retrofly 0 Posted July 1, 2009 HiOverclocked 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 Hmm, I figured out that when I was overclocking the FSB is was overclocking the RAM too, 800mhz to 1050mhz :eek: Now that I've tweaked the Dram ratio back so the ram is running at the specified 800mhz my score has been reduced down to 1700. I'm running 64bit vista and by the looks of it 4GB is being wasted. Conclusions +0.4Ghz CPU speed adds 30% performance (Dual core) +200Mhz RAM speed adds 11% performance This is based on my low results, I'm sure if your getting 3000+ scores you wont get anything near the %'s I am. Arma 2 Settings: All normal, no PP, Res = 1620x1080, Render = 1620x1080 Stock spec Intel dual core 2.0ghz 6 GB DDR2 800mhz RAM Nvidia GTX 260 Vista 64bit OS Average Arma 2 score: 1300 CPU OC'ed spec Intel dual core 2.4ghz 6 GB DDR2 800mhz RAM Nvidia GTX 260 Vista 64bit OS Average Arma 2 score: 1700 CPU & RAM OC'ed spec Intel dual core 2.4ghz 6 GB DDR2 1050mhz RAM Nvidia GTX 260 Vista 64bit OS Average Arma 2 score: 1900 Still crap scores for my setup :(. Will probably go and buy a Quad core 3.0Ghz and 4 GB of DDR2 PC-8200 RAM soon. Cheers Luke Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) Tweaked my system a little bit yesterday and reached a (for me) astounding score of up to 2266. AMD X2 4200+ @2700MHz (default 2200MHz) 2GB RAM DDR333 (939 limit with four DIMMs :() Palit GF7900GS 512MB DDR3 @600/715 (default 450/660, but other manufacturers offer the 7900GS also at 550/700) 185.xx at a resolution of 1280x1024 WinXP32 ArmA2 settings mostly Normal, AA off, Terrain Detail low, Shadows off. With this configuration, my impression is that overclocking the CPU brought the bigger improvements. Edited July 1, 2009 by WhoCares Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f2k sel 164 Posted July 1, 2009 Tweaked my system a little bit yesterday and reached a (for me) astounding score of up to 2266.AMD X2 4200+ @2700MHz (default 2200MHz) 2GB RAM DDR333 (939 limit with four DIMMs :() Palit GF7900GS 512MB DDR3 @600/715 (default 450/660, but other manufacturers offer the 7900GS also at 550/700) 185.xx at a resolution of 1280x1024 WinXP32 With this configuration, my impression is that overclocking the CPU brought the bigger improvements. Sounds about right I can get 2126 with X2 4800+ @2.4, I don't want to overclock as other games I play don't like overclocked CPU's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lt_darkman 0 Posted July 1, 2009 ...other games I play don't like overclocked CPU's.?The only reason you'll have trouble with an overclock is if it's not stable. Given the right settings and cooling it's a no-brainer. The improvement will vary from very little in older games like counter-strike to quite considerable to newer titles like Arma 2. P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f2k sel 164 Posted July 1, 2009 ?The only reason you'll have trouble with an overclock is if it's not stable. Given the right settings and cooling it's a no-brainer. The improvement will vary from very little in older games like counter-strike to quite considerable to newer titles like Arma 2. P I run Several racing Sims GTREVO,GTL and rFactor and they don't react well when Overclocked with the older type CPUs. As the overclock you can get on the 4800+ is quite small it's not worth the effort. Also as this game crashes every 5mins anyway what would be the point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiptanoi 10 Posted July 2, 2009 Does ArmAII Mark use crossfire? Why do I ask that? Its that my GPU load sensor for graphic card #2 is at 0 all time I run this mark. But when I am at the arma2 startmenu my sensor for GPU load are moving up and down. Strange, yes, had to ask this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WTE_Vortrog 0 Posted July 2, 2009 Intel Core2 Duo 2.6ghz 2Gb RAM Ati HD 3870 512mb Video Windows XP Home 1680x1050 resolution @ 1680x1050 resolution 1600m viewdistance Settings: Textures: Normal Video Memory: High Anisotropic