ArmA3Mark - Benchmark your ArmA 3

[Pyrophosphate 1]

Ahhh Internet forums. Where we all get told what we need.

Drives me nuts. I mean who wants an open benchmark to see which settings make the most individual difference for ones own playing experience and to maximize ones own fps. No no. We need something totally locked so its only a competition between rigs. Ie how much one is willing to spend vs other interests.

If that's such a great idea than post a set of presets you choose and people can use that if they like and post the results from the "presets" My god. Instead people just complain that its flexible and doesn't mean they can feel like a man based on a benchmark? Done my rant....

Interestingly mine showed no difference between high and very high but tanked on ultra

Edit- and by the way.... THANKS FOR MAKING THIS TEST!!!!

Having standardized settings for use in this thread and for comparing rigs in no way diminishes someone's ability to use the benchmark to fine-tune their own settings.

[cosmic10r 2331]

Having standardized settings for use in this thread and for comparing rigs in no way diminishes someone's ability to use the benchmark to fine-tune their own settings.

Because its a flexible tool and not standardized. Come up with that standard and post it and keep the tool flexible. Kinda like how the game is created.....

Seriously, If anyone had said (" hey everyone. These are my "insert name here" presets. Try mine and post em here!!!"). We wouldn't be having this discussion...

-as a hilarious further edit. The game does have presets. Low standard etc. set the game to that setting and post all those scores with your relevant .cfg settings. There you go....

Edited March 27, 2013 by CosmiC10R

[gammadust 12]

Welcome to the forums Cosmic ;)

[ssg 1]

What score is considered good performance? I got around 4000. I see that some got worse and some have better. What is considered good enough score to play this game?

[josueps 2]

...not bad for an old PC of more than four years old. For me things are going pretty well at the moment...

[cosmic10r 2331]

Welcome to the forums Cosmic ;)

I've been around for awhile but thanks ;). Wasn't trying to single anyone out. I have been around since the original ghost recon mod days and I LOVE this game. I never want anything about this game to be standardized. That's our job as end users if we want. Keep it flexible .... ;) ',,,,,

[St. Jimmy 272]

Results and settings

My system:

i7 2600K

500GB Western Digital Caviar 16MB 3.5" SATA 6Gb/s

2x4GB G.Skill RipjawsX DDR3-1600 DIMM CL9

Asus Radeon 4870 1GB

No OC because my GPU is bottleneck now. I'll get better in this summer to match my i7 :P

[Sevenz 10]

the view distance is preset by the benchmark. Defined Settings are of course more useful than customs.

Changing the viewdistance still have an impact on the result.

anyway here my results

I've just used preset overall quality for simple comparaison with a resolution at 1920x1080 v-sync off

cpu : 2600k @ 4.5 ghz ht off

graphic card : gtx 580

memory : 12 gb @ 1600 mhz

arma 3 on SSD

preset ultra:OFPMark 3190.37 preset high:OFPMark 5088.39 preset low:OFPMark 8519.47

[Pyrophosphate 1]

I've been around for awhile but thanks ;). Wasn't trying to single anyone out. I have been around since the original ghost recon mod days and I LOVE this game. I never want anything about this game to be standardized. That's our job as end users if we want. Keep it flexible .... ;) ',,,,,

I'm not sure you understood my post, we're on the same side here. I don't think anyone is calling for something other than an informal "run x benchmark on y settings", just for comparison. Nobody is trying to make the benchmark force settings on the user or anything like that. Just an informal standard, for this thread and others where people are talking about relative performance between systems.

That said, with the low settings preset, I got ~8200. On ultra, I get ~2900.

i7 2600k at 4.5ghz (hyper-threading on)

8gb 1600mhz RAM

Radeon HD 7870 2gb at 1050/1200

Installed on Crucial M4 128gb SSD

[froggyluv 2135]

Well, why not set some 'Standards' for the settings :)

View Distance (possibly not effected but why risk it): 2000

Object: 1000

Shadow: 100

Texture Quality: Standard

Object Quality: Standard

Terrain Quality: Standard

Cloud: Standard

Shadow: Standard -maybe we should do High as to better load GPU?

