
2 Cores Enabled: 10/67/21.9 FPS Min/Max/Avg
1 Core Enabled: 2/38/9.4 FPS Min/Max/Avg

That's gotta hurt!

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
This thread is a classic, and a perfect example of why Quads are totally worthless for current gaming.

Everybody touts SC as being the best example of gaming using 4 cores, but to actually put 4 cores to use you need a pair of 8800gtx's running in SLI at the lowest crap resolution with no eye candy

Just what I always wanted, $1000+ of video cards and a 24" monitor so I can run 800x600 with no eye candy, but I'm utilizing my 4 cores by god!!! :laugh:

Here's an idea: instead of staking your opinion entirely on thread posted by a random forum user, who backs up their claim with a 'brief observation' and absolutely no data provided, read a review instead.

QX6700
8800GTX SLI
2GB RAM
Supreme Commander

1600x1200, Graphics Settings: High, 0x/16x AA/AF
4 Cores Enabled: 15/84/34 FPS Min/Max/Avg
2 Cores Enabled: 10/67/21.9 FPS Min/Max/Avg
1 Core Enabled: 2/38/9.4 FPS Min/Max/Avg

You dont need a massive GPU to get all 4 cores running, it will just HELP your video card not run like crap/closer to its full potential/at full potential(if you have a crap video card).

peyton 1
guitar 0

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
This thread is a classic, and a perfect example of why Quads are totally worthless for current gaming.

Everybody touts SC as being the best example of gaming using 4 cores, but to actually put 4 cores to use you need a pair of 8800gtx's running in SLI at the lowest crap resolution with no eye candy

Just what I always wanted, $1000+ of video cards and a 24" monitor so I can run 800x600 with no eye candy, but I'm utilizing my 4 cores by god!!! :laugh:

Here's an idea: instead of staking your opinion entirely on thread posted by a random forum user, who backs up their claim with a 'brief observation' and absolutely no data provided, read a review instead.

QX6700
8800GTX SLI
2GB RAM
Supreme Commander

1600x1200, Graphics Settings: High, 0x/16x AA/AF
4 Cores Enabled: 15/84/34 FPS Min/Max/Avg
2 Cores Enabled: 10/67/21.9 FPS Min/Max/Avg
1 Core Enabled: 2/38/9.4 FPS Min/Max/Avg

pwned.

Way to cherry pick data to prove your point. Why didn't you pick the 1600x1200 under Vista which shows less than 1fps difference from dual to quad? And are you really going to use $1000+ gpu's to play at settings that give you 15fps min and 34fps avg?

And you seem to have missed my main point. The vast majority of gamers can't/won't afford SLI'd gtx's. And with more reasonable gpu solutions like a single GS, the game is extremely gpu bound and the advantage of a quad all but goes away. I have no doubt that at some point in the future quads will become useful for the average gamer, but not today.

Nice try.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Way to cherry pick data to prove your point. Why didn't you pick the 1600x1200 under Vista which shows less than 1fps difference from dual to quad?

Are we reading the same review here? Performance under Vista:

QX6700
8800GTX SLI
2GB RAM
Supreme Commander

1600x1200, Graphics Settings: High, 0x/16x AA/AF
4 Cores Enabled: 5/71/26.9 FPS Min/Max/Avg
2 Cores Enabled: 3/55/14.8 FPS Min/Max/Avg
1 Core Enabled: 0/27/4.4 FPS Min/Max/Avg

And are you really going to use $1000+ gpu's to play at settings that give you 15fps min and 34fps avg?

The blame for that would fall more on the game developer versus the hardware manufacturers. SC is a great RTS game, but the price for admission is high. Regardless, SC does utilize a quad-core CPU to provide very significant gains in FPS.

And you seem to have missed my main point. The vast majority of gamers can't/won't afford SLI'd gtx's. And with more reasonable gpu solutions like a single GS, the game is extremely gpu bound and the advantage of a quad all but goes away. I have no doubt that at some point in the future quads will become useful for the average gamer, but not today.

The reason we "missed" your main point is because you never presented it in your first reply. SC is currently GPU limited; it might not be 6-12 months down the line. But as I previously mentioned, that falls more on the game developer, and it doesn't change the fact that when the game is not GPU limited, it does utilize a quad core CPU.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Way to cherry pick data to prove your point. Why didn't you pick the 1600x1200 under Vista which shows less than 1fps difference from dual to quad?

Nobody uses Vista for gaming. If you do, you suck.

And are you really going to use $1000+ gpu's to play at settings that give you 15fps min and 34fps avg?

