ArmAII-Mark

[froggyluv 2135]

Not in this case. Now game running drastically faster and smoother, so now i able to play with all "Very high" settings and view distance=3km, even in the big towns, like Elektrozavodsk and Chernogorsk. Now i'm happy. =)))

Wow, looks like XP is the way to go *kicks self for buying Vista64*. So your saying that even though xp32 using less ram, you are getting that much better of a perfomance bump? Was this also the case for Arma1 and did future patches even things out? If not, looks like I'll have to create a partition and get XP (again).

[adom23 10]

The game only seems to use 2gig ram at most so XP shud be fine with it, wont see much in the benefits of 64bit as it runs in 32bit neway by the looks of it :S

I really dont want to go back to XP tho... 64bit OS's are stupidly faster for everything I need.. so I shall be waiting it out :P

[f2k sel 164]

I tried the GAME BOOSTER but if anything it ran a little slower even though it disabled a load of stuff.

[binkster 0]

I dont think it has anything to do with 32bit 64bit issues nor how much ram. I think it all comes down to drivers for the reason why xp outperforms vista as much as it does. Ive seen ATI users say they have better performance in vista than xp. So this makes me think that nvidia sucks with vista drivers.

[galzohar 31]

Vista is well known for its performance issues, it has nothing to do with RAM or 32/64 bit. As for 64 bit overall, that's not helping either because the game will never use more than 2GB of RAM and XP 32 bit can give provide it with that ram. Plus I've never the RAM useage ever approach 2GB on my PC.

More ram and 64-bit would proably be very helpful... If you're actually using apps that use it up.

For now I'm sticking with XP pro 32 bit and 4GB of RAM (so that if Arma 2 does decide to use up the entire 2GB, then I still have some RAM left for OS/background stuff).

[binkster 0]

Vista is well known for its performance issues, it has nothing to do with RAM or 32/64 bit. As for 64 bit overall, that's not helping either because the game will never use more than 2GB of RAM and XP 32 bit can give provide it with that ram. Plus I've never the RAM useage ever approach 2GB on my PC.

More ram and 64-bit would proably be very helpful... If you're actually using apps that use it up.

For now I'm sticking with XP pro 32 bit and 4GB of RAM (so that if Arma 2 does decide to use up the entire 2GB, then I still have some RAM left for OS/background stuff).

Ya I went from 2gig to 4gig of ram and it didnt change a thing in vista for arma2....Ram is not a issue when your talking performance with vista and arma2 unless you only have 1 gig lol

[lt_darkman 0]

Cpu - Q9550 @ 4GHz

Ram - 4GB DDR2 @ 1141 (PL 10)

GPU - GTX280 @ 747/1537/1199

OS - Win 7 x64 Build 7100

Resolution - 1920 x 1200

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

All Normal except PP low (vsync forced off in Nvidia Control Panel)

Test 1 - 45.8147 (45.5102)

Test 2 - 48.703 (48.5625)

Test 3 - 39.6256 (38.9374)

Test 4 - 56.2324 (56.7108)

Test 5 - 36.651 (36.045)

Score - 4540.53 (4515.32)

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

GTX280 @ 758/1537/1199 (scales with clock speed increase only in first 3 tests)

Test 1 - 45.8614

Test 2 - 49.2875

Test 3 - 40.342

Test 4 - 55.7103

Test 5 - 36.492

Score - 4553.86

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

All HIGH except PP low

Test 1 - 33.4199

Test 2 - 35.9014

Test 3 - 28.613

Test 4 - 43.2432

Test 5 - 27.6467

Score - 3376.48 (3503.461 with PP disabled)

All VH except Textures & Terrain H (PP low) - 3308.461

All VH (PP low) - 2625.61

All VH (PP disabled) - 2746.16

Despite posts to the contrary forcing vsync off made it slower on my system, and as I increased the settings I saw a corresponding drop in fps.

P

Edited June 29, 2009 by Lt_Darkman

[Angrybutler(Steven) 10]

Cpu - i7 965 @ 3.2GHz

Ram - 6GB DDR3 @ 1600

GPU - GTX295

OS - New install-Win 7 x64 Build 7100

Resolution - 1680x1050

Texture Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - Normal

PostProcess Effects- Low

Resolution - 1680x1050

ArmaMark: 3128 -Ive done every tweak that has been posted in these forums and I still get major hiccups when I move my camera around, I just dont get it.

AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh.....

[retrofly 0]

Hi

Windows vista Home premium

Intel Dual CPU E2180 @ 2.00Ghz

6GB DDR2 800Mhz RAM

Geforce GTX260

Recently defrag

Running games booter

Most of Vista "extras" turned off

Settings:

Combination of Normal/high

AA: disabled

PP: disabled

Res: 1920x1080

Render: 1920x1080

Max: 1600

Min: 1200

Hi

Overclocked my Dual processor from 2.0Ghz to 2.4Ghz (Stock cooling/Voltage)

My score has now jumped to 1900

Still terrible compared to most people (3000-3500 by the looks of it). But it defiantly seems CPU is one of the main factors for this game.

I'll be buying a quad core soon, but until then I may overclock my bad boy a bit more :).

Luke

[ahmedjbh 0]

ok i have tried xp32 stock, xp32 slipsteam, xp64 stock and xp 64 superior slipstream, and win 7.

on my pc with a phenom 2 955, 4 gig ddr3 and a 4890, xp64 superior slipstream is hands down faster.

The commit charge is only 170mb after installing everything included avg. Compare that to stock xp64 which was a stupid 400mb.

