SupCom & Intel Core 2 Quad Gameplay Advantages

Good review, I am planning out my C2D system and or, dual Xeon (conroe) based system as my next build. The only question I am trying to get over is if I want SLi or not, seeing that I have not yet found a Dual Xeon motherboard that can run SLI.
 
whrswoldo said:
Very fun game, and nice review. After looking at those numbers I had to go into the game and check what kind of FPS I was getting since I play at 1600x1200 with a second monitor and all settings except shadows at high( I am running a C2D @ 3.15ghz although only a 7900gt vid card) Lo and behold at was sitting at 20FPS without a whole lot on the screen(according to the in game command -- Alt-F11 ) I guess I just have never noticed:D
Click to expand...

Yep, we found 20 FPS to be acceptable for this type of game, it was when it started getting around 15 FPS that the game was not enjoyable, it would start to get so choppy above bases it was hard to control things.

JethroXP said:
As for the crashing you experienced, I saw that too, but only when the SupCom exe would try to use more than 1.5GB of RAM. Apparently it is not able to address memory space above 2GB, and crashes when it tries to. This thread on the GPG Forums shows a simple way to mod the exe so that it can address memory higher than 2GB.

I've used it on my system and have had zero crashes since. It also doesn't interfere with Multiplayer play, since they aren't doing any sort of CRC check on the exe at connection.

Now I just need to get more than 2GB of RAM, since with this mod in place I've seen SupCom use as much as 2.9GB of RAM, which means it's paging like crazy, though it's only noticeable when I zoom in and out rapily from one place on the map to another.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info!

jetpig said:
odd choices of settings. my 3800+ with a single 8800 GTS is getting similar settings as the xp single core test at 1600x1200. also i've found setting priority to above normal helps IMMENSLY.
Click to expand...

Video card has little to do in this game, it is all about CPU performance.

warmace said:
Excellent review. Dugg! The review answers almost all my wonders about how multi core the game really was. Especially the task manager bit!

A note about the task manager bit. According to ExtremeTech "Supreme Commander uses two main threads, one for the "simulation" and one for rendering. If a quad-core CPU or equivalent is detected, it will also spawn threads for audio and graphics driver management."

I myself was hoping it would split multi-cpu enemies (the "Simulation thread") across the cores, i guess we are not quite there yet in RTS games.

If anyone is interested in running their own canned benchmark, you can complete the following steps.

Change the shortcut to add /perf
"C:\Program Files\THQ\Gas Powered Games\Supreme Commander\bin\SupremeCommander.exe" /perf

then it'll run through a 4 cpu scrim.

then when its complete check your /bin folder in the SC dir.
Click to expand...

Interesting, but I'm not 100% a playback will play back everything correctly, AI, physics, gameplay physics etc....

Torsten said:
Thank You!!

I have been waiting for solid performance numbers within SupCom to help answer the debate of Quad vs Dual for some time.

As thorough as your benching was, I would make one recommendation.
Most SupCom players such as myself only play multiplayer, and we are the community seeking these benchmarks more then anyone. However, in multiplayer games, there is no 'Computer Player AI' being crunched on other cores.

I state this due to the explanation of how SupCom supports multiple cores; it is not due to it being 100% fully multithreaded, but that it uses multiple sub engines, each of which which can be moved onto any core as a whole:

I would like to have seen some benchmarks of a multiplayer game where 'Computer Player AI' is never being added into the equation. Not many people are playing 6 player games with the AI; the AI is not very good in SupCom, and all but new players to the game could beat all of them single handedly.

This might make the Quad vs Dual core difference even more negligible for us in the SupCom multiplayer community.

Thanks again,
Click to expand...

Well, multiplayer has a couple of drawbacks for testing, it is hard to get a repeatable scenario you can duplicate each time, and multiplayer obviously doesn't utilize Computer AI

Commander Suzdal said:
Terrific article! One thing that made me go "Huh?"--I noticed that at 1600x1200 with quad cores under XP you had TR MSAA enabled. At 2560x1600, you were using TR SSAA. How were you able to run a higher-quality transparency AA at a higher resolution? That's weird! Wonder if something in the latest drivers favors widescreen?
Click to expand...

This was answered in the article to an extent, basically Quad-Core is removing the bottleneck and allowing the video card to be much more efficient, in this case, SLI specifically. At the higher resolution with quad-core the video card is able to do more work in SLI and therefore have higher performance, enough where TR SSAA was playable.

