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

[drakore]

I thought passed like 1050 res, it was mainly GPU dependent. surprised there was that much of a difference in performance by adding/subtracting cores at 1600x1200

 

[lopri]

I guess I should properly test this thing out. E6600 vs Q6600 coming soon.

 

[firewolfsm]

The answer depends on how long you want to keep your processor. By the end of the year we'll have UT3, Crysis, SupCom, Alan Wake and I think I heard of another one. Also, all games using the Cry engine and the Unreal engine will support quads, along with any new games with Physx. Unless you dump your processor every 6 months, quads are well worth it.

 

[f4phantom2500]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm still with you on this one, man...however I must agree with the general consensus in that quad cores are practically useless in gaming *for me*. I don't play Supreme Commander, and I don't plan on playing it. By the time a game I want to play comes out that benefits from the quad, I'll just grab a Penryn quad. I mean, why would I want a first-generation quad core product that won't even OC well if the only gain I'd see personally (the only intensive thing I do is gaming, and occasionally F@H or something, and I don't even care too much, it's just something to do when the computer's idle) is in a game that I don't even play? No thanks, I'll wait for some quads that run cooler, clock higher, and are more powerful at a given clock speed. Or, if nothing else, I would just get an E4300 and clock it higher and run every other game besides SupCom faster than that $266 quad lol. Besides, my X2 is damn fine for now. And I can't even justify spending $266 on a processor, now matter how fast it is. But if I were to buy a quad I would just hold out for Penryn.

 

[Muscles]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
The answer depends on how long you want to keep your processor. By the end of the year we'll have UT3, Crysis, SupCom, Alan Wake and I think I heard of another one. Also, all games using the Cry engine and the Unreal engine will support quads, along with any new games with Physx. Unless you dump your processor every 6 months, quads are well worth it.

QFT

 

[VERTIGGO]

Originally posted by: 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.

lay off him i asked earlier, but it does make sense. With the performance of an 8800GTS the OC'd Opty is plenty for most games (and as many pointed out, SC wouldn't improve much going to the Q6600 when it's GPU limited). It makes sense to have a quad available for ripping and general number crunching etc.

 

[The Sly Syl]

I gained a noticeable improvement from a 939 AMD 3000+ with 1 gig of ram to an AM2 4600+ and 2 gigs of ram.

Of course; considering that just about every single component except for the videocard has changed - i can very easily see where the improvement happened.

 

[lopri]

Sorry I'm looking for the installation disk. (I must have misplaced it) I'm moving soon so lots of things are packed, and the tiny CD envelope is hard to find. But I know it's here so I will get to it ASAP.

With regard to my rigs:

Rig 1: Productive work (Office and financial proggies), Games, and other known good quality applications/drivers
Rig 2: Dirty work. Hardware test, Lots of downnloads and install/uninstall, New video card driver test, Virtual OSes, and encoding for my Zune, etc.

In short, the DFI rig has been solid for quite some time and I try to keep it mean and slim. I only install what's needed, or proven stable programs. And for office apps, what's slow is my brain most of the time anyway. The software/hardware speed is way ahead of my brain activity. I used to game at 19x12 (up till 5 days ago?) and now at 25x16. CPU doesn't make any difference.
On the other hand, I use my quad-core rig much more liberally. I download and test bunch of sharewares on it, run Virtual PC which hosts Server 2003 and Vist 32 bit (trial versions), and of course this rig is a god-send for encoding movies.

But rest assured that I didn't start the thread with these rigs in mind. The test will be done using 8800 GTX, and where CPU performance isn't hindered by visual settings.

P.S. Slightly off-topic: There is a very good article at AT front page regarding Games and memory.

 

[btdvox]

I dont really want to choose any sides or anything, im in the boat where july 22 im either gonna get a Q6600 or a E6850, im leaning towards the 6850 because of G0 stepping and because ive seen posts OC'ing to 4Ghz on Air, and im using it as a gaming machine.

The one thing i wanted to say is Hardocp is a great site, but i think they shouldve used seperate CPU for dual core vs quad core (ie. q6600 vs e6700) because if you look on the MANY MANY other review sites for say a 8800 Ultra and the benchmarks for Supreme Commander are at 35-65FPS at Max settings. You can also check gamespot for an old supreme commander feature.