Filtering: Normal Anti Aliasing: Disabled Terrain Textures: Normal Object Detail: Normal Shadows: Disabled Post Processing Effects: Disabled ArmA2mark score: 2565.58 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bulldogs 10 Posted July 3, 2009 Testbench : Intel E7300 @ 3.25GHz Asus 9800GT 4GB Ram Vista 32bit Settings : Resolution - 1280x1024 Textures - Normal Anistropic filtering - Normal Terrain - Normal Objects - Normal Shadows - Normal Post Processing - Very High 3D Resolution - 100% Arma Mark 2 Score = 2514.41 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f2k sel 164 Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) My latest results aren't much faster but it does look better to me than having everything set to normal. AMD 939 4800+ x2 @2.4 8800gt Drivers Nv186.18 2GB Ram WinXP 32 Settings Resolution 1600x1200 Textures - High Video Mem - High Anistropic filtering - Normal Terrain - LOW Objects - Normal Shadows - Very High Post Processing - Disabled 3D Resolution - 100% AA - Off Arma2Mark Score = 2194.xxxx Edited July 3, 2009 by F2k Sel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiptanoi 10 Posted July 4, 2009 Amd Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (3.2Ghz) 2x HD 4850 (crossfire) (ATI Catalyst 9.6) 4GB Ram Windows 7 64bit Settings Resolution 1400x900 Textures: Normal Video Mem: Very high AF: Normal AA: Off Terrain: Normal Objects: Normal Shadows: High Post Processing: Low 3D Resolution: 100% ArmaIIMark Score: 2200-2300 ************************************************** Test 2 with one change: New processor. Amd Phenom II X4 940 (3.0Ghz) 2x HD 4850 (crossfire) (ATI Catalyst 9.6) 4GB Ram Windows 7 64bit Settings Resolution 1400x900 Textures: Normal Video Mem: Very high AF: Normal AA: Off Terrain: Normal Objects: Normal Shadows: High Post Processing: Low 3D Resolution: 100% ArmaIIMark Score: 3500 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron mexico 10 Posted July 4, 2009 I did the first test at 1920x1200, with everything set to very high, except no AA and post processing disabled. Test One - 27 Test Two - 25 Test Three - 21 Test Four - 26 Test Five - 10 OFPMark is 2100 Then I did the test over with 2560x1600 resolution, and left the other settings the exact same as the test above and got the following numbers Test One - 25 Test Two - 23 Test Three - 20 Test Four - 24 Test Five - 11 OFPMark is 2050 What the hell is going on with this game! Something is very very off, when the difference between 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 is 2fps! I'm runnin two ultras in SLI, 8 gigs of ram, evga 750i FTW, & vista ultimate 64 -------------------- EVGA 750i FTW INTEL Q6700 @ 3.6 Swifteck H20 Watercooled Two 8800ultras in teh SLIz 8 GB G.SKILL PC2-8500 Omega Claro Soundcard Thermaltake 1000w PSU Antec 900 case Gateway XHD3000 Vista 64 Ultimate Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GunSlingerAUS 10 Posted July 5, 2009 Hey folks, Just noticed something real weird - my system benchmarks slower with SLI enabled. Specs: Core 2 Duo overclocked to 3.8GHz (100% stable with Intel burn test) 4GB DDR2-800 eVGA 780i SLI FTW mobo 2 x 8800GTX 2 x WD 500GB in RAID 0 mode Vista Ultimate x64 (fairly new install - around a month old) NVIDIA 186.xx drivers eVGA SLI enhancement vysnch forced off Game settings: Default high setting 1920 x 1080 for both resolution settings -winxp switch enabled (note, I'm using the Steam version of the game) Benchmark results: NVIDIA SLI recommended: 2314 AFR2 SLI: 2102 (this is the only mode where the SLI indicators work - NVIDIA recommended does not work) SLI set to Single GPU: 2527 Absolutely bizarre behavior, indicating that this game and SLI has serious issues... among many others. Sigh. Anybody else got different results in ARMAIIMark with a similar setup and graphics settings? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
