New Computer

[Almac]

Hello All,

 

I am investing in a new computer to play combat mission games. Some of the maps are too big for my current lap top and they are essentially unplayable. 

What specifications are required to play combat mission on huge maps with top settings? Is that even possible? If anyone knows of a unique PC build that lends to combat mission let me know as well. I am having a friend source parts and build the PC.

Thank you in advance. I appreciate your help!

 

Almlac 

 

 

[Schrullenhaft]

Do you know if your laptop has a 'discrete GPU/video' ? Most laptops using Intel CPUs will typically be using the built-in Intel GPU (on the CPU), but some laptops have a dedicated ('discrete') video chip/GPU (often Nvidia GeForce, but possibly AMD) which provides MUCH better performance than the Intel GPU. Often CM games may actually run on the Intel GPU even if one of these dedicated GPUs exists in the laptop since the drivers may not detect that the game could benefit from the dedicated GPU. In this situation typically adding a 'profile' within the GPU driver's control panel for the game will often get it running on the GPU rather than the Intel video. With Windows 10 there is a control panel option to tell programs what video chip to run with (outside of the GPU's control panel). However a vast majority of laptops out there typically only have the Intel/integrated video/GPU.

I don't have a specific build recommendation, but the following guidelines should work well:

CM benefits the most from a fast CPU. For a majority of its tasks it will mostly only use a single core, so more cores don't really help it (at least with current versions of the games). So get the fastest CPU you can reasonably afford with good 'base' and 'turbo' clock speeds. I'm not specifically aware if Intel or AMD works better with CM. Intel tends to have a somewhat lower memory latency in their CPUs than the AMDs, but either manufacturer should work fine with the game.

Nvidia GPUs tend to do the best with the CM series. AMD drivers usually work well in most situations, but the game still loads a bit slower with AMD GPUs. The amount of video RAM (VRAM) that the video card has shouldn't be too much of a big deal. Some people who may load up a lot of graphics mods might push some video memory setups, but anything with 2GB or more should be absolutely fine.

The CM series are 32-bit games, so they don't directly benefit from memory over 4GB. The game is 'large address aware', so it will technically use up to 3GB of memory/address space. 8 or 16GB of RAM would be fine for most systems (though, again, the game won't use those larger amounts). Anything above that would only benefit other programs or general use of the computer. Windows does utilize unused RAM in a caching mechanism, so sometimes more RAM could help general performance if you run a lot of apps, etc.

SSDs will be common for most computers and the games will typically benefit a little during loading and game saves, but other than that they typically won't affect CM's performance.

You will probably hear/read a number of posters complaining about video performance in the game, low frame-rates, mediocre shadows, etc. The current CM series utilizes the OpenGL 2.x API for programming graphics. This was the current/newest version of OpenGL at the time the game engine was originally designed (2003 - 2007). There have been some improvements over the years, but the game engine still primarily utilizes OpenGL 2.x which involves the CPU a lot when drawing the screen. Newer, 'faster' video cards may only marginally improve the speed of the graphics in game. So the latest and greatest video cards will not miraculously improve the speed of the game's graphics. However most video cards should be a significant improvement over the Intel integrated video/GPUs (they have more memory 'bandwidth' and 'processing cores' than the Intel built-in GPUs).

[Almac]

Wow!!! Thank you so much for the insight. I appreciate the detail and explanation. So having a fast CPU is what makes the greatest difference. I can't wait to have something that plays the larger maps. Do you think the CPU issue you noted in the first paragraph is the reason why the large maps cannot be played right now? I have the settings on balanced. I will look into that potential issue regardless. 

 

Thank you

[Artkin]

If you want to run big maps with lots of troops on the screen you need a good graphics card. CPU effects performance but in a different way. My graphics card broke six months ago and I've been running on integrated(into the cpu) graphics ever since. However I cant play big maps anymore, nor can I play with a lot of troops on my screen as well as I used to before. With my gtx480 I was able to run a 5.0 x 5.0km map well within the normal CM fps range. That was Rad Full 2 , a map with more fields and forest than city.

A smaller map with more buildings, like Nijmegan city map from CMBN market garden expansion will be nearly unplayable.. lol.. at least for me so far. Perhaps it is just CMBN being less efficient than the newer games, which is certainly a thing.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Artkin

[Macisle]

31 minutes ago, Artkin said:

If you want to run big maps with lots of troops on the screen you need a good graphics card. CPU effects performance but in a different way. My graphics card broke six months ago and I've been running on integrated(into the cpu) graphics ever since. However I cant play big maps anymore, nor can I play with a lot of troops on my screen as well as I used to before. With my gtx480 I was able to run a 5.0 x 5.0km map well within the normal CM fps range. That was Rad Full 2 , a map with more fields and forest than city.