While i understand and get that for this game if you have a quad you'll have a harder time being bottlenecked but at the DC your not getting NON PLAYABLE settings. That part is bull.

Im def going to buy a Quad in the future but not now, and prob wont even think about it till alan wake comes out which will be mid 2008. Id have to say im a lil towards the "Left side" on this.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
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.

I'm not keeping score and I'm not taking sides. I'm not gonna comment on the 2core/4core. I don't want my dawg anywhere near this hunt . . .

BUT it is my understanding that SC is a **quasi-multi-threaded** game. It's there but it's not quite ALL the way there. What I find interesting is . . .

The quad in XP task manager when compared to the quad in WinV task manager. What I think this demonstrates beyond the 2core/4core debate is that WinV is a HUGE resource hawg BUT WinV is much better than XP at load balancing between cores

That is all. Over.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: btdvox

While i understand and get that for this game if you have a quad you'll have a harder time being bottlenecked but at the DC your not getting NON PLAYABLE settings. That part is bull.

Ya but on the same token it's not like a 3.2-3.4ghz Q6600 will bottleneck either. Consider that a 4.0ghz E6850 has the potential to be only 25% faster over B stepping Q6600. But having 2 extra cores means potential to have far greater increase. Today, you simply will not tell the difference between C2D at 3.2ghz and 4.0ghz. It has been shown in benches multiple times. In fact, even E6600 2.4ghz is fast enough and isn't a bottleneck.

However, when apps start to become more multithreaded, you cant make up for 2 missing cores. Not to mention, when it comes time to resell in 1-1.5 years, it'll be a heck of a lot easier to sell 4 cores than 2. Would anyone today pay the same price for A64 4000+ 1mb 2.4ghz over X2 3800+ 2.0ghz 512kb despite similar 20-25% speed difference in single threaded apps?

 

[btdvox]

^^ Yeah I get what your saying but it all goes back to "WHEN" and time, no one knows when Quad core will be used fully for some stuff, and seeing as how Dual core took, i just assume that quite a few ppl on this forum change CPU's every year or so. So in that remark i dont see big changes happening at this time. And that Quad is just beginning where as Duals are just starting to peak.

 

[apoppin]

according to one of the links, Quad Core is expected to be in over half of all new rigs in '09

this is mid-07

 

[AWhackWhiteBoy]

Please use the SupCom Core Maximizer, its a supplement to create perfect load balancing across all cores. It's valuable even for a duel core system.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: btdvox
^^ Yeah I get what your saying but it all goes back to "WHEN" and time, no one knows when Quad core will be used fully for some stuff, and seeing as how Dual core took, i just assume that quite a few ppl on this forum change CPU's every year or so. So in that remark i dont see big changes happening at this time. And that Quad is just beginning where as Duals are just starting to peak.

I understand what you're saying, and, to some degree, my thoughts coincide with yours. However, I am one of those people that usually buy the lowest tier CPU in a particular class, and overclock it, and then never change it. When I game, it is usually at settings that become way GPU-limited, so CPU upgrades matter little to me. I can see the point of buying an e4300 and overclocking it and then grabbing a quad when it becomes more mainstream, but I just won't likely do it.

My current 3 rigs are-- A64 3000+ (s939 Winchester), AXP 1700+ (Pally), and 1.4ghz Tualatin Celly. CPU upgrades just aren't something I do often. Which makes me think I am better off getting the quad to begin with and probably never upgrading that.

Of course, this all may change by the time I'm actually ready to build in Sept/Oct time-frame.

