ArmAII-Mark

[Gringo85 0]

I have the same cpu as you at practically 3.3ghz,4gb of ram, but a 4850 card, i run everything practically on very high and get the same fps. You might as well stick with the cpu as upgrading won't benefit you very much but may give you a bit of extra fps maybe 10-15%, the game itself needs more patching

---------- Post added at 06:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 AM ----------

wait does that mean you can run AM3 CPUs on a AM2/AM2+ Motherboard??? :butbut: :butbut:

That's correct, to be in the safe side make sure your model does support it but yeah AMD made AM3 CPU backward compatible, check AMD website.

[ck-claw 1]

Total ARMA Mark score 1192.21

Do i win a prize? :P

Only Just! :D

Pentium 4 - 2.9ghz -3 gig sd ram -Ati 2600 512mb -Win XP 32bit SP3

Edited July 16, 2009 by ck-claw

[nkenny 1057]

Fresh WinXP Sp3

CPU - AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition @ 3.2Ghz

MB - MSI 790FX-GD70, 790FX+SB750, Socket AM3

RAM - OCZ Gold DDR3 1333MHz 4GB KIT

BEAST - XFX GeForce GTX 285 690M 1GB PhysX CUDA

@ Latest 193.xx drivers.

All default settings. @High - 1280x1024 res.

Results

Test One- 33.2404

Test Two- 34.712

Test Three- 27.7411

Test Four- 35.0263

Test Five- 21.6353

== 3047.1!

Running my optimized MP settings I managed to drag it all the way to 35xx.x. It is interesting to see how much better comparatively clocked ATI and i7 CPUs do it compared to this rig. wonder. Is anyone compiling this data?

-K

Edited July 17, 2009 by NkEnNy

[Mr.Ferret 10]

Only Just! :D

*image*

Pentium 4 - 2.9ghz -3 gig sd ram -Ati 2600 512mb -Win XP 32bit SP3

Nope you win now, my new bits arrived, 800 dollar PC and i can run medium to high at about 30 - 40 fps!!! get about a 4500 arma mark with everything on normal. should do it with it all on high sometime

[chammy 7]

Hmm, I did 3 tests, the first 2 were at high settings and the 3rd was normal, the test results were lower scored on Normal than on High or almost the same. Weird. The Space Capsule test really taxed the graphics there.

26 25 23

26 30 26

21 24 21

30 29 31

10 11 10

2317 2419 2287

I'm starting to think for the price of the Intel Core 2 Q8400 at 2.6 ghz I could've got the AMD Phenom II X4 940 Deneb 3.0GHz for 10 to 20 dollars cheaper. I wonder why Intel runs a slower speed. But I heard that the Intel can be OC'ed even my graphics card, but I'm scared to.

[binkster 0]

Hmm, I did 3 tests, the first 2 were at high settings and the 3rd was normal, the test results were lower scored on Normal than on High or almost the same. Weird. The Space Capsule test really taxed the graphics there.

26 25 23

26 30 26

21 24 21

30 29 31

10 11 10

2317 2419 2287

I'm starting to think for the price of the Intel Core 2 Q8400 at 2.6 ghz I could've got the AMD Phenom II X4 940 Deneb 3.0GHz for 10 to 20 dollars cheaper. I wonder why Intel runs a slower speed. But I heard that the Intel can be OC'ed even my graphics card, but I'm scared to.

Hey chammy... Maybe try in xp sometime down the road. You should be able to oc to 3.2 easy maybe with little or 0 voltage increase.

I have almost same system as you except the Processor is q9650. I can almost reach 6000 with 4ghz but I was never below 3k. Only low hits I got was in vista. Thats why I think maybe try in xp and see what you can do.

Also dont take the first test. Its always lower cause of loading stuff into ram and what not.

Edited July 17, 2009 by binkster

[sk3pt 0]

i7 920 @ 4.2Ghz

ATI HD 4890 @ 1Ghz

6GB RAM

Windows 7 x64 RC

Resolution 1920 x 1200

Vsync ON (max 60 fps)

[chammy 7]

Hey chammy... Maybe try in xp sometime down the road. You should be able to oc to 3.2 easy maybe with little or 0 voltage increase.

I have almost same system as you except the Processor is q9650. I can almost reach 6000 with 4ghz but I was never below 3k. Only low hits I got was in vista. Thats why I think maybe try in xp and see what you can do.

