ArmAII-Mark

[FraG_AU 10]

You should know that a GTX 295 consists of two GTX 260's not the 275.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. very close to the 216SP model but has 80TAs vs 72 TAs of the 260. GTX285 has 80.

Basically GTX275 was half a GTX295 so they could quickly counter the 4890 (which they failed to do..)

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3498

EDIT: Obviously clock speeds aside (tho i have clocked mine beyond GTX275 speeds anyhow)

EDIT2: And obviously GTX285 has 512bit bus 1gb RAM plus 32 ROPS vs 28 ROPs.

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

Try renaming arma2.exe to crysis.exe, this got SLI working for me.

I have tried everything, spent a whole day with ARMAMARK2, FRAPS and tried every setting under the sun. I simply cant get SLi going on my setup. Tried Crysis.exe "trick" (tho makes no sense in regards to SLi, i know nvidia was cheating to get better crysis fps way back but that was to do with mip map levels etc? dunno if it worked for you I can't argue with that)

I have tried AFR1/2, split frame rendering etc, benched the crap out of it _ALL_ day (i have 4 weeks off) and have not managed to get any extra fps. Still get same with Sli on/off on the driver set, tried 3 drivers (182,185,186 beta) and 186 was best for performance for me.

Do you have a GTX295? or a 2 card setup?

Edited June 8, 2009 by FraG_AU

[Supernova 0]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. very close to the 216SP model but has 80TAs vs 72 TAs of the 260. GTX285 has 80.

Basically GTX275 was half a GTX295 so they could quickly counter the 4890 (which they failed to do..)

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3498

EDIT: Obviously clock speeds aside (tho i have clocked mine beyond GTX275 speeds anyhow)

EDIT2: And obviously GTX285 has 512bit bus 1gb RAM plus 32 ROPS vs 28 ROPs.

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Look at the total memory size, bandwidth size and other factors. It's a GTX 260 coupled with GTX 280 stream processors. Just so that you know those articles you link don't help your case and if you bothered to check a GTX 260 Core 216 SLI setup in certain cases outperforms a single GTX 295.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Supernova

[FraG_AU 10]

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Look at the total memory size, bandwidth size and other factors. It's a GTX 260 coupled with GTX 280 stream processors. Just so that you know those articles you link don't help your case and if you bothered to check a GTX 260 Core 216 SLI setup in certain cases outperforms a single GTX 295.

Dude, get a clue, trust me I have owned pretty much every card since Rendition V1000 chips so I know my hardware. I provided the links if you cared to look.

NOTHING to do with friggin benchmarks. We are talking hardware NOT benchmark. Regardless the benchies are @ stock, i run mine higher.

GTX 285

1Gb Ram

512bit Bus

32ROPS

80TA/F

240 Stream Procs

GTX275

896Mb RAM

448Bit Bus

28ROPS

80TAs

240 Stream Procs

GTX260+

896Mb RAM

448Bit Bus

28ROPS

72TA/F

216 Stream Procs

GTX295 =

2x 896Mb RAM

2x 448Bit Bus

2x 28ROPS

2x 80TAs

2x 240 Stream Procs

Ergo, GTX295 = 2x GTX275.. (CLOCK speeds aside, as I said I clock mine 650/1400/1150)

Hope this helps you understand.. and make YOU realise you have no idea.

Edited June 8, 2009 by FraG_AU

[Supernova 0]

Dude, get a clue, trust me I have owned pretty much every card since Rendition V1000 chips so I know my hardware. I provided the links if you cared to look.

NOTHING to do with friggin benchmarks. We are talking hardware NOT benchmark. Regardless the benchies are @ stock, i run mine higher.

GTX 285

1Gb Ram

512bit Bus

32ROPS

80TA/F

240 Stream Procs

GTX275

896Mb RAM

448Bit Bus

28ROPS

80TAs

240 Stream Procs

GTX260+

896Mb RAM

448Bit Bus

28ROPS

72TA/F

216 Stream Procs

GTX295 =

2x 896Mb RAM

2x 448Bit Bus

2x 28ROPS

2x 80TAs

2x 240 Stream Procs

Ergo, GTX295 = 2x GTX275.. (CLOCK speeds aside, as I said I clock mine 650/1400/1150)

Hope this helps you understand.. and make YOU realise you have no idea.

