ArmA-Mark

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

I LOSE

483.519 first run

471.125 second run

*edit* another run to save screeny to prove I'm not BS

Dell Dimension 8200

2.0 ghz

768 RambusRam

Asus GeForce 5900 128mb (dam motherboard only has 4x AGP)

I don't plan on running this computer for much longer.

[binkster 0]

Here is my results. I overclocked my e6600 to 3.2ghz and 800mhz memory 2g raised my 8800gtx clock to 650mhz and lowered gpu memory a little to make it stable.

I just did one test but a few more tweaks and i should be up in 8k

edit: My cpu ran around 54C and gpu around 60C but that gpu runs hot so 54c isnt too bad so maybe ill go for 4ghz

[jaguax 0]

- Results - (rounded to nearest whole number)

Test One: 58

Test Two: 28

Test Three: 54

Test Four: 23

Test Five: 21

OPF Mark: 3676.38

If only this game took advantage of dual core CPU's... It's a shame that one core goes to complete waste when it can easily add a ton of potential to this game.

Specs:

Asus A8N32-SLI

Athlon X2 4400+

2GB OCZ Platinum RAM

Dual (SLI) eVGA 7800 GT's (factory overclocked to near GTX)

Dual 150GB 10,000 RPM, 16MB Cache Raptors

Creative X-Fi

[mr burns 131]

nice one burns old chap

heres a quick change ,it shows something on every test , first test might be a little hogger , lemme know if ya want it to be more scaled , from easy to hard .

arma mark

Awesome mate, you did it

Some scaling might be good since now with all tests running properly i´m having some texture drop down issues on 1 or 2 tests each run.

But this is great nonetheless. A german guy already built a nice page for collecting results alike the 3dMark stuff you might know.

We´ll hopefully be ironing out some issues with selectable hardware options and making it english compatible and then we´re gonna have something special.

Bragging for all

I´ll report back here once there´s some significant news.

[WhoCares 0]

...

Well, it depends on angle of view.

The better graphics card you have, the more powerful processor you need to feed it with the data.

For example even fastest todays pc processors have problem to 100% feed latest dx10 cards , so the processor power can really affect game performance, if you have good gfx card.

Probably it would help that everyone does the test on 'Very High' to assure maximum load on GFX as well.

[S.O.S 0]

2970

amd x2 4200+

ati x850xt

[mr burns 131]

Probably it would help that everyone does the test on 'Very High' to assure maximum load on GFX as well.

imho that would´nt help at all, only making it worse because of a more possible texture drop downs or even fully untextured models occuring.

My best bet would be doing it on very low settings instead, but the page i was talking about already has a quality preference selection so theres something for every taste.

[WhoCares 0]

Probably it would help that everyone does the test on 'Very High' to assure maximum load on GFX as well.

imho that would´nt help at all, only making it worse because of a more possible texture drop downs or even fully untextured models occuring.

My best bet would be doing it on very low settings instead, but the page i was talking about already has a quality preference selection so theres something for every taste.

That's exactly what happens to me already anyway - esp. in the airport scene I get some horrible graphics.

But at very low most systems (.e.g. all GF7xxx above) would be even more CPU limited.

[jerryhopper 285]

-Ziggy- @ Dec. 05 2006,02:06)]483.519  first run

471.125 second run    

*edit*   another run to save screeny to prove I'm not BS

Dell Dimension 8200

2.0 ghz

768 RambusRam

Asus GeForce 5900 128mb (dam motherboard only has 4x AGP)

hey dirtydeeds!

my test came out very low too, only my machine has a high load due to my radio streaming.

my best guess is to upgrade your VIDEO card and add some RAM.

My system DOES have a higher clockspeed, and more videomemory, but i run a 266mhz busspeed. ( i recon yours is 800? )

Sidenote : i AM able to play online with this mark, hell its even better than Bf2 or Bf2142

[Gamer_#DK# 1]

Here is my bench...

FX-57

2 x 7800 GTX 512mb cards (Although it is not running in SLI8x)

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Right on all accounts Jerry, cept I can't upgrade this. Time for a new computer.