I have a 6 partitions and 5 OS installed at the moment, if anyone wants any tests done say now, because im going to format and stick with xp64 superior slipstream.

[Lauri90 10]

Q9550 @3,2

HD4870 512mb 790/1100

4gig ram

Vista Ultimate 64bit

All on normal. 1680x1050

Test1: 33.2969

Test2: 41.225

Test3: 31.466

Test4: 42.8266

Test5: 14.2066

Lauri`s OFPMark is 3260.42!

Wonder why my test 5 sux?

Also, when i put all on high, i get around same result :S

[ComadeR 0]

can someone tell me about arma2.exe renameing to crysis.exe?

[purkka_fin 0]

my ArmamarkII score 4067

FillRate Optimizer 100%

Texture Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - Normal

PostProcess Effects- Low

Cpu - Q6600@3.75

Ram - 2x2Gb 800Mhz

GPU - gigabyte GTX260 oc

OS - winxp

Resolution - 1600x1200

new test with new zfx gtx295 same setings except resolution 1440*1200

3400-3600 points so it cant beat even gtx260

[dansireuk 0]

Tested on WinXP 32

At the settings I play the game at - 1920 x 1080, all settings very high, with the exception of antialiasing, terrain detail and objects detail at normal I get about 4200.

Specs:

Gigabyte EX58-UD3R

Core i7 920 @ 3.4ghz

6GB Corsair XMS3 (3x2GB) DDR3 1600mhz

GeForce 285GTX (186.18 drivers)

My biggest issue is hard disk thrashing rather than framerate. Particularly in the really big online missions with loads of players and vehicles. the game doesnt seem to use enough of the available resources. I only have 3gb system memory available in XP but the game never seems to use more than about 800mb at most? Surely the game could use the available memory to preload more data.

Also no matter what settings / resolution / AA or how demanding the mission it never seems to use more than about 720mb of VRAM which seems a bit odd.

Edited June 29, 2009 by DanSireUK

[binkster 0]

Tested on WinXP 32

Specs:

Gigabyte EX58-UD3R

Core i7 920 @ 3.4ghz

6GB Corsair XMS3 (3x2GB) DDR3 1600mhz

Geforce 285GTX (186.18 drivers)

My biggest issue is hard disk thrashing rather than framerate. Particularly in the really big online missions with loads of players and vehicles. the game doesnt seem to use enough of the available resources. I only have 3.2gb system memory available in XP but the game never seems to use more than about 800mb at most? Surely the game could use the available memory to preload more data.

Also no matter what settings / resolution / AA or how demanding the mission it never seems to use more than about 720mb of VRAM which seems a bit odd.

Try that again and put aspect ration to 100% and post process on low. See what you get.

[dansireuk 0]

Try that again and put aspect ration to 100% and post process on low. See what you get.

Same settings as above but with post processing on low and 3D resolution at 100% (1920 x 1080)

[subtee 0]

Same settings as above but with post processing on low and 3D resolution at 100% (1920 x 1080)

nice performance.

you could try the -maxmem2047= command, it may help you squeeze little more fps even.

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

XP os

Intel C2D e7400 @ 3.2

Asus P5N32-SLI Premium

Corsair XMS2 pc6400 4Gb

BFG GTX 275 oc

74 Gb Western Digital HDD

700 watt ThermalTake psu

X-Fi Xtreme Gamer

driver v. 185.85

I use shortcut parameter -maxmem=2047

all settings normal but for post processing, low

1280x1024

settings same as above but I used driver v. 186

Edited June 29, 2009 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[Lauri90 10]

Seems like this game loves i7.

[hokum15 2]

Arma2Mark: 3173

XP X64

Gigabyte EP45-DS3P

Q6600 @ 3.3Ghz

Radeon 3870 + 3850 Crossfire X

4Gb Kingston Hyper-x @826 4 4 4 15

Seagate 7200.11 360Gb

-maxmem=2047

[lt_darkman 0]

Seems like this game loves i7.

Seems like this game loves XP ;)

i7 doesn't seem to be scoring any better than C2Q, so clearly the extra horsepower isn't being used atm, and neither is RAM over 2GB.

Strange how Win7 x64 > Vista x64 when they're basically the same OS underneath all the froth (don't get me wrong I prefer Win7 but it ain't that different).

Definitely some room for optimisation by BIS (once they've caught up on sleep) to make the most of hardware (and software) potential.

P

[FraG_AU 10]

Same settings as above but with post processing on low and 3D resolution at 100% (1920 x 1080)

LOL, You're PC is lower spec then mine and kicks mine's arse.. I think I will avoid dual GPU solutions in the future.

[purkka_fin 0]

i think the arma2 demo benchmark is better to see real game perfomance. its more like real game speed i have 45fps on that 1920*1200 same setting all normal postprosessing disabled

[binkster 0]

i think the arma2 demo benchmark is better to see real game perfomance. its more like real game speed i have 45fps on that 1920*1200 same setting all normal postprosessing disabled

You may be right but ArmA2Mark was designed to see what systems run better. It doesnt matter what average fps you get while playing real missions or what not.

From this thread ive found out that quadcores and i7s with singlecard nvidia mixed with XP give the best performance. Now some have gotten sli to work great but are still not up there with some of the high scores.

Also from this thread we can tell that CPU frequency is a big factor with ArmA2.

I also think vista and nvidia dont mix well either. Some claim that vista gives better performance and these people said they have Ati cards.

[f2k sel 164]

It would be good to have a static version as well just to test the GPU more, especially when your trying to tweak the settings.

The scripting seems to mess things up too much as vehicles and other stuff seem to vary depending on the CPU speed.