ubascouser 0 Posted June 6, 2009 Im gonna format my hdd and leave the game standard without the english patch and see if theres any performance increase ill report back later and let you no. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bizibiz 10 Posted June 6, 2009 Other tip maybe ... my pagefile (if Arma use it) is on an other HD separated to my OS HD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lee82UK 10 Posted June 6, 2009 Cpu - intel i7 920 @ 4.2ghz Ram - 6GB DDR3 Tri-channel GPU - 2x ATi Radeon HD 4890 1Gb in crossfire OS - Windows 7 x64 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- High Resolution: 1920x1200x32 Results: Test 1: 49.9572 Test 2: 52.2482 Test 3: 50.2819 Test 4: 53.2483 Test 5: 19.9307 Score: 4521.13 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lee82UK 10 Posted June 6, 2009 Cpu - intel i7 920 @ 4.2ghzRam - 6GB DDR3 Tri-channel GPU - 2x ATi Radeon HD 4890 1Gb in crossfire OS - Windows 7 x64 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- High Resolution: 1920x1200x32 Results: Test 1: 49.9572 Test 2: 52.2482 Test 3: 50.2819 Test 4: 53.2483 Test 5: 19.9307 Score: 4521.13 Update, just managed to force Vsync off using ATi Tray Tools (as I noticed alot of the time during arma2 mark I was locked to 60fps) Test 1: 73.0344 Test 2: 87.6625 Test 3: 55.5379 Test 4: 71.3861 Test 5: 24.5284 Score: 6242.99 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
binkster 0 Posted June 6, 2009 Found something else that may have helped I put -cpuCount=4 in the target line in the shortcut and now I can get around 4000. Going to do more testing but I thought ArmA automatically used all cores? Can anyone else confirm better FPS/Score with putting -cpuCount=4 in the target line? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Basil Brush 10 Posted June 6, 2009 (edited) binkster, I dont know if its just randomess in the test or what but I went up to 5497 from 4942.. by using -cpuCount=4 in the cmd line Oops forgot I disabled vsync so I suspect it is that which has increased my fps. Edited June 6, 2009 by Basil Brush Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DigitalScopeX 10 Posted June 6, 2009 Hi, Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Resolution: 1680 x 1050 Results: Test 1: 32.6782 Test 2: 50.3589 Test 3: 42.8799 Test 4: 47.0773 Test 5: 28.6989 Score: 4033.86 Sytem Specs are...... Cpu - Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, @ 3.2 GHz Ram - 4 GB DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM GPU - ATI Radeon HD 4870 Series (512 MB) OS - Windows XP Service Pack 3 32 Bit Regards, DS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ubascouser 0 Posted June 6, 2009 Just reinstalled but cant find the missions folder to put arma mark in any ideas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted June 6, 2009 Just reinstalled but cant find the missions folder to put arma mark in any ideas. Patch the game? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ubascouser 0 Posted June 6, 2009 yes now found it thx. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T.S.C.Plage 0 Posted June 7, 2009 I actually have doubts that this "missions" is still representative. AMD PhenomII X4 955 (4x3.2GHz) 4GB OCZ Platinum PC3-16000 (DDR3) @1600MHz (only 3,25GB adressed because I'm running XP) Sapphire HD4890 (1024MB OC version) First result with recommended settings: Second result with recommended settings (mission restarted/preloaded): Third result with my settings: The diffrences between the results aren't that high and I'm really wondering about some of the other results here. Some systems aren't much or even better then mine and put out marks over 3000? I mean maybe XP is a bottleneck and maybe ArmAII really runs better on an i7 but I guess some machines have to be overclocked to the max or some results are simply hoax. ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