Look at the specs over and over again and the reviews and you will realize that the GTX 295 is a GTX 260 in SLI. This isn't the thread for arguing over the internet about hardware.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Supernova

[FraG_AU 10]

Look at the specs over and over again and the reviews and you will realize that the GTX 295 is a GTX 260 in SLI.

Wow, you like to troll huh?

READ, GTX275 IS HALF the GTX295!!!

When I run my gtx295 in single GPU mode it preforms EXACTLY like a 275 (as long as i overclock it which I do!)

http://www.hardware.info/en-US/news/ymiclZqYwpqacZY/nVidia_GTX_275_is_half_a_GTX_295/

^^ Perhaps read this.

Man, you slow or something? if you have nothing useful to contribute, please leave this thread for people to post their scores and configs so we can see if we can get some idea of what hw is obtaining what FPS.

[scottw 0]

I have tried everything, spent a whole day with ARMAMARK2, FRAPS and tried every setting under the sun. I simply cant get SLi going on my setup. Tried Crysis.exe "trick" (tho makes no sense in regards to SLi, i know nvidia was cheating to get better crysis fps way back but that was to do with mip map levels etc? dunno if it worked for you I can't argue with that)

I have tried AFR1/2, split frame rendering etc, benched the crap out of it _ALL_ day (i have 4 weeks off) and have not managed to get any extra fps. Still get same with Sli on/off on the driver set, tried 3 drivers (182,185,186 beta) and 186 was best for performance for me.

Do you have a GTX295? or a 2 card setup?

I have a 2 card setup, but I have spoken to someone with a 295 and read a post from someone with a 295 that this sorted the issue for them, but ive read other post's where it hasnt so it does seem a little hit and miss at the moment, me personally it worked and I saw a large increase in frames.

[FraG_AU 10]

I have a 2 card setup, but I have spoken to someone with a 295 and read a post from someone with a 295 that this sorted the issue for them, but ive read other post's where it hasnt so it does seem a little hit and miss at the moment, me personally it worked and I saw a large increase in frames.

Yeah, I'm unlucky at the moment then :( I will try some more over the next few days, an extra 10-15fps would keep the game at 40+ which will keep me more then happy. We all know its pretty much a beat at the moment so i'll just enjoy the campaign and fingers crossed as to what happens.

[maddogx 13]

Yeah, I'm unlucky at the moment then :( I will try some more over the next few days, an extra 10-15fps would keep the game at 40+ which will keep me more then happy. We all know its pretty much a beat at the moment so i'll just enjoy the campaign and fingers crossed as to what happens.

Just out of interest, when you renamed arma2.exe to crysis.exe, did you make sure to change the settings in the NVidia control panel for Crysis instead of Arma2?

[fop 10]

Texture Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - Normal

PostProcess Effects- Low

Cpu - phenomII q4 955be (3.2ghz)

Ram - ocz platinum cl7 6GB DDR3 1333@1033

GPU - sapphire radeon HD 4890 oc version

OS - xp 64bit

Resolution - 1920 x 1080

Score - 2400

Something is wrong here in xp

-----------------------------------------

Texture Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - Normal

PostProcess Effects- Low

Fillrate 100%

Cpu - phenomII q4 955be (3.2ghz)

Ram - ocz platinum cl7 6GB DDR3 1333@1033

GPU - sapphire radeon HD 4890 oc version

OS - Windows 7 64bit

Resolution - 1920 x 1080

best Score - 4341

after reboot 1st arma2mark run 3500 (??), 2nd run 4200, 3rd run 4229,36, 4th 4167,65.. 4271,99)

---------------------------

windows 7

Resolution 1680 x 1050

score 1st run 4170, 2nd 4338,86

------------------------------

so xp shocked me in the beginning :) i try to find out whats creating this mess. maybe epu tool for the asus m4a78t-e mainboard

update: no solution for xp so far. i installed newest chipsetdriver and so on... but no change

