BraTTy 0 Posted September 9, 2008 No such problem for XP64, ATI 3870 and 4gig ram here. Apparantly its a Vista64,ATI problem according to the topics you linked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted September 9, 2008 8.54 Drivers are newer. What you posted is 8.53.Also, I have to disable Cat AI for ArmA to work properly. If it's enabled, I would be inconsistent walking/driving speeds. look at compilation date of the package ... also don't be fooled by numbers as they don't reflect differences between various beta/OEM builds ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hamis 0 Posted September 9, 2008 Well,what about using SSD drive(32Gb)for arma?Would it reduce stutter considerably? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Väinämöinen 0 Posted September 9, 2008 Fastest SSD drive at the moment is OCZ SSD Core 2. Capacities of 32GB and 64GB and premier speeds of 100MB/s read and 80MB/s write. So its not that fast...almost the same as running Raptors on RAID-0. Stuttering will be there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hamis 0 Posted September 9, 2008 OCZ SSD Core 2 read 143mb/s access under 0.35ms,OCZ SSD Core 2v2 read 170 mb/s access unde 0.2-0.3ms.Doesn't access be more important in loading textures? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted September 9, 2008 no point to buy SSD until intel introduce his SSD for masses Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Väinämöinen 0 Posted September 9, 2008 Both are important, but reading rate is what matters. SSD is still too slow but its totally quiet to operate. Only reason to buy one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted September 9, 2008 Both are important, but reading rate is what matters. SSD is still too slow but its totally quiet to operate. Only reason to buy one. slow? Model X25-E 32/64GB size and 240 MB/s 170 MB R/W take in mind memory drive push quite CPU usage and bus IO while SSD could utilize good I/O SATA controllers (esp real hw raid ones) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Väinämöinen 0 Posted September 9, 2008 You can't get Intel X25-E now can you? In the future... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nemesis_wales 0 Posted September 13, 2008 so best to hold off on buying a 2 grand machine with dual 4870x2 cards then huh? cos arma is 1 of main games i intend to play on it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted September 13, 2008 You can't get Intel X25-E now can you? In the future... true, but soon .... also there are lil slower but interesting so so SSDs http://ao-lab.com/product_esata.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted September 14, 2008 so best to hold off on buying  a 2 grand machine with dual 4870x2 cards then huh? cos arma is 1 of main games i intend to play on it? Yup, in fact, you may just want to buy a machine equipped with a single 4870 (single GPU model). ArmA has never scaled well with Dual-GPU setups, and I somehow doubt it ever will. The same can be said of a lot of games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rocket 9 Posted September 15, 2008 ArmA has never scaled well with Dual-GPU setups, and I somehow doubt it ever will. The same can be said of a lot of games. I'm with you on this, I tried SLI for two series of graphics cards, and found it a hopeless waste of money. When i counted up the costs it was much cheaper for me to put the money on a second card aside, and simply buy a newer video card when such one came out. YMMV however... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nemesis_wales 0 Posted September 15, 2008 thanks guys. but maybe ill still benefit from other games.. ill have to have a looksy, but thanks for advice Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fitzee 7 Posted September 15, 2008 ArmA has never scaled well with Dual-GPU setups, and I somehow doubt it ever will. The same can be said of a lot of games. I disagree. Arma runs great on my 9800GX2 with all settings maxxed except AA(medium) and view distance(3500). On sahrani fps stays locked at my refresh rate of 60, except in a few forests. Every game Ive tried on this card runs great without issues(havent really tried that many though). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rossiski 0 Posted September 15, 2008 ArmA has never scaled well with Dual-GPU setups, and I somehow doubt it ever will. The same can be said of a lot of games. I disagree. Arma runs great on my 9800GX2 with all settings maxxed except AA(medium) and view distance(3500). On sahrani fps  stays locked at my refresh rate of 60, except in a few forests. Every game Ive tried on this card runs great without issues(havent really tried that many though). Please state what resolution you're running. I get 80 fps at 800x600. At 1600x1200, I average 30+fps. rig 4870x2 E8600 @ 4GHz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fitzee 7 Posted September 16, 2008 1680x1050 Q9300@3ghz ddr3@1600mhz nforce 790i ultra vista64 ultimate sp1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
echo1 0 Posted September 16, 2008 ArmA has never scaled well with Dual-GPU setups, and I somehow doubt it ever will. The same can be said of a lot of games. I disagree. Arma runs great on my 9800GX2 with all settings maxxed except AA(medium) and view distance(3500). On sahrani fps  stays locked at my refresh rate of 60, except in a few forests. Every game Ive tried on this card runs great without issues(havent really tried that many though). That wasnt what I was saying, if you were somehow able to disable the second GPU and play ArmA, you'd find that the difference is not relative to the fact that you theoretically only have half the GPU power. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites