ArmAII-Mark

[Gringo85 0]

jeez, either ArmA II / ArmA II Mark are really confusing us. Wonder how reliable this things are.

[binkster 0]

You have to take the second score of each test cause first is bad due to loading data.

Also try everything at Normal with AA disabled and fillrate at 100% that is supposed to be the standard so we can see what systems run the best.

[Eagle911 10]

Intel® Core2 Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz

NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX (GeForce 9800 GTX/9800 GTX)

Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition

2Gb RAM DDR2

Giga-Byte GA-P35-DS3L (rev. 1.0) Motherboard

Everything normal

Fillrate 100%

Resolution 1900x1200

Postprocess Effects - low

Strange, i got like 2500 when i had some stuff on low. But i had fillrate on 125%

[Nuxes 11]

System:

C2D E8500 3.16Ghz

4GB Patriot 800Mhz

300GB Seagate 16MB 7200rpm

Abit IP35V

X-Fi Elite Pro

Sapphire 4870x2 2GB, 9.7 drivers

LG 19" 1440x900

Vista Home Premium 64-bit

I restarted the game between runs in order to flush the memory. If you run the test back to back, you get a much higher score the second time, ex: 2347 the first time and 2549 the second. There was a lot less steaming in of textures and models the second run. Memory usage by arma2.exe at the end of the first run was 756MB, and 942MB at the end of the second.

Here are the results of the benchmark. The score is average fps x100. 'Max' is all settings as high as possible in the game menu. 'Min' is the lowest settings. When I overclocked to 3.8Ghz, the RAM stayed at 800Mhz. All other tests are at stock CPU and video card speeds.

GPU usage according to Rivatuner during a test run, graphics at max, stock speeds.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Nuxes

[choC 10]

Specs:

Core i7 920 @ 3.8ghz

Asus P6T Deluxe

ATI HD 4870 512mb

6GB G.Skill PC-12800 DDR3

Asus Xonar Essence STX

24" Dell 248WFP @ 1920x1200

Win 7 64-bit (VSync Forced Off)

Switching V-Sync off gave me a 1000 point boost :dancered:

Edited July 20, 2009 by choC

[ste4lth004 10]

Nice score choc.

[Yapab 10]

nuxes and choc's results on page 48 show just how CPU limited this game is.... nuxes has a much more powerful video card yet gets much much lower marks/fps.

Choc has a fast CPU and is running higher settins.. still gets higher results!

Yapa

[choC 10]

Thanks :)

I'd upgrade my graphic card but DX11 is just around the corner

[cid_gen_bondorf 0]

CPU: Intel E6600

RAM: 6GB DDR2 800Mhz

Video: XFX Geforce 8800GT (512MB)

All settings were at NORMAL except Postprocessing effects at LOW

View distance: 2000

Resolution: 1280x1024

Windows XP Score: 2400

Windows 7 Score: 1700

I seem to be only getting tiny bit of chop when playing online and getting into a heavily populated areas and only for a bit. But I noticed my hard drive is working all the time. Is that normal for this game? Shouldn't it be only working during loading sequences like in other games?

Don't feel like upgrading to an Intel i7-920 system yet. It will cost me around $750+tax (Canadian dollars) and I can't afford that yet. Would it be worth going with an Intel Q9550 as a new CPU. I can just slap that into my current system. Or would I get more for my money by getting a Geforce GTX275? Both are around the same price.

Thanks ;)

I upgraded my CPU... WOOT!!! I slapped in an Intel Q9550 and it made a world of difference for me...

I blew my old scores (see the above quote) away.

This is what I came up with:

Texture Detail - Normal

Video Memory - Normal

Anistropic Filtering - Normal

Antialiasing - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - Normal

PostProcess Effects - Low

View Distance - 2000

Monitor - 1280x1024

WindowsXP-32bit = 3672

Windows 7-64bit = 3319

_________________________________

And turning things down a shade boosted the score a good bit more...

Texture Detail - Normal

Video Memory - Normal

Anistropic Filtering - Low

Antialiasing - Low

Terrain Detail - Very Low

Objects Detail - Low

Shadow Detail - Normal

PostProcess Effects - Disabled

View Distance - 2000

Monitor - 1280x1024

WindowsXP-32bit = 4820

Windows 7-64bit = 4150

_________________________________

My current PC layout is now:

Intel Q9550 @ 2.83Mhz (stock)

XFX 8800GT 512MB (stock)

64GB DDR800 (stock)

P5Q Motherboard

[r3volution 0]

Well my current PC, affectionately known as 'Mound 'O' Suck' pulled a cool 2153.79.