At 1600x1200 you are still more CPU limited than GPU limited. At 2560x1600 you are a little more GPU limited than CPU limited with Quad-Core. Does that make sense?

Torsten said:
That's why you benchmark the replay.

Every game in SupCom is recorded for playback, and GPG even includes the 'replay vault' where you can watch some of the best players duke it out. Recent 6-way FFA's between the top 20 ranked players have had hundreds of downloads each and have become quite popular to watch.

GPG even includes one such multiplayer replay within the retail game for benchmarking - with a built in performance test! You must run the executable with the extension "/map perftest", and this will benchmark your system and spit out an overall score similar to 3D mark. This single-number result is not nearly as thorough as the results you produce however - and I would love to see that.​

SupCom also includes a console command, ren_shownetworkstats. This shows the maximum smooth game speed that each person in a multiplayer game is capable of running the current game at that time. I have never seen anyone in multiplayer with a higher score than my 3.6C2D, which makes me wonder if moving to quad in another 6 months is worthwhile (and no this is not an intent to brag or show off e-peen, I built this system for SupCom after slogging through the beta on an athalon 64, and it still gets choppy in multiplayer 6 player games).​

Again, you rock and I'm very appreciative of the existing benchmarks you've produced thus far.
Click to expand...

I am not 100% sure that the replays are playing back every aspect of the game as you would experience playing the game for real. With that uncertainty I could not use replays. Replays also do not allow you to "feel" the game like a real player would playing the game.
 
I thing i am wondering is, could the choice of 2GB of memory affected the results?.

Its pretty well know that SupCom can used loads of memory. I have seen 2.7GB virtual size and huge private working sets of over 2GB.

Could that have possibly limited performance, especailly on large maps with lots of AI controlled units?
 
Could you perhaps make the same comparison with Gothic 3, which was released in October (currently in version 1.12) and also has out-of-the-box multicore support?

Thank you.
 
Big thumbs up on the ONLY review of SupCom on the net that tested SupCom the way it's meant to be tested, far into the game with craploads of AI everywhere. I have to say this review was superior in every way to the others out there. I've been SOOO angry with all the other sites who have done "performance testing" with SupCom and then using the built in demotest to present their results, a LAME proposition since SupCom doesn't really begin using multicore until WELL into a game against MANY AI's.

This review mirrors my findings with SupCom quite nicely. Thumbs up, guys, awsome job!
 
evilmedic said:
I thing i am wondering is, could the choice of 2GB of memory affected the results?.

Its pretty well know that SupCom can used loads of memory. I have seen 2.7GB virtual size and huge private working sets of over 2GB.

Could that have possibly limited performance, especailly on large maps with lots of AI controlled units?
Click to expand...

I was hoping to see the tests run with 3+Gb of RAM as well. Reading other reviews they say it didn’t make any Diff in FPS, but they do mention that the difference was noticeable even without the FPS, and this is where [H] excel’s. (letting us know how it plays in the real world VS raw FPS and benchmarks)

Can you run the benchmarks again with 4 Gig??? :)
 
JethroXP said:
As for the crashing you experienced, I saw that too, but only when the SupCom exe would try to use more than 1.5GB of RAM. Apparently it is not able to address memory space above 2GB, and crashes when it tries to. This thread on the GPG Forums shows a simple way to mod the exe so that it can address memory higher than 2GB.

I've used it on my system and have had zero crashes since. It also doesn't interfere with Multiplayer play, since they aren't doing any sort of CRC check on the exe at connection.

Now I just need to get more than 2GB of RAM, since with this mod in place I've seen SupCom use as much as 2.9GB of RAM, which means it's paging like crazy, though it's only noticable when I zoom in and out rapily from one place on the map to another.
Click to expand...

Wow, dude, you are my hero. Running SupComm it was definitely pushing my ram up to like 80% and crashing. Thanks for the Fix

Just to add my own comment. I played through the closed beta on my AMD64 4000+ (San Deigo), it was "alright" at "decent" settings. I switched over to an FX-60, the difference is very real. I was really amazed at what adding a core did for this game.
 
Mark_Warner said:
I have Vista, and I have 3 GB installed. I've seen it climb REALLY close (~1911 MB) to using 2 GB of memory, even playing games like Oblivion, R6 Vegas, and STALKER. But I've never seen it use more up to or over 2048 MB.
Click to expand...

