ArmA-Mark

[shuko 59]

E6600 @ 3GHz

7900GT/GTO

2GB @ 830MHz

Normal settings

38

41

39

23

33

score 3486

4564 on Low settings and 2693 on High

[R3MF 0]

hmm looks like the overclock doesn't make much difference.

almost the same specs, almost the same result./

[Teliko 0]

Geforce 7600GT

2GB ram

2.21ghz amd athlon

1946 Total result

Wtf?

[StormFront 0]

Hey guys - just saw this thread and had to join up to the forum . I've downloaded and run the demo and I am very confused.

On High detail setting (Patched to 1.05) I am getting 1802. The reason I am concerned is because this is my system:

AMD 4600+ Dual Core

2 Gig RAM

400 Gig SATA II Raid 0 Array

2 x 7800 GTX in SLI

(on an NForce mobo, onboard sound, yadda)

I know this system is no longer cutting edge, but it is hardly slacking either. I am seeing people with single Geforce 6 cards and a 32 bit single core CPU getting more than me!

What gives? (Oh and to hopefully stem some of the usual, legitimate questions, my profession is as a PC technician building custom gaming rigs: every driver and setting absolutely fine, trust me! )

[Seitan 8]

Why people don't put here what resolution they are using in ArmA-mark?

Surely it's different if you run high-1024x768 or high-1280x1024...

Or is there a standard? sorry if i have missed that...

[StormFront 0]

Very good point mate.

I am useing 1280 x 1024 - If the other benchmarks are in 1024 x 768 that may explain.

For reference I ran the game again at Normal detail and got litle more: 2633.

Definetly something amiss here - Anyone got any ideas?

[bravo 6 0]

I made 3 tests on Normal (BIS default)

Test01

Test02

Test 03

My computer is:

Intel P4 3.0Ghz

1G + 512mb (ddr400)

ATI Radeon X1950 PRO 512MB ddr3

RESULTS ARE TERRIBLE!

[PRiME 1]

Got:

1961 Arma Mark with 1280x1024

Settings set to High (left default),. and 1691 Marks at 1920x1200

System info:

Dell M1710 Notebook:

Windows XP Sp2 new install with 86.14 forceware drivers

7950 GTX GO (575/600)

2gb 667mhz ram

2.33ghz Duo 2 CPU

120GB 7200RPM HDD

Yeah thats about it.. I would overclock things but I just don't know howto on this notebook, many settings are locked and reset on defaults and I don't have the time to research on how to bring her upto spec.

Anyway be interesting to see what other people get with similar setup.

[Dwarden 1125]

ArmAmark needs to use looped testing

(aka for each test 1st loop ignored then 3 loops counted

and average then used for result)

till that it's just number and close to useless ...

[mr burns 131]

If you know how to implement this feature feel free to do so. My editing knowledge already ended when i pasted the OFP Mission onto Sara

[deanosbeano 0]

Quote[/b] ]ArmAmark needs to use looped testing

(aka for each test 1st loop ignored then 3 loops counted

and average then used for result)

well that would render it even more useless than the original

whats point of gaining a result that isnt possible in real usage ?

A benchmark is a set of predefined params that are the same for every person that uses that benchmark apart from one

the pc you are testing it on all others are (or should be standard)

in this case

Game : ArmA

Settings : Normal

patch :1.05

you can factor 1 million other cheats/parameters ,call them what you like

but all the results should show the same difference betweeen pc`s

with one exception, people piss higher up the wall with lower end pcs than before and people with higher end pc`s piss over the wall

[Dwarden 1125]

i ment the 2nd cycle run as countable just beacuse how ArmA load textures and objects etc ...

if You do ultra fast position change from place A to place B (20km away) then it will always go weird compared to normal smooth movement where it should be smooth ...

of course to keep that in, You can add 5th test of with warp from position A to distance B effect

looped and avg it to get most accurate result (single pass is tricky)

[deanosbeano 0]

i see what your syaing dwarden . you are correct

but i am looking at it slightly diff

well when you run arma mp or sp , you can load mission and

restart , this is your second test you speak of

another way is using @preload

you can but should not set this as a standard for seeing how arma wil run on your pc or use this as a benchmark , because this will relay bad info to people who havent got arma and are wondering

a will my pc run arma

b what pc do i need to build to run arma

becuase they will look at data and build/buy a pc

lets say they choose for there budget something from middle of road ,

they load arma and whoa!! where are all the textures ? ah here they come .

wait let me see i have to first load the mission and then restart .or use @preload in my mission and wait a minute.

so we are both correct i think ?

