I own the full version of SC and i can say its a very good rts. I can play the game at medium-high in 1680x1050 and get between 20-40fps (specs in sig), which is acceptable for a rts imo, so i dont think the performance problem is that big as ppl say. As for ppl who say the game is slow-paced...u clearly havent played online against good player. Games on 5x5 and 10x10km maps often lasts less than 30mins, all of which is action. The only time the game is more slowed-pace (aka ppl turtle alot before attacking) is when playing on bigger maps (20x20km and +), but then, these kind of maps arent really meant to be played in 1vs1. The only place SC is lacking is singleplayer : the campaign isnt that interesting and the skirmish is pretty much crap due to the AI. Ive had a blast playing it online tho, probably my best rts experience since wc3.
 As for cnc3, ive only played the demo but from what ive seen and heard its very faced-paced, games rarely lasts longer than 30mins. The campaign is interesting,story is good,the ai is alright but i havent played in mp so i dunt know how it is. The games runs smoother than sc, but personnally i like sc graphics better. But the reason i like sc more is because i think cnc3 is too basic, it works the same way as most older rts and it isnt very innovative, but then, if u like it this way, good for you. In sc, you have to scout ur opponent a lot to know what hes building so you can counter it, maps are big so you have a lot of room to maneuver your army and also i think its more realistic (artilerry and some other units have crazy range,you haver radar and sonar to detect incoming units(tho that can be counter by stealth),you need to build missile defence, etc....). In cnc3 units fire at eachother at very short distance, which is silly since its supposed to be set in the future.
my vote goes to supreme commander.
Log in to comment