And you never will see it use above 2GB, it's a memory allocation limit of the OS and application (even in x64). An executable has to be set to be "IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE", a header that the developers have still not added to the game for no clear cut reason. Which is why I made a workaround for people to do it themselves.

Even on a X64 OS, apps are limited to 2GB user-mode addressable space until the application header is compiled (or set) to be Large_Address_Aware, then x64 allows up to 4GB for user-mode virtual address space for a single process.
MSDN chart here: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

I'm glad to see my GPG forum thread on the memory allocation adjustment showed up here because that is what I thought first time I heard you guys getting the Vista crash in a long game. Due to Vista's overhead and base memory footprint being higher, the 2GB user-mode virtual address space ceiling is hit quicker. Performance in SupCom goes down real quickly as one approaches that limit as well, usually followed by a crash.

x64 and x86 both benefit from the Large_Address_Aware header being in SupCom (other games may also benefit). As most know, the latter x86 also needs an additional boot switch modification to allow the OS to use >2GB.

BTW, your not required to have above 2GB RAM (although it may be nice) to use the SupCom header patch just an appropriately sized paging file, the disk paging will not really be a noticeable perf hit at that stage of the game and I always notice page thrashing in other games.

Great article, testing SupCom is a bear and requires alot of patience. Glad you guys didn't use the canned perftest which stresses the video too much during the test.
 
I'm not too sure if those fps numbers are representative of actual gameplay. I played the whole game at dual 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 16xAF on my 8800gtx and E6400@stock.

I'm also running Windows Vista and have played the game for hours on end with no crashes whatsoever.

I don't doubt you guys got the right fps numbers, but I think you need to redefine what 'playable' is for RTS titles, this isn't an FPS.
 
I would like to echo the sentiment that some sort of testing to see how clock speed offsets the core advantage.

i.e. disable two of those cores and try to see how high the thing needs to be oc'd to catch up with the quad core results.

(although I realize that the article is obviously very comprehensive and I'm sure it took a long time.....I'm just sayin :) )
 
^eMpTy^ said:
I'm not too sure if those fps numbers are representative of actual gameplay. I played the whole game at dual 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 16xAF on my 8800gtx and E6400@stock.

I'm also running Windows Vista and have played the game for hours on end with no crashes whatsoever.

I don't doubt you guys got the right fps numbers, but I think you need to redefine what 'playable' is for RTS titles, this isn't an FPS.
Click to expand...

We stated that our redline is at 20 FPS and that this felt comfortable in the game. Once you get to 15 FPS the game was just too choppy to control things in your base. Both Mark and Myself experienced this gameplay first hand to make this decision on this system.

Regardless, the apples-to-apples tests speak for themselves.
 
1ST off I would like to post, that I have admired the work that Kyle Bennet and the rest of the staff of [H] have done over the past several years. [H] has been in my book the goto sight for reviews for me, because I feel they are the most honest and ubiased reviewers on the planet.

My only issue with [H] and all of the rest is that the test beds for these systems are almost allways done using high-end components. The average builder (such as myself) will not spend $4000 on a gaming system.
I just built a gaming system for $1200, that I am very statisfied with, but when I want to find a review on like a 8800GTS 320, who is going to spend $300 on a video card, but still have a $950+ processor.
If you are going to test something that is midgrade, also do a test using a midgrade processor.

Test system used in this informative review. (all prices = NewEgg)
Motherboard: EVGA Nvidia nForce 680i SLI $249.99
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6700 $970.00
Memory: 2GB Corsair XMS2 Dominator CM2X1024-888C4D $253 (I could not find this ram anywhere. do I with with the CM2X2024-640C4D)
Hard Drive: Western Digital 74GB Raptor SATA/150 $159 (ORM)
O/S: Microsoft Vista Ultimate $249.99 (upgrade)
Dual BFG:GeForce 8800GTX 768MB (SLI) $819.99 - $1639.98
Case: ? Lets say $150
PSU: 1000Watt? Thermaltake Toughpower 850W W0131RU – NVIDIA QUAD-SLI APPROVED? $259.99

Cost of test system: $3,931.95

Nice.
 