A smaller map with more buildings, like Nijmegan city map from CMBN market garden expansion will be nearly unplayable.. lol.. at least for me so far. Perhaps it is just CMBN being less efficient than the newer games, which is certainly a thing.

I've had the same CPU (i7-950) for about 12 years now, but have replaced dead graphics cards a few times and added an SSD and more RAM (from 6 to 16) last year. My experience supports what Artkin said above. If you want to play big maps, you need a good graphics card. I don't know for sure, but the feeling I get is that VRAM is also important. My last jump was from a GTX 550 Ti 2GB to a GTX 1060 6GB and I noticed a huge difference in running larger maps.

Interestingly, there was flat zero difference in loading times going from 7200 RPM HDD to SSD.

[Artkin]

Agreed I am getting "Out of memory" errors on the 9600k integrated graphics Intel 630 chip. Vram is definitely important.

[Schrullenhaft]

 

9 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Perhaps it is just CMBN being less efficient than the newer games, which is certainly a thing.

If the games are all on the same engine, then this isn't really a thing. The difference will typically be in the complexity of the map and what is on it. On average a CMBN map is likely to have a lot of foliage and possibly a number of buildings, while a CMSF2 map may have a lot of open ground with some buildings spread around (or in a built up area). Buildings in CM are definitely frame-rate killers.

An Intel integrated video (or almost any 'integrated video') is likely to lag with larger maps. There are fewer 'cores/execution units' and a much lower memory bandwidth with the Intel integrated video compared to a dedicated video card/GPU. This memory bandwidth is noticeable when it comes to moving textures around on screen, which is what is happening when you're scrolling around a map in CM.

When it comes to playing CM I DEFINITELY recommend getting a decent video card. If it is the only game that you play, then you don't need to spend a lot of money on getting the very best since the performance difference between a mid-ranged video card and a high-level enthusiast card in CM probably won't justify the price difference. A new game engine may change that in the future (a few years from now, possibly), but the current game engine really won't see that significant of a difference. So a RTX 2060 would likely suffice for many users and a RTX 3080 would generally be overkill. However prices on video cards right now are insane with so many being used for crypto-currency mining. A GeForce GTX 1660 would also be good, but even prices for those are really high. If necessary you can go all the way down to a GeForce GTX 1050 Ti or 1650 and you should have fairly decent performance. I would consider a plain GTX 1050 as probably the lowest you should go on the Nvidia side. You start getting into models that lack memory bandwidth and it will show while playing CM. On the AMD Radeon side I would go with a RX 560 (as a minimum) or better.

[Artkin]

CMBN always felt laggier than the newer titles.

In CMFB I just had two pioneer battalions smash each other on lowest settings on the default editor map. I averaged 40fps and it rose to 50 as ppl died. Easily 200-300 red crosses on my screen at the same time.

 

I agree though, don't skimp on your gpu. Always at least buy a 60ti or higher. I wouldn't recommend a 50 series. They seem OK now because cards are getting ridiculous and games havent caught up yet... but their performance has always been massively underpowered compared to their bigger brothers.

The whole GPU market is ****ed right now though. I swear they're doing this on purpose- and I refuse to buy a card for double or even triple the price of what it should be.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Artkin

[Vacillator]

I'm running all WW2 titles on an Asus ROG laptop with an Intel i7-6700HQ and an Nividia 1060 6GB GPU and while I have to wait on loading for a short while (mod-dependent) I have no issues in-game.

I imagine your new specs will exceed this, as long as you include a decent dedicated GPU, so you should be better than good to go. 

As a side note others have noted that the games use very little resources, which is a shame if better performance could be had.

[Artkin]

I had an alienware r3 17in with the 6700hq and a 980m... god I really hated that computer.

[Vacillator]

Well everyone has their own experience but this Asus has been very good.  So much so that I will buy another one when I feel the need, which I don't at the moment.  And that, I think, says something...

[Artkin]

Asus is a cool company. They offered me an extra year of warranty on my sound card "In the spirit of Christmas" when I emailed them about it having a hardware issue. My 3 year warranty on it had expired and I hadn't realized. I was gonna pay out of pocket. I would 100% shop with them again if I bought new.

My alienware would studder and crash oh man it was a real nightmare. Wouldn't run CM well.  4k screen was pretty though!