SupCom benchmark scores

DBT85

DBT85

DBT85

Soldato
Joined
8 Oct 2006
Posts
5,784
Location
Midlands
if you dont already know there is a benchmark you can run in SupCom. at the end of your target in the shortcut add /map PerfTest. when you run the game it will run a benchmark at the settings you usualy run at and after its finished will dump to windows and give you your perftest score. the lower the better.

you can also test with no sound by using the command /map PerfTest /nosound at the end of the target in the shortcut.

my score is 86.6 with the sound on and 72.4 with the sound off. specs are as follows:

graphical options set to high fidelity preset, nothing changed. resolution was 1280x1024 75hz.

Pentium D 820
7800GTX 256mb card
2gb 6400 geil ram
DS3 motherboard and using the onboard sound.

some people are getting much lower scores with the sound off (50+ points) while others like me are only getting 14 which is interesting. a new C2D in a few weeks will be good to see what a difference it can make to the score.
 
I got 66 but the harddisk was going like mad in a couple of places (it's very fragmented). Looking in the log file I found this line:

FPS ......................................: calls[ 7064] min[ 2.18] max[ 50.53] avg[ 24.750]

So averaging around 25fps. This is on a 2466mhz Venice with overclocked 7900GTO and a gig of PC3700. Didn't bother benching with the sound off as that is meaningless, nobody plays with sound disabled.

Problem for me with that benchmark is it runs for around 7mins which is too long for my liking. no one wants to sit around that long trying to guage the effect of tweaking a setting.
 
can i ask what spec you have and what settings you are using? the lowest i have seen thus far was about 53. not calling you a liar but just posting a number doesnt help anyone see why you might have gotten that score.
 
I thought it was low myself. :)

It's a C2D E6600 and an 8800GTX, on an Asus P5N32-E.

*edit* Ran it again and got 17.7

All settings at highest apart from FSAA which is set to 4x. Res is 1680 x 1050.
 
Last edited:
wowser lol thats a nice rating to be getting on those settings. i have seen a few scores go into the - range but most have been with all settings on lowest and in a silly small resolution. hopefully a C2D can drop my score from 86 down a little, even though it plays fine just as it is.
 
50.6 sound on, 1920x1200 4xTRAA, 16xAF

FPS: calls[ 8933] min[ 6.62] max[ 52.96] avg[ 25.026]

EDIT:
42.5 no sound.

FPS: calls[ 9959] min[ 7.40] max[ 57.46] avg[ 27.684]
 
Last edited:
52.5,

1280:1024 everthing set to high, 2xAA

AMD Atlon 64 4000+ @ 3020ghz
1gb GeiL ultra
Ati x1950xt @ 675/954

calls[ 8812] min[ 1.26] max[ 61.30] avg[ 34.318]

No Sound

38.2

FPS ......................................: calls[ 11698] min[ 3.22] max[ 72.95] avg[ 33.367]
 
Last edited:
77.0

FPS ......................................: calls[ 5850] min[ 2.34] max[ 46.99] avg[ 21.769]


Spec:-

A64 3800+ @2.8Ghz (Single Core)
2Gb RAM
G80 GTS 640Mb (0xAA / 16xAF / No Optimisations / H.Quality)
1280x1024
Mixture of Medium / High Settings In-Game.
 
modo77 said:
18.4 at 1280x1024(85) everything on max.

Intel C2D E6600 @ 3.3GHz - ASUS P5N32-E SLI Nforce 680i - 2GB OCZ Platinum - Geforce 8800 GTX - Audigy 2 ZS - Vista x64 ultimate
Click to expand...

Firegod said:
77.0
Spec:-

A64 3800+ @2.8Ghz (Single Core)
2Gb RAM
G80 GTS 640Mb (0xAA / 16xAF / No Optimisations / H.Quality)
1280x1024
Mixture of Medium / High Settings In-Game.
Click to expand...

I dont get it, why such a big difference? Are single core CPUs really *that* much worse?
 