With the Vista vs XP Task Manager numbers, do you know for sure that the game was making exclusive use of the cores with higher loads in Vista? I would think there is a chance that something else in Vista may have been using the cores other than the game which could have inflated the usage a bit.

I can't think of a program that would take snapshots of all the CPU usage of each process but I would guess there is something out there that does this reliably. It would be interesting to see what the results are if you don't already have them.

I mainly ask this as a way of determining if Vista actually makes better use of multi-core compared to XP or if it's just some other process running in the background that XP doesn't have which is using up cycles.

 
weebling1 said:
Didn't anybody notice the memory usage difference between Vista an XP? I suspect Vista needs 4gig to be efficient.
Click to expand...

Vista uses memory differently than XP so that metric is not really comparable. Vista will gobble up most of the available memory for preloading; if it's needed elsewhere, it will release it. XP doesn't preload as much, so it appears there's more free memory.

moshpit said:
I've been SOOO angry with all the other sites who have done "performance testing" with SupCom and then using the built in demotest to present their results, a LAME proposition since SupCom doesn't really begin using multicore until WELL into a game against MANY AI's.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the built in demotest means zip - I can get 15,000 combined with a 128k Sempron @ 2.6GHz and 8800GTS (roughly the same as a E6600 with 7900GTX) but that doesn't correlate at all with my actual gameplay experience.
 
Will someone test with an AMD duel, I thought that Intel chips arn't really duel core vs Amd duel cores. Intel are two chips slapped together.
 
First off, thanks for shattering the hope that I might be able to play this game guys. :)

Second, I noticed you tested with Vista under x86, why? Your test systems have been fully x64 for years now, yet things are still tested in 32bit.

I'm looking at going to 4GB with x64 Vista, but nobody seems to be testing this scenario to see if there is any benefit or loss. As I understand from reading this thread even under x64 programs may not be able to access greater than 2GB of memory, but there are no real benchmarks to back this up. Nor are there any benchmarks that show performance differences in real applications, such as supreme commander, between a 3GB (max memory) 32bit XP versus a 4GB Vista x64

No offense, but 32bit is old and busted, besides bleeding edge tech is always more fun and frustrating. I want to read a review that compares 32bit XP to vista x64, because lets face it, vista should have never been released as a 32bit OS. (Sorry, personal opinion)
 
"Now if you will excuse me, while I laugh my ass off at the people who still say there's no need to waste money on more than one core"

I guess you would be laughing at me hehe..

Yes I'm one of those goons that passed on dual core in favour of a fast single core. Well one game that can use dual core is hardly a justification of buying a dual core CPU many, many months after dual core was even released. Don't get me wrong, it is good to see dual core finally being used in games but I decided on the faster single core path myself. Running a 3.40 prescott 650@4GHz with 2GB DDR2.
I played the demo and it ran fine but didn't play it enough to notice any major slowdowns. Good looking game. Any TA fan will be proud!
 
Uncle said:
Will someone test with an AMD duel, I thought that Intel chips arn't really duel core vs Amd duel cores. Intel are two chips slapped together.
Click to expand...
lol :D
You have a lot of catching up to do. First off, Intel released the Core 2 Duo, which is a native dual core CPU that typically provides significantly higher performance than anything AMD has released.
Then, yes, Intel slapped two chips together. Thing is, they slapped two dual core chips together to make a quad core chip called Kentsfield. So this article is talking about a quad core CPU, not a dual core.
 
^eMpTy^ said:
I'm not too sure if those fps numbers are representative of actual gameplay. I played the whole game at dual 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 16xAF on my 8800gtx and E6400@stock.

I'm also running Windows Vista and have played the game for hours on end with no crashes whatsoever.

I don't doubt you guys got the right fps numbers, but I think you need to redefine what 'playable' is for RTS titles, this isn't an FPS.
Click to expand...

Good point. I personally think playable in an RTS would be 25-30 FPS. I might be off here but anything more dosen't really matter in an RTS does it?
 
Daarken said:
1ST off I would like to post, that I have admired the work that Kyle Bennet and the rest of the staff of [H] have done over the past several years. [H] has been in my book the goto sight for reviews for me, because I feel they are the most honest and ubiased reviewers on the planet.

My only issue with [H] and all of the rest is that the test beds for these systems are almost allways done using high-end components. The average builder (such as myself) will not spend $4000 on a gaming system.
I just built a gaming system for $1200, that I am very statisfied with, but when I want to find a review on like a 8800GTS 320, who is going to spend $300 on a video card, but still have a $950+ processor.
If you are going to test something that is midgrade, also do a test using a midgrade processor.

