Geforce 7800 to a 8800 GTS 640MB?Core do

[pvt.pile 0]

I am looking for some info on anyone that has upgraded there GFX card from a 7800 to an 8800 GTS 640mb, what kind of improvement have you noticed with your FPS in AmrA if any? Heres the rest of my system spec...

Core duo 6300 Oced to 2.4

2 gig 5300 memory

Geforce 7800

Windows XP

[bobie_ 0]

Hi!

I upgraded from 7800GT 256MB to 8800GTX, and indeed, I see the improvement, especially in other games

Arma is also much more playable at higher settings (what makes it look extremely better), but there are still some problems related to 8800 series (so called fog haze)

And still - you spent a lot of money, and even high settings (not mentioned about very high) drops the FPS below 30 fps in some situations (zooming via scope, looking at forrest etc.)

My sepc.:

E6420@3200

Asus P5B Deluxe/WiFi

2x1 GB

HDD Sata II

[eddogg823 0]

I added 2 gig of RAM and put in a 8800GTS 640MB and the performance is STILL awful. I play Medieval II Total War and it runs at an awesome frame rate with all setting MAX.

My advice would be to uninstall your copy and sell it on eBay.

[D007 0]

Have you downloaded the beta 162.18 driver yet? it's new..

also if your using a dual core you should try the hotfix for dual core optimization on the "tips and tricks" section or the AMD optimizer if your using an AMD.. read up for that hotfix.. it's made specifically for threading single core programs properly.. this game is made for single cores so it helps.

the 8800 still has issues, I'm using 2 in sli and I get awsome frame rates and max everything in every game I play.. except arma..lol..

arma also still needs work so it's a combination of issues.. bad drivers and arma..

I think it will get better as the drivers are optimized and arma is patched. it has been so far anyway.

[pvt.pile 0]

Thanx alot for the replys guyz it means alot, as most of you have said all my othere games like Stalker RO and INS run great ramped right up in the GFX but ArmA just runs like crap most of the time.

[y_t 2]

I added 2 gig of RAM and put in a 8800GTS 640MB and the performance is STILL awful. I play Medieval II Total War and it runs at an awesome frame rate with all setting MAX.

My advice would be to uninstall your copy and sell it on eBay.

LOL. Why are you posting on the board?

[bobie_ 0]

Have you downloaded the beta 162.18 driver yet? it's new..

also if your using a dual core you should try the hotfix for dual core optimization on the "tips and tricks" section or the AMD optimizer if your using an AMD.. read up for that hotfix.. it's made specifically for threading single core programs properly.. this game is made for single cores so it helps.

the 8800 still has issues, I'm using 2 in sli and I get awsome frame rates and max everything in every game I play.. except arma..lol..

arma also still needs work so it's a combination of issues.. bad drivers and arma..

I think it will get better as the drivers are optimized and arma is patched. it has been so far anyway.

Do you have any idea about multi-thread programming? Any program which should take advantage of more than 1 core should allow to make simultaneous calculations on the code in the first place.

Where do you see such a possibility in game, where all what happens on the screen is waiting for your reactions? You can't just shoot enemy, supposing that this part of action would be the job of one core, and force the second core to execute the code of enemy's reaction simultaneously, because the code has to wait for the result of your shot (did you hit him or not). This is only a very, very simple example and there are much more complicated situations when the code's execution is just stopped by another of it's part, and optimization referring to mulit-core is almost impossible or makes the code grow much faster than normal way.

In case of Intel's Dual Core processors all what this fix makes is better ACPI management with following better OS stability. There is no such thing as physical power improvement of the processor made by this fix.

All what is need to be done, as always, is the utmost diligence by projecting the code of the application. You can't make a Porsche form an old FIAT just by tuning. It will never be the real quality ;-)

The truth is that all what is important are the raw GHz of your CPU, not how much cores it has, and that Arma to run fluently still needs a PC which exceeds the financial capacity of most users if not even today's technological level of PC components or .... a better code efficiency ;-) The question is - how long can you wait after buying a product to come to this point that it starts to work as it is expected...

[D007 0]

ok first off allow me to say.. did you read the hotfix? yea.. for some reason i doubt it.. the dang thing specifically says it's made to help the pm timer synch up better with single threaded applications, because things geared toward single threads can cause the processor to calculate the timing ratios incorrectly leading to "POOR PERFORMANCE".. dude read before u speak..

I have a porche.. not a fiat... my system costed me 2200 bucks. whats about yours? yea.. ok then... my tv alone costs more than 2 8800 gtx ultras.. lol a fiat..

I have an overclocked beast.. 3.2 ghz e6400 conroe and 2 8800's in sli.. on top of themro cooling and air flow that makes the weather forcasting system call tornado warnings.. not to mention a 680i sli mobo.. among other things..

i build, overclock and maintain my own systems.. I have a feeling your talking to see yourself speak...

nothing you said applies to that hotfix and you no where even refrence the timer situation.

and holy poop I hope your not actually trying to say a single core at 3.2 ghz is just as good as a dual core at 3.2 ghz, cause it sure sounds like you are, and you couldn't be more wrong..

yes the raw ghz matter more than anything.. but if this game was optimized better or at all for dual cores, single cores would not even compare.. bottom line..

i'd love to see you put 1000 men on the field in supreme commander with a single core.. yea good luck dude.. your dreaming..

[Nonpoint 0]

your problem is memory. Disable your virtual memory if you have 2 gigs +. fixed my low frame rates

[eddogg823 0]

I added 2 gig of RAM and put in a 8800GTS 640MB and the performance is STILL awful. I play Medieval II Total War and it runs at an awesome frame rate with all setting MAX.