And you seem to have missed my main point. The vast majority of gamers can't/won't afford SLI'd gtx's. And with more reasonable gpu solutions like a single GS, the game is extremely gpu bound and the advantage of a quad all but goes away. I have no doubt that at some point in the future quads will become useful for the average gamer, but not today.

Nice try.

Most people wouldn't, but some people don't care about the money...plus it's not like you can't use the video cards on any other games, in a lot of titles they would provide a very VERY good gaming experience. And if you just happen to LOVE Supreme Commander you probably would. Plus most people that would run the game at a high resolution have big monitors anyway. Besides, most people wouldn't buy quads in the first place so the fact that most people won't buy SLI'd GTX's is a moot point, since people that would buy quads are more likely to buy SLI'd GTX's than people who wouldn't buy quads, especially if they already have a quad (they would have had to shell out a lot of $ for a quad since they bought it before the upcoming price drops).

 

[Shimmishim]

LOL I guess I suck.

gaming performance isn't up to par yet on vista but it'll get there. it's always the same thing when a new O/S is released.

i think if you're a hardcore gamer, quadcore isn't for you as most games do not utilize 4 cores yet. SupCom is one game out of ... thousands of games that use 4 cores. No one really talks about any other games. Fine, if all you play is Supcom then maybe quadcore is for you... otherwise i'm with GD on this one.

in most cases the people that rave about the quadcore are those that run distributed computing apps like foldingathome, WCG, etc...

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
LOL I guess I suck.

gaming performance isn't up to par yet on vista but it'll get there. it's always the same thing when a new O/S is released.

i think if you're a hardcore gamer, quadcore isn't for you as most games do not utilize 4 cores yet. SupCom is one game out of ... thousands of games that use 4 cores. No one really talks about any other games. Fine, if all you play is Supcom then maybe quadcore is for you... otherwise i'm with GD on this one.

in most cases the people that rave about the quadcore are those that run distributed computing apps like foldingathome, WCG, etc...

I agree that quads aren't really beneficial in gaming, but he can't just sit there and spew lies and expect everyone to accept it as fact, especially when someone else posts a link to a professional review on a trusted web site that blatantly disproves his claims. Even though quads generally aren't beneficial for gaming, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are NEVER beneficial, SC happens to be the exception to the rule. I guess GD just never heard of an exception :roll:.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: f4phantom2500

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
LOL I guess I suck.

gaming performance isn't up to par yet on vista but it'll get there. it's always the same thing when a new O/S is released.

i think if you're a hardcore gamer, quadcore isn't for you as most games do not utilize 4 cores yet. SupCom is one game out of ... thousands of games that use 4 cores. No one really talks about any other games. Fine, if all you play is Supcom then maybe quadcore is for you... otherwise i'm with GD on this one.

in most cases the people that rave about the quadcore are those that run distributed computing apps like foldingathome, WCG, etc...

I agree that quads aren't really beneficial in gaming, but he can't just sit there and spew lies and expect everyone to accept it as fact, especially when someone else posts a link to a professional review on a trusted web site that blatantly disproves his claims. Even though quads generally aren't beneficial for gaming, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are NEVER beneficial, SC happens to be the exception to the rule. I guess GD just never heard of an exception :roll:.

With only a single game out that shows an actual significant increase in performance with quad-core (at very reasonable settings), it is hard to justify buying a quad if gaming is your primary function. But, wouldn't it be nice to be able to play, for example, Quake 4 (which uses dual-core very well), AND encode some video at the same time without a hitch? Sure, you can do it on a dual-core, but the encoding won't complete as quickly, and the gameplay won't get any benefits of the other core.

There have been a lot of "announcements" from various game developers as to their future game "supporting" quad-core technology. However, we heard a lot of this in the past regarding dual-core as well. Do not buy a quad with the expectation that you'll be playing Alan Wake on it this year and seeing huge performance benefits from it. It just might not happen. Keep in mind, several companies released patches that enabled dual-core optimizations for their games (such as COD2), but no performance increase was seen at all.

That being said, if you buy the q6600 for ~$266 later this month, and gaming is your main interest, you probably won't see much benefit to begin with if all you do is game (if you game AND do other CPU-intensive tasks at the same time, that's different). But, $266 for a quad or $150 for a cheaper dual... <shrug> not much of a big deal. After all, in the future, that quad likely will show more of a benefit, but the dual-core chip won't likely grow a couple of more cores. I mean, jeez, $266 for a quad-core chip!! Some people spend more than that on low latency ram.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Guitar Daddy is made an extreme statement to the left, making it seem as if QC doesn't make a difference much

Peyton decided to make an extreme statement to the right, cherry picking a benchmark that shows QC dominating.

Most people would say the truth is somewhere in the middle, but I am going to say the truth is closer to the left than the right in this case. We have a total of ONE game that uses QC and I am of the opinion that the game sucks. So, you know, for the most part, the QC is not a gaming CPU. Maybe in 1 year? Maybe in 2 years? Yeah, maybe that will change, but right now, and in the immediate future, QC is a waste of money for a gaming rig, unless of course, your idea of a gaming rig is playing SC and nothing else... But with the price cuts coming July 22nd, I see no reason not to get a QC.

 

[Toadster]

QX6700
8800GTX SLI
2GB RAM
Supreme Commander

1600x1200, Graphics Settings: High, 0x/16x AA/AF
4 Cores Enabled: 15/84/34 FPS Min/Max/Avg
2 Cores Enabled: 10/67/21.9 FPS Min/Max/Avg
1 Core Enabled: 2/38/9.4 FPS Min/Max/Avg

wow - that's 34fps vs 9.4fps from quad to single...

that's playable, vs NOT playable

 

[bryanW1995]

I'm still wondering why somebody would put his 8800gts in an opteron 165 rig and 8600 gt with the Q6600. The reason there was no change is that the 8600 gt is not a gaming card.

 

[Gillbot]

I gained zero when I went from an AMD 3200+ to a 3800+ x2 but I think it is more my videocard that is the bottleneck. Stupid 7300GS

 

[Modelworks]

Spend some time reading on gamasutra or gamdev and you will see why quad core isn't on developers wish list for things to improve gaming.

Its on my wish list , but I do the 3d rendering part of gaming, animations, cutscenes, etc.
Quad core is an absolute dream come true in that area.

I also concur with a lot of the programmers on gamasutra and gamedev.
supreme commanders programmers need to go back through the code, they missed something.

 

[lopri]

Ah Ha! So it was HOCP. Thanks. Maybe they have a benchmark tool, too.

 

[Idontcare]

I love these threads, it is like a do-over of the single-core to dual-core days of yore where everybody with a keyboard and an opinion started a thread "in my measly experience more cores are a waste".

I am quite confident once all the quad-core rhetoric settles down that we'll be inundated once again with a revival of threads by the octo-core early adopters in 2009 tougting "these 8 cores ain't worth a pot to piss in".

Deja-vu again and again.

 

[themisfit610]

I gained a HUGE amount at 1280x960 on my CRT when I went from a 3500+ Athlon64 to a 3800+ X2 with a 7800gt OC at GTX speed, and 1 GB of RAM. It was pretty absurd, before I could scarcely play once a good bunch of units got built (at a mix of low -> med settings). Now at the same settings it's cake all the way through, even with 2 AI's on hard. I have a 24 inch BenQ now, so I have to run at 1920x1200, but it still manages well.

Of course, I'm bumping up against a GPU limitation, since I can't even manage medium settings all around I think a switch to a Q6600 with some OC, 2 GB of DDR2 800, and a corsair 520 to back it up will show some improvement, until I can afford to drop a new GPU in there too Oh well, it's just one game, and I do a lot of media production too - with photoshop, lightroom, and premiere all open at once (!), so a Q6600 will help me out a lot. Might even take the plunge and go to 4 GB + x64. Yikes.

~MiSfit

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Peyton decided to make an extreme statement to the right, cherry picking a benchmark that shows QC dominating.

Cherry picking?

Let's double check the title of this thread: Who said Supereme Commander runs faster with a quad-core?

Let's double check the title of the review I quoted: SupCom & Intel Core 2 Quad Gameplay Advantages

lopri said he doesn't think his quad-core makes a difference, yet he fails to list which system (specs) he used, what settings he used, and any results he got.

GD then expands on lopri's conclusions with:

Everybody touts SC as being the best example of gaming using 4 cores, but to actually put 4 cores to use you need a pair of 8800gtx's running in SLI at the lowest crap resolution with no eye candy

That was easily proved false, with a thorough industry review (HardOCP) that showed significant gains in FPS and playable settings (even at higher resolutions and quality settings, in both XP and Vista) utilizing quad-core CPUs. They use a high-end SLI setup to make sure the benchmarks are not GPU limited, which makes sense because they're testing CPU performance.

I'm not keeping score, but I think I've been the only person to provide numbers instead of hearsay in this thread about SupCom.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: lopri
Who said Supereme Commander runs faster with a quad-core?

i did

Supreme Commander Uses *all* 4 Cores

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

http://www.hardware.fr/article...mmander-benchmark.html
in English: http://www.behardware.com/arti...mmander-benchmark.html


HardOCP:

quote:
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.