Also dont take the first test. Its always lower cause of loading stuff into ram and what not.

Hey Binkage, haven't seen you online anymore aweful much heh

Yeah, I looked up your CPU type and yikes, the price is up there too high for me to reach unfortunately. But do you really think I should try XP? I thought Win7 should be more streamlined by the end of this year or so. Hmm, how much do you think a OS of XP will be down the road? I had XP but now when I tried to install into my new system the serial number would not work. The guy I bought XP off of, might be locked up cause I have not seen his site anymore nor any updates from him or responces from him so I am screwed. :(

Is it possible for me to OC my CPU with Win7? Or even GTX 285? Will I need to get another type of cooler system for the CPU? The stock cooler was a pain to install.

Whats your GPU fan running at? I have mine at 50 and it runs at about 57 to 68 temperature.

[llauma 0]

@Chammy

First of all, get more ram. You have the minimum required RAM just to run win 7 64bit which I assume you have. It's a fairly cheap way of boosting your system.

About overclocking. I think you have some dynamic overclocking options in the gigabyte BIOS. You can adjust the CPU, RAM and PCI-e clocks easily. Though don't expect any miracles as long as you have just 2 gb RAM.

If you can get your hands on XP again I think it would be a wise decision to go back to it. It's the best OS for this game.

[sk3pt 0]

I ran the test again with the exact same settings, but this time with vsync OFF (forced with ATI Tray Tools).

Second run:

Needless to say, I'm very happy. :)

I will keep VSync on while gaming though, as I can't stand the tearing.

[binkster 0]

Top score there wow ^

[mant3z 1]

Hmm, I did 3 tests, the first 2 were at high settings and the 3rd was normal, the test results were lower scored on Normal than on High or almost the same. Weird. The Space Capsule test really taxed the graphics there.

26 25 23

26 30 26

21 24 21

30 29 31

10 11 10

2317 2419 2287

I'm starting to think for the price of the Intel Core 2 Q8400 at 2.6 ghz I could've got the AMD Phenom II X4 940 Deneb 3.0GHz for 10 to 20 dollars cheaper. I wonder why Intel runs a slower speed. But I heard that the Intel can be OC'ed even my graphics card, but I'm scared to.

Get more RAM +2G

Put this monster on your PCU: http://www.scythe-usa.com/product/cpu/040/scmg2000_detail.html

And OC it to 3.2Ghz... you will get over 4000 points.

Your gameplay will be always smooth even with resolution 1920 x 1200.

[MakubeX 10]

Get more RAM +2G

Put this monster on your PCU: http://www.scythe-usa.com/product/cpu/040/scmg2000_detail.html

And OC it to 3.2Ghz... you will get over 4000 points.

Your gameplay will be always smooth even with resolution 1920 x 1200.

Get more RAM +2G

Put this monster on your CPU: http://www.scythe-usa.com/product/cpu/040/scmg2000_detail.html http://www.thermalright.com/new_a_page/product_page/cpu/u120ex/product_cpu_cooler_u120ex-intel_bp.html

And OC it to 3.2Ghz 3.6Ghz... you will get over 4000 points.

Your gameplay will be always mostly smooth even with resolution 1920 x 1200, depending on your settings.

Fixed ;)

- The TRUE is a lot smaller, easier to install and still performs slightly better.

- I use to run my E8400 C0 at 4.1Ghz. Taking it to 3.6GHz shouldn't be too hard, especially with a great cooler like the TRUE, so go for it.

- As the game is now, even with i7 over 4GHz and GTX 295 Quad SLI, depending on the settings, fps can take serious plunges in ArmA 2.

Edited July 19, 2009 by MakubeX

[D_O_A 10]

All settings at normal @1920x1200 Win7 x64 build 7100 using latest nvidia beta drivers.

Dell 2407WFP (1920x1200 native res)

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (using TRUE black cooler)

GTX 285

GSKILL F2-6400CL4D DDR2 4 1GB sticks

Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R

Everything at stock clocks.

Pretty average results.

