People with i7's

[Sevenz 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.

i've done that bench with a i7 2600k @ 4.1 ghz and a gtx 580 @ stock and i've got 52 fps with your settings except my resolution at 1900*1200.

You're performance seems normal.

You could try with a single card though just to make sure :D

[lozz08 10]

Can people please stop posting that SSDs improve frames per second. They reduce stuttering, and texture load lag. That is what they do. They will NOT increase fps.

[recon 7185 10]

i've done that bench with a i7 2600k @ 4.1 ghz and a gtx 580 @ stock and i've got 52 fps with your settings except my resolution at 1900*1200.

You're performance seems normal.

You could try with a single card though just to make sure :D

I'm sure it will drop to where you would expect it to, sli is not that great in arma. I got it for other reasons and its just a perk that I can use it in arma. The performance in zargabad is just lower than I thought it would be, although from reading the forums I knew it would be. Just not sure what to blame

[johncage 30]

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.

arma 2/oa is pretty much unplayable below 30 fps for me. this is strange because i used to have a crappy computer that runs this game at 10-20 fps average and it actually felt a bit smoother.

very strange arma 2 or i7 phenomenon. i have no such issue with other games, only arma 2. using vsync mitigates the problem slightly.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I got an i7920 not OC (Seven 64, HT disabled), 6 go ram and an Asus HD5870, and everyting is running smoothly, even Zargabad. My settings are quite cautious though (normal or high, very high for video settings). I defrag very often.

[recon 7185 10]

Other games run great on my comp and my vantage scores for gpu and cpu are right where they are supposed to be (evga forums have a post for vantage scores with a lot og scores listed). Other maps are great for me in arma, but zargabad must not like an ingame setting or something else

[george176 10]

When I tried the benchmark using your settings, (except resolution at 1680x1050) I don't get anywhere near that fps. I only get 27 fps on the benchmark. Here are my specs:

Intel i7 980, 3.6ghz

Ati Radeon 5970, 2gb

12gb ddr3 ram

300gb hd, 10k rpm

Any idea what's wrong?

[recon 7185 10]

The 5970 is technically sli, and arma doesn't get along with it like other games. So think of it using 1.25 cards instead of 2. At least I think that's how the 5970 works.

[george176 10]

I've heard that before, but surely that doesn't explain why I get such a low framerate on the benchmark (E08), especially when other people in here have posted numbers in the 70's or 80's with similar specs.

[recon 7185 10]

I am not sure, maybe someone with ati cards can chime in as I have never owned one. That 980x probably screams though. I just wonder if arma is not recognizing both gpu's.

[Sevenz 10]

When I tried the benchmark using your settings, (except resolution at 1680x1050) I don't get anywhere near that fps. I only get 27 fps on the benchmark. Here are my specs:

Intel i7 980, 3.6ghz

Ati Radeon 5970, 2gb

12gb ddr3 ram

300gb hd, 10k rpm

Any idea what's wrong?

which driver you are using ?

You should try with 10.4.

even with only 1 gpu u should have more than that especially with this resolution.

you tried with viewdistance 2.4 k ?

[george176 10]

I'm using 10.12, but I was using the 10.4 for a long time. I got decent performance in regular Arma 2 with the 10.4, but performance in OA wasn't great, probably because there isn't CF support for OA in the 10.4 drivers.

I tried with the 2.4k viewdistance and I used gpu-z to check whether both gpu's are being used and I'm pretty sure they are. (I ran the game twice, using the different tabs at the bottom to select gpu and then checked the usage in the log. One gpu was between 80 and 100% and the other was around 80%.) I'm really not sure what the problem is but it's obvious that there is one.

[recon 7185 10]

I am not sure, but i would reinstall the game if i were you to see if that helps. I think I am going to get an OCZ Vertex 2 SSD and see if that helps, either way it will finalize my current build and stuff

[Sevenz 10]

I'm using 10.12, but I was using the 10.4 for a long time. I got decent performance in regular Arma 2 with the 10.4, but performance in OA wasn't great, probably because there isn't CF support for OA in the 10.4 drivers.

I tried with the 2.4k viewdistance and I used gpu-z to check whether both gpu's are being used and I'm pretty sure they are. (I ran the game twice, using the different tabs at the bottom to select gpu and then checked the usage in the log. One gpu was between 80 and 100% and the other was around 80%.) I'm really not sure what the problem is but it's obvious that there is one.

Do you have another game/bench to try ?

Just to see if the problem is with arma only.