My advice would be to uninstall your copy and sell it on eBay.

LOL. Why are you posting on the board?

I post because I would like to play this game when it is at least 40% complete.

[colkurtz 0]

Has anyone overcome their arma/8800 problems and if so what drivers did you use and what settings are you running at now?

[BraTTy 0]

garbage deleted

Its hard taking advice from someone with Dell in their sig

[oChaos.DNJ 0]

I added 2 gig of RAM and put in a 8800GTS 640MB and the performance is STILL awful. I play Medieval II Total War and it runs at an awesome frame rate with all setting MAX.

My advice would be to uninstall your copy and sell it on eBay.

LOL. Why are you posting on the board?

I post because I would like to play this game when it is at least 40% complete.

While there is some optimizing that could be done, and other things added/fixed. Its still a pretty sweet game. Defintely not going to uninstall and sell on ebay. There isnt any other game I currently would want to play.

I have a 8800GTS 640MB, 2GB DDR2-800, and a E6600 oc to 3.2Ghz, I run on all on very high except AA on normal, and shadows on high, hardly ever get low enough framerates to be noticable or unplayable.

I can tell you, going from 2.4Ghz to 3.2 made a pretty big difference in performance

[uberkayser 0]

I run a Radeon 2900XT 512mb (upgraded from an X1800XT) which is probably on a par with goin from a 7800 to an 8800 and am really impressed with the difference..e.g. in RTS IV i can set vd to 3000m and there can be hundreds of units in play...most of my settings are on high(all except AA) and ArmA runs sweet with very little slowdown...only some occasional brief stutters in north island heavy forest.

Dunno if youve thought about it but consider the 2900..each driver release(monthly) brings more all-round improvement...some tech sites would have you believe that the 2900 is besting the 8800s in 99% of benchmarks and is only a close second behind a 8800gtx.Have a read around.

I definitely notice the difference in jumping up a level or two...going from playing at a vd of say 1500m to 3000+ makes the game look a whole lot better.

[ArmaVidz 0]

garbage deleted

Its hard taking advice from someone with Dell in their sig

tee hee

I upgraded my whole system. My video card was a 7950GT KO Superclocked, now I'm running an 8800 GTS 640 and it's waaaay faster. Also, the Core2Duo e6600 OC'd to 3.0Ghz made a huge difference.

Objectively, an 8800 GTS would probably make a big difference. But in conjunction with a 3.0Ghz clocked Core2Duo, the difference is astounding.

Also, this is a link to a screenshot (edited to fit properly) of my Nvidia Control Panel settings. My monitors native resolution is 1400x1050, so with these settings, plus Very High in AF, with AA off (just recently did this) the image quality is great, with pretty decent performance.

Clicky for Nvidia CP Settings eVGA 8800 GTS 640MB

[Key Dutch 0]

man u not need have 8800 to run game.

i run ArmA on 1400x1050 resolution

all game textures and details on higest lvl

with AA x2

Adaptive AA On/preformance

AF x 16 with High Qualaty AF On

and its run with out problems, nice and smoth.

[p^ddy 0]

@ eddogg823

It says in your sig that you run Vista, I assume you don't dual boot with XP or anything but ArmA is horrible on Vista, along with every other piece of software that isn't designed with a Microsoft tech team beside the designers. Vista is very poor at system management, read any tech site or review, Vista bad, XP good ... something to try before you preach (oh and Dell, I agree, yuuukk!!

@ D007

Quote[/b] ]Have you downloaded the beta 162.18 driver yet? it's new..

The 8800 driver issue is a long standing one and is yet to be solved. Don't let this deter you from your purchase, they're fantasic cards ... I have one!

Quote[/b] ]if your using a dual core you should try the hotfix for dual core optimization on the "tips and tricks" section or the AMD optimizer if your using an AMD

Please take the time to read the initial post, He runs a Core2Duo, thats just common courtesy.

Quote[/b] ]the dang thing specifically says it's made to help the pm timer synch up better with single threaded applications, because things geared toward single threads can cause the processor to calculate the timing ratios incorrectly leading to "POOR PERFORMANCE".. dude read before u speak..

He's still using that Core2Duo (you are right?), furthermore you obviously have little or no programming experience. Dual Cores can actually be a programming hit to unthreaded apps, because 2Duo's share on chip memory there can be extended propogation delays onchip as one chip accesses memory forcing the other to wait. Im not saying this necessarily happens for ArmA but I doubt the multithreading is good enough for it to have amassive performance boost OR hit. As far as the 2Duo, its a better chip because of its power managment and efficency, the second core is (for the timebeing at least) a bit of a gimmick! In short More cores != More performance (well, not right now anyways).

N.B. most of the high spec games now are either processor limiting OR HDD limiting, even SATA II is not fast enough to get info into RAM to eliminate all delays, propogation from the processor cycle request to the writing of a read request is still much shorter than the read action. Fancy graphics cards are great but make sure you have the system to back them up.

Oh, if you were wondering ...

E6750 Core2Duo (with 1333MB/s FSB)

Asus P5K Deluxe

4G's of XMS2 Ram

Gainward 8800 GTS 320M

Western Digital Raptor 74Gb (8mb cache)

20" ACER wscrn

:EDIT:

What I said about SATA II is wrong, apologies. Its ALMOST fast enough, however no HDD on the market spins fast enough to make use of SATA II, ever wonder why the WD Raptors, the fastest SATA drives on the market only use SATA I? Even 10,000rpm wont get you to 150Mb/s, never mind 300Mb/s!