Particles: Standard

Vsync: Off

AA: Disabled

PostProcess: Normal

HDR: Standard

Anisotropic: Standard

PiP: Standard

Dynamic Lights: Standard

Agree/Disagree? Discuss :)

[cosmic10r 2331]

I'm not sure you understood my post, we're on the same side here. I don't think anyone is calling for something other than an informal "run x benchmark on y settings", just for comparison. Nobody is trying to make the benchmark force settings on the user or anything like that. Just an informal standard, for this thread and others where people are talking about relative performance between systems.

That said, with the low settings preset, I got ~8200. On ultra, I get ~2900.

i7 2600k at 4.5ghz (hyper-threading on)

8gb 1600mhz RAM

Radeon HD 7870 2gb at 1050/1200

Installed on Crucial M4 128gb SSD

My fault. Guess I did. :). I dislike benchmarks as "scorecards". I get 1500 on ultra

Amd 8150 3.1

16gb 1333 ram

Gigabyte 7970 oc Ed

All pbos installed on ramdisk via hard shell extension

A CPU intensive game as we all knew. I may have to go intel for the full launch.

[Sevenz 10]

Well, why not set some 'Standards' for the settings :)

Agree/Disagree? Discuss :)

a preset overall quality would make it easier.

[pr0ph3tswe 1]

v0.7 results

Test One - 50.7048

Test Two - 46.5541

Test Three - 34.1543

Test Four - 46.9484

Test Five - 96.2795

OFPMark is 5492.82

visibility overall 2440

object 1150

shadow 100

specs:

i7 2600k @ 4.4ghz

asus p8z68-v/gen3

16gb ram 1600mhz

radeon 7970 @ 1040/1500

crucial m4 64gb with windows 8 pro

corsair force 3 128gb with arma 3

benq xl2420t

Edited March 29, 2013 by pr0ph3tSWE

[sharpy 10]

Test1: 26.0173

Test2: 22.7568

Test3: 17.5462

Test4: 20.1545

Test5: 41.3642

OFPMark: 2556.88

Radeon HD7870 2GB

Ram : 8GB DDR3

Asrock Z68 Extreme Gen4/i5-2500K CPU@3.3GHz

Ingame settings during test - Not quite sure what would be the best settings but the way they are now its playable with 39-40fps (according to fraps):

[helo 10]

On overall score performance of 4000 refers to an avg. FPS of 40.00 . Just FYI.

[HKF0x 10]

-CPU : intel i5 750 @ 4.0hgz

-GPU : AMD Radeon HD6950

-RAM : 2x4gb G.Skill PC12800 CAS9

-SSD : Samsung 840 120GB

-OS : Windows 7 64 bits

-Resolution : 1680x1050

Edited March 28, 2013 by HKF0x

[boneboys 0]

Version 0.6 is up with the amendment that you can paste the results in a document of your choice (ctrl+v) for a more feasible reporting of results.

Version 0.6:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByhZc2l2kSOaSjU3S2RpSUpQU00/edit?usp=sharing

You need to put Vs 0.6 in the first Post, it may confuse some ! (me).

Thanks for this, well done.

[cosmic10r 2331]

After a battery of tests and a few missions of infantry showcase, it seemed to run great with terrain and clouds on standard. Everything else ultra. AA x2 with atoc off and vsync disabled. Models looked great. Ground looked fine but setting it to low removed too much ground clutter. I was pretty pleased with this setting but I am going to have to get a new pc for launch.

[Guest]

New version frontpaged on the Armaholic homepage.

ArmA3Mark [ALPHA] v0.7

Edited March 29, 2013 by Guest
updated mirror to latest

[helo 10]

Version 0.7 has been released:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByhZc2l2kSOaWWIwUUhNOUxNZ28/edit?usp=sharing

-Some locations changed for a more ideal showcase ---> v0.7 is not comparable score wise with previous versions

-Fixed some bugs which were burden the FPS slightly (AH 9 were attacking the OPFOR vehicles from Test 1)

-Optimized soem scene regarding the AI population

[ubascouser 0]

Windows 7 64 bit

MSI H67MA-E45-B3 H67 1155 Socket 8 Channel HD Audio mATX Motherboard

Intel Core i5 2500 3.3GHz Socket 1155 6MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor

