184 cpu test with arma2

[Pinocul75 0]

A french test with arma2 1.03 with all details

http://www.hardware.fr/articles/778-11/arma-2.html

Edited May 23, 2011 by Pinocul75

[sickboy 13]

1.03? that's a little old.

[Pinocul75 0]

Normally, he continues with its test on the same platform for several months, they would be wrong if he changed the arma version with the new processors,

otherwise, he should redo all the tests each time

lol

sry for my bad english

[sickboy 13]

That may be, yet personally I wouldn't be interested in results from such an old patch.

BIS has done quite some tweaking over time.

Though perhaps as an indication it's not too bad.

[JojoTheSlayer 35]

That may be, yet personally I wouldn't be interested in results from such an old patch.

BIS has done quite some tweaking over time.

Though perhaps as an indication it's not too bad.

Yeah, but 1.59 fecked up something so its a two step forward, one step back process. Anyway, I think its more about viewing the processors effect than the game. If one processor gets 20 more fps over another on A2 v1.03 you can sort of tell it wont do worse in 1.6.

[Atkins 10]

I find that list quite useful actually. Makes it easier to decide should one upgrade cpu from e.g. E6750 to 2500k or PII 1100T. Price is about the same but the other one gives about 33% better results.

[sw1 10]

Lol I posted the same image here (under CPU) in the A2OA performance section.

I also used excel to put together a GPU benchmark chart for A2OA using benchmarks I found online.

[viper[cww] 14]

Yeah, but 1.59 fecked up something so its a two step forward, one step back process. Anyway, I think its more about viewing the processors effect than the game. If one processor gets 20 more fps over another on A2 v1.03 you can sort of tell it wont do worse in 1.6.

1.59? you do mean 1.09 right.... :p

two step forward, one step back process.

So we are going one step forward that's good right ;)

[MissionCreep 12]

That may be, yet personally I wouldn't be interested in results from such an old patch.

BIS has done quite some tweaking over time.

Though perhaps as an indication it's not too bad.

As someone else said ... I'm still at 1.57 because 1.58 and 1.59 both regressed performance on my system (see specs below). Choosing one version, 1.03 and staying with it for many months/years as you test hundreds of CPUs is the only viable way to do this.