MUHAHAHAHAHA Intel just shit themselves

BXtremehow much gfx power is needed ?, i doubt my 7900gs will run it smoothly :(

Like I said I don't know what kinda video cards they have running in those machines but they are a few years old... At least 3... So I can't say for sure, but going off of that I would say your 7900gs should run pretty good.

A little off subject but as for Flight Sim x...

Here is what microsoft says LOL!
* Microsoft® Windows® XP SP2 / Vista
* PC with 1 GHz equivalent or higher processor
* 256 MB of system RAM for Windows XP SP2 / 512 MB Vista
* 14 GB available hard disk space
* DVD-ROM drive
* 32 MB DirectX 9 compatible video card required
* Sound card, speakers or headphones required for audio
* Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
* 56.6 Kbps or better modem for online play

I would personally pay to see Vista on a 1gig with 256mb of ram alone let along loading a game like that...

niko084* 32 MB DirectX 9 compatible video card required
* Sound card, speakers or headphones required for audio
* Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
* 56.6 Kbps or better modem for online play

I would personally pay to see Vista on a 1gig with 256mb of ram alone let along loading a game like that...

ROFL, at 32mb it'll run in 1fps or even below it:laugh:
ok, getting on-topic -
i heard supcom is quad optimized, that means cheap qcores will help a Heap! And cheaper dcores will be awesome esp. when oc'ed.
These prices sure do bring lots of hopes :)

flightsim X ran fine on my system up to 1600x1200 with a 2.6ghz X2 939, 2gb ddrr500 3-4-4-8, 7900GT 500/1500, and a 74gb raptor on xp home. Im not too into that sort of game but my brother who is taking pilot classes enjoys it, so when he was looking to upgrade his box he wanted to play the game smooth on his 1680x1050 22", I tried it on my box above and found it smooth as glass with high settings at 1280x1024, 1600x1200/1680x1050 were smooth with some settings reduced, and 1920x1200 was just to much for my set up. Dropping the detail down to med made things better but thats always the sacrifice. Oddly enough I didnt notice that much cpu usage, while playing I rarely say 100%. Memory usage was big though, 1.24-1.5gb is to be expected at higher resolutions. The game seems to be limited by graphics power mainly. My brothers box uses a 7950GT clocked similar to my 7900GT, only with double the memory and it does make a difference for the smoothness. Not that he can play higher settings than I can, but you dont get as many jerks. A 320mb 8800GTS would be recommendation for higher res flight sim X if your looking for a good experience on a higher resolution.

Im also a supreme commander player and I gotta say that the game does indeed seem to run better on quad cores, which is partly what made me look twice at that price chart. I play the game at 1920x1200 and it is quite smooth. 1V1 or 2v2 is perfect and no amount of units or combination of units would make a difference to that, but bots seem to do the damage to my system. Playing a 3v1 (3 bots vs me) on a medium sized map is good, but large troop movements shoot my x2 up to 60%+ in no time, zooming in close just topples it. Same goes for a rather large defensive points, as from what I can gather the game provides its own "physics" and dynamics to every vehicle, unit, and building so the bullets fired will vary in damage and ratio of hit:miss depending on their orientation to the object they are attacking.
But if you want to try a 8 man game on a large map its just brutal, 2 hour games means big groups, large defensive points, lots of structures, and the fact that the map itself is so detailed is just brutal. Its playable, but you best start eliminating your opponents quickly to avoid a pretty little slide show. Benchmarks I have seen thus far show quad cores are the way to go for supreme commander players. A beefy gpu is a must as well. Most games you can get by with a midrange cpu and a high end vid card, but thats going to become a different story soon enough.


If quad cores fall into a more mainstream segment (250-350) then we will all certainly be in for another treat. Multi threaded games and applications are fast becoming the norm with dual core adoption being so well received, its not unrealistic to expect big changes over the next year.

On another note about price drops, anybody else notice the x2 3600 is down to only $85 and free shipping on newegg?

thx for the practical usage info on both the games :D, and yes x2's are going cheaper. Amd couldn't bear in mind about intel stealing their market :laugh:

They're probably starting production on the 45nm Penryn's. They're dropping the prices to make way for the new and superior processors. I was gonna buy a dual core now i'll just wait for the price drop and get a QX6700 and OC

LOl ! i m dead I was ABt to COnfirm to get the conroe ssystem :P now im gonna wait and pawn all those damn ppl who screwed me sayin they had conroe ! YAY ILL GET MY KENTSFEILD!!!!!!!

You people realize that $266 is for 1000 unit quantities right? Those prices are for OEMs like Dell and HP and NOT for the consumer. Right now the Q6600 is $400 in 1000 unit quantities.

Thus, the pricing for the Q6600 will be closer to $800 for consumers to buy individually.

I love how you people jump at shadows....

