binkster 0 Posted June 6, 2009 @Bizibiz What HD are you using? Its crazy how I have a q9650 oc to 3.6ghz and a gtx 285 and you get around the same score as me. The only thing I can think of is either the different OS's we are using, my HD, or my ram. My ram specs are the same. I even tried ArmaII on another partion but since the partion is on the same Drive as the system then im thinking this wouldnt help anyways. Im thinking of getting the new OCZ Blade low voltage ram 1200 and seeing if this will help at 4ghz. If this doesnt improve the benchmark then next I will try reinstalling vista with a clean install of everything. Next I guess the cheap HD will have to go. But then maybe the cheap 650watt psu could be the problem. God there are so many posibilities. Maybe we should start posting PSU's and HD's too... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mant3z 1 Posted June 6, 2009 I read everything in this topic and it's look like ArmAII working much better with Intel and Nvidia. I'm really pissed of because of that. People which have weaker hardware gain better scores :( Maybe something is wrong with this ArmAII Mark? Look above (post #125 by Bizibiz), He got weaker frequency but OC to same as mine, also he got weaker GPU because 8800GTS is like HD 4770 (according to this article: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-graphics,2296-6.html ) In result he got over 1200 better score then mine, WTF BIS? Is this game sponsored by nVidia and Intel? Now what I should do, throw my rig to trash and buy Intel and nVidia? This is ridiculous. I hope somebody responsible give us some explanations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ez3kiel 10 Posted June 6, 2009 AS i m still hesitating for my new rig, i made an Excel file of score on this forum (only for those who used good parameters). Maybe it can help s1. http://www.filedropper.com/scorearma2mark_1 PS: Think i will buy an i7 finally :o Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dren 0 Posted June 6, 2009 Resolution: 1440*900 Fillrate: 100% Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Disabled Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Rig -Xp S3 -C2D E8500 (3,1Ghz) - MSI P45 Neo - 2 GB DDR2 (i know i need to get more :) ) - GeForce 9800 GTX+ Score: 3310.06 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mant3z 1 Posted June 6, 2009 AS i m still hesitating for my new rig, i made an Excel file of score on this forum (only for those who used good parameters). Maybe it can help s1.http://www.filedropper.com/scorearma2mark_1 PS: Think i will buy an i7 finally :o This is madness! The cheapest and the slowest i7 920 @2.66 costs 1125PLN (352USD) whilst the best PhemonII 955 @3.2 costs 989PLN (309USD)! Also MOBO's for Phenom are cheapest. Look at those tests: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278-9.html There shouldn't be so huge difference between those two manufacturers. What the hell is wrong with this game? I really don't need i7, I don't use 3D Studio max or other demanding applications. I'm using my PC for games and movies only. Crap... anyone rich? Need donation :rolleyes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
daman 0 Posted June 6, 2009 (edited) normal result = 2475.94 Q6600 go (oc'd to 3.00) 2X 8800 GTS (640M each) 4GB ozc reaper hpc 1066mhz vista ultimate 32 Disabled SLI = 2270.1 Updated my Nvidia drivers to latest from dec 08 result 2564.65 Edited June 6, 2009 by DaMan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This is Bosnia 10 Posted June 6, 2009 This is madness!The cheapest and the slowest i7 920 @2.66 costs 1125PLN (352USD) whilst the best PhemonII 955 @3.2 costs 989PLN (309USD)! Also MOBO's for Phenom are cheapest. Look at those tests: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278-9.html There shouldn't be so huge difference between those two manufacturers. What the hell is wrong with this game? I really don't need i7, I don't use 3D Studio max or other demanding applications. I'm using my PC for games and movies only. Crap... anyone rich? Need donation :rolleyes: man the i7 are expensive in Europa i got my for 230$ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Raptor 10 Posted June 6, 2009 (edited) Motherboard: ECS 790GXM-A elitegroup CPU : AMD Pheom II 920 grafic: AMD 4870, vapor-X, 1GB Memory: OCZ 1066Mhz , 5-5-5-15, 4GB OS: Vista 32 bit, SP2 Resolution: 1280x1024 All extra grafic settings applied to the software. Fillrate: 100% Texture Detail - Normal grafic memory: Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Score : 2604.18 intresting: Fillrate: 100% Texture Detail - Normal grafic memory: very high Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Score : 2399.86 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- old Gamesetting, Gameplay is subjective mostly fluid. Fillrate: 133% Texture Detail - very high grafic memory: very high Anisotropic Filtering - very high Terrain Detail - very high Objects Detail - very high Shadow Detail - high PostProcess Effects- Low Edited June 6, 2009 by Raptor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Potatomasher 0 Posted June 6, 2009 (edited) My second run after i updated Nvidia forceware 186.08 beta drivers, updated Arma2 with final 1.01 patch and overclocked CPU a bit more. MY first runs score was 1516 so pretty good increase. Still the performance pisses me off so i'm sure i'll buy new CPU and mainboard during this summer unless BIS manages to release some kind of super patch like in Arma that increases performance greatly. It just feels very expensive decision because every new game runs good with my rig except Arma2. So basicly if i buy new hardware i'll do it for Arma2 sake. But Arma 2 feels so great game that i think it may be worth it anyway. :) Armamark score 1599,97 Resolution: 1280x1024 Fillrate: 100% Texture Detail - Normal GFX memory: Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects - High ASUS A8N SLI-SE S939 AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2,4GHz 3Gb DDR 400Mhz MEM PNY Geforce 9800 GT 120 ATA HD Win 7 x64 RC1 Edited June 6, 2009 by Potatomasher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
buccs 10 Posted June 6, 2009 (edited) ViewResolution - 1680 x 1050 Distance: 3000 m Fillrate: 100% Texture Detail - Very High GFX memory: Very High Anisotropic Filtering - Very High Terrain Detail - High Objects Detail - High Shadow Detail - High PostProcess Effects - Very High M-Board - Asus P6T Deluxe Cpu -i7 920 @ 2.66 Ram - 6GB DDR3 1066 GPU - POV GTX285 OS - Vista 64 Armamark score 3402.39 Edited June 6, 2009 by Buccs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobb30 10 Posted June 6, 2009 hey @ all, my facts: Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - intel i7 920 (4 x 2,67ghz) Ram - 6GB DDR2 GPU - NVIDIA GeForce GTX285 OS - Vista 64 SP2 Resolution - 1920 x 1080 Normal Score - 3437.11 With a res of 1680x1050 just 2937,49!!! :confused: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vo.2 0 Posted June 6, 2009 Everthing on normal, Fill rate 100%, post processing on low: ArmA Mark Score 3804 M-Board - Asus P6T Cpu - intel i7 940 (4 x 2,93ghz) Ram - 12GB DDR3 GPU - NVIDIA GeForce GTX280 1GB (release driver) OS - Vista 64 SP1 Resolution - 1280 x 1024 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobb30 10 Posted June 6, 2009 Everthing on normal, Fill rate 100%, post processing on low:ArmA Mark Score 3804 M-Board - Asus P6T Cpu - intel i7 940 (4 x 2,93ghz) Ram - 12GB DDR3 GPU - NVIDIA GeForce GTX280 1GB (release driver) OS - Vista 64 SP1 Resolution - 1280 x 1024 hey vo.2 could you repeat the bench with a res of 1920x1080 please? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vo.2 0 Posted June 6, 2009 Can't do, max resolution is 1600x1200 in ArmA settings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scruffy 21 Posted June 6, 2009 Settings: All normal, PP low, 1680x1050 and fillrate 100% I have some problems with the quad under XP, doesn't allways use all cores (with -cpucount=4, but the result above used all 4), graphic artifacts, more loading bucking than with Win7. I'll have to look into that but for now I'll play under Win7 :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ez3kiel 10 Posted June 6, 2009 hey @ all,my facts: Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - intel i7 920 (4 x 2,67ghz) Ram - 6GB DDR2 GPU - NVIDIA GeForce GTX285 OS - Vista 64 SP2 Resolution - 1920 x 1080 Normal Score - 3437.11 With a res of 1680x1050 just 2937,49!!! :confused: Lol, seems that this test isn't so reliable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
