• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

So Supreme Commanders Takes Advantage of Multiple Cores!!!!!!!!

SideWinder said:
Isn't this old news? I certainly knew SC uses multiple cores?
Click to expand...

Yes i know, i think everyone knows SC uses multiple cores, thats not what i was stating.

When ever Quad is mentioned at least one person says, well theirs a couple of apps/games that use multiple Cores one of them being SC.

The above link clearly shows that SC obviously dosent make that much of a difference when using a Quad.
 
Pff probably an inproper bench, an e6300 can no way do 25 fps in a late game.
Hell, a mate of me with an E6400 ( and a 1950 xt ) gets 5 fps in the late game with 5 horde
AI's and a 1000 unit limit, dont believe a word of that review, the graphs are lying already, or perhaps not lying, but not tested in a proper situation, get some proper tests extremetech, test it after 90 minutes of playing with 7 horde ai's on the biggest map possible with the best possible unit limit...


Doesn't supcom support upto 16 cores? What do all these cores do if the 2 extra cores on a quadore are just used on audio processign and gfx drivers ?
 
Last edited:
SC supports multiple cores, just not very efficiently and doesn't spread the load evenly. Combine this with a heathly graphics requirement and the net result is not much in the way of performance enhancement for four cores over two at the same clock.
 
That's why people keep telling others that fully utilizing multiple cores in games requires a totally different approach to coding which takes a long time to work towards.

The sequential nature of most game programming doesn't lend itself naturally to multiple cores.
 
I think people miss the point a bit when talking about SC's use of multiple cores, it uses the extra cores to do more i.e. better AI, not to throw the graphics up to the screen any faster.
 
Popov said:
I think people miss the point a bit when talking about SC's use of multiple cores, it uses the extra cores to do more i.e. better AI, not to throw the graphics up to the screen any faster.
Click to expand...

Strange, for me it uses more of the 3rd and 4th core when more units are on screen. 8 way battles with a max unit cap 40 mins into a game will use 65%+ of a quad.

Same pc but with 2 of the cores disabled, it turned into a lag fest at 30mins and i quit the game after 3/4 of an hour because i couldn't stand it.
 
It is very clearly multi-core.

I have it on very good authority that mouse acceleration is fully computated by core 4 and the windows time service is moved over to core 3 to free up core 1, core 2 is in full control of the ingame options screen. :cool:

Now get buying those quad core CPU's boys. :p
 
Supcom really only uses the extra cores late game. Back when I had a 3GHz e6600 the game would be crawling to a halt. When I changed over to the xeon 3210, even at stock it was performing much smoother late game. When it got overclocked to 2.7Ghz it cruised :)
 
Hi, First post :)

Anyway, One of the benefits of a Quad is that it will be more responsive? Is it not? While most games may only use one, maybe 2, cores you would still have more cores working on background tasks? Which frees up the cores your using for the game as well as making it easier to multi task (say you have a couple of programs running while playing?) and to switch between programs faster :confused:

Am I missing something?
 
who gives a, one game, that doesn't need high performance.

also as for the [h] benchmarks, i'd like to see it with AA on, at max on a setup like that, you'd find that the max would be much lower on both the systems, and that the average would be MUCH closer on a quad and dual core. all benchmarks can be run at any settings you want to show whatever you want. you can interpret the answers and show the results in any way you want to make them say what you want.

its all silly, for 99% of people the Q6600 might be great value, but , personally, considering power consumption it will be expensive to run and barely get used for 99.9% of the time you have your computer turned on. i think for most people, the penryn or phenom is the first quad core they should be getting, smaller process, less power, same power used as a current dual core. theres just no need for a quad now using twice the power. a penryn at the same cost will run cooler, cost less to run, and there might even be 2-3 more games that can utilise quad core.

remember, just as dual core when it first came out lots of games would put the "dual core enabled" advertising on because you advertise ANYTHING thats an advantage over the competition. for instance, when source moves over to multicore, hl2 will be able to run on a multicore, will make no difference whatsoever to how it plays. 50% of a fast single core, or 15% of 4 separate cores is still the same amount of work. everyone wants to offer the same features, however useless, as the competition.
 
Problem with SupCom is two-fold:

1. Yes, with the graphics turned right down to make it more CPU-bound, a quad-core will show in good light but, with all the eye-candy on, the graphics becomes more of a factor.

2. The quad only really comes into its own in the late game with a lot of stuff going on, i.e. 6-player games and up with thousands of units in play. Unless you're playing with 5+ AIs on your own machine, you'll be playing online and the speed will be dictated by the slowest player. No good having a quad if everyone else (or even one other person) has a dual as the game will only run as fast as the slowest machine to stay in sync.

So if you like playing SupCom against the computer with thousands of units and the graphics turned down, go for it! ;) :D
 
But even looking at HardOCP benchies with supreme commander set on all high/max and 1600x1200, u can see with quad core theres a lovely 15fps boost thats with max setting.

I too have always wondered if Q6600 is the better option say over the E6850/still undecided I think with Bioshock/UT3/Crysis all due soon we will finaly have some final words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom