Dual Core users/And others/Resolution in Sight?

[Blue_Flight 0]

After reading some statements here, there seems to be a problem with 8800 cards?

I still don´t get it why

I have a C2D E6700 and a 8800GTX and my performance is rather dissapointing...

I also have the feeling that 1.04 runed better..

[Tunguska 0]

After reading some statements here, there seems to be a problem with 8800 cards?

I still don´t get it why

I have a C2D E6700 and a 8800GTX and my performance is rather dissapointing...

I also have the feeling that 1.04 runed better..

Same here. Performace dropped significantly from 1.02 to 1.05. Texture losses and polygon errors. Problem gets worse after some minutes of playing.

System:

Intel Core 2 Duo 6800

Nvidia 8800 GTS

4 Gig Ram

Win XP

Had to switch all settings from High (version 1.02) to normal and low (version 1.05) and still performance is much worse compared to the state before patching. Fps decreased from 60 – 80 (version 1.02) to 15 – 25 (version 1.05)

[sickboy 13]

After reading some statements here, there seems to be a problem with 8800 cards?

I still don´t get it why  

I have a C2D E6700 and a 8800GTX and my performance is rather dissapointing...

I also have the feeling that 1.04 runed better..

Same here. Performace dropped significantly from 1.02 to 1.05. Texture losses and polygon errors. Problem gets worse after some minutes of playing.

System:

Intel Core 2 Duo 6800

Nvidia 8800 GTS

4 Gig Ram

Win XP

Had to switch all settings from High (version 1.02) to normal and low (version 1.05) and still performance is much worse compared to the state before patching. Fps decreased from 60 – 80 (version 1.02) to 15 – 25 (version 1.05)

Which drivers are you using?

Check my Specs in the signature... For me it simply runs wonderfully on Windows XP 32-bit, with the 97.92 drivers. Tripple Buffering & Vsync enabled. All Windows Updates/Fixes installed.

1600x1200, Very High, 2000m, All options on Very High Except Objects on High. Antialiasing Turned off. HDR on 16-bit (changed in the arma.cfg)

[jagernutt 0]

Just a thought,but what virus protection program are u using?

A mate reported that when he disabled his Norton Security program his Arma started working much much faster after 1.05 version.He had big problems with 1.05,1.04 worked without problems.

His PC is a Intel Core Duo 6400,Gf 7900 and 2gb of Ram.

I on the other hand had huge problems with 1.04 but 1.05 cured them all and Arma is running much better on higher gfx settings.

Amd64 2.ghz Ati X800,1Gb ram.

[memnoch 0]

Hi Sickboy,

Any chance you could run an ArmaMark for us please using those settings?

[Blue_Flight 0]

Sickboy, as i see you seem to have overclocked your C2D to 3,33 GHz which i haven´t. So perhaps my 8800gtx is slowed down by the cpu a bit?

I also use the 97,72 drivers on Win XP 32Bit

[l mandrake 9]

@Sickboy: don't you find the graphics poor with no AA? I tried turning mine off but found the tops of hills became all zig-zaggy and disgusting. Admittedly this was at 1152x"""" res, but still I'm surprised you can simply disable AA and have no loss of graphical quality....?

Mandrake

[shataan 1]

I have a killer rig, and still don`t bother using AA or AF.

[andersson 285]

C2D E6600 + 8800GTS. Runs fine. Almost all settings at max..

[Eda Mrcoch 0]

I got performance decrease about 20% in 1.05 too.

Tried to disable one core on my C2D@2800 entirely (in WinXP you can do it by changing the "computer" driver from multiprocessor ACPI to simple ACPI PC) and the performance was almost the same (5% drop compared to dualcore), so dualcore itself simply cannot be a problem.

If you try it and then have performance increase then something is wrong with your OS (try this patch for WinXP - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896256).

[Control 0]

I think Bis should also get some positive feedback when deserved:

With 1.02 I had:

- problem with textures not loading after playing for 40-60 minutes.

- CTD whenever trying to play online

- laggy feeling of my soldier, but FPS was good

With 1.05 I have:

- very rare texture problem

- Perfect multiplayer experience

- Snappier movement of my soldier, not sure if FPS has improved but the experience is great (I can actually have fraps recording at full 1920x1200 and still play)

/ctrl

Arma, Sprocketversion, updated to 1.05, WinXP sp2 32bit

C2D 6600@3150MHz, 8800GTX@std, 2GB PC6400@800

[4 IN 1 0]

C2D E6600 + 8800GTS. Runs fine. Almost all settings at max..

same goes here

[maddogx 13]

AMD Athlon64 4600X2 - dual core user here.

I have no framerate problems, even while recording with fraps. Without recording, the worst I get is around 30fps in dense forests and cities, with occasional and minimal lags when something new is loaded. Otherwise my framerate stays around 40-60.

I didn't notice any changes from 1.02 to 1.05 either.

[benreeper 0]

From this thread it would seem that AMD users are not having any problems AND that there may be an issue with brand new, yet unproven, DX10 cards.

--Ben

[Anon55 0]

After installing 1.05 i,ve experienced texture loss and massive slow down compared to 1.04, Maybe this is a Intel/Nvidia problem. The really weird thing is that the Convoy ambush mission works perfectly with no problems??.

