#Reddit company of heroes 2 64 bits

So on this mission, no matter how much crosses (bonuses) the AI have, no matter what difficulty, or the type of randomized mission, the outcome is the same: and here we arrive at mission 4 (or 29% completion of the campain).

#Reddit company of heroes 2 64 bits

The old i7-920 was able to match the FX-8350, while the Phenom II X6 and X4 processors showed their age here.So since we got recently the 64 bits support for COH 2 i decided to reinstal it since i didn't finish the expansion 'ardennes assault' and i couldn't remember why.Д«ut as i played got stopped to death i realised why i rage uninstall the game, so ear me out, i may not be a 5 stars general at rts games but i can defend myself in a lot of ones, i never had any difficulties in the main campains from COH1 and 2 and many other RTS games like Dawn of war 1 and 2 and Homeworld in even harder difficulty.Д«ut in AA its another level, so i play on medium difficulty, the 3 firsts missions are easy as hell even if the IA send nice trolls at the end like godamn panthers and even heavier tanks when i barelly have the time to sput out 2 poor shermans. Here the FX-8350 was 31% slower than the Core i7-4770K and 22% slower than its competitor, the Core i5-3470. Again, the Core i7-3960X is much slower than expected and this suggests to us that the game really only requires four threads and that clock speed is more important than cache size. With the more playable medium quality settings the Core i7-4770K and i7-3770K race ahead, followed by the Core i5-3570K and i5-3470. As is often the case, the Core i7 and Core i5 processors appear to be the best choices, though the FX-8350 does hold its own. The lower-end Athlon II X4 quad-cores are useless in this game, as are the dual-core parts including the Core i3-3220. The Core i7-3960X was slower than the i5-3570K which is very surprising given how CPU demanding this game is and makes us regret using it as the primary test chip. As we've already seen, the Core i7-4770K is capable of 41fps and the FX-8350 just 37fps, while the Core i7-3770K matched the i7-4770K and the i5-3570K was just 1fps slower. Now let's see how a range of CPUs handle CoH with the GTX Titan and max quality settings. Below that, we saw a sharp drop off in performance once clocked at 3.0GHz and 2.50GHz. What's more, the i7-4770K was able to push the GTX Titan to the max when clocked at just 3.50GHz.

This time the Core i7-4770K managed 65fps with the GTX Titan on medium quality, which is much faster than the FX-3850's 49fps.

Interestingly, the Core i7-4770K painted a totally different picture than the FX-8350 when testing on maximum quality, delivering the same frame rate at both 2.50GHz and 4.50GHz: 41fps, which is actually 1fps faster than the FX-8350 at 4.50GHz, suggesting that the Intel part is extremely efficient - more so than we expected.Д®ffectively what this means is that the Core i7-4770K can push the GTX Titan to its limit in CoH 2 at just 2.5GHz while the FX-8350 needs to be clocked 80% higher to achieve the same level of performance. The game is clearly very CPU dependent, but again, at 4.50GHz the FX-8350 was only able to drive the GTX Titan to 49fps. The medium quality settings - which we expect to place more emphasis on the CPU rather than the GPU - saw an 81% performance increase when scaling from 2.50GHz to 4.50GHz, which again is an 80% clock boost. Moreover, the game seems quite CPU dependent, as we saw a 42% performance increase when going from 2.50GHz to 4.50GHz, though that is an 80% jump in clock speed. The problem is we still only achieved 40fps. At the standard frequency of 4.0GHz, we averaged 37fps and boosting the clock speed by another 13% increased performance by 8%, which isn't bad. We first see how the AMD FX-8350 scales in CoH 2 using maximum quality settings with the GTX Titan.