Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

8600gt and Supreme Commander

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Games
  • CPUs
  • FPS
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics Cards
September 19, 2007 8:42:35 PM

Hi

Just wanted to know kind of fps can i expect playing supreme commander with this system, since i hear the game depends more on the cpu.

E4400
4gb ram
8600gt

Thinking about 1280x1024 with medium settings no AA.

Can i play this game well in that res in medium settings?

More about : 8600gt supreme commander

September 19, 2007 9:10:47 PM

Here's some benches on a mildly overclocked e4300, should be somewhat similar to your 4400+:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/09/13/the_radeon_2600x...

It looks worse than it is. RTS' are playable at lower frame rates than FPS', it's more important that the framerates are consisnant, not lightening fast. It's not a twitch game.

I played it on those cards at that resolution and it was very playable.
September 19, 2007 9:52:00 PM

you might want to turn on AA to gain a few fps.
Related resources
September 19, 2007 10:03:33 PM

accu said:
you might want to turn on AA to gain a few fps.


Uh.... right.
September 19, 2007 10:06:26 PM

From personal expirience aslong as you arent zoomed right in it looks alright at even 15fps. Zoomed in it can look choppy at even 40 or so though.

with 3ghz quad mine never hardly slows down though :D 
September 19, 2007 10:48:52 PM

The 8600gt is fine for supcom with some settings turned down. What you really need is cpu power and ram. I have this game and, with 3 ai's on a 40km x 40km map, I get like 10-15 frames after 1hour and 30mins into the game. The game does slow down a lot, considering there's 4000 units. You'll find out what I mean.
September 19, 2007 11:29:48 PM

I have Supreme Commander, and it is very "sensetive" to CPU power. It's one of the few games out there that can actually show the real power of a quad-core vs. dual-core.

The E4300-4400 are quite decent CPU's, and can OC alot, but they still can't quite compare to a similarly clocked E6XX0 processor (non-quad). It has a lower FSB, less L2 Cache, and doesn't include alot of the nice little improvements of the E6XX0 (core2duo) series (including a stronger FPU unit).

Plus, the 8600 isn't exactly a top-of-the-line video card. More like a (further) stripped-down version of the 320MB 8800GTS. Yeah, it's DX10 capable (in theory), but it's still the (so far) lowest end 8X00 card out there. A 320MB GTS would have been a better choice, for a few more bucks.

With that all said, you should be able to play @1280x1024 on small and med maps and stay in the 30-40 FPS. Large maps/forces will still probably drag you down to the (upper) 20's.
September 20, 2007 2:40:56 AM

Rripperr said:

With that all said, you should be able to play @1280x1024 on small and med maps and stay in the 30-40 FPS. Large maps/forces will still probably drag you down to the (upper) 20's.

Actually 15fps is very playable in a rpg. Getting 30-40 frames avg is pretty hard to do in supcom, even in small maps. As long as he sticks to no more than 20km X 20km maps and set the unit limit to 500 and have only a max of 4 ai's, I day he'd avg. 15frames.
September 24, 2007 7:06:55 PM

Supreme Commander is one of the more taxing games that I've run into with my rig. I think that it has to be that the CPU gets bogged down especially with a lot of units on the map at one time. The RAM on your system is great, the video card might be a little bit of a problem, and your CPU seems to be up to snuff, so my only reservation would be your GPU from what I've read. I'd expect somewhere near 10-20 at the low end, especially on the larger maps with more units near the end of the campaign and on multiplayer.
I wouldnt expect any performance issues at that resolution with your setup. Don't worry, though... even high-end systems get bogged down on that game with a lot of enemies on the map at one time.
September 24, 2007 7:18:33 PM

GPU makes very little difference tbh, running SLI or single I cant notice too much difference, more difference with quality set to high though.

Then again I run it at SS4x AA and 4x MSAA for 16xAA :D  Perfect image muahahahah.
September 24, 2007 8:25:11 PM

Rripperr said:
More like a (further) stripped-down version of the 320MB 8800GTS.

well, technically, thats not true is it? I thought it was based on an entirely different core from the 8800's
September 25, 2007 4:31:05 PM

Rripperr said:
I have Supreme Commander, and it is very "sensetive" to CPU power. It's one of the few games out there that can actually show the real power of a quad-core vs. dual-core.



You sure thats correct?? From what i've read core 4 does nothing for the game and core 3 does just about nothing (does some sound processing or something i seems to remember).
September 25, 2007 9:37:12 PM

spuddyt said:
well, technically, thats not true is it? I thought it was based on an entirely different core from the 8800's


You are correct, the 8600s are not only stripped of shaders, but also a different core (I believe it's the G84).