Edited June 8, 2009 by fop

[binkster 0]

@Supernova

Here is the benchmark script

;hint "starting!"
_i = 0
_time = 0
#loop1
_i = _i + 1
~0.0001
?stop:goto "exit"
goto "loop1"

#exit
testscore = _i / _time
scores = scores + [testscore]
;hint "exiting!"
;titletext[format["%1",testscore],"plain"]
exit 

Here is the Init script:

;exit
Removed to get to the point

titletext[format["- RESULTS -\n-----------\nTest One - %1\nTest Two - %2\nTest Three - %3\nTest Four - %4\nTest Five - %5\n%7's OFPMark is %6!\n\n - press 'ESC' to quit -",(scores select 0),(scores select 1),(scores select 2),(scores select 3),(scores select 4),(((scores select 0) + (scores select 1) + (scores select 2) + (scores select 3) + (scores select 4)) / 5) * 100,(name player)],"plain"]
~5
goto "scoreloop"

You see it averages FPS then multiplies by 100... THats how you get your score...

Do you see anything in there that says INTEL = 5000 points.... and AMD=2000....?

Your synthetic theory is stupid and it made me laugh at first cause I just thought you were playing around. If you still dont believe me then put your pc at stock settings and see what your score runs. It should be much lower than you score is now.

Here is the THREAD to the ORIGINAL OFPMARK... This script has been used since 2003.

Also everyone always use your second or third score the FIRST one is always low since its loading stuff into ram. I was thinking of making an INTRO to the mission so we could have a camera move all over the island so everything would be loaded so therefore the first test would be closer to the second and third.

Edited June 8, 2009 by binkster

[Ez3kiel 10]

Thanks for the precision.

Do you have an explanation about this post :

OS - xp 64bit

Resolution - 1920 x 1080

Score - 2400

Something is wrong here in xp

OS - Windows 7 64bit

Resolution - 1920 x 1080

best Score - 4341

after reboot 1st arma2mark run 3500 (??), 2nd run 4200, 3rd run 4229,36, 4th 4167,65.. 4271,99)

---------------------------

windows 7

Resolution 1680 x 1050

score 1st run 4170, 2nd 4338,86

------------------------------

so xp shocked me in the beginning :) i try to find out whats creating this mess. maybe epu tool for the asus m4a78t-e mainboard

update: no solution for xp so far. i installed newest chipsetdriver and so on... but no change

[echo1 0]

I'd say it could be down to XP 64bit, I hear it has some driver issues.

READ, GTX275 IS HALF the GTX295!!!

I second that - the GTX295 was created by taking the GTX260 and speeding it up a good bit. The GTX275 was basically a GTX295 split in half and (I think) overclocked a bit.

How can I see this well if an stock clocked i7 920 user scores much higher than a stock clocked AMD Phenom II X4 955 then there is obviously something wrong.

Not necessarily. In any generalized benchmark I've seen, most benchmarks place the 955 between the Q9550 and the Q9650. And the Core i7 920 performs a good bit faster than the Q9650. Obviously there are certain cases where the 955 might match the i7 920, but that's not the same thing as a guarantee that it will always beat it.

Edited June 8, 2009 by echo1

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

According to 3DMark06 the 955 is on the same the level with the i7 920. Not overclocked and with a HD4890 both normally score around 16500 points slightly depending on the used OS and peripherals. Overclocked both CPUs crack the 20000 points and I see slight advantages on the side of the 955 when using comparable clock rates.

[fop 10]

my sytem arrived last week. compared to the i7 the phenom saved me 300€... and its just 500 pts behind the i7. maybe the phenom also have more oc potential. so im happy ;)

[Protegimus 0]

For the record, spreadsheet was Ez3kiel's, I just updated it and thanks to you too binkster for updating the benchmark.

After looking at Protegimus spreadsheet ... Gives a good idea on what runs good and what runs bad based on that spreadsheet.

Best way that I used to open the file was with google docs online.

