Quantcast supreme commander 1 vs supreme commander 2 performance - Page 2

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    Notebook Virtuoso
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,571
    Rep Power
    29

    Default Re: supreme commander 1 vs supreme commander 2 performance

    Quote Originally Posted by TomTom2007 View Post
    According to this:
    http://www.legionhardware.com/articl...rmance,12.html

    Supreme Commander 2 is more dual-core optimized, only two cores take majority of the load, making a quad-core processor useless.
    Only the standard Quad Core will be ''useless'', not the mobile i7 though.
    P170HM | 17.3" 1080p Glossy NTSC 90% | i7-2630QM | GTX 680M | 8GB DDR3 RAM | Crucial M4 512GB | 750GB WD | Intel 6230+BT |

    W110ER | 11.6" 1366x768 Glossy | i7-3610QM | GT 650M | 8GB DDR3 RAM | Momentus XT 750GB | Intel N130 |

    My GTX 680M modified infs and guide

  2. #12
    Notebook Evangelist
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    439
    Rep Power
    18

    Default Re: supreme commander 1 vs supreme commander 2 performance

    i just got my copy today but couldn't play it yet sense even tho you have the cd you still have too download 2 more gbs of the game off steam... even tho the whole thing is on the cd which got me confused..


    but ya after playing the demo i went and preorder it 5min before release day lol


    just playing the demo i liked it alot and the graphics is really nice i say it looks better than the first which i have they just used more colors on this one or something.

    i couldn't tell if it took more than the first sense my amd 965@ 4.1ghzs and a ati 4890 plays both of them smooth lol.


    i still have too beat the first one.


    im pretty much not a rts gamer but after playing the demo supreme commander 2 it really got me into it.

  3. #13
    Notebook Consultant
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Within my mind (and the Internet)
    Posts
    110
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: supreme commander 1 vs supreme commander 2 performance

    Having played both SupCom (+ FA) and SupCom 2 (been playing since yesterday as I had it preloaded), I can tell you it is definitely less demanding on the hardware.
    Settings: 1920x1200, Shadows on Low, all else maxed, 2x AA
    Hovering above my fully built base, shields on, considerable activity on screen:
    SC: FA - between 15 and 20 fps
    SC2: ~30 fps
    At the very start of a skirmish match (staring at my ACU; initial camera position):
    SC: FA ~25 fps
    SC2: ~40 fps

    Other impressions: The maps feel smaller than those in the original. This coupled with the unit cap being 500 on the largest maps would likely cause in increase in framerate by itself, but the units seem to have a lower poly count as well (less detailed). They still like very impressive (at least, the experimentals; some of the normal units including the ACU seem rather dull and uninspired by comparison), despite the downgrade in graphics.

    Another thing to keep in mind is I usually had my GPU OC'd to 651/737 in FA while SC2 doesn't seem to require it (running stock at 575/600).

    My $0.02
    First laptop, now retired into multimedia (5th GPU):
    Dell XPS M1710: T7400 | 7950 GTX | 4 GB DDR2 RAM | 320 GB WD HDD | Win7 Pro x64

    Current gaming laptop:
    MSI GX640-260: i5-450M | ATI HD5850 | 4 GB DDR3 | 500 GB HDD | Win7 x64

    Custom desktop:
    i7-950 | ATI HD6970 | 6 GB DDR3 | 128 GB SSD, 1 TB WD HDD | Win7 x64 Pro | Samsung 23" LED

  4. #14
    NBR Reviewer
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Orange County CA
    Posts
    3,550
    Rep Power
    32

    Default Re: supreme commander 1 vs supreme commander 2 performance

    I decided to try the sc1 demo and it definitely was more demanding and just wasn't to my liking. I will definitely be going with sc2.

  5. #15
    Super Stylin'
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    5,572
    Rep Power
    36

    Default Re: supreme commander 1 vs supreme commander 2 performance

    I don't like the new Fatboys. I felt awesome with those gigantic mobile factories with a few dozen guns all blasting away whatever was in range. The... whatever the Fatboy 2 is shaped like just doesn't do it for me.

    I am happy that the Atlantis is still around.

    Yes, major UED user here.

    DEMANDING PIE AND A BARREL OF WHIPPED CREAM SINCE 2005
    MSI 16F3-BBK (Blessed By Ken)
    Intel i7-3610qm||8 GB DDR3||256GB Crucial M4 SSD+750GB Seagate Momentus HDD||nVidia GTX 680m/Intel HD 4000
    Alienware M11x-D (Delly)
    Intel SU7300||4 GB DDR3||240GB Vertex LE SSD||GeForce 335m/Intel IGP

  6. #16
    C'thulhu fhtagn
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Singapore, NYC
    Posts
    7,991
    Rep Power
    49

    Default Re: supreme commander 1 vs supreme commander 2 performance

    Totally forgot that this was being released, will definitely have to pick it up.

    Fatboys are .... annoying.

  7. #17
    Notebook Virtuoso
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,286
    Rep Power
    30

    Default Re: supreme commander 1 vs supreme commander 2 performance

    Well wasn't SupCom2 at least at one point planned to be released on consoles including the Xbox? That would pretty much make smaller scale and lower requirements guaranteed, since SupCom1 was a PC exclusive from the start. (Edit: had to change SC to SupCom. SC=StarCraft. )
    Sager NP9150 | Windows 7 HP | Core 2 Quad i7-3610QM | 8GB DDR3 1600 | GF 680M GTX | 7200RPM 750GB | 1920X1200 15"
    Lenovo R500 | Windows 7 Pro | Core 2 Duo P8600 | 4GB DDR3 1067 | Intel X4500 | 5400RPM 250GB | 1680X1050 15"

  8. #18
    Notebook Geek
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    81
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Re: supreme commander 1 vs supreme commander 2 performance

    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    I was reading a few reviews about the new supreme commander and they said it was less demanding than the first one. I've never played either one and decided to try supreme commander 2 while on my 9600m gt laptop and was surprised how well it ran the frame rater was averaged well above 30fps and seems rather good. Is the first supreme commander more demanding or less demanding?

    Also if you have played both already which do you prefer?
    On which settings did you play Supreme Commander 2?

    I'm asking, because I'm looking for a new laptop and I would like to run this game (and the first + FA) smoothly.

    I've also read it's not as demanding as the first. But I guess it's still mostly CPU bound, since the recommended system requirements mention a Core2Duo E6850.

  9. #19
    NBR Reviewer
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Orange County CA
    Posts
    3,550
    Rep Power
    32

    Default Re: supreme commander 1 vs supreme commander 2 performance

    ran at 1280x800 2x aa 16x af with everything but shadows on high. The first one couldn't handle aa and af without dropping below 30fps .

  10. #20
    Trailblazer
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    3,698
    Rep Power
    31

    Default Re: supreme commander 1 vs supreme commander 2 performance

    Quote Originally Posted by Rorschach View Post
    I decided to try the sc1 demo and it definitely was more demanding and just wasn't to my liking. I will definitely be going with sc2.
    The demo is not representative of the full game... The complete game runs a bit better.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1