Supreme Commander @ 1920 x 1200

[yacoub]

SupCom eats up CPU. The upcoming mega-patch due in about two to three weeks' time will include performance enhancements, but even so, you definitely want a dual-core CPU for this game if you're planning to play for any significant length of time (to the point where there are a lot of units moving about).

 

[Drayvn]

E6400 not OCed 1900XT 512Mb, 2Gb RAM, plays smooth as silk at 1680x1050 with everything on high and AA at 4x.

The one thing that improves FPS is changing either SHADOWS or FIDELITY to low and youll probably get around 2x to 3x more FPS. Just played with a mate against 4 supreme AIs on the Seton Map, i was hosting, didnt have a problem and the map was fully explored, by the end we probably had around 500 to 700 units each and thats the only time it came crawling to its knees but all i had to do was pull back a bit and it was playable again.

Also theres some great tips for fixing C2Ds so that the 2nd core or more gets used much more. Check out the Supreme Commander forums : http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewforum....3&sid=9d7ce4931b476fbdebd4dfc968917c9a

As ive noticed that my 1st core was at load around 90 to 100 while my 2nd was at around 30 but when i fixed it i had my 1st at around 80 and the 2nd around 80 too. Made a hell of a difference.

 

[secretanchitman]

runs fine here with the specs in my sig at 1280x1024 medium-high settings 2xAA.

 

[vhx]

Dravyn, that link didn't goto anything relevant to what you were talking about. Thats GPGNet, which is the online network program for the game, has nothing to do with CPU optimizations. What you probably meant to link was: http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewforum.php?f=9

On topic, this game is very CPU intensive, overclocking my CPU definately improved the speed. Turning shadows to low or off, like someone said before, definately helped alot.

 

[ethebubbeth]

1280x1024 with dual monitors (so 2560x1024 effective) at medium settings KILLS my setup in endgame, even on smaller multiplayer maps. In the larger maps with more than four players, I start chugging pretty early on.

I have a 3800+ X2 @ 2.5ghz, 2gb pc4000 ram, and a 512mb 7950gt.

 

[jkcheng122]

should also note for the OP that if u decides to upgrade both cpu and memory, should look into a platform upgrade and move to either am2 or core 2 motherboards. u'll also need to get ddr2 memory, no less than 2 sticks of 1gb memory. also for any gaming at higher than 1600x1200 resolution, consider at least a 8800gts 320mb, 640mb probably the best solution.

 

[atomicacid55]

Originally posted by: ethebubbeth
1280x1024 with dual monitors (so 2560x1024 effective) at medium settings KILLS my setup in endgame, even on smaller multiplayer maps. In the larger maps with more than four players, I start chugging pretty early on.

I have a 3800+ X2 @ 2.5ghz, 2gb pc4000 ram, and a 512mb 7950gt.

My Opteron 170 *@ 2.5ghz, 2gb DDR500 and 7800GT overclocked to GTX gets slaughtered too.

Sure its fine in the beginning, but I think anyone should see a slowdown in the end when its a big game like 2v2. and people are maxed out in units.

 

[Muhadib]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
OP: My rig is essentially identical to yours, except I have an 8800GTS 320MB. It runs very smoothly at 1920x1200 w/ 4XAA enabled.

Oh don't misunderstand me, it runs like candy up until 2000+ units are in play.

 

[Muhadib]

Originally posted by: vhx
On topic, this game is very CPU intensive, overclocking my CPU definately improved the speed. Turning shadows to low or off, like someone said before, definately helped alot.

I turned all the video options down as far as they would go and it didn't help much if at all.

Dual cores seem to be the resounding answer here. I kick myself now, who knew good games would utilize them so soon? I had planned on my rig to hold up until dual core software was more mainstream then I could upgrade at that point. Bummer...

 

[dannybin1742]

I don't know how it will run on mine, i'll let you know:

C2D E4300 @ 3ghz
1gb ddr at 668
7900GS

I can't wait to play it!! I was a huge TA junkie

 

[cubeless]

methinks a lot of us are feeling that pain... the decision is now whether to jsut get a couple $120 3800x2's at ne, or pony up the big bux for a c2d xplant... since i have to do 4 pc's, i think i'm going to be settling for x2's...

anybody want to buy a couple single core chips???

 

[thegimp03]

Hmm, good thing I kept my x2 3800 around if I want to play that game. From the sounds of it though it looks like that's not even enough.

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: vhx
Dravyn, that link didn't goto anything relevant to what you were talking about. Thats GPGNet, which is the online network program for the game, has nothing to do with CPU optimizations. What you probably meant to link was: http://forums.gaspowered.com/viewforum.php?f=9

On topic, this game is very CPU intensive, overclocking my CPU definately improved the speed. Turning shadows to low or off, like someone said before, definately helped alot.

Sorry dude, went to the wrong part of the forum there, cheers for the clear up!

Also do remember guys some maps work very well while others dont.

Drakes Ravine is a COMPLETE hog to my system, i get fluctuations from around 1 fps up to 80 and it never gets better and it mostly stays around the 5 to 10 fps mark.

