Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 3,975
Does it really run like a pig as those stats suggest on SC? I wanna get that but @ 1920 it sounds like it's really going to struggle...
-
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.
Supreeme Commander - Dual Core Vs Quad Core?
- Thread starter Stonedofmoo
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,165
- Location
- in the arse of england.
lol, the in game benchmark IS supreme commander, its exactly the same graphics engine and in game real time physics calculations with all the randomness of trajectorys and movement you get in actually playing. nearly everything in supreme commander is calculated in real time, as it happens. no other RTS has ever done this.
as for it not being very optimized, the benchmarks that are out there are as near a year old. the game has had a major series of overhauls since then via numerous patches, you have absolutely no way to judge it in its current form other than by supcom perftests or your own personal benchmark tools and observations.
It sold 3 million copies, how the hell is it "almost" crysis ?
supcom core maximizer is currently redundant. It has been for many months, it was made by a guy i know on the forums as a way to improve efficiency in dual and multi core systems untill supcom was sufficiently optimized via patches.
p.s. i know all this crud because I was an original beta tester and bug reporter for Gas Powered Games.
I've played online with a 3.6 dual and my speed has been outstripping others on 3.2 quads. SC doesn't make much use of the extra cores at all tbh.
Yes, at equal speeds the quad will be a bit faster but you'll have trouble getting a 65nm quad up to the 4Ghz+ that a Wolfdale will do easily. Get the latter.
Yes, at equal speeds the quad will be a bit faster but you'll have trouble getting a 65nm quad up to the 4Ghz+ that a Wolfdale will do easily. Get the latter.
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,242
- Location
- Portsmouth
Or wait until the 45nm quads to come out, only 1-2 months to go. I think I shall wait.
Supreme Commander and all other current games are not "optimised" for Quad Cores. They simply run better on Quads because of "tweaked" thread distribution. Quads still hit the problem where one or more cores is much heavier loaded that the others. When you see all 4 cores at even loads then you will have proper optimisation. The same also applies for dual cores.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,185
- Location
- England
lol, the in game benchmark IS supreme commander, its exactly the same graphics engine and in game real time physics calculations with all the randomness of trajectorys and movement you get in actually playing. nearly everything in supreme commander is calculated in real time, as it happens. no other RTS has ever done this.
as for it not being very optimized, the benchmarks that are out there are as near a year old. the game has had a major series of overhauls since then via numerous patches, you have absolutely no way to judge it in its current form other than by supcom perftests or your own personal benchmark tools and observations.
It sold 3 million copies, how the hell is it "almost" crysis ?
supcom core maximizer is currently redundant. It has been for many months, it was made by a guy i know on the forums as a way to improve efficiency in dual and multi core systems untill supcom was sufficiently optimized via patches.
p.s. i know all this crud because I was an original beta tester and bug reporter for Gas Powered Games.
Yeah exactly the in game benchmark.... its not gonna be that hetic all the time in realtime gaming sessions so its not a fair assessment at any rate its just a looped set benchmark.
And what I mean to suggest is I still dont reckon supreme commander, although one of my fav games I dont reckon its very well designed for quad cores ie like crysis.
Regardless of what people reckon myself included theres still no real concrete benchmarks out there to suggest Quadcore really is better then Dual core, we know its better but not by how much.
Problem is the multipliers are crap so you'll be highly unlikely to get the same speed with a Yorkfield that you would with a similarly priced Wolfdale, as your FSB and/or memory will give out before the processor does.
Even if you can get a Yorkfield up to 3.6Ghz, a 4Ghz Wolfdale will probably still prove faster for SC, not to mention virtually everything else that doesn't take advantage of the extra cores.