If that's true, we should contact Intel and order at least 1000 and sell them individually on ebay. Now let's see how much that would be 266*1000=266000...hmmmmm...on second thought, how about all the people that want the qx6600 pool some money together. Alright TPU members, we need at least 500 players, each putting up 266*2=532. Each can keep one and sell the other for profit :D :D :D . This is unlikely to happen but I think it's possible.

BXtremeROFL, at 32mb it'll run in 1fps or even below it:laugh:
ok, getting on-topic -
i heard supcom is quad optimized, that means cheap qcores will help a Heap! And cheaper dcores will be awesome esp. when oc'ed.
These prices sure do bring lots of hopes :)

SupCom will run on up to 8 cores I believe is what they said.

But you don't really need it... I mean honestly on my machine as it is, the average even fairly large 1 player vs 2 supreme ai players on a big map with max settings I play it almost perfectly near flawlessly.

I played one today with 2 supreme ai's on a 81x81 map... And I took my time, about an hour into it I started to lag up pretty good, saved the game to get all that replay info out of ram, and restarted it, BOOM speed was right back up again. I had personally around 750 units, the 2 computers took over most of the map. Did it to simply test the game..

So from what I have seen, 256mb on a even half decent video like mine... 2 gigs of ram, and a dual core with a clean running machine you are about set. The extra gig of ram is what REALLY did it for me, the big long games are VERY ram intensive, don't read the reviews of what they test and fps from it... They just load the game quick to see what kinda performance they get, they don't let the armies grow and actually let it take its toll on a system. I have played back and forth and checked things like ram usage and processor usage, my video card doesn't even warm up.

Personally for grand performance with next to no worries I would say a e6600+, 4+ gigs of ram, and at least a x1300+ or 6800+ 256mb version will do fine.

niko084Personally for grand performance with next to no worries I would say a e6600+, 4+ gigs of ram, and at least a x1300+ or 6800+ 256mb version will do fine.

4 gigs! *faint*

hrm. im highly skeptical. i mean i hope that these prices are for consumers cause ill be buying a quadcore as soon as the price drops. but i wonder how long its going to take for programs to axtually be able to take advantage of all four cores...

BXtreme4 gigs! *faint*

I would figure something like that for the just sickly huge maps if you allows units to take over the whole map.. Simply because without saving and restarting the game it stores the entire replay in ram...

PS- my saved game about an hour into it was a little over 100mb... And those are compressed...

wickermanThe prices seem low even if they want to remain price competitive. They should know by now that the Intel branding alone is enough to sway a lot of people to pay what ever they charge.
But if Intel is dropping the pentium 4 and pentium D lines it makes sense that they would want their replacements to fall under similar price points.

$266 for the Q6600 just doesnt sound right though, newegg is charging over $800 for the Q6600 now and $970 for the QX6700, dropping to 530/266 is a HUGE drop to do in a single step. It would make sense to drop the chips $200 a quarter rather than a single large drop.

Production quality must be up at intel, or at least numbers are surpassing demand. After all the E5310 (xeon quad core 1.6ghz) can be found for $300+ online already.

$360.00 is not $300.00 lol.. good luck finding it for 300.00.. quad core, count me in.. heres the E5310 on newegg and we all know you'll have little luck finding a better price.

www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819117112

Say hello to water cooling cause we're all gonna need it lol.. and I for one don't mind at all :D

niko084Like I said I don't know what kinda video cards they have running in those machines but they are a few years old... At least 3... So I can't say for sure, but going off of that I would say your 7900gs should run pretty good.

A little off subject but as for Flight Sim x...

Here is what microsoft says LOL!
* Microsoft® Windows® XP SP2 / Vista
* PC with 1 GHz equivalent or higher processor
* 256 MB of system RAM for Windows XP SP2 / 512 MB Vista
* 14 GB available hard disk space
* DVD-ROM drive
* 32 MB DirectX 9 compatible video card required
* Sound card, speakers or headphones required for audio
* Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
* 56.6 Kbps or better modem for online play

I would personally pay to see Vista on a 1gig with 256mb of ram alone let along loading a game like that...

lmfao.. yea you could run that game, in 256 colors at 8bit 640x480 lol... with no aliasing and no shadowing, overclocked and praying loudly to God "please let this work" lol..
I'm diein here, a vista with 256 lmfao.. thats rich.. and on dial up? ROFLMFAO :laugh:

MTLYou people realize that $266 is for 1000 unit quantities right? Those prices are for OEMs like Dell and HP and NOT for the consumer. Right now the Q6600 is $400 in 1000 unit quantities.

Thus, the pricing for the Q6600 will be closer to $800 for consumers to buy individually.

I love how you people jump at shadows....

lol he's right. it says unit per k.. thats 1000... lol.. not 1.. I see quads now for 350 ish though, thats not to bad as is.. some of the quads will drop into the 200s believe that..