But Setons Clutch works the best for mine as well as the 81x81km map, cant remember the map. and for some reason the best maps that work for my PC seem to tbe the ones which have 8 players as standard....

 

[Matt2]

I dont have this game (or want it) so I havent been paying too much attention to it, but how much physics calculations are involved?

Could that be what is eating up the CPU? If so, has anyone with a PhysX card tried playing this game? I would think that would dramatically improve the performance. Is this game even capable of utilizing a PhysX card?

I just cant believe that one of the first games that actually natively takes advantage of multi-cores requires a quad core just to be playable.

I cant believe I need a quad-core CPU when my dual-core hasnt even been used in games.

 

[VooDooAddict]

Just on the Demo right now. Running dual monitor at 1280x1024(17") and 1360x768(27") 4xAA 8xAF (no transparency AA) I think all in game quality settings are maxed or "high"

It's not silky smooth but it's more then playable.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Matt2
I dont have this game (or want it) so I havent been paying too much attention to it, but how much physics calculations are involved?

Could that be what is eating up the CPU? If so, has anyone with a PhysX card tried playing this game? I would think that would dramatically improve the performance. Is this game even capable of utilizing a PhysX card?

I just cant believe that one of the first games that actually natively takes advantage of multi-cores requires a quad core just to be playable.

I cant believe I need a quad-core CPU when my dual-core hasnt even been used in games.

This game doesn't have PhysX support, Matt.

 

[imported_RedStar]

i'm playing at 1680*1050 ...i play as uef and i think i have reached the final battle..with a zillion units running around...5 hours into the game.

It plays effortlessly. Given that, i was suprised it crashed to the deskdop 1 x previously.

The game is fun..but once again (as in all RTS games) the AI is not all that bright..at least on normal.

for example, it flys down the same approaches even though you have massed anti air.
You can build just out of range of their base defense and clobber them with missiles. They just ignore you. Or, you can build defenses along their route and they will ignore the incoming fire as they walk on towards their goal.

Still it is fun and SMOOTH with all those units running around. It would prolly be even better with a dual monitor setup.

This really is a game for windows

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Matt2
I dont have this game (or want it) so I havent been paying too much attention to it, but how much physics calculations are involved?

Could that be what is eating up the CPU? If so, has anyone with a PhysX card tried playing this game? I would think that would dramatically improve the performance. Is this game even capable of utilizing a PhysX card?

I just cant believe that one of the first games that actually natively takes advantage of multi-cores requires a quad core just to be playable.

I cant believe I need a quad-core CPU when my dual-core hasnt even been used in games.

I can't speak for the programming job that they did, since I obviously haven't seen the source code, but I've heard that the developer wanted to make the game more detailed and processor intensive, but didn't because too few systems would be able to run it.

He wants it to be an RTS that lasts for five years. I can say that with maps of 81kmx81km, and with thousands of tanks and airplanes, each with its own set of things to do and firing calculatons to perform, combined with 10,000 trees and a system that calculates positions and firing and what not in 1/60th of a second "frames", yeah, it's a beast.

I don't think that anyone "needs" quad-core to play the game, but it certainly uses a very large chunk of my E6600 and about 1.5GB of memory. Dual 1920x1200 displays certainly wouldn't help. Good thing I've only got one.

 

[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.

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: RedStar
i'm playing at 1680*1050 ...i play as uef and i think i have reached the final battle..with a zillion units running around...5 hours into the game.

It plays effortlessly. Given that, i was suprised it crashed to the deskdop 1 x previously.

The game is fun..but once again (as in all RTS games) the AI is not all that bright..at least on normal.

for example, it flys down the same approaches even though you have massed anti air.
You can build just out of range of their base defense and clobber them with missiles. They just ignore you. Or, you can build defenses along their route and they will ignore the incoming fire as they walk on towards their goal.

Still it is fun and SMOOTH with all those units running around. It would prolly be even better with a dual monitor setup.

This really is a game for windows

You should try the Supreme AIs.... I can barely beat it with me and another friend, and still it kicks our asses.

Normal is pretty easy but when you put the difficulty level you in for one fun suprise!

 

[Ichigo]

Not sure if a patch has changed anything, but I'm slaughtering Supreme AI's. Not because I'm good, mind you, they're just bad.

 

[vhx]

Supreme AI usually picks Horde AI, which blows. Pick Balanced AI on a 10x10 map or greater, with water, and try to beat them. I've only done it like 2 times.

 

[yacoub]

You guys are getting way off topic with the discussion of how tough the AIs are, so let's just close it by saying everything including the AI will be tweaked and updated in the large patch due out in a couple weeks. On top of that there are already a couple third-party AIs available in the Mod forum over at GasPoweredGames. Supposedly they are rather good though I haven't tried them yet myself (still working my way through the campaign).

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: vhx
Supreme AI usually picks Horde AI, which blows. Pick Balanced AI on a 10x10 map or greater, with water, and try to beat them. I've only done it like 2 times.

Horde AI sucks. Just build a good enough defensive wall, get some strategic bombers, and wreak havoc.

 

[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?