Edited July 18, 2009 by D_O_A

[wooly-back-jack 10]

obviously been playing with settings but pleased considering my rig lol

512mb 8800GT o/c

2 gig of 400mhz DDR ram

althlon x2 3600+ 2ghz (o/c to 2.25 at the time I think... edit, no it was 2.39)

funny how this benchmark doesn't crash but the game does :D

Edited July 19, 2009 by wooly-back-jack

[Gringo85 0]

obviously been playing with settings but pleased considering my rig lol

512mb 8800GT o/c

2 gig of 400mhz DDR ram

althlon x2 3600+ 2ghz (o/c to 2.25 at the time I think)

funny how this benchmark doesn't crash but the game does :D

This is what I don't get, this kid has better benchmark than me and I have (without insulting you) a better rig (at least I think so):

AMD Athlon x2 6000+ Dual Core O/C to 3.3Ghz

3.5 Gbs RAM

ATI HD 4890 1 Gb

WinXP

And I get 23xx.x ish... Max score, ArmA II is acting more like my relationship than a game, I love my girlfrind but sometimes I can't understand her!!!

[Yapab 10]

Default Normal untouched, fillrate changed to 100% 1680x1050.

Texture Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Low

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - High

PostProcess Effects- High

Fillrate - 100%

Anistropic Filtering - Low

Antialiasing - Low

Video Memory - High

Res 1680x1050

Test One: 31.922

Test Two: 31.857

Test Three: 26.787

Test Four: 40.540

Test Five: 26.152

OFP Mark is 3145.2!

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Very High with AA disabled and Post Processing Disabled 1680x1050.

Texture Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - High

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - High

Shadow Detail - High

PostProcess Effects- Disabled

Fillrate - 100%

Anistropic Filtering - High

Antialiasing - Disabled

Video Memory - Very High

Res 1680x1050

Test One: 41.714

Test Two: 37.584

Test Three: 38.507

Test Four: 46.493

Test Five: 26.022

OFP Mark is 3606.43!

///////////////////////////////////

C2D E6420 @ 3.5ghz

8800GTX oc

4GB DDR800 oc

XP 32 SP3

190.38

Going by the results above... the AA and Post Processing settings have a huge impact on performance (GPU/CPU). In my opinion I prefer the game with higher settings and no AA / Post Processing, I also get better FPS/Mark with this!

So turn that AA off and Post Processing!

yapa

Edited July 19, 2009 by Yapab

[wooly-back-jack 10]

This is what I don't get, this kid has better benchmark than me and I have (without insulting you) a better rig (at least I think so):

AMD Athlon x2 6000+ Dual Core O/C to 3.3Ghz

3.5 Gbs RAM

ATI HD 4890 1 Gb

WinXP

And I get 23xx.x ish... Max score, ArmA II is acting more like my relationship than a game, I love my girlfrind but sometimes I can't understand her!!!

no insult taken lol (I am 33 though so I'll take 'kid' as a compliment!)

your system is far superior to mine. mine is still socket 939

[Gringo85 0]

ops, sorry for the kid thing, in this case I'm the kid (24yrs) but yeah this game is something.

[binkster 0]

ops, sorry for the kid thing, in this case I'm the kid (24yrs) but yeah this game is something.

Look at his settings... It way below low. Like the fillrate is under 100% and the rest is like very low or disabled.

[wooly-back-jack 10]

any settings to reccommend for me to try for a fair result ? (I know it is obviosly going to be worse, just for comparison to someone else)

the fill rate is at 88% btw, that's what my game defaults at

Edited July 19, 2009 by wooly-back-jack

[Gringo85 0]

Yep, right he has settings way below (didn't notice the 3d resolution), but also anything I tried in ArmA II either increasing or decreasing settings had showed very little improvement maybe 1 or 2 FPS change.

[wooly-back-jack 10]

1280x1024 is my max resolution (non widescreen 19" TFT)

anyway, here's my results with ingame default settings

[Gringo85 0]

2nd run it's always a lil bit better, idk why, but it is. (Funny thought, first run the UAZ always crash into each other)

[wooly-back-jack 10]

obviously been playing with settings but pleased considering my rig lol

512mb 8800GT o/c

2 gig of 400mhz DDR ram

althlon x2 3600+ 2ghz (o/c to 2.25 at the time I think... edit, no it was 2.39)

funny how this benchmark doesn't crash but the game does :D

just reverted back to these settings and lowered my overclock (both in bios and nvcontrol panel)

2.35ghz

the only setting I changed from above was video memory, I changed to DEFAULT rather than normal

look what I got lol