So here are my notebook's scores on the in-game benchmarks and settings used

[Ripsaw5165 10]

My system:

HP DV7-2270us notebook

intel Q9000 Core 2 Quad @ 2.0Ghz

ATI Mobility Radeon HD4650 1 gigabyte ram (550mhz GPU/600Mhz ram)

7200 rpm 500 gigabyte hard drive

4 gigabyte system ram

Win 7 Home Premium 64 bit

17.3" display (1600x900 native res)

Catalyst 10.8 driver

Arma 2 Combined Operations retail DVD (Arma 2 patched to 1.07, OA patched to 1.54)

Benchmark 1 score: 19

Benchmark 2 score: 8

E08 Benchmark: 18

In-game Video Settings:

Visibilty: 3600

Brightness & gamma both @ 1

Quality Preference: Very High

Interface Resolution: 1600x900

3D resolution: 1600x900 (100%)

Texture Detail: High

Video Memory: Very High

Anisotropic Filtering: Normal

AntiAliasing: Disabled

Terrain Detail: Very High

Objects Detail: Very High

Shadow Detail: High

Post Process Effects: Normal

Interface Size: Normal

Aspect Ratio: 16:9 - Widescreen

If I turn on AntiAliasing it absolutely murders the frame rate.

If I set video detail settings to normal I only pick up 1 or two fps in the benchmarks. This appears to indicate my CPU is the limiting factor or bottleneck, which makes sense for only 2.0Ghz, but no remedy for that in a notebook...

So far, however, missions seems smooth enough to be fully playable.

---------- Post added at 05:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 AM ----------

P.S. Game is rock stable, not one CTD or freeze yet.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Ripsaw5165

[Infam0us 10]

[Tankbuster 1733]

It's an everyday occurrence when a new user rocks up here claiming their hugely expensive laptop plays STALKER at a million FPS but can't play this game.

At a res of 1440 x 900, benchmark scores of 19 and 8 would be a pretty frustrating experience for most players, I think.

[Ripsaw5165 10]

Hugely expensive?... ROFLMAO. I paid US $850 for it on clearance (discontinued model), free shipping.

I posted this because there have been a few people asking how it plays on a notebook etc. I thought I would post my results and notebook specs to give an idea of what they might expect or most likely fully exceed, should they buy a newer Core i7 model with better specs than mine.

I could build up a desktop capable of running this game at 100fps+, but the room in our house that used to house my old desktop (which was decommissioned when I bought notebook) was ordered to be made into a guest room by my bride, and the need for some portability began to be apparent as well, so hence the notebook purchase. True I could have declared that her office room be a new home to a desktop build, but she laid claim to that room right after we bought the house few yrs ago and isn't going to let me turn it into a gaming den and distract from running her work operations which brings in far more than my paltry $70K annual salary. Also, having paid cash for the house just a few years ago we are trying to replenish our savings at a rapid pace so it is hard to justify to the bride me building out a new desktop machine to just play games on. ;)

So, you see my predicament. Have to settle for what limited gaming I do anymore, to be on a this notebook for awhile.

P.S. Where did I say Arma2 didn't play well on my notebook? Contrarily, I stated that while the benches weren't spectacular, the missions and campaign so far have been very playable as far as perceived frame rates go (not using fraps to monitor fps or anything).

[Painless 10]

Yeah times are hard mate!. my heart bleeds!!

[Infam0us 10]

the missions and campaign so far have been very playable as far as perceived frame rates go (not using fraps to monitor fps or anything).

intel Q9000 Core 2 Quad @ 2.0Ghz

ATI Mobility Radeon HD4650 1 gigabyte ram (550mhz GPU/600Mhz ram)

Something doesn't quite add up here ...

[kklownboy 43]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-Pavilion-dv7-2270us.23563.0.html

If you can lower your VD to 1200m or less and run at Normal or low settings with a reduced Screen rez that scales down with your aspect (800/450) you would then have "playable" frames. Nice to know you are having success with it in the SP side.

[dmarkwick 261]

Something doesn't quite add up here ...

People's ideas of playable vary :) I'm quite tolerant of low frame rates, so long as those frame rates are consistent and warping doesn't happen, for example.

[Ripsaw5165 10]

Something doesn't quite add up here ...

Not sure why it doesn't sum up. I'm enjoying the game... playing through the single mission ops and several missions deep into the Arma 2 campaign, I've not experienced the frame rate to be that bad. If someone wants to tell me how to make a video of the game play like I see posted on youtube, I'll post it up for evaluation.

---------- Post added at 01:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 AM ----------

People's ideas of playable vary :) I'm quite tolerant of low frame rates, so long as those frame rates are consistent and warping doesn't happen, for example.

Thx. My definition of playable: Able to complete the mission, get some kills and achieve the objectives, animations of moving objects and troops don't noticeably jitter consistently, and terrain pans and scrolls without excessive choppiness or jitter, and feeling good about purchase of the game. I do get some stutter but I define stutter as a momentary jitter that briefly interrupts or slows otherwise smooth panning or scrolling of terrain often 1 second or so in duration.

In the final analysis, if as the campaign gets more complex, it turns into a slide show, I'll reduce detail and/or res until it improves or i'll just shelve the game until later when I can manuever my way into building up a new desktop. While I am a sim player from way back (EF2000, Falcon 4.0, Jane's Longbow II, et al) my life doesn't hinge on gaming... plenty of other things pulling on my free time, I just like to kick back with an involving sim or game when I get some alone time. Cheers all...

Edited October 30, 2010 by Ripsaw5165