[george176 10]

I've tested in other games, here are some results:

Metro 2033 benchmark: average 54 fps

3dmark 11: P6737

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/447069

Are those numbers normal?

[recon 7185 10]

I am not sure about 3dmark11, I use vantage. For metro I would go online and compare it to review benchmarks as I do not own that game....yet

[george176 10]

I looked around online and went on overclock.net. The metro2033 benchmark is where it should be and they also said that the 3dmark 11 score is good too. I think that arma is the problem. I've played with the hdr, pp, aa, and viewdistance settings and none of them seem to change the framerate, especially on chernarus, so I'm not sure what's keeping them low.

[Sevenz 10]

did you try with ht off and without addon ?

Also is your catalyst settings by default ?

[recon 7185 10]

Ok so i took some previous advice and actually ran around in zargabad without much ai through a multiplayer map (i could not find a single player) and ranged from 47fps to 80+ in the city. So i take it I am fine? . . . andi think the AI is to blame as well as optimization for the mission i am on (running off of a OCZ vertex SSD now), and not texture loading or things like that (but did improve a little with SSD). TO SEVENZ - I have HT enabled, is it suposed to increase performance? The other two things I am not familiar with sorry, but if you could let me know I would appreciate it. TO GEORGE- if benchmarks are good with the game and 3dmark11 i think you are good. The issue may lie in driver support or the game itself

[Sevenz 10]

I was asking for HT because some people reported performance loss with it enabled in Arma,otherwrise it makes no difference for me but maybe with 6 cores + HT it does.

[recon 7185 10]

I have not tried that yet. How much of a potential performance hit are we talking about with HT on?

[galzohar 31]

I think it depends how many AI you're running. If AI are the bottleneck then you might see some improvement with HT off, otherwise probably not a noticeable difference.

In any case I have i7-920 and HD5850 at stock speeds and get ~30 FPS in Zargabad with all settings on max except post processing off and view distance ~2000. The reason for the low view distance is that with higher view distances you start noticing texture dump/reload effects and get annoying FPS drops that make the game nearly unplayable. The solution for this is of course not a better CPU/GPU, but rather setting up a ramdisk (or getting an SSD, but SSD is both slower and more expensive than getting enough ram for a ramdisk). ATM I have neither, though I might get extra RAM and install windows 7 in the future for setting up a ramdisk.

[Noraf 0]

tested a2:co for the first time yesterday with ht on, and it just utilised 2 of the cores, instead of 4, as it does without ht.

might have been something with my setup, but think that is wierd.

I find it that it runs a bit smoother without ht

[spirit733t 10]

hello, I know this post is really for intel users, but i was wondering if you could tell me if my game FPS is normal for my computer specs.. ok so I have the following

AMD 1075t ( o/c to 3.9 Ghz)

Asus Crosshair iv motherboard

4 GB 1600 Mhz RAM

Normal SATA Spinning harddrive

HD 6870 PCI express graphics

OA settings:

1920 * 1080

view distance 1500

everything to High,

PP: off

Anti aliaing and anist: off

ok so in the OA benchmark: my FPS is at 102 FPS..

but in multiplayer games.. depending on where I am it can go as low as 23.. and on avergae in multiplayer games its at 35 - 50.. ( i normally play in 40 man co op servers)

in single player, in the first mission, at the start intro sequence my FPS can go as low as 20, and when the mission starts, my FPS can go again as low as 23..

is this normal?

I thought i had a bad ass system, but now have doubts..

p.s my 3d mark 06 score is 21,000 points ( from 3d mark 06 demo )

my 3d mark vantage score is 16,500 ( again from the trial version)

thanks any help would be appreciated

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 PM ----------

oh by the way, does this game use 6 CPU cores ? I hope it does...

[recon 7185 10]

tested a2:co for the first time yesterday with ht on, and it just utilised 2 of the cores, instead of 4, as it does without ht.

might have been something with my setup, but think that is wierd.

I find it that it runs a bit smoother without ht

Are you serious? Well if i am only using 2 cores that might be my problem. . .

I got rid of my AMD system due to bad performance in this game, pretty much had it for a week and returned all the parts and built an i7 system. As for your graphics seems fine if thats your fps. The reason mine is at 83 is because I have all the eye candy turned on haha. Drops like that in fps happen due to AI and other things (maybe poor optimization in some levels) it sounds like. I dont tweak my .exe file like others though so that might be an issue for me. My vantage score is 39000

Edited January 21, 2011 by recon 7185