ArmA-Mark

[easty 0]

Well I installed my WD 74MB Raptor. It's one of the faster drivers out there. I was going to wait for Vista, but I'll stick it raid 0 with a

sibling for that.

My scores still didn't change. Loading did. It now gets to initial menu screen 11 seconds faster.. When I find what's holding my ARMAmark bag this things gonna fly.

[stisoas 0]

Well I installed my WD 74MB Raptor. It's one of the faster drivers out there. I was going to wait for Vista, but I'll stick it raid 0 with a

sibling for that.

My scores still didn't change. Loading did. It now gets to initial menu screen 11 seconds faster.. When I find what's holding my ARMAmark bag this things gonna fly.

raid0 will not bring you any performance gain , in any way ...

it could even enlarge the performance drop due to HDD access.

(HDD rate isnt the pb when you see clipping , and texture loading. it's CPU treatment.)

the only upgrade to do for arma is , CPU and/or GPU.

a monster core2Duo , and a 7900GTX sli and you might be able to play with far VD , "very high object" and "shadow high" . the 3 most important settings of this game.

[Lolsav 0]

Specs: Amd 3500 default, 1 Gig Ram @ 400Mhz, GFX = 7800GT, 1 Sata Disk @ 7200 rpm, Asus A8N Sli Deluxe Mobo

[Potatomasher 0]

Thanks PM, I'll run the exact same as you and post my result. it's strange. I'd put it down to my XP or ARMA install, but the game runs faultless.

Edit ..

Here we go, Ran at same settings as above.

http://images20.fotki.com/v380....-vi.jpg

love to get this score up then in game may run even better...

You have the ultimate GFX card and score 1673.

Guess you have to wait proper drivers for your monster card. Then you might triple that score or better.

[easty 0]

Thanks PM, I'll run the exact same as you and post my result. it's strange. I'd put it down to my XP or ARMA install, but the game runs faultless.

Edit ..

Here we go, Ran at same settings as above.

http://images20.fotki.com/v380....-vi.jpg

love to get this score up then in game may run even better...

You have the ultimate GFX card and score 1673.  

Guess you have to wait proper drivers for your monster card. Then you might triple that score or better.

Well, This was my point about the test. I can run everything full in game at 12x10 res, alas I get crappy results in the Bench. SO If I can up my bench i'm figuring the game will run amazing.

Can you upload the modified mark lolsav with the prepare option. Be interested to try it. Or mail it to me and I can host it.

[Zorbtek 0]

ArmA Mark was 779.701

Pentium 4 1.60 GHz, 512 MB of RAM

Settings on 'normal' with AA and Shadows disabled, also overclocked + System Booster.

[Guest]

Why not simply use an FPS counter?

[X-Rolando 0]

Is it just me or do the insanely fast spinning around motions not reflect what one does ingame... And doesn't it cause insane amounts of caching that puts an unusually heavy loads on the bus and memory?

[Dwarden 1124]

Is it just me or do the insanely fast spinning around motions not reflect what one does ingame... And doesn't it cause insane amounts of caching that puts an unusually heavy loads on the bus and memory?

well each test should be run in "insert number" loops

where first loop is ignored (due to texture/obj load and cache etc)

[Maximus_G 0]

ArmaMark is cool, thanks Mr Burns!

Got 2115 points on my good old A64-754@2.3GHz + R850XT running "Normal".

Though i couldn't fill in the form the right value of my CPU frequency.

[Pedroshin 0]

Athlon 64 3500+ @ 2.4Ghz, Geil 1GB PC3200 DDR and Leadtek GF 6800GT.

Results - Normal settings

WTF? Here Athlon X2 4400+, Kingston 2GB PC3200 DDR and 2xClub3D 7800GT. AMD Dual Core Optimizer and Windows Dual Core Fix both installed.

Results - Normal settings

There's something unbelievably wrong with my system. What drivers were you using and which version of ArmA? I'm at 92.91 Nvidia drivers + 1.04.5121 ArmA.

BTW I get lower ArmA mark than you with ALL AT VERY LOW. I've run both at 1280x1024. Dunno if it makes any difference.

What the hell is wrong here!!

[R3MF 0]

what quality settings are people using?

http://paladin.madtrax.cc/armamark/generator.php?doc=index〈=en

[ziiip 1]

WoW, that is some haxor thingy, it might be edited, because I only get 1600 marks with my 7600 GT!

[deanosbeano 0]

lol you can almost smell the piss stained walls

may the pissing contest continue its a great leveler .

[DaveG 0]

I get the same substandard results too. I get between 1300 and 1700 depending on the quality settings.

I got a pretty good computer too:

AMD 3500+

ATI x1950xtx 512MB

2GB RAM

Whilst it's not the most uber pc around it's certainly no slouch. People with much less capable systems seem to be getting high marks.

[R3MF 0]

what quality settings are people using?

http://paladin.madtrax.cc/armamark/generator.php?doc=index〈=en

see above.

[R3MF 0]

what quality settings are people using?

http://paladin.madtrax.cc/armamark/generator.php?doc=index〈=en

see above.

in the absence to any response to the above, i ran Armamark at the settings I play Arma with, and got:

1) 19.1014

2) 26.9556

3) 28.7388

4) 21.3789

5) 25.5235

Score = 2433.97

C2D 6600

XFX 7950GT

2x 1GB PC6400

Dell 2407WFP

[gL33k 0]

message to all armamark benchmarkzor...

dont forget to disable your vertical sync. it greatly reduce your final score. even if the more important result is the minimum framerate reached ...

[R3MF 0]

what quality settings are people using?

http://paladin.madtrax.cc/armamark/generator.php?doc=index〈=en

this seems rather too important a question to be so blithely ignored by earnest benchmarkers.......

[wamingo 1]

People are using the "Normal" setting to do the benchmarks unless otherwise stated.

[R3MF 0]

People are using the "Normal" setting to do the benchmarks unless otherwise stated.

thank you.

having retested using normal settings i now get:

1) 30.42

2) 42.70

3) 42.64

4) 28.65

5) 28.29

#) 3454.46

C2D 6600

XFX 7950GT

2x 1GB PC6400

Dell 2407WFP

[wamingo 1]

Or maybe I should say "should" be using - think there are few marks out there with custom settings, so compare only over several benchmarks.

[Seirrah 0]

What resolution(s) are these benchmarks done at?

I have a P4 3.2Ghz and a 7800GS and I'm trying to work out what needs to improve to get a decent frame rate when at 1680x1050 (or a lower widescreen resolution).

It's hard to find out whether I need a better CPU or a better graphics card.

I've tried the demo and it just doesn't run very well

[R3MF 0]

1024x768 with "Normal" default settings.

[Maximus_G 0]

This is my comparison for 1.01, 1.02 and 1.05 in Armamark.

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169....MG]

I must say, these figures are somewhat... misleading. Imho, Armamark in its current state is good for some general comparison between different systems. But it does not represent FPS for a typical Arma gameplay - and thus is not fairly suitable for reasonable comparisons of graphics settings and versions.

My vote is for some "Armamark+" having _additional_ scenes, whose purpose is to represent the intense and typical situations for infantry, tank, heli and fixed-wing players.