Will my PC Run this? What CPU/GPU to get? What settings? System Specifications.

[Leon86 13]

The new adaptive vsync on the keplers sounds interesting.

[bigstone 48]

Upgrading AMD Phenom II x4 955 to AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Deneb 3.4GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor. I was just wondering if anyone has this processor. If so does your Arms 2 run smooth? I want to create large scale battles with descent fps. Cheers:)

[Leon86 13]

Id say dont do it, it's the same processor only clocked 5% higher, you'll probably not even notice the difference.

It might overclock better, but why not try to overclock the current processor first?

[bangtail 0]

The new adaptive vsync on the keplers sounds interesting.

So does TXAA - really looking forward to it :)

[bigstone 48]

Id say dont do it, it's the same processor only clocked 5% higher, you'll probably not even notice the difference.

It might overclock better, but why not try to overclock the current processor first?

I clocked it @ 3.4 Ghz using AMD OverDrive, but man my temps start to climb to the mid 50's to early 60's Celcius... I think I shall try to get a liquid cooler and see what that does. Thanks for the reply....

[Leon86 13]

So does TXAA - really looking forward to it :)

I cant find anything that explains txaa, only "16x msaa quality at 2x msaa performance impact" marketing bullcrap, I fear it might just be a more fancy fxaa.

[bangtail 0]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/NVIDIA-Kepler-Anti-Aliasing-Called-TXAA-259247.shtml

Could be more 'marketing bullcrap' for all we know but it sounds good in terms of performance/quality.

We'll know in 2 days - I haven't seen a preorder SKU at my supplier yet but I will order as soon as I do.

[Leon86 13]

I installed the new 301.10 driver (with a modified inf) and tried the adaptive vsync thingy. Seems to have slightly less input lag compared to classic vsync, but there still is some. And sometimes it seems to cause a slight stutter, maybe when it switches between synced and non synced.

edit: after a bit of testing it seems the stutter is indeed where it switches, not a perfect solution but I guess a small judder is preferable to bogged down fps for a longer period.

in the new driver you cant select 0 pre rendered frames anymore btw.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Leon86

[bangtail 0]

I installed the new 301.10 driver (with a modified inf) and tried the adaptive vsync thingy. Seems to have slightly less input lag compared to classic vsync, but there still is some. And sometimes it seems to cause a slight stutter, maybe when it switches between synced and non synced.

edit: after a bit of testing it seems the stutter is indeed where it switches, not a perfect solution but I guess a small judder is preferable to bogged down fps for a longer period.

in the new driver you cant select 0 pre rendered frames anymore btw.

Using that one myself and having no problems :D

[domokun 515]

I said that Keplar is rumoured to be ~90% faster than the 580, that could easily turn out to be BS.

The first online reviews clearly show that claim was "marketing bullcrap".

Hence my remark on the pointlessness of conjecture, particularly as a form of argument.

All that really matters is that increased competition should lead to lower prices :)

[Leon86 13]

Well I'm quite surprised it performs so well, outperforming the 7970 in most high resolution tests, I would've thought the higher memory bandwith and capacity would be a real bottleneck.

Also, these cards should be cheaper to produce than the 7970. I dont think they'll have a price war anytime soon, It's unlikely that nvidia has enormous supply of these, and demand will be high, nvidia will probably just enjoy the profit margin.

[bangtail 0]

Well I'm quite surprised it performs so well, outperforming the 7970 in most high resolution tests, I would've thought the higher memory bandwith and capacity would be a real bottleneck.

Also, these cards should be cheaper to produce than the 7970. I dont think they'll have a price war anytime soon, It's unlikely that nvidia has enormous supply of these, and demand will be high, nvidia will probably just enjoy the profit margin.

Good chance AMD's prices will drop a little in light of these cards - No bloody 4GB model blows :(

There was talk of short supply but I know my supplier has quite a few in stock for launch.

[froggyluv 2136]

I heard the 4GB version is 2 months away. Ordered 2 680 gtx's this morning but then thought better and cancelled 1 of them since I game at 1920 x 1080 -seemed like overkill and I can always grab another one later when the prices drop if needed. Hope I find more joy with this guy then the 7970 :o

Boy Newegg sold out quickly!

[bangtail 0]

I heard the 4GB version is 2 months away. Ordered 2 680 gtx's this morning but then thought better and cancelled 1 of them since I game at 1920 x 1080 -seemed like overkill and I can always grab another one later when the prices drop if needed. Hope I find more joy with this guy then the 7970 :o

Boy Newegg sold out quickly!

As always, I'm tempted, but the 2GB is a dealbreaker for me so I guess I'm waiting 2 months hehe.