Edit: Maybe Protegimus should only put peoples scores that hotlinked an image of the score pluss settings. Im sure some folks might not have been truthfull. Plus some of these people are not following the standard on settings.

Good find fop - anyone else verify that AMD CPU's are performing better on Windows 7 x86-64 than with XP or Vista?

I tested Cionara's recommendation about enabling sound hardware acceleration (file: playername.ArmA2Profile, soundEnableHW=1 right?) - I didn't see the same performance improvement (Creative PCI X-Fi Fatal!ty), but sound quality is much better than software rendering.

With respect to Supernova's post regarding CPU benchmarks, he's absolutely right about reducing resolution when purely testing CPU performance; but OFP, ArmA and now ArmA2 have always been CPU/code limited not GPU limited, so unless your graphics card is badly limiting your system performance then it is not the major factor in an ArmA II benchmark - so we don't have to test at 1024x768 to allow the CPU to show its full potential.

Note there is another useful tip in Dead3yez other thread regarding the render settings in ArmA2.cfg

Check your config file and ensure the

Resolution_W=

Resolution_H=

settings have the same values under:

Render_W=

Render_H=

I think this was a bug in the v1.00 release and may have been fixed in v1.01.

Finally, scottw - how about retesting your system with the specified settings so that your results can be compared?

[ubascouser 0]

Just done some more tests with arma mark and the cat 96s which have just been unoficially released and my scores are worse than the cat 95s not by much but they are worse my average score was just above 24.0000 this was also not with the normal settings my config was as follows.

fillrate 136%

resolution 1280x1024

view 1998

texture high

video high

antialias high

terain normal

objects very low

shadows disabled

post process low

-mod=noblurB -nosplash -maxmem=2048 -mod=sound -mod=@VopSound_2.0

i also edited the screen ress in the config file.For me these settings will do for now as the single player is playable and whilst in the editor with 8 groups of infantry and armour it never rarely dropped below 26fps it averaged 30 also whilst flying a jet on strafing runs. The only major problems i have are the big cities so my cpu will have to go soon im probably lookin at going over to intel which for me will be a first in my 9 years of pc gaming.I hope this gives someone with similar specs to mine an idea of what to expect because without some of the settings the game looks like ofp and if i wanted to play ofp i would dust it off and reinstall it.

[Ospi 10]

Getting pretty poor performance given my system I think.

E8400 @ 3.6GHz

4 gig ram

ATi 4870X2

Vista 32bit

1680x1050

Settings as requested, after 4 runs best score = 3100

Not sure if the gpu is running both cores or whatever, i'm a little ignorant to the technicalities.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Ospi

[Shadow NX 1]

I wanted to try A2 on Win7 since a while but didnt expect any great result especially as i read a article few days ago where most games rather ran slower when using a ATI card under Win7.

Well i installed it on a extra partition, istalled ArmA2, installed ArmA Mark and the results werent breathtaking but in both tests i ran i had a increase of 200pts bringing it to ca. 2450pts max.

Settings were all to Normal, Post processing to low.

Overall the game felt lot more fluent and texture loading was lot lot less in my usual test missions even when i used higher settings.

Most important the problem with suddently flickering spikes everywhere once Vram got full didnt show.

So all that got rather unusual low scores may give the free win7 RC a try.

My Specs.

Win 7 RC ( Build 7100 )

HD 4870 512MB

4 GB Pc-1000 Ram by G-Skill in dual channel

AMD Penom X4 9850 BE 4x2,5Ghz

Used the standard GPU drivers that came with 7

---------- Post added at 10:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 PM ----------

Getting pretty poor performance given my system I think.

E8400 @ 3.6GHz

4 gig ram

ATi 4870X2

Vista 32bit

1680x1050

Settings as requested, after 4 runs best score = 3100

Not sure if the gpu is running both cores or whatever, i'm a little ignorant to the technicalities.

By default only one GPU of your card should be used, afaik you can try to rename your arma exe to another game like crysis.exe so the card uses a profile originally made for crysis that uses both cores.

