People with i7's

[recon 7185 10]

What kind of framerates are you getting in zargabad? I average about 33 with everything but post processing on very high (including AA) with an i7 930 at 4.15 ghz and two gtx 480's. Some maps i get 100+ but i need a referance point to know if I am getting normal performance. Thanks

[Chill xl 10]

Fraps report around 45 in the center or facing the center of Zargabad, when moving away from it it goes up to 60 (capped by vsync).

This is for an i7 + 2x 5850.

[recon 7185 10]

Well that's a big difference. Is that at the start of missions? I notice my framerates improve as ai players get killed off. What do you get in the benchmarks? Also what settings do you use ingame and did you overclock your i7?

Edited January 14, 2011 by recon 7185

[Nephris1 10]

I get far over 40 fps with an i7920 and an 5870hd.

But i am using a ssd disk,what made the difference for me compared tomy previous used hd (spinpoint f1).

When u check your cpu awhile playing and decrease the refresh rate in your task manager u will notice the cpu has not that much to do.

I guess the most hungry discipline is texure loading, what directs from the hd.

[Chill xl 10]

Forgot to mention that my i7 runs at 3.6ghz instead of the default 2.6 and both the 5850's run at 5870 speeds. That might give some performance difference.

[xdmerciless 14]

Sounds a little on the low side. I'll confirm my FPS later on Zargabad, but if I remember right I was averaging roughly the same as you, but there were occasional stutters here and depends on the number of units. It definitely becomes unplayable with unoptimized epic battle with max 144 groups on BLUEFOR, OPFOR, and Independent, somewhere at <10 FPS.

i7-950 @ 3.8/4.0 GHz (167X23/24 -TB & HT Enabled) @ 1.312 V

2X GeForce GTX 460 2GB (SLI)

GeForce GTX 450 1GB (PhysX)

12GB (2GBX3) DDR3/1600 MHz

*Ran at max settings w/ 4X AA @ 1920X1080, with a second monitor for productivity

Edited January 14, 2011 by XDMerciless

[recon 7185 10]

Ye I am confused because my cpu is overclocked to 4.15ghz, but is my 7200rpm hard drive my bottleneck? The mission I am on is 8 by the way. My system scores 39000 in 3dmark vantage so not sure why some of you guys are doing much better

[Sarp 0]

I keep reading conflicting information about SSD's. The post above about texture loading got my interest as one of the issues I have is delayed texture loading, which at times is very annoying.

I've got : i7 940 running at 3.5Ghz

Gpu = 1 GB GTX460 running at 825Mhz

RAM = 10GB Corsair XMS31600MHz CAS9 DDR3 @1600MHz (9,9,9,24)

HDD = 1 TB SATA-II HDD UDMA 300 7200 32MB

I play mainly MP and get between 25 - 40 FPS. @ 1900 X 1200 with 120% 3D. All settings V.High except ground texture - low and PP - V low. AA and ASF are at normal. View distance is 2000

Would running ARMA2 OA off an SSD REALLY make all the difference?

[Nephris1 10]

Would running ARMA2 OA off an SSD REALLY make all the difference?

Absolutely.

The first ssd versions had some troubles,

i got me a vertex2@120gig for 180€ and it flys it doez.

No texture popping anymor,great fps.

Besides that the boost for the complete system is just great.

Takes my system 4.8sec to boot, means from startup button at tower to login window.

Btw. my I7 is not overclocked, as there is no need for it but to show it in any forums sig.Or have u ever notice your cpu reaching its limit until now?

Yes your hdd is the bottleneck in that case.

[Sarp 0]

Absolutely.

The first ssd versions had some troubles,

i got me a vertex2@120gig for 180€ and it flys it doez.

No texture popping anymor,great fps.

Besides that the boost for the complete system is just great.

Takes my system 4.8sec to boot, means from startup button at tower to login window.

Btw. my I7 is not overclocked, as there is no need for it but to show it in any forums sig.Or have u ever notice your cpu reaching its limit until now?

Yes your hdd is the bottleneck in that case.

I OC'd mine because the stock was 2.9Ghz and I believe it's made a difference.

I guess the only thing holding me back from getting a SSD is moving my OS onto it.

I really don't want to re-install and I don't think cloning will align the drives right, or have I got it all wrong?

Edited to add: I also have an Asus P6T Deleuxe MB. I read conflicting info on the sandforce SSd's compatibility and performance on this board. anyone got any experience with it?

Edited January 14, 2011 by Sarp

[Nephris1 10]

Got the same Mainboard, everything is fine.

Can u give me the source ,that reported the conflicts plz.

I guess the only thing holding me back from getting a SSD is moving my OS onto it

Ya kidding are ya?

Since Win7 the installation process is peanuts.

A renewal of an OS causes sometimes wonders?

Another option is to just image it, e.g. with Acronis.

The drives and the paths can be aligned later also with Acronis if sth shouldnt fit.

Just create an image.

Take of your old HDD.

Put SDD on Sata1

Move the image into it.

Put your old HDD on Sata2.

The system will boot from Sata1 and your old HD can actually be deletet,formated or whatever.

[recon 7185 10]

So is the consensus that my hard drive is causing my low fps? Those with regular hard drives what do you average in a mission like #8? I am starting to think that I at least need a hdd with 64mb cache because I can't afford a ssd. Also when I get 33 fps it is in the middle of town fighting with ai, not just running around in multiplayer

[Sarp 0]

Got the same Mainboard, everything is fine.