focher 15 Posted July 5, 2009 I also experience a lower OPFMark score when I have SLI running. However, I am not yet convinced that the OPFMark 2.0 test is all that conclusive. It is, however, the current baseline that lets each of us compare apples-to-apples. One thing seems obvious, SLI sure doesn't seem to help anything. System Specs Intel QX9650 OC'd to 4.167GHz 4GB DDR3 1600 3 x GTX 280 Windows 7 RC1 Software Configuration NVIDIA Driver - 186.16 ArmA - Version 1.0258136 Driver Configuration 1. SLI Profile based on Crysis 2. Set SLI Profile to Optimise for Single Monitor 3. Set SLI Profile to Pre-Render 8 Frames 4. Set SLI Profile to Vsync Off 5. ArmA 2 run with -winxp command line option Test 1 - SLI Enabled Display Resolution - 1920x1200 Render Resolution - 1920x1200 Texture Detail - Normal Video Memory - High Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Antialiasing - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - High Postprocess Effects - High OPFMark - 2796 Test 2 - SLI Disabled Display Resolution - 1920x1200 Render Resolution - 1920x1200 Texture Detail - Normal Video Memory - High Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Antialiasing - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - High Postprocess Effects - High OPFMark - 3138 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HazzA 10 Posted July 5, 2009 Texture detail : normal Video Memory : normal AA: Disabled AF: Disabled Terrain detail : normal Object detail : normal shadow detail : normal Postprocessing : disabled 3d res:1440x900 (100%) Test one 24 Test two 37 test three 29 Test four 36 Test five 11 result 2794 specs: q9550 @ 3.7 4gb dominator ram @ 1066 (heard arma 2 only uses 2gb, but i dono) ATI HIS 4870x2 (which i cant install new drivers because it only reconizges 1 core after.... ) 64bit home premium vista what do you guys think :/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ste4lth004 10 Posted July 5, 2009 Sli and dual cards like 295s are not working very well on arma2, just wait for the next patch see what happens, its a pain in the arse i know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GLeek 10 Posted July 5, 2009 What the hell is going on with this game! Something is very very off, when the difference between 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 is 2fps! many guys don't understand that. it's simple FFS. it's not "weird" ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f2k sel 164 Posted July 5, 2009 Texture detail : normalVideo Memory : normal AA: Disabled AF: Disabled Terrain detail : normal Object detail : normal shadow detail : normal Postprocessing : disabled 3d res:1440x900 (100%) Test one 24 Test two 37 test three 29 Test four 36 Test five 11 result 2794 specs: q9550 @ 3.7 4gb dominator ram @ 1066 (heard arma 2 only uses 2gb, but i dono) ATI HIS 4870x2 (which i cant install new drivers because it only reconizges 1 core after.... ) 64bit home premium vista what do you guys think :/ yours ------ mine Test one 24 - 24 Test two 37 - 22 test three 29 - 19 Test four 36 - 24 Test five 11 - 14 result 2794 , 2000-2100 1600x1200 AMD 939 4800+x2 @2.4 8800gt XP Yours is really getting hurt in test one and five, it must be down to Vista. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HazzA 10 Posted July 6, 2009 yours ------ mineTest one 24 - 24 Test two 37 - 22 test three 29 - 19 Test four 36 - 24 Test five 11 - 14 result 2794 , 2000-2100 1600x1200 AMD 939 4800+x2 @2.4 8800gt XP Yours is really getting hurt in test one and five, it must be down to Vista. I do have the -winxp command on :/ but might not be working ill have a tweak tonight, also i would like to force vsync off but dont have ATI CCC because it wont install and ati tray tools wotn work for now either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fish44 0 Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) My score 3295.36 :D Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 1333fsb Corsair DHX DDR3 4 Gig @ 1333fsb Asus P5Q3 Deluxe Wifi Asus 8800GTX Creative XFI Gamer Windows XP SP3 nVidia 185.85 Interesting result, I got a similar rig, but much poorer result. I wonder is XP the difference. Original poster