I'll be interested to hear your experiences when it arrives mate :D

[PuFu 4600]

looking around the web on some reviews, the 680 is really kicker for a card, but far from being what the hype made it look like. I for one will be waiting till summer to grab one, even longer if GK110 is planned for laters in 2012.\

even so i am looking forward to hear some comments about its performance in RV

[cjph 0]

I am also keeping an eye on 2Gb+ Nvidia releases as I'm not sure the 2Gb on my 6950 (flashed to 6970) is fully up a triple screen res. The reviews put the 680 in a lead for Arma2 (Bit-Tech, though version a little dated now) and BF3 for higher multi/wide res, though the dgap to the 7970 is less promounced than lower res (where the 7970 wins out). It may be down to the CPU, though since the 4Gb 6990 (is that effectively still 2Gb ?) shows a lead still I am not sure if the CPU is the main limiting factor.

cj

[domokun 515]

cj: scroll down to the bottom of this page to get your answer.

But what do you mean by "though version a little dated now" ?

[cjph 0]

Hi m8

Thanks - thats the review I was referring to for the latest figures. I think I read somewhere that they used version 1.5 rather than the 1.6 patch (would be good to know), hence my dated comment as most people would be using the latest code. Would be happy to be proved wrong if their review set was newer.

I wish I could go back to a single screen but enjoy the wider aspect and so have to pay for my pleasure with the best hardware I can get for the budget. The current crop of new cards seems expensive, so am waiting for the initial releases to die down and prices to stabilise and perhaps drops a little (I see Nvidia 680s here for 399 UK pounds).

cj

[froggyluv 2136]

I'm doing Arma2 benchies with my 7970 now and over the weekend and will do more when my 680 shows up next week to compare. Surprisingly Benchmark 1 is only about 8FPS higher then my 460 SLI was 89 -81 and Benchmark 2 is exactly the same at 23 fps :oh:

I wonder if my HD is somehow bottlenecking (Sata 7200rpm) these scores but if thats true my RamDisk should solve that no? And again, higher FPS scores don't always translate to overall better gaming experience -but I'll know more next week :)

[Leon86 13]

bench 2 is most probably cpu limited.

the hd could affect the minimum fps a bit but shouldnt affect thte average that much, if you have a ramdisk I'd say use it, a good way to take a possible bottleneck out. We're interested in gpu performance after all.

[bangtail 0]

I am also keeping an eye on 2Gb+ Nvidia releases as I'm not sure the 2Gb on my 6950 (flashed to 6970) is fully up a triple screen res. The reviews put the 680 in a lead for Arma2 (Bit-Tech, though version a little dated now) and BF3 for higher multi/wide res, though the dgap to the 7970 is less promounced than lower res (where the 7970 wins out). It may be down to the CPU, though since the 4Gb 6990 (is that effectively still 2Gb ?) shows a lead still I am not sure if the CPU is the main limiting factor.

cj

At 1080p and using FXAA/SMAA you should be able to keep it below 2GB in ArmA 2, at over 1080P, even with FXAA/SMAA I've seen it go over 2GB and if you use the game's AA settings, you will definitely go over 2GB (especially in cities)

Video memory usage does seem to be a little more optimized after 1.6 but it still uses alot of VRAM in certain situations.

In some other games, it's not even a question. Crysis 2 at 1600p (DX11, Hi Res textures) is almost always over 2GB.

I'm still very tempted to pull the trigger on a couple of 2GB 680s but with GK-110 (Flagship Kepler) only a few months away, I'll probably just wait.

Edited March 23, 2012 by BangTail

[domokun 515]

I'm doing Arma2 benchies with my 7970 now and over the weekend and will do more when my 680 shows up next week to compare. Surprisingly Benchmark 1 is only about 8FPS higher then my 460 SLI was 89 -81 and Benchmark 2 is exactly the same at 23 fps :oh:

I wonder if my HD is somehow bottlenecking (Sata 7200rpm) these scores but if thats true my RamDisk should solve that no? And again, higher FPS scores don't always translate to overall better gaming experience -but I'll know more next week :)

Leon86's right, Benchmark 02 is very CPU-dependent. You're much better of bencharking with OA. Especially if you're running the 1.6 patch, better still the latest betas. I'm very interested in seeing your resuls

---------- Post added at 23:31 ---------- Previous post was at 23:29 ----------

Hi m8

Thanks - thats the review I was referring to for the latest figures. I think I read somewhere that they used version 1.5 rather than the 1.6 patch (would be good to know), hence my dated comment as most people would be using the latest code. Would be happy to be proved wrong if their review set was newer.