Gainward GeForce GTX 580 1536MB GDDR5 Dual DVI HDMI Out PCI-E Graphics Card

G-Skill 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 1600Mhz RipjawsX Memory Kit CL9 (9-9-9-24) 1.5V

WD 150GB and 300GB 3.5" SATA-II Velociraptor Hard Drive - 10000rpm 16MB Cache - OEMPowercool

650W Modular PSU

Thermaltake level 10 gt

0.7

scored

test one 38.3567

test two 39.0482

test three 31.1166

test four 43.9883

test five 82.9054

ofp mark 4708.3

heres a link to ingame setting as i dont no how to upload pictures

http://www.flickr.com/photos/94398048@N06/8601442476/in/photostream

---------- Post added at 21:23 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

Results and settings

My system:

i7 2600K

500GB Western Digital Caviar 16MB 3.5" SATA 6Gb/s

2x4GB G.Skill RipjawsX DDR3-1600 DIMM CL9

Asus Radeon 4870 1GB

No OC because my GPU is bottleneck now. I'll get better in this summer to match my i7 :P

Shadows to high or very high your fps will improve

[aviatormoser 6]

So what's the standard preset?

1280x720 (like futuremark's performance test) at Very High settings?

If that's the case:

TEST1: 50.9472
TEST2: 38.5839
TEST3: 31.5942
TEST4: 38.7097
TEST5: 58.8887
OFPMark 4334.03

CPU:I5-3570K @4.5 GHz (1.296 V)

GPU: EVGA GTX 660 SC 2GB

RAM: 8 GB Corsair 1600 MHz Timing 8-8-8-24

Edited March 30, 2013 by AviatorMoser

[tremanarch 6]

guys if we cant have the same settings all those nice examples wont help with painting the big picture.

just use standard overall and a 1080p Resolution.

v.07 - standard overall

5311

5507 (with sweetFX)

2500@4.5 - 560ti

standard because higher settings arent the same on all pc's due to VRAM limitations etc... (when I click Ultra setting overall texture is still high at my pc not very and not ultra etc, so the results are trash)

just click overall -> standard.

Edited March 31, 2013 by tremanarch

[frag85 10]

v0.7

Standard preset (PP-Disabled)

3840x1024 (nvidia surround, 3x1280x1024, 3.93 MPixels)

3570k@4.2ghz

SLI GTX275

Test 1: 47.25

Test 2: 47.94

Test 3: 40.64

Test 4: 40.82

Test 5: 77.52

Score: 5083

--------------

A3 Alpha .54 April 15 update

Test 1: 48.87

Test 2: 50.03

Test 3: 43.52

Test 4: 40.46

Test 5: 78.78

Score: 5234

I do not have a 1920x1080 display, so I tried to get as close as possible to 2.07 MPixels

Standard Preset (PP Disabled)

1280x1024

Rendering Res: 125% 1600x1280 (2.05MPixels, 1920x1080=2.07MPixels)

Test 1: 81.68

Test 2: 64.81

Test 3: 47.86

Test 4: 48.88

Test 5: 88.32

Score: 8040

At this res the game appears to be CPU bound.

Edited April 16, 2013 by frag85

[roykingtree 1]

AMD Phenom II x4 965 Processor

8GB Gskill

AMD Radeon HD 6850 1GB

Arma3 cfg settings:

displayMode=2;

winX=16;

winY=32;

winWidth=1024;

winHeight=768;

winDefWidth=1024;

winDefHeight=768;

fullScreenWidth=1920;

fullScreenHeight=1200;

refresh=60;

renderWidth=1920;

renderHeight=1200;

multiSampleCount=2;

multiSampleQuality=0;

postFX=3;

particlesQuality=1;

GPU_MaxFramesAhead=1000;

GPU_DetectedFramesAhead=0;

HDRPrecision=16;

vsync=0;

AToC=15;

cloudsQuality=3;

pipQuality=2;

dynamicLightsQuality=1;

PPAA=0;

serverLongitude=52;

serverLatitude=0;

Results:

Test1: 23.1968

Test2: 25.2612

Test3: 17.232

Test4: 28.6465

Test5: 48.8812

OFPMark: 2864.35