[Totala 0]

Not much performance loss if any after upgrading from 1.04 to 1.05. According to FRAPS, I get either 30 or 60 FPS (Vsync ON).

CPU : X6800 @ 3.2Ghz - 2 Go - 7900GTO - LCD 22'

[Possessed 0]

Well without FRAPS results, testing methods, system specs and ArmA settings these results are completely useless.

Here's mine now:

Resolution=1680x1050 (native resolution, the only acceptable option with TFT as you know)

Draw distance=2000m

Terrain: High

Objects: High

Textures: High

Shading: High

Postprocessing: Low

Anisotropic filtering: Very High

Shadows: High

Antialias: Normal (no need for better with 1680x1050)

Forceware Anisotropic sample and filtering optimizations: On.

First I tested with forest-town-forest trips and there were no long time FPS degradation. FPS was 30-50 in forests, 40-60 in towns and over 60 on desert areas. In massive armored battles FPS tends to drop near 20 but that is acceptable. No FPS drop during long missions. No graphical glitches.

[sickboy 13]

@Sickboy: don't you find the graphics poor with no AA? I tried turning mine off but found the tops of hills became all zig-zaggy and disgusting. Admittedly this was at 1152x"""" res, but still I'm surprised you can simply disable AA and have no loss of graphical quality....?

Mandrake

Without AF sucks in the more distant ground textures etc. etc. But no-AA doesn't really bother met at 1600x1200.

Quote[/b] ]Sickboy, as i see you seem to have overclocked your C2D to 3,33 GHz which i haven´t. So perhaps my 8800gtx is slowed down by the cpu a bit?

I also use the 97,72 drivers on Win XP 32Bit  

Hmmm, but some others with standard clocked E6600 running fine aswell. At the very least im running without AV on my client atm, aswell as only Windows Firewall.

Maybe Chipsets/ChipsetDrivers could be aswell?

[CG Man 0]

Dual core processors have had problems with performance in many games with the game code acting odd on the processors so the processor becomes the bottleneck of the computer slowing down the whole game graphics card has to wait hence  bad performance in the game. X3  had bad graphics performance on dual core and 7800 cards till the makers patched it.

Some of the performance issues may be down to dual core computer owners thinking if they add dual cores  the computer will have 60fps in any game regardless of what the graphics card or sound card is or what speed their ram is.

My rig was running Arma at high settings with draw distance set to 700m 1280 x 1024 res 2 x AA and after 1.05 it runs worse thanthis with the distance set to 550m in the same battle.

For the best performance boost reduce the draw distance.

[gossye 0]

my game run verrywell v1.04 all sethings ar at the max

after the euro patch 1.05 everything is fine i have only texture problemes thats all for the rest all sethings ar at the max.

cpu qx6700

ocz 4gb

motherbord striker extreme

psu 850 watt

windows vista 32 bit

my country belgium.

[Possessed 0]

There is always one graphic setting which is dominating the performance and shadows the effect of other settings. For example:

If I have Post Processing on with 1.05 it cuts FPS half. The effect of other settings is not important.

When I put PP low and get better FPS, then view distance is dominating. Others are not so important. But the view distance dominance is much more logarithmic, it hits harder and faster when I try to use very high distances, 2.5km and so on.

When I have set the view distance to acceptable level, shadows are the next dominating thing. On the next round texture settings. etc.

It's all about tweaking between speed and beauty. But it has to do with ladders.

[gossye 0]

myby a new patch can help solve that problem

why i have no problems in 1.04

only in patch 1.05?

lets wait for better patch in the begin every game is bugged.

same as in OPF.

[SeppSchrot 0]

Experiencing a noticable FPS drop since the update from 1.02 to 1.05. (German version)

AMD X2 5200+

8800 GTS

2 GB

2x Raptor Raid Stripe

WinXP Home SP2

I do not think that in my case the view distance is the main factor, since the first thing I did after upgrading was starting the SP-mission editor to set up a harrier on the end of the runway in Ramahdi.

This island isn't very big, has not that many plants and almost no buildings. It ran very fluently before the upgrade.

I had to switch from 'very high' to 'medium' in order to keep it playable.

[quantico 0]

I have not problem with the patch 1.05 (EU version).

AMD ATHLON X2 4200

ABIT FATAL1TY AN9

1GB TKMEMORY

SAPPHIRE ATI X1650PRO 256Mb

The "performance problem" in my sistem is when i set antialias from low to normal. The fps drop dramatically (from 30 fps to 12 fps at 1024 x 768). My friend on old 6600GT AGP 256mb didn't notice it.

I think it's a CAtalyst 7.2 issue. But anoyne knows how to fix? (if possible?)

[INNOCENT&CLUELESS 0]

a colleague tried to explain the multicore-thingy so that I can understand it.

Basic outcome:

- you need to write/optimize your SW from the scratch for multicore/multithread to avoid that one operation at one core does not need to wait for another operation on another core which would jeopardize the complete thing --> forget it for ArmA

- the dev. with experience in writing an application that really benefits from multicore costs in average 1,5 times more ---> no hope for Game2

- For ArmA server and client it helps already to "lock" processes to cores to ensure that ArmA server/client gets its own core alone while all other processes utilizing the other cores

- it is possible that a single core application runs with less performance then on a multi core platform, I can not repeat the reason, was to complicated for me, all I understood is that the distribution scheduling over the cores alone sucks performance