This will be interesting, I'll run this tonight on my current spec:
Intel P4 3.2ghz
2gb pc2700 ram
Radeon X800XT 256mb
1680x1050

My upgrade parts are on order and should be with me tomorrow hopefully.

Intel C2D 2.4ghz
2gb geil pc 6400 ram
xfx 8800GTX 768mb ram
1680x1050

I look forward to seeing what difference it makes!
 
calnen said:
I dont get it, why such a big difference? Are single core CPUs really *that* much worse?
Click to expand...

The only other game where I've been able to see the difference because I upgraded because of it, was Oblivion. It almost doubled the FPS going to a X2 3800 from a 3500 single core. Same freq on both chips. Not many games are optimised for multicores but it does make a big diff if they are.

Plus my clock speed is a bit higher too, and dare I say it maybe Vista has something to do with it? I'll see if my Xp install is still working and run the benchmark in that to compare.
 
calnen said:
I dont get it, why such a big difference? Are single core CPUs really *that* much worse?
Click to expand...

For this game, yes, single core is not ideal. Every unit's weapon is calculated by the CPU AFAIK. So when you factor in the scale and hundreds off units a single core really gets bogged down. :( Not to worry, it's still very playable for me, but it'll be even better when I finally go dual or quad core later this year. :)
 
Oooooh, i've been looking for a benchie to test out a couple of new rigs - looks like this'll do nicely though the manual settings bit is a PITA.

Rig1:
Dual Opteron 2GHz (4 cores)
SLI 8800 GTS
4 Gig RAM (2.5 showing in windows for some reason)
Win XP

29.9
1280x1024 - High default (2xAA) with sound


More configs incomming, early test with higher settings showed pretty much the same score. Wonder how peeps have reached the low low scores, some Vista thing?


Interestingly... i was about to post this last night (dunno if i did or not), i've been wondering if SC is properly threaded or if they've gone the cheap route. Guess what, unless my rig is config'd badly (not unlikely) all they've done is shove the networking, audio and perhaps some other little bits off onto threads and kept the main loop as one big block. 4 core -> 1 MAXed, 2 little activity, 3 and 4 running ~ 10-15%: So 2 cores = aceness, more = wasted
 
Last edited:
SupComMark (sim) : 0.0
SupComMark (render) : 24.2
SupComMark (composite) : 24.2
(Note: SupComMark scores represent overall system performance. Lower is better.)

FPS ......................................: calls[ 13006] min[ 7.35] max[ 61.24] avg[ 37.169]

That's in the settings I play Supreme Commander in, can't remember the details but it's 4xAA @ 1440x900.
 
YoungBlood said:
61.4
X2 4200
6600GT
2 Gig 3200
1440x900 everything on low, as I play it.
Click to expand...

That'll be the first one we've seen thats graphics-limited, presumably!



I'm looking at getting an Opteron 165 to replace my 3000+. Apparently it overclocks quite well too - do you think that (along with a gig of ram and a 6800GT will be able to handle the bigger maps and more AIs? At the moment I really struggle with 4 players :(
Will the difference be worth the upgrade?
 
Last edited:
calnen said:
That'll be the first one we've seen thats graphics-limited, presumably!



I'm looking at getting an Opteron 165 to replace my 3000+. Apparently it overclocks quite well too - do you think that (along with a gig of ram and a 6800GT will be able to handle the bigger maps and more AIs? At the moment I really struggle with 4 players :(
Will the difference be worth the upgrade?
Click to expand...

Never used an Opteron so can't realy comment, but I went from a 3200+ to a X2 4200 and it went from completly unplayable to, very playable indeed.
I have only been playing through the campaigns though, but often hit the unit cap with no slowdown at all, as long as everything is on low.
I'd asume with though, even a 6800GT would have to be low settings.

Im guessing it's certainly not much fun with a 3000+ though :o
Is the Opteron a dual core chip? if it is, then you will notice a massive difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom