Supreme Commander @ 1920 x 1200

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Matt2
My point was that I have had this dual core CPU for 18 months now and no games have natively taken advantage of it.

Now, the first game that is multi-threaded comes out and it's already obsolete?

I think the problem is that something that can take advantage of dual cores will run better on four. Dual core is just going to get the ball rolling. Once something is multithreaded, I'd imagine that it will use as many as you can throw at it.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

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.

This a strange attitude for a PC gamer. Things ARE going to progress. SC is a beautiful and expansive game, and gives a great return for the power it requires.

My point was that I have had this dual core CPU for 18 months now and no games have natively taken advantage of it.

Now, the first game that is multi-threaded comes out and it's already obsolete?

Yeah, I get where you're coming from. But I don't think a fast opty like yours is going to be obsolete for some time to come. If anyone says that a quad is "needed" to play SC, they're just shilling for Intel, or are dead-set on buying one and looking for an excuse..

 

[natto fire]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

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.

This a strange attitude for a PC gamer. Things ARE going to progress. SC is a beautiful and expansive game, and gives a great return for the power it requires.

My point was that I have had this dual core CPU for 18 months now and no games have natively taken advantage of it.

Now, the first game that is multi-threaded comes out and it's already obsolete?

Which I believe is one of the cornerstone arguments single core devotees threw at early adopters. Don't feel too bad, though, imagine how bad a Pentium D is at the game

 

[aka1nas]

Most of the reviews are showing that the game really only uses 2 CPU-bound threads and Quad-core is just giving you a performance bump as other stuff is being offloaded to the extra 2 cores.

 

[Stoneburner]

i have an opty 165 at 2.6 ghz and a x1800xl and i run the game at 1680x1050 and it just kills my system even with 2 players

 

[40sTheme]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

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.

This a strange attitude for a PC gamer. Things ARE going to progress. SC is a beautiful and expansive game, and gives a great return for the power it requires.

My point was that I have had this dual core CPU for 18 months now and no games have natively taken advantage of it.

Now, the first game that is multi-threaded comes out and it's already obsolete?

Which I believe is one of the cornerstone arguments single core devotees threw at early adopters. Don't feel too bad, though, imagine how bad a Pentium D is at the game

It's just fine; the demo runs great on my computer.
Pentium D 820 @ stock 2.8GHz
2GB Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800 4-4-4-12
7950GT @ 600/1600
No problems with the demo, but the game is boring... could be good if I didn't have to zooom WAY out except in battles.