Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mas_ who wrote (255587)	8/13/2008 5:57:50 PM
From: eracer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: I have already given you the release notes for the later driver, no performance increase was noted for the Supreme Commander game. So where is the information on the Supreme Commander graphics settings to prove you are making an apples-to-apples comparison? We haven't seen any from you yet. Here is an excellent article on benchmarking with Supreme Commander. Could you please inform us how you concluded that the same map, number of players, view settings, etc. were identical in both reviews when neither gives any specifics. behardware.com Here are some maps from you to choose from: The first figure corresponds to the framerate with the zoom out max and the second after the activation of the mini map, which is in fact a second 3D view: Ambush Pass : 50 fps / 28 fps Blasted Rock : 100fps / 65 fps Canis River : 50 fps / 27 fps Four-Corners : 80 fps / 50 fps Sentry Point : 27 fps / 16 fps Sludge : 100 fps / 80 fps Theta Passage : 100 fps / 100 fps Winter Duel : 45 fps / 37 fps Which map was used and which view? If we haven't really noted differences for the different level of shadows, deactivating them increases performances by 55% with View 2 with the two maps. Did you happen to read whether the shadows settings were identical in the reviews? There can be a huge difference in performance if they are not.