Supreme Commander: Sequel to Total Annihilation=> ETA early 2007

[vhx]

Played the demo and my rig plays just fine.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: vhx
Played the demo and my rig plays just fine.

lol.. at what resolution and what bells/whistles turned on? (ie: AA + AF?)

 

[SickBeast]

The demo runs OK on my X800pro with AA disabled (AF@16x).

I left the rest at default. 1920x1200 was choppy. ~1600x~1000 ran smooth.

I didn't care much for the game. Too slow, terrible controls, and I didn't like the graphics on the units, the comander especially.

 

[vhx]

1440x900, no AF or AA with everything on high except shadows. I think I get around 30ish frames a second, but tbh I never notice any slowdowns even with lots of stuff on screen, but thats just me.

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
The demo runs OK on my X800pro with AA disabled (AF@16x).

I left the rest at default. 1920x1200 was choppy. ~1600x~1000 ran smooth.

I didn't care much for the game. Too slow, terrible controls, and I didn't like the graphics on the units, the comander especially.

Really? I thought they looked kinda cool. Like retro-like.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: SickBeast
The demo runs OK on my X800pro with AA disabled (AF@16x).

I left the rest at default. 1920x1200 was choppy. ~1600x~1000 ran smooth.

I didn't care much for the game. Too slow, terrible controls, and I didn't like the graphics on the units, the comander especially.

Really? I thought they looked kinda cool. Like retro-like.

IMO the original TA commander looked cooler, especially the Arm one. The new one is just a plain grey "man". What's to like?

 

[Cookie Monster]

Do they still have the pee wee?

 

[JEDI]

hm.. AGP

7600gs for $100

or

x1600pro for $83

or

7800gs for $160

?

 

[Maximilian]

Says dual core is highly recommended. Maybe thats why the guy with E6xxx and a mediocre gpu is getting more acceptable fps than people with opteron 14x and a better gpu.

It ran as expected with me. Opteron 170 2.0ghz 7900GTO 2gb RAM. It only slowed down with tons of units on the map, if it did that i just pushed + to crank up the speed.

 

[CaiNaM]

i'm not sure what i think of this game yet.. one thing is you can sure put a lot of units on the map, lol.

artillery still rules this game tho.. if you can get your tech2 & 3 artillery up before your opponents, you win almost every time.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Says dual core is highly recommended. Maybe thats why the guy with E6xxx and a mediocre gpu is getting more acceptable fps than people with opteron 14x and a better gpu.

It ran as expected with me. Opteron 170 2.0ghz 7900GTO 2gb RAM. It only slowed down with tons of units on the map, if it did that i just pushed + to crank up the speed.

doh..

<-------- Sempron 3100, 1gig ram

2 monitors out of the question for me?

 

[Nightmare225]

Gotta say yes.

 

[ethebubbeth]

Just downloaded the demo...

X2 @ 2.4ghz
2gb ram
7950gt 512mb


The thing CHUGS on two 1280x1024 screens and medium quality.

One screen runs decently until the endgame.

 

[CU]

Demo benchmarks. This game seems to kill video cards. Now I want to see some benchmarks with the real game with different amounts of system ram, video ram, number of cores, and cpu speed. With my system I only get about 8 fps in high without AA, 9 in medium, and 13 in low running at 1024x768. This is in the single player missions in the demo. I know I need a new video card and more ram. Just trying to figure out what video card to get. I think my cpu should be OK. Also I have seen some screen shots showing the game using mult. cores and some where it doesn't. It is suppose to use mult. cores.

 

[CU]

Well I found out there was bug in the audigy sound card drivers that was causing a slow down. I update to the newest ones and while that didn't improve the mission I was on much which was at the later stages of it. It increased my fps by 10-15 in high quality with out AA on the next mission at least in the early part of it that I have played so far. So update your drivers for this game. I still plan to run some test and find out how much system memory and video card memory this game is using.

 

[sandorski]

A bug in CL Drivers??? No way!

<<<<<<<<<<<Removed Audigy and now happily use Onboard Audio.