[general 0]

I get like 22,20,20,19,20

so it's almost the same. The problem is that the test is running when I load textures so I think that lowers it all. I got quite a good system tough. AMD 4200+ 64 2x, GeForce 7950 GTX, 1 GB of ram, X-fi soundcard. I think the memory might be the bottleneck cuz it might result in the poor loading time of the textures.

[Warpy 0]

Compared to this... Very little difference with appearance, but better performance

Specs:

Intel E6600 (Over-clocked to 3.2ghz)

2GB DDR2 800

Giga DS3P

ATI x1950 512MB

Windows XP SP2

Catalyst 7.3 drivers

[-CS-SOBR-1st-I-R- 0]

What shall I say... can I quote myself ?

Quote[/b] ]Here we go ...

AMD Athlon XP2000+ (1667 Mhz) - 2x 512 MB Corsair RAM - A7N8X-E Deluxe - 3D Club Radeon 9600Pro 128MB - 2x80GB SATA-II RAID0

1st run: 964.478 ArmA Marks

2nd run: 1185.66 ArmA Marks.

3rd run: 1301.72 ArmA Marks.

Everything on low! I had severe texture calculation problems in the test, only at the end the textures showed up clearly.

Resolution was 1024x768. The game is unplaybale for me, it is uninstalled and now finds itself in the trash.

[rowdied 44]

Sweet, [CS]SOBR[1st-I-R] Can I have your copy if your not going to use it? I'll take your copy of GRAW, Vegas and any other game that came out in the last year, cause I know you can't play them on your 3 yr old machine either.

Anyways... here are my scores after a few passess

1. 59

2. 33

3. 65

4. 27

5. 24

4215 as a score

my system is

amd fx 60 @ 2.6

8800gts 320g ram

2 gig 3200 mushkin ram

8n sli deluxe

160 g 700 sata2

[Toaster76 0]

What the heck! I'm not very computer smart but my tests aren't looking too hot...i'll have to start digging to figure it out i guess, as it's not worth playing on these settings at the moment.

AMD 64 X2 4800+

Win XP Pro

Asus A8R-MVP mobo

2 gigs of something ram

1x ATI Radeon X1800XT w/512 ram Video Card

Bluegears b-Enspirer 7.1 Audio Card

200gb SATAII WD hard drive

(Recently reformatted and have 3 games on the entire machine, nothing else)

I ran the test on less than "Normal" settings and still came up with a 2000ish score. I'll have to re-read threads and try different settings, i can't believe my computer would perform this poorly.

[Maddmatt 1]

SOBR[1st-I-R] @ April 09 2007,13:40)]What shall I say... can I quote myself ?

Quote[/b] ]Here we go ...

AMD Athlon XP2000+ (1667 Mhz) - 2x 512 MB Corsair RAM - A7N8X-E Deluxe - 3D Club Radeon 9600Pro 128MB - 2x80GB SATA-II RAID0

1st run: 964.478 ArmA Marks

2nd run: 1185.66 ArmA Marks.

3rd run: 1301.72 ArmA Marks.

Everything on low! I had severe texture calculation problems in the test, only at the end the textures showed up clearly.

Resolution was 1024x768. The game is unplaybale for me, it is uninstalled and now finds itself in the trash.

So the only reason all your posts are saying how "shit" ArmA is, is because your PC isn't capable of running it properly? The problem is clearly not with the game

On that video card you should have textures on 'very low' to have any playability, you may have had them too high. Also, you are suppose to run the test more than once so it can load the textures and models.

Edit: And 1024x768 is pushing it for that system. 800x600 maybe, but not any higher.

[mattxr 9]

Whats better i higher mark or lower and what does it mean someone explain to me please

[mattxr 9]

well i just ran all this again and since patch 1.05 ive got a much crappyer [smaller] benchmark than 1.01

[Stugwi 0]

Thought i would post my results.

Medium ArmedA settings with view D@1200 = 3638

Medium ArmedA settings with view D@1200 Overclock GPU = 4010

I think i am happy, ingame runs smooth anyhow

CPU: e6400 @ 3Ghz

CPU Cooler: Zalman CNPS9500-LED

Memory: 1 x Corsair® 2024MB TwinX XMS2 6400 DDR2

Motherboard: GA-965P-DS4

Graphics: 7900 GS XFX

[Mave 0]

Can you make ArmA Mark 2.0 without any moving vehicles? Then the AI cannot affect the results...

Should have city-views, forrests, flying around...

Only flying camera, maybe static objects...

[Universel 0]

And similarly an Arma Mark with lots of AIs may be useful too.

To see the CPU performance of ur rig.

[1212PDMCDMPPM 200]

The Arma Mark web site is no more ?

1.