mentioned a significant difference with Vista and XP!! Core Duo E 6850 @ 3.4ghz 2 gb Skill 6400 @380 EVGA 8800Ultra Vista 32 Ultimate nVidia 185.85 OFPMARK 2183 Update (v 1.03). Same system, speed, fresh install vista OFPMARK 3006 Edited August 14, 2009 by Fish44 New data Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f2k sel 164 Posted July 6, 2009 8800gt XP Is VSYNC forced on for everyone or just a certain OS's, I've tired it on and off and even using XP it makes no difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cri74 10 Posted July 6, 2009 (edited) OS : Vista 64 CPU : Q6600 @ 2,4 RAM : 4 x 1 gb PC6400 @ 800 GPU : 8800 GTS 640 mb Res : 1680 x 1050 - 100% Configfile is edited Refresh=100 | Vertsync is forced off | PhysX is off Test 1 - View Distance - 10 000 Texture Detail - Normal Video memory - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Antialiasing - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail -Normal PostProcess Effects- Disable Mark 1958.19 PostProcess = High then Mark 2076.08 Videomemory = VeryHigh then Mark 2365.22 Test 2 View Distance - 10 000 Texture Detail - High Video memory - Default Anisotropic Filtering - Low Antialiasing - Very high Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - High Shadow Detail - High PostProcess Effects- Disable Mark 2043.38 Edited July 6, 2009 by cri74 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Revski 10 Posted July 6, 2009 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - AMD Phenom 9550 Ram - Kingston 2GB GPU - Radeon HD 4850 OS - XP Resolution - 1280 x 1024 Score - 1954.92 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evilmedic 0 Posted July 6, 2009 OS : Windows 7 64bit (RC) CPU : i7 920 @ 4.2 GHz (HT off) RAM : 3 x 2GB GPU : 280GTX Res : 1920 x 1200 - 100% Triple Buffer On, AA Transparenecy MSAA On, V-sync on. Max pre-rendered frames 8 ARMA II in game settings. Texture detail : Very High Video Memory : Very High AA: Very High AF: Very High Terrain detail : Very High Object detail : Very High shadow detail : Very High Postprocessing : Very High 3d res:1920x1200 (100%) Score: 2571.8 Test One: 32.08 Test Two: 26.90 Test Three: 21.52 Test Four: 37.01 Test Five: 11.07 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ste4lth004 10 Posted July 6, 2009 I cant get v-synch to turn off ingame tried everything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
resident emil 10 Posted July 6, 2009 Hi, I just ran the ArmAll-mark on both XP and Vista Home Premium 32-bit. These are my results, which are quite interesting actually... Cpu - i7 920 (OC'd to 3.8 Ghz) Ram - OCZ Platinum XTC DDR3 1333MHz 3GB GPU - Gigabyte Radeon HD4850 MC 1GB (On Vista OC'd to 679 mHz GPU and 1000 mHz Memory) OS - Xp Pro / Vista Home Premium 32-bit XP: The following two results were run on XP pro with the suggested ArmAll-mark settings: First run: 2725.31 OFPMark Second run: 2816.74 OFPMark Vista: The following three results were run on Vista pro with the suggested ArmAll-mark settings except the third which was run with video memory set to very high: First run: 3040.52 OFPMark Second run: 3394.91 OFPMark Third run (Video memory set to very high): 3583.2 OFPMark Vista with my normal settings: First run: 3061.23 OFPMark Second run: 3663.09 OFPMark Between the runs I alt-tabbed out to the desktop to start FRAPS for screen capturing. Alt-tabbed back to Arma2 and made screen capture. Alt-tabbed back to desktop to quit fraps and finally alt-tabbed back to Arma2 to re-run ArmAll-Mark. Between Vista tests with suggested ArmAll-mark settings and my settings I quit Arma2 to restore my normal settings. Suggested ArmAll-mark settings used: Texture Detail - Normal Video Memory - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Resolution - 1680 * 1050 Fillrate - 100% My normal settings: Texture Detail - Normal Video Memory - Very high Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- High Resolution - 1920 * 1200 Fillrate - 100% Regards, Resident Emil Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