Test system used in this informative review. (all prices = NewEgg)
Motherboard: EVGA Nvidia nForce 680i SLI $249.99
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad QX6700 $970.00
Memory: 2GB Corsair XMS2 Dominator CM2X1024-888C4D $253 (I could not find this ram anywhere. do I with with the CM2X2024-640C4D)
Hard Drive: Western Digital 74GB Raptor SATA/150 $159 (ORM)
O/S: Microsoft Vista Ultimate $249.99 (upgrade)
Dual BFG:GeForce 8800GTX 768MB (SLI) $819.99 - $1639.98
Case: ? Lets say $150
PSU: 1000Watt? Thermaltake Toughpower 850W W0131RU – NVIDIA QUAD-SLI APPROVED? $259.99

Cost of test system: $3,931.95

Nice.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I hear your complaint. But the fact is when we do articles about inexpensive hardware nobody reads them and they cost just as much in resources for us to produce. It is a questions of economics for us. I wish is was free to produce and we were not worried about returns, but there are lots of people around here to pay now days.
 
Daarken said:
My only issue with [H] and all of the rest is that the test beds for these systems are almost allways done using high-end components. The average builder (such as myself) will not spend $4000 on a gaming system.
I just built a gaming system for $1200, that I am very statisfied with, but when I want to find a review on like a 8800GTS 320, who is going to spend $300 on a video card, but still have a $950+ processor.
If you are going to test something that is midgrade, also do a test using a midgrade processor.
Click to expand...

I disagree because this was not a hardware performance roundup for SupCom. It was to demonstrate if quad-core is beneficial to the game.

The title was "SupCom & Intel Core 2 Quad"
 
Kyle, thanks for replying to my post.

Does [H]ardOCP sell any of the systems or components they buy for testing?
 
Daarken said:
Kyle, thanks for replying to my post.

Does [H]ardOCP sell any of the systems or components they buy for testing?
Click to expand...

No. We aquire most of the hardware we use at no cost to us and I feel as though it simply is not morally right to sell it. Most of the systems we purchased last year for H Consumer were donated to a North Texas Women's Shelter. Most of the left overs from H Enthusiast are passed along to editors as perks or the hardware is destroyed.
 
jetpig said:
dual monitor mostly rapes your video card, and rapes it good. i've got a friend who ahs it setup and he jsut uses the second for a GIANT minimap as he can't use it for much else without getting 2 frames a second.
Click to expand...

I disagree, its actually not that bad, im running a 3000+, 6600GTOC, 1.5 gig ram and dual monitors at 1280x1024.

All settings on low, and generally runs fine in multiplayer, of course as soon as you add an Ai the cpu kills itself. But thats ok as i know its an old cpu.

Im just curious as to if the newer graphics cards have a significant performance impact when running dual monitors. Noone does benchmarks on dual monitors, mostly because there are no games for them! now there is hope to see more, as once you have two you never go back to one!
 
Hypernova said:
er... why would you do that? If destroyed as in opened to peek at the inside then I can understand.
Click to expand...

I would be that in the case of things like ES processors and prototype boards, [H]ardOCP probably has some sort of contract that says they have to destroy them when finished. Prototypes often contain technologies that don't make it into the final product, and it wouldn't be cool if those technologies fell into the wrong hands.
 
InorganicMatter said:
I would be that in the case of things like ES processors and prototype boards, [H]ardOCP probably has some sort of contract that says they have to destroy them when finished. Prototypes often contain technologies that don't make it into the final product, and it wouldn't be cool if those technologies fell into the wrong hands.
Click to expand...

Or if it's like, a PowMax Assassin Powersupply.
 
The highest playable settings comparison is a nice addition to normal apples to apples comparisons but next time could you include the apples to apples comparison to truly see the difference between the tests.
 
You know there's a forum thread on nVidia's site 28 pages long and with over 40,000 views with people experiencing the "Display driver nvlddmkm stopped responding, but has succesfully recovered." error message that you mentioned in your article Kyle. Seems to be a major issue with the latest beta drivers that nVidia have supplied. Thought you might be interested:

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=25381
 
Up until now games have been mostly single-threaded. This means that they are only capable of taking advantage of a single-core on the CPU. If you have dual or quad-core processors the game will not utilize those extra cores efficiently to provide any gameplay experience improvements. Therefore multi-core CPUs have been pointless for gaming.
Click to expand...