[Gamer_#DK# 1]

Here is the same system as used to run the test above but this time running on Windows Vista. As you can see the score is considerably lower. I put that down to the nVidia Vista drivers as they are still being developed.

[Hostilian 11]

3248

(Athlon 4200x2 skt939, 2Gb DDR333, X1950 Pro 256Mb)

#C

[Fripounet 0]

AMD Athlon 64 3000+

GeForce 6600GT 128 MB

RAM 1 GB

First time:

- Test one: 33.1

- Test two: 16.2

- Test three: 37.5

- Test four: 12.13

- Test five: 13.0

- OFPMark: 2236

Second time:

- Test one: 35.2

- Test two: 18.5

- Test three: 38.0

- Test four: 17.4

- Test five: 15.3

- OFPMark: 2487

[shadowze 1]

System Specs:

E6600 2.4G running at 3.2G

Asus P5W DH mobo

2G DDR2 800Mhz Ram

8800GTX 768Mb

X-FI sound card

Still runs like a dog :-( , which Iam unhappy about

[benus 0]

AMD Athlon XP 3000+ (@2300 MHz)

2 GB Ram (200 MHz like CPU)

Geforce 7800 GS (AGP) Overclocked 510/720 MHz

X-Fi Xtreme Music

2542,24

Seems as if the CPU is (for normal settings) the most important thing.

But a big problem is still that ArmA sometimes won't load the right LODs and Textures. Have that in the test where the camera runs over the airfield e.g. when it stops and turns then all the tex will be loaded.

Well well I will maybe get a new computer in 1-2 or 3 years then ArmA will run like hell but first the Nintendo Wii will be bought.

[kronzky 5]

If you're dissatisfied with your performance you might want to consider creating a "clean" Windows partition. No unneeded drivers, applications, services. Just a bare bones installation.

I have a decent system, but a crappy video card, and I was able to improve my benchmark score from around 1,000 to 1,800.

The former is pretty much unplayable, the latter is ok if you chose an appropriate playing style (obviously no running-and-gunning).

Both partitions are on the same 300GB 7200rpm drive, and are running XP Pro SP2.

And yes, a new video card is on its way...

System Specs:

AMD X2 3800+

2GB RAM

ATI Radeon 9600

Clean Windows Partition

(only installed what's absolutely necessary for ArmA)

'Dirty' Windows Partition

(Dozens of applications and utilities installed; anti-virus software, firewall, etc.; three 1600x1200 screens - the works...)

[DaSquade 0]

@shadowze: Somehow your score picture isn't loading (for me only?). Can you fix it if broken or post the results manually please, as i'm about to order something very simular one of these days.

Kind regards.

[deanosbeano 0]

shads pic on image shack, maybe you not allowing ftp on ya browser dasqaud.(it was hosted on one)

[mr burns 131]

A final release is imminent, also the results database is undergoing some last tests today.

I´ll later be posting links to both the reworked ArmAMark and database here.

Thx again deano

[KeyCat 131]

Great work Burns and deano! Will be a great tool to use when comparing system and deciding what to upgrade to...

Looking forward to check out the results database!

/KC

[HeinBloed 0]

Athlon 64 3700+

2GB RAM

GeForce 7800 GT 256MB

Windows 2000 Sp 4

Test One - 55

Test Two - 20

Test Three - 51

Test Four - 21

Test Five - 20

OFPMark is 3354

[twoodster 0]

2272 - and that's after I spent 330quid on an 8800GTS!!

Athlon 64 3500

2gig Crucial DDR400 ram

[WhoCares 0]

That's worse than my machine with the same processor but 1GB RAM and a GF6600GT (~2700, see page 2).

Sure you ran it on default 1024x768 'Normal' setting (above the view distance slider)?

I also did a run on 'Very High' and 1280x1024 (~1300, same post on page 2) - looks more like you ran it on something like this or even higher...

Otherwise you should have a closer look on your system, drivers, spy- & malware,... - that's certainly not a normal result.

[twoodster 0]

I know - it's a little worrying! But yeah, I definately set it to Normal which automatically reset the resolution to 1024x768 etc The textures seemed very slow loading up in that test though. For example that sweep across the runway - the textures hadn't fully loaded until the camera stopped moving.