binkster 0 Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) I just had a huge performance increase by using xp rather than Vista. I was scoring around 3200 in vista and I have a dual boot and I edited the registry and got arma2 working with xp. Scored a 5200 first shot. Everything on normal 1680 x 1050 q9650 oc 3.6ghz gtx 285 2gig ddr2 1066 Win Vista Scored 3200 Win Xp Scored 5200 Three things I can think of that caused this. 1. Xp uses less ram? Not by much maybe 300mb difference.... 2. Vista/ArmA2 are on the same drive compared to XP. 3. Just the fact that im running ArmA2 in XP.? Im not sure but im going to play arma in xp for now on. Edited June 7, 2009 by binkster adding pic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SWAT_BigBear 0 Posted June 7, 2009 Big diffrence binkster, Does anyone also have W7 that can test all 3 OS? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Potatomasher 0 Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) I just put some settings to higher and got better score ! This shows somethings wrong with the game or arma mark. Arma mark 1614 Fillrate - 100% Texture Detail - Normal Gfx memory - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - High Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Very high PostProcess Effects - Very high Resolution: 1280 x 1024 Yesterdays settings & score 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 Specs in my sig. Edited June 7, 2009 by Potatomasher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
electron-libre 10 Posted June 7, 2009 Big diffrence binkster,Does anyone also have W7 that can test all 3 OS? I 've setup win7 for test. My previous scrores with XP was 3100. With a fresh 7 install : 3450 But i suscect that my XP install was rotten, (I guess). I have no time now to try with a fresh XP install, but regarding my rig : C2D E6750@ 3.2 4 Gig DDR2 (Gskill 4.4.4.12) HD4890 1 G (Latest DX9 , Catalyst 9.5) I'am under rated. Anyway this benchmark does not seem to be representativ, since you can run it multiple times with really differents scores. And the main concern for me now is the overall performances of the game : Moving around Chernogorsk drop fps cosideralbly, does not matter if i am in SP or MP, Low settings or High settings, the FPS drop is there and in few other places arround the map. I'll be waiting for further patch and will do new benchmarks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
electron-libre 10 Posted June 7, 2009 I've made few more tests : This time My C2D 6750 @ 3.6 (stock is 2.66) I played with the "Video Memory" setting, remember i've got 1 G video ram. I first ran the test with video memory on very high, i've hit 3550. I've rerun the test with the same settings, the obkects was already loaded : Very High: 4020 High 4040 Normal 4060 This Video memory setting drive me crazy :). One thig to notice here : The higher is my cpu freq, the higher is the score (as intended). See that + 400 MHZ give me + 500 pts in the bench. (Now i Have to care about my temps !!! ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ComadeR 0 Posted June 7, 2009 Update, just managed to force Vsync off using ATi Tray Tools (as I noticed alot of the time during arma2 mark I was locked to 60fps) where I could off Vsync using ati tray tools? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
binkster 0 Posted June 7, 2009 @Comader Depends on what card you have but if you have nvidia its in the control panel under nvidia control panel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mugaben 10 Posted June 7, 2009 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+, 3.2GHz Ram - Kingston ValueR. DDR2 PC5300 4096MB CL5, GPU - XFX GeForce GTX 260 896MB PhysX CUDA OS - Windows 7 Build 7127 x64 HDD - Spinpoint F1 750 gb Resolution - 1680 x 1050 SUCKS. I blaim the windows 7! Score - 2007.49! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ComadeR 0 Posted June 7, 2009 @Comader Depends on what card you have but if you have nvidia its in the control panel under nvidia control panel. Ati hd 4850 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rista 0 Posted June 7, 2009 SUCKS. I blaim the windows 7! I doubt Windows 7 are to blame. I ran the benchmark on both Win 7 and Win XP (neither are clean installs) and I actually get better results in Windows 7. I get pretty much the same FPS in all the tests except the test four which for some reason runs quite faster on Windows 7. Still, seeing the results some of you guys are getting worries me somewhat. I was thinking about upgrading my x1950pro with an HD4870 but it seems I still won't be able to run the game anywhere near as well as I was hoping. Think I'm going to wait a while before upgrading as the game will hopefully run better with future patches and by the time that happens better cards will be available and will cost less too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ubascouser 0 Posted June 7, 2009 Texture Detail - NormalAnisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+, 3.2GHz Ram - Kingston ValueR. DDR2 PC5300 4096MB CL5, GPU - XFX GeForce GTX 260 896MB PhysX CUDA OS - Windows 7 Build 7127 x64 HDD - Spinpoint F1 750 gb Resolution - 1680 x 1050 SUCKS. I blaim the windows 7! Score - 2007.49! I blame your cpu mate mines rubbish to the best score ive had is 28000 and ive tried xp and vista. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ComadeR 0 Posted June 7, 2009 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu -AMD Phenom x4 920 2.8ghz Ram - Kingston 4gb GPU - ATI radeon hd4850 1gb OS - Windows 7 x64 Resolution - 1024 x 768 first time 3227.1 second time 4350.99 Which results guys you show us? first or further? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Protegimus 0 Posted June 7, 2009 (edited) The answer to the performance improvement with Windows XP in comparison to Vista is no doubt due to the fact that you have 2GB of RAM. Vista is way more resource hungry than XP, leaving little for your Q9650 to flex its muscles with ArmA II. I've done quite a bit of testing now and can maybe shed some light on the results: - perform multiple benchmark runs so that as many objects and textures are loaded into RAM as possible. I recommend five runs, then discard highest and lowest and report the median (middle) result. This will eliminate the effect your HDD has on the test and return much more consistent results. - use the -maxmem= parameter on your ArmA II shortcut By far the majority have 4GB of RAM or more, set -maxmem=1536 with Vista or -maxmem=2048 with Windows XP (Vista pig needs more memory just to run the system). -maxmem= settings over 2048 probably won't return much more as it's diminishing returns, but test different settings, especially if you have lots of RAM. This will eliminate a lot of HDD seeks once objects/textures are loaded. [Protegimus - note than in another thread it is stated that 2048 is the -maxmem limit] - use the -cpucount=4 parameter on your ArmA II shortcut if you have a quad core CPU, scores consistently improved with this parameter set(?) -cpucount=8 for core i7 for 4 physical and 8 hyperthreaded logical cores worth a test For my own results with binkster's reference settings: 4634.98 50.2847 52.1637 39.6602 56.7913 32.8491 System spec's: Q6600 @ 3.03GHz 4GB OCZ RAM MSI n280 GTX OC 1GB nvidia driver version 186.08 beta Windows XP Pro SP2 resolution 1600x1200 (I'll put the LCD display on instead of my 19" monitor and test at 1680x1050x32 as this is the most common resolution reported) For those with nvidia graphics hardware, don't forget to bump your fan speed (unless it automatically ramps on your board) otherwise the temperature regulator may be artificially capping your results. AMD users, it will be interesting to see the results from multiple runs with -maxmem= parameter configured to cache objects/textures, as this will remove HDD, SATA controller and South Bridge (and link) from the equation. Can you check your BIOS and ensure TLB is enabled - wasn't this a problem that affected Barcelona family processors, but is now resolved (maybe the setting is disabled in BIOS to ensure reliability for old CPU's). ArmA II patch v1.01 final improved my score consistently, but by a small margin of ~50 points. Finally, I updated the spreadsheet with everyone's results, can I upload it somewhere so that anyone that's interested can review it? Protegimus I just had a huge performance increase by using xp rather than Vista. I was scoring around 3200 in vista and I have a dual boot and I edited the registry and got arma2 working with xp. Scored a 5200 first shot.Everything on normal 1680 x 1050 q9650 oc 3.6ghz gtx 285 2gig ddr2 1066 Win Vista Scored 3200 Win Xp Scored 5200 Three things I can think of that caused this. 1. Xp uses less ram? Not by much maybe 300mb difference.... 2. Vista/ArmA2 are on the same drive compared to XP. 3. Just the fact that im running ArmA2 in XP.? Im not sure but im going to play arma in xp for now on. [iM][iG]http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/1672/arma2mark.th.jpg[/img][/img] Edited June 12, 2009 by Placebo Added -maxmem= limit note Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T.S.C.Plage 0 Posted June 7, 2009 where I could off Vsync using ati tray tools? In the Catalyst Control Center it's the option "Wait for vertical refresh" that has to be turned to off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