Pointless? Not if the other 3 cores are Folding. This is a pretty surprising oversight coming from the Web site of the #1 Folding team. :rolleyes:
 
I can't speak for HardOCP, but if they are anything like other review Web sites, the ES parts get sold on forums or eBay (or end up in the personal rig of the reviewer). A little-known dirty secret of the tech review industry, and yes it can be a conflict of interest. I know H and Steve on his site have been good at using them for charity, raffles, etc., but I don't know what H's SOP is.

InorganicMatter said:
I would be that in the case of things like ES processors and prototype boards, [H]ardOCP probably has some sort of contract that says they have to destroy them when finished. Prototypes often contain technologies that don't make it into the final product, and it wouldn't be cool if those technologies fell into the wrong hands.
Click to expand...
 
uclajd said:
Pointless? Not if the other 3 cores are Folding. This is a pretty surprising oversight coming from the Web site of the #1 Folding team. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He said 'pointless for gaming', I don't think his intended statement could be any clearer.:eek:
 
What are you, his Dad? I couldn't have been any clearer. Most people have to shut down Folding if they game or do other CPU-intensive tasks, a huge hassle. With quad cores, you could Fold or even encode video while gaming. Some people actually do other things on their PCs than just gaming, but have to stop doing those things to play games. Quad cores become quite useful in such circumstances.

If that nexus is too difficult for you to follow, go back to your comic books.

Torsten said:
He said 'pointless for gaming', I don't think his intended statement could be any clearer.:eek:
Click to expand...
 
I think what he meant was, solely for increasing the games performance. As multi threaded gaming. Not as in multitasking while gaming. :rolleyes: And yes I understood you.
 
Mark_Warner said:
I have Vista, and I have 3 GB installed. I've seen it climb REALLY close (~1911 MB) to using 2 GB of memory, even playing games like Oblivion, R6 Vegas, and STALKER. But I've never seen it use more up to or over 2048 MB.
Click to expand...

I am sure others have pointed out their experience, but I haven't read past this post, yet. Pretty long thread, but good reading.

I have Vista and 3GB of RAM, and I play SupCom. On a 20x20 (medium) map, 500 unit cap (smallish), and 4 players on a multiplayer map that I hosted (one other human player, two AI), I got 2.3GB physical RAM usage and a 2.85GB swapfile. It seems you are not playing the "right" games for >2GB usage. ;)

An 8 player 81Km by 81Km game with a 1000 unit cap per player might raise that 2.3GB number up a bit. :D

EDIT: I should have noted originally that all I did was crash before I found the Boris thread on the GPG forum for updating the BCD in 32bit Vista for >2GB user address space and using that utility to add the >2GB aware flag to the SupCom .exe. That was an awesome contribution he made. I figured I should give credit where credit was due.
 
Betrayer00GT said:
I am sure others have pointed out their experience, but I haven't read past this post, yet. Pretty long thread, but good reading.

I have Vista and 3GB of RAM, and I play SupCom. On a 20x20 (medium) map, 500 unit cap (smallish), and 4 players on a multiplayer map that I hosted (one other human player, two AI), I got 2.3GB physical RAM usage and a 2.85GB swapfile. It seems you are not playing the "right" games for >2GB usage. ;)

An 8 player 81Km by 81Km game with a 1000 unit cap per player might raise that 2.3GB number up a bit. :D

EDIT: I should have noted originally that all I did was crash before I found the Boris thread on the GPG forum for updating the BCD in 32bit Vista for >2GB user address space and using that utility to add the >2GB aware flag to the SupCom .exe. That was an awesome contribution he made. I figured I should give credit where credit was due.
Click to expand...

Do you need to reboot after applying the fix?
 
devman said:
Do you need to reboot after applying the fix?
Click to expand...

Depends on what part of the fix you are refering to. Adding the flag to the SupCom app does not need a reboot, but with upping the user spawned process limit I am pretty sure you do. With XP it is a modification to the boot.ini file which is read at boot only, I am pretty sure. With Vista (what I am using) it is a modification to the BCD, which I believe is also only read at boot. I am less sure on Vista, but I think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top