I wish I could go back to a single screen but enjoy the wider aspect and so have to pay for my pleasure with the best hardware I can get for the budget. The current crop of new cards seems expensive, so am waiting for the initial releases to die down and prices to stabilise and perhaps drops a little (I see Nvidia 680s here for 399 UK pounds).

cj

I'll see if I can't contact them about that. I'm guessing that it might make a fairly significant difference but not in the overall rankings. I feel your pain re card prices so I'll prolly go with cheap 7850 and overclock the nuts off it so that it runs like a 7870 or faster.

[froggyluv 2136]

Leon86's right, Benchmark 02 is very CPU-dependent. You're much better of bencharking with OA. Especially if you're running the 1.6 patch, better still the latest betas. I'm very interested in seeing your results.

Am I missing something as I only know of those 2 Benchies as well as the much older Arma 2 Benchmark. I have transferred 70-80% of the files to RamDisk (all the usual suspect pbos) and results were identical but obviously the textures loaded much better.

My specs are: I5 2500k @ 4.4 rock stable

16 gb 1600 ddr3 ram (12 for RamDisk)

XFX 7970 Black OC edition @ 1000/1425 as well as OC'ed at 1125/1575 ----Drivers are 12.2/Catalyst 3 and all settings are either on Application controlled/Performance or disabled to get max FPS.

Win 7 64 bit

Arma settings set to Default which admittedly uses 1440 x 900 (I have no idea why) but should be fine for consistency.

OC'ing the 7970 had very small noticeable effect maybe giving 3-4 fps on Benchmark 1 and 1-2 fps increase to Benchmark 2. All benchmarks run 5 times then averaged.

Stock VC settings (1000/1425) -

Bench 1 Avg:86 fps. After Ramdisk:87fps

Bench 2 Avg: 23 fps. After Ramdisk:22 fps (strange I know)

Bench 8 (OA) Avg: 97 fps (Ramdisk only)

Overclocked VC (1125/1575) -

Bench 1 Avg:89 fps. After Ramdisk:87fps (?)

Bench 2 Avg: 23 fps. After Ramdisk:24 fps

Bench 8 (OA) Avg: 96 fps (Ramdisk only)

Again Ramdisk had neglible effect on FPS but the absence of texture popup was pretty huge so well worth it imho. I'll try upping my CPU a little higher this weekend and something tells me this will actually raise both Benchmarks.

Edit 1: Ahh, I just now realised that Mission 8 is an OA Benchmark lol -I thought that was the old Benchmark from the pissing contest thread. Ok Ill run some more and post em up.

Edit 2: Added OA Benchmark which I'll just call 8. Strangely I have more of a chance of a lower score with the OC on -I'm guessing my CPU bottlenecking?

Edited March 24, 2012 by froggyluv

[cjph 0]

Sounds similar to some results I found when clocking my 6950 - I found upping the GPU speed rarely impacted the results and concluded the CPU was holding back the card in the benchmarks. I also saw decreases when using a RAMDisk - I think (but am no techie) that the CPU/GPU get the data faster and so have more processing to perform, hence the slight decrease in fps. When running from a slower disk the system processes what it can with the data to hand so fps goes up, but the you see texture pop ups when the data finally arrives and is added. I should add I am using fancycache these days as all the files are on SSD disks so there not much in it for a RAMdisk.

@Bangtail thanks for the info - I tracked VRAM use on the card and have seen it push 1.985Gb so believe the headroom of over 2Gb is a worthwhile increase and will also wait to see the next raft of Nvidia cards. Hopefully the multi screen feature will be fully understood then as I currently use Eyefinity and it works very well.

Incidently, I fixed a recent period of stuttering in the game which I had put down to either hitting the 2Gb VRAM limit or a disk/memory issue, but found no solution with either a RAMdisk, fancycache or reduction in detail/quality. The solution was my Crucial SSD, which had a firmware update to cure disk access stuttering which was passed on to the game. A quick firmware update to the latest version fixed the stuttering in a fhash (no pun intended). Daft thing was the stuttering was only on one or MP missions.

cj

[bangtail 0]

@Bangtail thanks for the info - I tracked VRAM use on the card and have seen it push 1.985Gb so believe the headroom of over 2Gb is a worthwhile increase and will also wait to see the next raft of Nvidia cards. Hopefully the multi screen feature will be fully understood then as I currently use Eyefinity and it works very well.

cj

Yep, it's a shame that Nvidia opted for a 2GB card on release. It seems a little short sighted with so many people in that segment gaming at high resolutions/multi monitors etc.

Considering the GK-104 is a very solid card, I can't wait to see what the GK-110 is capable of.

Edited March 25, 2012 by BangTail
Clarity