 

[btdvox]

I see, Well just wanted to show some other benchmarks of SupCom. Heres one from Extreme Tech, As you can see CPU really doesnt make a difference and seeing as there using a Q6600(2.4ghz) vs E6300(1.8Ghz; not even a E6600 or E6700 that alot of people have now) With a 1950XTX at MAX settings and 4XAA, The difference on Vista from the two is one FPS. For those with a 8800 GTS, GTX or Ultra they'll be hitting 30-65FPS easily @ 1600X1200 I would assume.

http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,2107342,00.asp

 

[lopri]

Found the DVD and managed to install the game on the other rig. The two rigs compared for this game is:

1. Q6600 / NF680i / 8GB RAM / 8800 GTX / Single Raptor (148GB) / Windows XP
2. E6600 / 975X / 2GB RAM / 8800 GTX / Quad-Raptors (4 x 74GB) in RAID0 / Windows XP

Please understand that the rig #2 isn't mine so I can't change the configuration on it. I dual-boot XP and Vista 64 on rig #1 so if anyone's interested I could run the test on Vista, too. It looks like the lowest resolution the game allows is 1024x768 so that's where I am going to test both rigs. What I can't figure out is how to test it correctly. Is there a timedemo funtion built in this game? If not, I will probably download a multiplayer (2v2 or 3v3) replay somewhere and run with FRAPS.

 

[lopri]

Nevermind. Read the link above and learned how to run tests. Thanks, aWhackWhiteBoy and btdvox.

Edit: Just so folks do know, I did not intend to create this thread for dual vs quad discussion at all. As I previously mentioned, I try to take advantage of my own quad-core and I indeed do. (like encoding for portable players and virtual OS) My focus has been about GAMES/GAME DEVELOPERS/INTEL's misleading advertising tactic for quads. Remember Alan Wake that was demoed.. like what, a year ago?

So far the only 3D game-looking *app* that actually utilizes quad-cores has been, from my experience, the IceStorm Fighters - the demo jointly created by Intel and Futuremark. And anyone who *played* that demo would know how stupid that demo is. That thing was something like 'add 5 more plains per extra core' type of thing. I mean.. I'm sure that's not something to be looked down on, but disappointing nonetheless.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: btdvox
I see, Well just wanted to show some other benchmarks of SupCom. Heres one from Extreme Tech, As you can see CPU really doesnt make a difference and seeing as there using a Q6600(2.4ghz) vs E6300(1.8Ghz; not even a E6600 or E6700 that alot of people have now) With a 1950XTX at MAX settings and 4XAA, The difference on Vista from the two is one FPS. For those with a 8800 GTS, GTX or Ultra they'll be hitting 30-65FPS easily @ 1600X1200 I would assume.

http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,2107342,00.asp

OK, i don't mind throwing HardOCP's results in the trash .. they are a 'fanboy' site
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...wxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Supreme Commander is the first game we have experienced that very much exposes the power of Intel?s new Core 2 Quad line of processors. If you are thinking of playing Supreme Commander the more processor cores your computer has the better.

. ... . but what about these tests?:

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

If there's one component Supreme Commander can't get enough of, it's the CPU. The game lives on brute processing power--the more you give it, the better it runs. The game got progressively faster as we moved up the MHz scale, and the numbers went even higher when we moved to quad-core. Most games still don't take full advantage of multiple cores, but Supreme Commander sure does. ...
Nevertheless, it is inconceivable to really enjoy the game with less than a dual core unless you stick to 1vs1 games that will last less than half an hour. In our test conditions, it is of course the quad core that is best for play even if the multi-threading of Supreme Commander is quite simple and the 4 cores are only partially used. In fact, 3 are enough.

and

http://www.behardware.com/arti...mmander-benchmark.html

In order to take advantage of the potential of the latest CPUs, engineers of GPG have made Supreme Commander a multithread game. This means that it is capable of using processors with 1, 2 and even 4 cores. To do so, they have chosen a "relatively" simple support of threading in that each major part of the game is a thread. There is one thread for the graphic part, another for the simulation, and less heavy ones for sound amongst other things. GPG hasn't answered our questions concerning AI, mainly if it?s included to the simulation thread or if it is on another thread of its own.

 

[Gillbot]

How do we know if the graphics card or the cpu is the bottle neck? I'd really like to get a bit more and make sup com play with more eye candy!

 

[0roo0roo]

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

ouch

wonder how it would do encoding a video at the same time. thats the kinda thing i'd be interested in heh insane multitasking

 

[btdvox]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: btdvox
I see, Well just wanted to show some other benchmarks of SupCom. Heres one from Extreme Tech, As you can see CPU really doesnt make a difference and seeing as there using a Q6600(2.4ghz) vs E6300(1.8Ghz; not even a E6600 or E6700 that alot of people have now) With a 1950XTX at MAX settings and 4XAA, The difference on Vista from the two is one FPS. For those with a 8800 GTS, GTX or Ultra they'll be hitting 30-65FPS easily @ 1600X1200 I would assume.

http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,2107342,00.asp

OK, i don't mind throwing HardOCP's results in the trash .. they are a 'fanboy' site
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...wxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Supreme Commander is the first game we have experienced that very much exposes the power of Intel?s new Core 2 Quad line of processors. If you are thinking of playing Supreme Commander the more processor cores your computer has the better.

. ... . but what about these tests?:

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

If there's one component Supreme Commander can't get enough of, it's the CPU. The game lives on brute processing power--the more you give it, the better it runs. The game got progressively faster as we moved up the MHz scale, and the numbers went even higher when we moved to quad-core. Most games still don't take full advantage of multiple cores, but Supreme Commander sure does. ...
Nevertheless, it is inconceivable to really enjoy the game with less than a dual core unless you stick to 1vs1 games that will last less than half an hour. In our test conditions, it is of course the quad core that is best for play even if the multi-threading of Supreme Commander is quite simple and the 4 cores are only partially used. In fact, 3 are enough.

and

http://www.behardware.com/arti...mmander-benchmark.html

In order to take advantage of the potential of the latest CPUs, engineers of GPG have made Supreme Commander a multithread game. This means that it is capable of using processors with 1, 2 and even 4 cores. To do so, they have chosen a "relatively" simple support of threading in that each major part of the game is a thread. There is one thread for the graphic part, another for the simulation, and less heavy ones for sound amongst other things. GPG hasn't answered our questions concerning AI, mainly if it?s included to the simulation thread or if it is on another thread of its own.

Again no ones saying that having a Quad is not going to better than Dual core for this game, but if you see the Benches the difference is not "Rembarkable" or HUGE, its minimal, in game spots benches you see a QX6700 at 43 FPS and a X6800 at 38. On july 22nd the E6850 (prob faster than the X6800 after oc) will be equivlant (in price) to the Q6600 which is a big difference than the QX6700, I believe the Q6700 will be comparable which is 520 bucks comparing to 266.

So if we just say the FPS on a Q6600 is round 40-41 Avg. and the E6850 is 38-40 avg (these are all estimates from reviews and benches and assuming you'll be overclocking both the Q6600 and E6850) then we see a 2 FPS advantage.....


If you say thats a huge difference, than I'm incorrect. I will concur with you that For this game it does show Quad having advantage and some games will come out that do, why wouldn't it, but for those waiting on July 22nd, if you don't use Adobe stuff or other quad based Apps and are looking for gaming ( I think alan wake will be the first game to really really show Quad advantage which comes out mid 2008), i would think a E6850 is a better choice than Q6600.

Great response btw Apoppin, good to see actual based Benches. Thanks for the info!

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: 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.

So youre suggesting that its common for people to have $900 CPUs and $150 graphics cards paired together? :roll:

Also SupCom isnt an fps... 34fps feels really smooth.

 

[lopri]

I didn't get to the test yet - my apologies first.

At this point what I am curious about is whether this game really takes advantage of more than 2 cores, and if so how. So let's try to avoid GPU bottleneck issue. Of course we know after a certain point the game will be limited by GPU. (which game isn't?) That is rather a moot issue for modern games. One can make any game either GPU bound or CPU bound by manipulating various in-game/driver settings.

One thing that I find interesting from the linked reviews is that they used a quad-core for both scenarios (dual vs quad), via a method of disabling cores in the BIOS. One would think a site the size of HardOCP can afford E6600/E6700, instead of going the route of disabling cores via BIOS? It might or might not matter, but I found that to be a little odd.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: AWhackWhiteBoy
Please use the SupCom Core Maximizer, its a supplement to create perfect load balancing across all cores. It's valuable even for a duel core system.

Its actually quite sad that GPG has such glaring load balancing issues for a game thats launched and is designed to work on multicore. Performance increases like that should not even be possible.