Can u give me the source ,that reported the conflicts plz.

Ya kidding are ya?

Since Win7 the installation process is peanuts.

A renewal of an OS causes sometimes wonders?

Another option is to just image it, e.g. with Acronis.

The drives and the paths can be aligned later also with Acronis if sth shouldnt fit.

Just create an image.

Take of your old HDD.

Put SDD on Sata1

Move the image into it.

Put your old HDD on Sata2.

The system will boot from Sata1 and your old HD can actually be deletet,formated or whatever.

Ok. Thanks. I PM'd you to save de railing the thread further. :o

[Sevenz 10]

So is the consensus that my hard drive is causing my low fps? Those with regular hard drives what do you average in a mission like #8? I am starting to think that I at least need a hdd with 64mb cache because I can't afford a ssd. Also when I get 33 fps it is in the middle of town fighting with ai, not just running around in multiplayer

Something you forgot to talk about which is important is the viewdistance.

[recon 7185 10]

2500 I believe. I just left it where it was set by default

Edited January 14, 2011 by recon 7185

[Sevenz 10]

Yeah so i'm not sure people are doing much better than you.

Only a benchmark with the same settings than you could tell.

[kremator 1065]

I'm overclocking a 2.67GHz i7 up to 3.90GHz, air cooled. I am also overclocking my 4870 by around 20%. Can't beat ASUS mobos

I get 60 FPS (vysnc locked) on zargabad and it's great.

[recon 7185 10]

What settings do you use and what kind of hard drive do you use? If you are getting 60 inside the city I am curious how you have things set up, and is that in single player missions or multiplayer?

[KrIxXuS 10]

Hi

W7 64, 4870x2(2gb card), i7920 @3.6, HT ON, i have very minor issues at the moment and frame rates vary. Chernarus is still up and down like a yo yo but runs great with latest patches and beta(77159) zargabad runs ok but in my opinion i find it to be the most jittery of all the maps i have played where i get anything from 30 to 75fps (fraps) dependant on where i am on the map and im guessing online the frames will drop further which is why i avoid it like the plague, pity really as it's a great map for pvp and cqb.

My arma 2 is running off standard mechanical drive and operating system on small ssd which works great for me after a lot of messing around! In game settings.... hdr normal, view distance 2400, aa low, pp off, aniso off, 1920x1080, 100%,very high all others... .....not perfect but the game looks great...i play a lot of pvp on valhalla server and cant complain with performance at all, appears to be getting better with each new patch lately. E08 Benchmark gets me 50 fps(although its hardly the best benchmark mission there must be better?). Takistan is a great map for me and im testing this regularly just using frap's am generally always above 50 fps sometimes a lot more but nothing too consistent i do notice sudden/drastic drops in frames very rarely in certain location's particularly in feruz-abad... vsync is disabled(should give you more fps at a cost of some extremely minor screen tearing) and my catalyst control centre is currently all set to default.

Recon sound's like your system is fine although i would personally want to mess around a little it might just be the drivers for the gfx card's(im not saying it is but ive had amazing results switching to older driver ..ATI)The SSD Option is a good choice if you have the fund's. Im also a defrag-a-holic, cleaning my pc once a week, turning off unecessary stuff that i see i dont need on in task manager...hell i even unplug all unwanted usb peripherals when im playing online but thats just me being a dick as it probably make's hardly any noticable difference :P.

All the best anyway ;-)

Edited January 15, 2011 by W0lle
Please refrain from writing in all bold or capital letters

[recon 7185 10]

Krixxus, thanks for he detailed reply. I only hit low framerates at the begining of the mission 8 (zargabad) when the air support is rolling through. My frames go to 32 frames to 80 something after i get into the middle of the mission, also depending where i am at. I also defrag like crazy, but I just got a WD 1tb caviar black that always comes back as 1% fragmented after installing arma. I am not sure if it is arma, because it was the first game i installed and still have more to go. But the 1% bugs me, but it may not be a big deal. I did E08 and got 81 fps, and that is will 1920x1080, viewdistance at 2400, HDR on High, Post processing on High, video memory at default, and all other settings (including AA and anistropic filtering) on very high.

Edited January 15, 2011 by recon 7185

[EDcase 87]

I have a normal HD for OS (Win7-64) and a small 30Gb ssd (Vertex2) for ARMA.

Cheapest option and works great.

The GPU will be working hard when there are few AI and graphics settings can be set quite high with good fps.

As more AI units are introduced the CPU becomes more loaded untill it becomes the bottleneck. You know the CPU is fully loaded when lowering gfx settings does not increase fps much.

So test Zagrabad empty to see optimal fps.

Anything lower will be due to cpu load.

Edited January 15, 2011 by EDcase

[ziiip 1]

Maybe having AA on max is the reason.

[maturin 12]

I don't understand Zargabad. It's barely playable unless I'm in a vehicle were smoothness is less important.

Yet I can run 4 square kilometers of Fallujah with excellent (all things being relative) framerates. Honestly I think that map runs better than Desert, lol.

[recon 7185 10]

So are those getting good framerates have solid state drives and the texture loading off the hard drive for things you can't see (like loading entire buildings in and out) the issue?

[dale0404 5]

An I5 750 does the job perfectly...