1680x1050

Core2Duo 6550 2.33ghz

2gb DDR2 800mhz

8800 GTS OC 640mb

WinXP32bit

It certainly feels like upgrade time... damnit. :eek:

[oyman 0]

settings on normal, fillrate at 100%, and postprocessing at low. I got a score of 5182.99

and I have

i7 920 at 3ghz

3gb ddr3 corsair dominator at 1600mhz

asus matrix engtx260 at 650mhz gpu/1625mhz shader/1800mhz mem

xp pro

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/oyman/Untitled-1-2.jpg

Edited July 22, 2009 by oyman

[Atticus052 0]

Edit. Disregard

Edited July 23, 2009 by Atticus052

[TriggerHappy57 0]

_________________________________________________

SYSTEM INFORMATION:

Windows XP SP3

INTEL E8400 @ ~3.8 Ghz

2 GB DDR2 1066 Kingston HyperX

EVGA 750i FTW Edition

2 x 8800GT 512 (G92) SLI [182.50 WHQL Drivers]

250 GB WD Caviar

_________________________________________________

NORMAL SETTINGS:

1680 x 1050, 100% Fillrate

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

MY SETTINGS:

1680 x 1050, 100% Fillrate

Texture detail: Normal

Video memory: Normal

Anisotropic filtering: Very High

Terrain detail: Normal

Object detail: Very High

Shadow detail: Normal

Postprocess effects: None

_________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

Edited July 23, 2009 by TriggerHappy57

[Atticus052 0]

i7 920 @ 3.8ghz

Geforce 295gtx @ 648mhz core clock/1308 memory clock

6gb Corsair XMS3

Vista 64bit

850w Corsair XT/3 74gb SATA 3.0 Raptor drives in Raid 0

Texture Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - Normal

PostProcess Effects- Low

Resolution - 1680 x 1050

Test 1: 48.30

Test 2: 44.50

Test 3: 36.60

Test 4: 41.11

Test 5: 23.31

Score: 3867.82

I ran the test on minimal settings just to put maxumum emphasis on the video card at 1280 x 1024 and got:

Test 1: 55.46

Test 2: 55.11

Test 3: 45.28

Test 4: 52.06

Test 5: 33.35

Score: 4825.75

Lastly what I play at: 1920x1080, everything very high except normal shadow detail.

Test 1: 47.22

Test 2: 31.65

Test 3: 29.60

Test 4: 34.52

Test 5: 13.34

Score: 3130.91

Things to note: 295gtx drivers don't allow you controll to turn off vsync (at least EVGA's don't); Vista = bad.

Anyone else think my score should have been higher considering what I am working with compared to other more limited systems? I'm questioning as to if it might be #1 vsync, #2 vista, or #3 the 295 is based on two slower 275 cores.

[doakwolf 10]

i7 920 (C0/C1) @ 3.9GHz

HD4890 @ 950/1100

6GB Corsair XMS3 @ 1488MHz

Game installed on 2x WD Black 1Tbs (raid0)

Vista64 installed on WD Black 640Gb

---

All "normal" @ 1680x1050

ArmA2 Mark = 4943.73

VSYNC OFF

---

All "normal" @ 1680x1050

ArmA2 Mark = 4879.77

VSYNC ON

---

No screen shots because for some reason my screen dumps only 'pasted' as blank, black images. I've got no reason to lie though. My score isn't very high for my system (compared to what I've seen listed on here). That said, I am new to PC gaming and don't know how to tweak the ATI drivers etc to perform better.

Jero.

P.S. I have dual boot so I might try some XP32 tests when I have time.

P.P.S. Was I supposed to have AA turned on? I had it on 'normal' (2x).

---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 PM ----------

Anyone else think my score should have been higher considering what I am working with compared to other more limited systems? I'm questioning as to if it might be #1 vsync, #2 vista, or #3 the 295 is based on two slower 275 cores.

Yes, I agree - your system probably should have scored higher.

1) Nope - I don't think VSync makes that much difference (look at the tiny diff in my two scores).

2) Nope - My test was run in Vista64 and I still scored much higher although I have an inferior GPU.

3) I'm not sure.. But still, considering a GTX275 is (in most cases) almost as quick as a 4890, I would have thought your score would be closer to mine.

I'm wondering if you made the same mistake I made when I ran my first test? Did you set both the Interface resolution and the 3D resolution to 1680x1050? It makes a difference. Initially, I had just the 3D resolution set correctly (with Interface resolution set to 1920x1080) and my scores were well below 4000.

Cheers!

Jero :-)

[Atticus052 0]

Na, had both resolutions at 1680 x 1050, for what it's worth, did you build your system yourself or buy it?

PS. I had the same issue as you, screen shots show up as just a blank black screen shot.