von_paulus 0 Posted June 6, 2009 I wonder if the processor cache size play an important role on the benchmark scores. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchaxor 0 Posted June 6, 2009 (edited) Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Score: 2507.71 (At points in the game I get a small delay - under heavy loads) *Then I applied a 3.2GHZ OC on the CPU and uppded the GPU a bit(900/1000).... just to get a bit more out of my hardware *Score: 3392.81 - 3367.64 (Game Runs much smoother and no delays) System Specs Below Edited June 7, 2009 by pchaxor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Razorman 10 Posted June 6, 2009 I wonder if the processor cache size play an important role on the benchmar* scores. It is very important to have a large L2 cache on proccesors, 4mb as a minimum for all gaming applications not just Arma. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Morbid Jester 0 Posted June 6, 2009 ASUS P5B Geforce GTX260(192Pipes/896MB) / 185.85 Drivers 2GB RAM WinXP Pro SP3 32bit E8500 3100,89 ARMA2 Settings as requested. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nobb30 10 Posted June 6, 2009 ViewResolution - 1680 x 1050Distance: 3000 m Fillrate: 100% Texture Detail - Very High GFX memory: Very High Anisotropic Filtering - Very High Terrain Detail - High Objects Detail - High Shadow Detail - High PostProcess Effects - Very High M-Board - Asus P6T Deluxe Cpu -i7 920 @ 2.66 Ram - 6GB DDR3 1066 GPU - POV GTX285 OS - Vista 64 Armamar*** score 3402.39 hey Buccs, I can´t belive that :D We have the same features and I stressed my system with your settings. The result was just 2665 points. The mostly frame "***ill bill" is the Shadow Detail - High, Anisotropic Filtering - Very High and the PostProcess Effects - Very High. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Basil Brush 10 Posted June 6, 2009 Cpu - intel i7 920 @ 3.6ghz Ram - 4GB DDR3 (dual channel) GPU - ATI 4870 512mb OS - XP SP3 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low res: 1680x1050x32 4942.98 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=Spetsnaz= 0 Posted June 6, 2009 I read everything in this topic and it's look like ArmAII working much better with Intel and Nvidia. I'm really pissed of because of that. People which have weaker hardware gain better scores :(Maybe something is wrong with this ArmAII Mark? Look above (post #125 by Bizibiz), He got weaker frequency but OC to same as mine, also he got weaker GPU because 8800GTS is like HD 4770 (according to this article: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-graphics,2296-6.html ) In result he got over 1200 better score then mine, WTF BIS? Is this game sponsored by nVidia and Intel? Now what I should do, throw my rig to trash and buy Intel and nVidia? This is ridiculous. I hope somebody responsible give us some explanations. Hey whats your spec mate? i think you said you had very similar specs to mine? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bizibiz 10 Posted June 6, 2009 Im thinking of getting the new OCZ Blade low voltage ram 1200 and seeing if this will help at 4ghz. If this doesnt improve the benchmark then next I will try reinstalling vista with a clean install of everything. Next I guess the cheap HD will have to go. But then maybe the cheap 650watt psu could be the problem. God there are so many posibilities. Maybe we should start posting PSU's and HD's too... HD is Samsung Spinpoint HD250HJ 250Go, I've got many partitions, one 20Go for system first then comes Arma2 partition, so the files are well positionned on disk to get good time access et speed transfert... Someone test with an SSD ? 8800GTS performance seems to be nearest a HD4850 than a HD4770. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bizibiz 10 Posted June 6, 2009 (edited) Please, first post with All on Normal, and PostProc on Low, it should be compared with all of us. Cpu - intel i7 920 @ 3.6ghzRam - 4GB DDR3 (dual channel) GPU - ATI 4870 512mb OS - XP SP3 All on Normal PostProcess Effects- Low res: 1680x1050x32 4942.98 Nice score, take example on guy who earns an i7. Someone speak about Intel CPU and AMD CPU, since many months, Intel gives much performance with Core2Duo and i7, so AMD Phenom are out of competition even if they pratice low price and high frequency. Test on Crysis prouve Intel Core2Duo runs better than AMD Phenom. Now I think Arma use only one core on CPU, multicores are not optimized, equal to multi GPU by Crossfire or SLI. From many opinions in previous post : - CPU needs large cache, frequency at least @ 3Ghz, according to manage all element of environnement (bot, vehicules, players) - GPU needs to be ajusted with graphic settings, Filter AA&Ani used a lot of GPU usage, idem for shadows&PostProc, advise to stay reasonnable with it, reject multiGPU - HDD needs to be in good health, no excessive fragmentation, well partionned, to load quickly datas. Now two questions ? Differencies btw DDR3 & DDR2 results ? and test with SSD. Edited June 6, 2009 by Bizibiz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