However posibility of me being wrong there is high so maybe someone knows better than me and can give more infos on that.

[Supe® HaÑs 10]

Aye, I'd like to know what's going on with Sli at the moment tbh, I'm a little confused. My performance at the moment is quite pathetic and could really do with a boost, but looking around I think it's probably my cpu thats holding the score down (don't know my arse from my elbow when it comes to overclocking), maybe more ram for vista as well (what does it do with it all?). Still a CPU that's still £200+ should surely be enough to play at above 30fps. I'm not Ted Dibiase, and I'm afraid I dont have access to any NASA super-computers, sorry Bohemia.

All settings as OP. Score of just over 2900.

E8600 @ 3.3

2 x GTX 280

790i xfx

4gb ddr3

Vista 64

Anyway, does anyone have any news about official SLi support?

[binkster 0]

Getting pretty poor performance given my system I think.

E8400 @ 3.6GHz

4 gig ram

ATi 4870X2

Vista 32bit

1680x1050

Settings as requested, after 4 runs best score = 3100

Not sure if the gpu is running both cores or whatever, i'm a little ignorant to the technicalities.

Can you try a different OS? I know everyone doesnt have different OS's laying around but my score improved going from vista to xp.

I hate to assume its just my vista install. I would like to confirm this with others if possible.

There is speculation that since im using 2gig of ram vista could be hoggin all the memory but I used game booster to get rid of win vista processes that are not needed and it gave me more room to work with. XP gives me about 300mb of ram more than vista even though I used game booster. So I dont see that much improvement over 300mb of ram.

[Ospi 10]

I dont have another OS unfortunately, I need to purchase a 64bit OS though to get the full use out of my ram.

just annoys me how they cannot properly support these graphics cards.

[FraG_AU 10]

I dont have another OS unfortunately, I need to purchase a 64bit OS though to get the full use out of my ram.

just annoys me how they cannot properly support these graphics cards.

Hi mate, I can't get SLi working ATM either but have seen some people have apparent success tho I am yet to see results in ARMA Mark..

Try renaming your exe to crysis.exe (didn't work for my gtx295)

Also add -winxp to your shortcut, and -cpucount=X (whatever cores you have)

My best score on normal is 5300 odd @ 1920x1200 (all on normal), I get approx 4300 with mostly high settings, BUT thats irrespective of whether I am using multi GPU or single GPU.. (I7 @ 4.2Ghz).

I bloody hope they get SLi support soon, as without it the game can't be enjoyed at a decent res.. I am just hoping to get extra 30% FPS which will bring me to a consistant 40fps. ATM I pretty much get 30FPS no matter what I do, almost like a FPS limiter.. Anyway its only "beta" days at the moment so fingers crossed.

Also try to get rid of the HDR/Blur effect, people seem to get some good gains from that too. But yeah my GPU tops out at 50C, wheras every other game it gets to 70-75 when using SLi.

I am compiling a heap of scores from runs with diff settings, command lines, and tricks to see what works best, hopefully I will have some solid info by the weekend.

[maddogx 13]

@FraG_AU

Don't know if you saw my last post, so here again:

After renaming the arma2.exe to crysis.exe, did you make sure to make the changes in the NVidia Control Panel (such as SLi rendering mode) for Crysis and not for ArmA2?

[FraG_AU 10]

@FraG_AU

Don't know if you saw my last post, so here again:

After renaming the arma2.exe to crysis.exe, did you make sure to make the changes in the NVidia Control Panel (such as SLi rendering mode) for Crysis and not for ArmA2?

Yeah I did alter crysis.exe profile in nvidia control panel. Tried all the tricks I can see on this forum but nothing yet, may well be a GTX295 bug? Don't know at this stage. I will spend some more time playing about with it.

[Supe® HaÑs 10]

I have GTX 280 in SLi and it's not working my end either, so it's not your card/s.

As far as my score goes I find turning the grass off is about the only thing that makes any kind of difference. All on normal @1600 1050 I get 2900, with grass off, res 1900 1200 everything else at V High I get 3300. I well need a decent i7.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Supe® HaÑs