[hotel 10]

Test 1 - 44.7744

Test 2 - 53.0004

Test 3 - 40.7987

Test 4 - 55.0711

Test 5 - 27.5627

OFPMark - 4424.15

Settings

All MEDIUM / Post Proc - LOW

Video Memory - HIGH

AF - MEDIUM

AA- OFF

Draw - 1600

3D Res - 1920x1200(100% fill) - this does not effect frames for me

System

AMD Phenom 2 X4 955 BE @3.8Ghz

Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P (790FX and SB750 Chipsets)

Sapphire HD4890 1GB @ 930/1100 (Catalyst 9.7)

Patriot DDR3 1600Mhz 2x2GB (4GB)

Western Digital 500GB 32MB

Antec 500W

Windows 7 RC-7100

Conclusion

Overall the game is running decent even on campaign. The only issues I have now is the damn stuttering. I am going to try a raptor HDD soon to see if that cures it.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Hotel

[Leachman 10]

Asus P6T

i7 920 @ ~3.9 GHz (Noctua i7 cooler)

6GB OCZ Platunim PC15000 @ 1803 Mhz 8-8-8-24

MSI GTX270 Frozr OC (stock clocks)

2@ WD Black 1TB in RAID1 (Intel)

Windows7 Ultimate X64 RC1 Build 7100

Forceware 1.85 drivers

X-Fi Xtreme Music

Score 5395 on the first pass, higher on the second as the terrain is cached in memory.

Test Resolution 1680x1050

Vsync is ON

All at Normal except post processing at low and FSAA is off

I prefer no tearing if frames are acceptable, and they definitely are so I keep vsync on. I lose disk throughput by using RAID1, but I use this PC for far more than gaming and the protection is important to me.

[doakwolf 10]

^ I wonder if Windows7 is a key part of why your machine scored much higher than mine? I might try XP tonight just to find out! LOL

---------- Post added at 03:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 AM ----------

Na, had both resolutions at 1680 x 1050, for what it's worth, did you build your system yourself or buy it?

I built it myself last month.

---------- Post added at 03:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 AM ----------

All at Normal except post processing at low and FSAA is off

Ah, you had AA off. I might try again with it off but I'm pretty sure I already did try and it only improved my score a tiny bit.

[Atticus052 0]

Yeah I'm pounding my head on my desk to figure out where the failure lies in my system holding it back a good 20 to 30% behind similar configurations ... it similarly falls behind in tomshardware.com charts... wondering to myself if EVGA just sucks for mobos? I turned off vsync and finally broke 4000 on the mark... still not good enough however.

[doakwolf 10]

Core i7 920 @ 3.8ghz

Asus P6T Deluxe

ATI HD 4870 512mb

6GB G.Skill PC-12800 DDR3

Asus Xonar Essence STX

24" Dell 248WFP @ 1920x1200

Win 7 64-bit (VSync Forced Off)

I'm seeing a trend amoung the Windows7 users! They're dominating ArmA2-Mark!!!

My rig should obviously be scoring higher than choc's since it's the same apart from my GPU being the model up, having twice the VRAM and being OCd to 950MHz.

Choc, what other specs do you have? HDDs etc?

Jero

[doakwolf 10]

Score 5395 on the first pass, higher on the second as the terrain is cached in memory.

I haven't read every post in this thread so maybe it's been raised before but if not I think you've found an answer to as why so many people are getting higher scores than others with superior PCs - I just did a quick test..

XP32bit:

All 'normal' with AA OFF:

First score: 4765

Second score: 5354

All I did was select 'restart' mission. I hadn't thought of that (the cache issue). Sure clears a few things up here!!! Thanks for pointing it out :-)

[Blackhalo 10]

q9550 @ 3.5, gtx 260, 4g ddr2 @ 1099.

Win 7 64

All settings normal with AA off,

First run-3928

Second run- 4721

[Leachman 10]

I haven't read every post in this thread so maybe it's been raised before but if not I think you've found an answer to as why so many people are getting higher scores than others with superior PCs - I just did a quick test..

XP32bit:

All 'normal' with AA OFF:

First score: 4765

Second score: 5354

All I did was select 'restart' mission. I hadn't thought of that (the cache issue). Sure clears a few things up here!!! Thanks for pointing it out :-)

Yep, humans will always find a way to cheat! :D

[ericodapinco 10]

Test 1 365758

Test 2 342087

Test 3 274975

Test 4 323189

Test 5 201320

OFPMark 3014.66

Sys.settings: All normal, antialiasing disabled, postprocess effects disabled

@ 1600 x 1024 / 3D res. 100% 1600 x 1024

edit: also second run... first run score 2547.5 with all settings @ normal(also antialiasing) and postprocess @ low

Test 1 320837

Test 2 307593

Test 3 238754

Test 4 301811

Test 5 104757

Total 2547.5

Edited July 24, 2009 by ericodapinco