 

[CU]

I have considered that. I wonder if my fps would go up even more if I switched to onboard?

 

[Raduque]

Can Supcom do independent resolutions on each monitor?

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Raduque
Can Supcom do independent resolutions on each monitor?

yes

 

[nemesismk2]

I had the game on pre-order for ages and the full game arrived yesterday, got the limited edition version for the extra stuff. It runs great using medium quality settings at 1280x1024 with my A64 3500 and X1800 GTO!

 

[CU]

I did some testing last night with the demo. My cpu stays at 98%-100% no matter what settings. At 1024x768 with everything at max but no AA near the end of the 2nd mission with around 400 units on my side it was using about 190 megs of video memory and 950 megs of system ram with a 800 meg page file. I was getting 8-12 fps at this point in the game. How much system ram do you have nemesismk2? I am pretty sure my video card is holding me back the most. It seems to render a few units fine, put then once a few hundred get going it starts to slow down and the settings do make a small difference. I also think some ram would help based on looking at the ram usage although I don't remeber hearing it hit the harddrive alot.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: CU
I did some testing last night with the demo. My cpu stays at 98%-100% no matter what settings. At 1024x768 with everything at max but no AA near the end of the 2nd mission with around 400 units on my side it was using about 190 megs of video memory and 950 megs of system ram with a 800 meg page file. I was getting 8-12 fps at this point in the game. How much system ram do you have nemesismk2? I am pretty sure my video card is holding me back the most. It seems to render a few units fine, put then once a few hundred get going it starts to slow down and the settings do make a small difference. I also think some ram would help based on looking at the ram usage although I don't remeber hearing it hit the harddrive alot.

I use medium settings but I don't know what the differences are between the demo and the full version of game?

How much memory does your video card have? Maybe that would have an impact on performance.

amd athlon64 3500 venice
sapphire radeon x1800 gto 256mb
ati catalyst v7.1
2x 512mb geil pc3200 memory (dual channel)
asrock 939 dual sata2 (bios 2.30)

 

[CU]

It only has 128meg of video ram. I am sure that is hurting it some along with just being slow by todays standards. Based on your system being almost the same as mine unless you are overclocking that 3500+ alot it would appear my video card is the key for me atleast. Could you test your fps in a game with around 400 units for me with fraps or something? Thanks.

 

[nemesismk2]

Just did a little bit of testing using fraps which is not always 100% reliable. Using the system detailed below I was able to run Supreme Commander at:-

amd athlon64 3500 venice (2.2Ghz)
sapphire radeon x1800 gto 256mb
ati catalyst v7.1
2x 512mb geil pc3200 memory (dual channel)
asrock 939 dual sata2 (bios 2.30)

none of my hardware has been overclocked.

HIGH QUALITY

1024 x 768 =32
1280 x 1024 =21
1600 x 1200 =15

MEDIUM QUALITY

1024 x 768 = 44
1280 x 1024 = 26
1600 x 1200 =17

LOW QUALITY

1024 x 768 = 61
1280 x 1024 = 44
1600 x 1200 = 33

After doing this little test I decided to use a resolution of 1024x768 with background on, high fidelity, high shadow fidelity, 4x anti aliasing, high texture detail, high level of detail and vertical sync disabled. Using these settings my fps can go from 24 fps to 44fps but on average is 30fps.

 

[chizow]

Wow didn't realize this game crushed slower systems so badly. I fired it up last night and the detail and graphics are pretty amazing. 1920x1200 with everything cranked up to high. I didn't notice any slow down at all, but I also didn't have FRAPs running. I'm sure FPS scales with the number of units though and I never had that many on screen at once in the first Cyborg mission.

The game doesn't use much video memory though, as it seems polygon/shader intensive rather than texture intensive. When I had RivaTuner open it only used 120-180MB. May scale some with more units but I doubt it'll be that much more since again, its poly/shader intensive rather than texture intensive. I'm sure it benefits from a faster CPU though compared to FPS, just as most RTS games do.