Quad/Triple Core CPUs..Will Empire be optimised?

**Belgolas** · 10-15-2008, 01:32

Originally Posted by india

I don't think you'll be able to get past the 10k limit even if you have the new experimental CPU Intel people are working on..........having a better, like a quad, (atleast by what I've understood) will give you better performance, not more men.

Same here, and I love that thing, when I was buying it, I wasn't so sure, it was the Intel Core2 Duo or AMD Dual Core, and I sure am glad I chose the latter.

First off having play many many battles in M2TW with over 10K men WITH playable frame rate proves that wrong.

Second C2D is WAY faster at gaming then any product AMD has right now. Intel has the best bang for your buck right now. And I sadly don't think AMD will have much to compete against Core i7 either. AMD needs to get into the game again so we can get cheaper CPU's and better CPU's out faster.

**hellenes** · 10-15-2008, 02:18

Originally Posted by Belgolas

First off having play many many battles in M2TW with over 10K men WITH playable frame rate proves that wrong.

Second C2D is WAY faster at gaming then any product AMD has right now. Intel has the best bang for your buck right now. And I sadly don't think AMD will have much to compete against Core i7 either. AMD needs to get into the game again so we can get cheaper CPU's and better CPU's out faster.

Amd quads cost as much as C2D line...so bang for your buck is still AMD...Intel was/is and always will be horribly overpriced....

**Derfasciti** · 10-15-2008, 04:23

Wait... 10,000? My games in MTW2 and whatnot seem to allow battles of at tops 2,000 vs 2,000 and that's with unit size on huge.

**Megas Methuselah** · 10-15-2008, 04:34

Reinforcements. Multiple armies per side.

**Hax** · 10-15-2008, 11:19

Slight 56k warning:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

No but seriously, it's good to hear this. I run a Q6000 Quadcore myself, and hearing that it won't need the überpc of the future to run properly is good.

**Belgolas** · 10-16-2008, 04:09

Originally Posted by hellenes

Amd quads cost as much as C2D line...so bang for your buck is still AMD...Intel was/is and always will be horribly overpriced....

Well look at this the the AMD X4 Q9550 Black edition 2.66GHZ is around 219.99 while the C2D E8500 3.26ghz is 219.99 at ncix.com So those are the exact same price and for gamming you can get a hell of a lot more performance with the E8500 at stock and when you overclock it because it is easy to reach OC of 4.0ghz on air you decide on what to get! And if you want to get a quad when then for just a bit more you can get the Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33 Ghz and it overclock it like crazy. The E8500 overclock to 4.3ghz is twice as fast as the X4 9600! The Q9200 overclock to 3.5ghz (which is easy a noob who has never overclocked could do this) is almost twice as fast as the 9600 is gaming!

So again take your pick. This is why I restate that AMD needs to get back or we might see 300 bucks for a low end CPU by intel :(.

**rajpoot** · 10-15-2008, 11:46

Originally Posted by Belgolas

First off having play many many battles in M2TW with over 10K men WITH playable frame rate proves that wrong.

Keeping the CPU debate aside, I still don't get how you managed over 10000 men. The custom battles have what, 8 armies in all, on huge scale, with full stacks..........I had done some math, I could just reach to 10000 in theory. Perhaps you could elaborate more?

**Belgolas** · 10-15-2008, 22:57

Originally Posted by india

Keeping the CPU debate aside, I still don't get how you managed over 10000 men. The custom battles have what, 8 armies in all, on huge scale, with full stacks..........I had done some math, I could just reach to 10000 in theory. Perhaps you could elaborate more?

Well in custom battles with 8 armies with huge unit scale and having the maximum soldiers (150 per unit) and each is full you can have up to 24 000 men on one battle. Now that is to many troops for current PC(mine gets like less then 5 FPS with that many troops). Now to prove that I can have more then 10 000 troops I just played a battle with 12 000 peasants (for a quick battle) and it was pretty smooth. So I could probably do more. Going to try to see the max I can run with out it being a slide show.

**Pinxit** · 10-15-2008, 23:25

Originally Posted by Belgolas

Well in custom battles with 8 armies with huge unit scale and having the maximum soldiers (150 per unit) and each is full you can have up to 24 000 men on one battle. Now that is to many troops for current PC(mine gets like less then 5 FPS with that many troops). Now to prove that I can have more then 10 000 troops I just played a battle with 12 000 peasants (for a quick battle) and it was pretty smooth. So I could probably do more. Going to try to see the max I can run with out it being a slide show.

I do 14,000 troops as a maximum playable limit. Everything over that is to laggy. I play on a:

AMD Dual Core 64 - 3 GHZ
Geforce 8800 GTS 640 MB
4 GB RAM

**Belgolas** · 10-16-2008, 04:36

Originally Posted by Pinxit

I do 14,000 troops as a maximum playable limit. Everything over that is to laggy. I play on a:

AMD Dual Core 64 - 3 GHZ
Geforce 8800 GTS 640 MB
4 GB RAM

That is actually far better then I though you could get. That is cool.

I just tried 3 more battles.

First at 15,000 peasants lol. That battle had fairly smooth gameplay.

I then tried another battle with 18,000 troops and that was playable but had some lag.

And lastly I play with 24,000 troops and that is to laggy but I can control the units and all as it is still a few frames per second.

Mind you all games I play are at these settings of....

1920 x 1200

Shader 2, 8xAA, 16 X AF, Effects and unit detail at very high, Shadows at Extreme, everything else is at high (the highest possible).

I really got to say Extreme shadows are so much better then very high shadows.

Anyways my system spec is...

Intel core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.6ghz
4 GB of DDR2 @ 1066 mhz
4870 X2
Windows XP.

**hellenes** · 10-16-2008, 12:25

Originally Posted by Belgolas

That is actually far better then I though you could get. That is cool.

I just tried 3 more battles.

First at 15,000 peasants lol. That battle had fairly smooth gameplay.

I then tried another battle with 18,000 troops and that was playable but had some lag.

And lastly I play with 24,000 troops and that is to laggy but I can control the units and all as it is still a few frames per second.

Mind you all games I play are at these settings of....

1920 x 1200

Shader 2, 8xAA, 16 X AF, Effects and unit detail at very high, Shadows at Extreme, everything else is at high (the highest possible).

I really got to say Extreme shadows are so much better then very high shadows.

Anyways my system spec is...

Intel core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.6ghz
4 GB of DDR2 @ 1066 mhz
4870 X2
Windows XP.

that card of yours and the CPU are 2008 monsters and they struggle to max out a 2006 game....
Heh and people still believe that Crysis is the most demanding game on the planet....

**Pinxit** · 10-16-2008, 15:53

Originally Posted by hellenes

that card of yours and the CPU are 2008 monsters and they struggle to max out a 2006 game....
Heh and people still believe that Crysis is the most demanding game on the planet....

Yes, but that is quite unfair :

: Crysis is more demanding in its own way. I mean, I am certain that Crysis would be unplayable if you were to fill the screen with 20,000 enemy soldiers, as would most games. Especially Crysis, I might add.