SupCom benchmark scores

YoungBlood said:
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.

Its dual core, 1MB cache per core. 1.8Ghz stock, but the chappy who's offered me it says it'll overclock to 2.6 easily. So thinking about it, if it uses both cores then thats more than twice the speed I have now, lol.

It *does* run on the 3000+, but only just. I'm limited to 10x10 maps, and no more than 2 other players. I dont think its graphics-limited - medium is fine early in the game, its only later on when it gets slow.
The real killer was having a mate come over yesterday for a game. He brought his laptop, which has the same ram and graphics as my machine but an Intel dual-core cpu. Towards the end of the game his was running crystal-smooth and mine was down to about 2 frames a second!
 
the patch that was released i think yesterday changes the way the benchmarks are done so now it gives out a higher number like 3dmark so higher scores win. you can still compare unpatched to post patched by comparing theFPS given in the bench txt file.
 
I got 48.3 with a [email protected] and an X1900XT. Got all the detail on medium, shadows on low with 2x AA. Seems kinda crappy... Hope they improve the performance soon with a patch!

Edit: Seems my average FPS was 29.1.

I checked my CPU usage while playing and it doesn't seem to really take advantage of my second core. The first one is maxed out but there is only a much smaller usage on the second core...
 
Last edited:
Well I ran it in XP to compare and came back 1.9!
supcomxp.jpg

I've overclocked more since the first vista run, so to be fair I ran that again and it improved a bit to 13.5
 
Last edited:
Improved from 1.9 to 13? Lower is meant to be better. :p

I ran the patch and it seems my average FPS goes up by about 5, so maybe they've tweaked it a bit...
 
Street said:
Improved from 1.9 to 13? Lower is meant to be better. :p

I ran the patch and it seems my average FPS goes up by about 5, so maybe they've tweaked it a bit...

Read some of the earlier posts :)

I was comparing Vista to XP.

XP 1.9
Vista 13.5
 
Street said:
Ahha, fair one. :)

Seems Vista take a fair whack on the framerate!

Well its not too different to 1.9, compared to the scores people are getting.

The game flys along in Vista, In a few months when nvidia get there act together and it will get better still :)
 
lol, just ran it on Rig#2 at home

Your 'SupComMark' composite score is: 15802 (higher is better)

WTF? So much for a work PC vs home comparison. Maybe cos my home version is patched?
 
yes dis, the patch changed the benchmark as i said a few posts up. now higher is better and people are getting 3dmark type scores :)
 
With Sound:

C2D E6000 @ 3.6Ghz X1900XT-X 2GB Ram


Settings : 1680x1050 Everything fully maxed out. 4xAA etc

28.5 was my "SupComMark"

FPS ......................................: calls[ 11672] min[ 7.00] max[ 83.78] avg[ 36.397]

From the perf log.

EDIT : Just installed the latest patch which changes the benchmark these were my result's (again with sound and same settings etc)

SupComMark = 16421

FPS ......................................: calls[ 11637] min[ 10.53] max[ 86.79] avg[ 36.830]

im pretty impressed.
 
Last edited:
SupComMark = 13680 (higher is better) ----> Must be the latest mark making higher better!

FPS .......: calls[ 6632] min[ 5.01] max[ 54.60] avg[ 22.177]

X2 4200, 2GB RAM, X1900XT 256
 
Back
Top Bottom