ArmAII-Mark

[GLeek 10]

Ok, my previous results as per last page were ~2800-

Same settings today, having downloaded Win7: ~3800!

Thats over a 30% increase.

My FPS in the spin test went from ~30 to 50

While my FPS in 'Space Capsule' went from ~14 to ~30!

Pretty impressive.

The main factor is the new catalyst drivers which take full advantage of Win 7. I have also overclocked my processor from 3G to 3.6, but this will only make a slight difference, as those test wont bu pushing the cpu as much as GPU.

To prove, I will later on re-do both tests with the OC, and post screenies to prove it.

Recommend Win 7 to all struggling XP users! Now I can use FSAA and still play smooth.

you mean your score goes from 2800 to 3800 , AFTER you overclocked your CPU and install win7 ? i bet the overclocking has up your score.

but i will myself test arma2 with seven in few minute , i want to know if vista is the sh1t

---------- Post added at 10:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 AM ----------

i tested. it's marginally better , if even .(object very high)=> vista ~2650 , seven ~2800.

vsync enabled, of course.

---------- Post added at 10:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ----------

the space capsule gave me exactly same score 14.5fps first pass, 22.5 fps second pass.

i think you guys should end the FUD about windows 7... :F

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 AM ----------

Have made some tweaks recently that has finally brought my game up to spec for the hardware I am running.

Not sure if any of this info will be helpful to others but here are some points to consider.

HT off

Moved my swap file to my two spare drives, each drive has a 2-4gb swap. SSD has no swap file. This resolved my jerky/studdering gameplay.

Using ATT to turn off vsync (massive improvement with this, FPS is up and mouse lag is gone)

Using Windows 7 Professional 64 RTM

Using Cat 9.8

No switches in my start shortcut

For this test CPU was 'only' running at 3.8ghz, both GFX are overclocked to 800mhz on all four cores

Texture Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - Normal

PostProcess Effects- Low

Fill rate 100%

Resolution - 1680 x 1050

For my normal multiplayer settings (1600x1200) I get a score in the high 8k's. Can do a run and screen shot as such if needed ;)

O.M.G quadfire rulz. but you are still cpu limited with some of scenario.

what about MP gaming ? how does it run ?

[thaFunkster 0]

Win 7 vs. Win XP: I stand corrected! (Somewhat)

Ok, so I re-did both runs. Processor OCed to 3.6

Settings: Resolution (both): 1600x1050

All Settings to Medium

Anti Aliasing: off

Postprocessing: Low

Vertical sync forced off.

Win XP:

First Run:

Second Run:

Win 7:

First Run:

Second Run:

Ok, so its clear that Win 7 is faster. Not as fast as my previous post suggested though.

I had no idea that processor speed (jumping from 3 to 3.6G) would have this much effect when there is not a lot of AI activity to calculate.

Something to note, it feels a whole lot smoother under Win7, and there is a noticeable Image quality improvement.

Particlarly in relation to test 5. Under XP, as the height falls, and the landscape comes into view, everything is broken up into grids, some are just grass while the ones next to them are forest, it looks terrible. Then the second run had all kinds of artifacts on the screen (my GPU is not OCed, and my CPU temps are fine).

With Win 7, none of this messy grid effect was apparent, the whole landscape was one smooth whole.

This is likely to be due to the Win 7 optimised drivers in Catalyst 9.8. I am also using the XP version of these drivers for the XP tests.

(Interesting to note that while overall performance is up, in both cases tests one and two shower a slightly lower result under W7.)

Edited September 10, 2009 by thaFunkster

[kremator 1065]

Should always be quoting the SECOND run values and not the first run.

[thaFunkster 0]

Ok fair enough, thought I would include all for completeness.

GLeek, test #5 is actually where I saw the most dramtic improvement, from 14 to 28 FPS! Also, the other visual improvements noted above.

[James22 10]

Any ideas on why ARMA mark won't work now that i've updated to 1.03?

Starts loading then CTD's?

[Shooter McGavin 10]

No, it's not cheating because it's not a competition - but it doesn't give an accurate rating to compare to other user's results on this thread (unless we all use run #2). When playing the 'game', there is no opportunity for the PC to 'pre load' the textures prior to entering a town or new part of the map etc (unless it is, in fact, coded that way, somehow) so using your second score in ArmA2-Mark doesn't give an accurate result, IMO.

But that said, half the ppl on this thread are quoting first run scores and the other half quoting second run scores so it's impossible to compare specs and see how your PC is going compared to other's.

My 2c :)

so if we cant use second test score then tell me wtf cache is for.

and thats such bs that its not accurate. run 5 tests and tell me which result is inaccurate. then again, dont tell me, tell yourself. my computer never bogged down to what this test runs, except space capsule.

youre wrong it is a competition, look at all the posts of people here bragging, and read the text before you load the script(keep your eyes open for "the pissing contest continues".)

im not competing, just sharing results with fellow amd'ers on the new processors, which this game obviously does not capitalize on.

[long_bong 10]

Hi

Curious, with a core i5, using a HD4890 with OC (934 MHz / 4 x 1088 MHz),

Vista 64

Ram 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 Non-ECC

With full blast setting:

Test 1: 21,78

Test 2: 31,26

Test 3: 27,35

Test 4: 34,38

Test 5: 25,98

Total: 2815

Now with normal setting:

Test 1: 24,31

Test 2: 35,59

Test 3: 29,48

Test 4: 35,26

Test 5: 27,90

Total: 3051

I would have expected a larger performance gap between normal and full blast mode,

Anyone has clue? I will change to Windows 7 soon :)

Thanks

[jmc 0]

Cpu - Q9450 (2.6ghz)

Ram - 4GB DDR2 1066

GPU - Ati 4870 1 Gig 750/900

OS - XPpro

Resolution - 1680 x 1050

Normal Score - 2899

(Arma demo benchmark in Full game)

beta 1.04-59210 ----41 FPS ,view distance 1600

(just OCed to 3.3 Ghz for testing)

3.3 Ghz

Normal Score - 3422

First runs - test 5 with 2.6 and 3.3Ghz both 10.

Second run gives the boost to 18

Arma DEMO benchmark/full game - 41

------------------------------second run - 41

-------------------------(OC 2.6 to 3.3) - 41

DEMO benchmark run in full game

Beta 1.04-59210

gives an 18% increase in FPS

over being run in the DEMO.

OC the 2.6 cpu to 3.3 gig did nothing for

the Arma Demo/full game benchmark.

But gave an 18% boost to ArmaMark...

Don't understand that but those are the numbers.

The OC to 3.3 DID get rid of the large pause in the Demo benchmark

(not the micro stutters tho.) (am running it on slow 155/90-R/W OCZ SSD)

Some here seem to indicate that increasing memory speeds helps

But that is for another day.

jmc

Edited October 3, 2009 by jmc

[Razorman 10]

Specs in sig, Score:

Test1: 28.2081

Test2:37.7625

Test3:31.5444

Test4:51.4139

Test5:17.9441

Razormans OFP Mark is 3337.46

Arma2 vers 1.4

Windows 7

1920x1280 interface & 3d

Everything on very high except terrain detail low & post processing off.

In game performance is great min 33fps in towns to max 100 in open, very smooth & very nice.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Razorman

[TimRiceSE 10]

Hi

Curious, with a core i5, using a HD4890 with OC (934 MHz / 4 x 1088 MHz),

Vista 64

Ram 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 Non-ECC

With full blast setting:

...

Total: 2815

Now with normal setting:

...

Total: 3051

I would have expected a larger performance gap between normal and full blast mode,

Anyone has clue? I will change to Windows 7 soon :)

Thanks

Thats very strange... i have a i5, 4gb 1333mhz, but a HD4850 at stock speeds, and I scored 4000 with the same settings as you for normal, but only 2400 with the very high settings.... my cards showing its weakness at high settings but its very strange that your normal settings scores arent considerably higher than they are....

Edit: I do use windows 7 though...

Edited October 3, 2009 by TimRiceSE

[S-M 10]

Righty, i have just done a load of benchmarks on mine

q6700 @ 3.31ghz

2gb ddr2

GTX 275

XP 32 bit

Screen res 1024x768 as this is all my old LCD will put out!

As per forum default settings

3612.18

Everything on max low

4746.70

Everything on Very high, v-ram on default PP off

2549.36

Everything on Very High, v-ram on default PP on full

2578.76

Everything on Very High, v-ram on default, PP on full, texture detail on high

2626.23

Everything set to High, v-ram on high

3115.09

Everything on High, v-ram on default, shadows on high, PP on full

2670.17

Everything on Very High, v-ram on default,PP on full AA off

2583.32

Everything on Very High, v-ram on Very high, PP on full

2500.01

Everything on Very High, v-ram on high, PP on full

2597.30

Everything on V-high, v-ram on default, PP on full and game directory defragged with "gamebooster"

2565.68

Some of my thoughts so far

1.putting everything on max low gives me reasonable boost.

2.everything else seams to make SOD ALL difference in the grand scheme of things.

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------

PS. one one of the above runs, the 2 cars in the first test, crashed into each other LMFAO!

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

Everything set to High, v-ram on high

3115.09

driver version is important, i gained 10% from 190.38 to 191.03beta.

perhaps give that latest driver a try.

190.38

190.89

191.03beta

if you can manage an average of 30FPS with high settings for playing, I would be satisfied with that.

[kklownboy 43]

Set up as the first post. 1680/1050, normals ,no AA, low PP

Lowered my "view complexity" to 160k (i use 1000k) Vysnc ON,Vista64.

T1-75.6

T2-69.03

T3-51.60

T4-61.60

T5-43.66

Total-6031.34 First run= 4622.

2048/1536, AA@4x,all the rest at VH, except PP to off. I use CCC AF at 16x .

T1-25~

T2-43~

T3-40~

T4-48~

T5-24~

3624, 1st run=2685

i7-965 @4.1z

6GB@1500

4870X2's @stock.

Edited October 4, 2009 by kklownboy

[S-M 10]

I am not so sure that ArmaMark is very good at repeatable results.

Like i said above, in one of my tests, the 2 cars crashed into each other and stopped on the road!

[kklownboy 43]

I am not so sure that ArmaMark is very good at repeatable results.

Like i said above, in one of my tests, the 2 cars crashed into each other and stopped on the road!

yeah but the fps isnt much when that stuff happens, and it seems to be only the crazy drivers in T1.

[banenwn 10]

Texture Detail - Very high

Anisotropic Filtering - Very high

Terrain Detail - Very high

Objects Detail - Very high

Shadow Detail - Very high

PostProcess Effects- Very high

Cpu - E8400

Ram - 2Gb DDR2 800 mhz

GPU - bfg GTX 260 core 216

OS - xp 32 bit

Resolution - 1680x1050

Score - 2061.68

Im debating on whether to upgrade my graphics card and get a radeon 5850 or go quad core 9550 since this game seems to do better with quads.any suggestions on what to upgrade first?

[RogueBlade 0]

arma2.exe with no extensions

1680X1050

Texture Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - Normal

PostProcess Effects- Low

i7 920

6gb DDR3 1600mhz

Crossfired 4890's

vista 64bit sp2

Score - 3600.

(my score was 36** but print screen just caught a black screen and my task bar :\)

[AnimalMother92 10]

Texture Detail - High

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - High

PostProcess Effects- Disabled

CPU - 2.8ghz Quad Core Intel Xeon E5462

RAM - 8gbs DDR2 800mhz

GPU - EVGA GTX 285

OS - Windows 7 RC Build 7100

Resolution - 1920x1200

Test 1 - 22.1415

Test 2 - 33.2333

Test 3 - 24.2298

Test 4 - 37.0599

Test 5 - 11.4114

Score - 2561.52

[kMaN175 34]

Dell XPS 1730

CPU - Intel Core Duo T9300@2.50GHz

RAM - 4GB DDR2 800mhz

GPU - 2 x nVidia 8800 GTX - SLI - 1GB

OS - Windows Vista Home SP2

Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Disabled

Terrain Detail - Low

Objects Detail - Very Low

Shadow Detail - Disabled

PostProcess Effects- Disabled

Resolution - 1920x1200

Test 1 - 18.9488

Test 2 - 21.2039

Test 3 - 18.3895

Test 4 - 20.9607

Test 5 - 10.1198

Score - 1792.46

Anyone have any ideas on how I could improve performance?

Edited October 13, 2009 by kMaN_(KYA)
Add a comment.

[RogueBlade 0]

^ lower res and maybe some more/ddr3 ram. OC ur cpu

[jumpinghubert 49]

Arma2 & vista are not good friends ;)

[Opticalsnare 12]

1920x1200 32bit

TextureDetail= VeryHigh

TerrainDetail= Normal

PostProcess= Disabled

VideoMemory= VeryHigh

ObjectsDetail= VeryHigh

ShadowDetail= VeryHigh

AF= VeryHigh

AA= Disabled

-

Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz

4GB DDR2 800mhz

Zotec 9800GT / 191.07

250gb Maxtor Sata Drive

Vista64 Ultimate Edition

1680x1050

Normal Settings

PostProcess = Low

AA = 0

Mark= 2360.88

Edited October 14, 2009 by Opticalsnare
added screenshots

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

I suggest a standard on settings

Everything on Normal and Fillrate should be 100%. View distance doesnt matter since the mission will automatically set this.

Texture Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - Normal

PostProcess Effects- Low

If you want to try it on High as well go ahead and post the settings and scores.

I suggest posting a screenshot of your score to prove your scores.

Driver version should also be included :j:

[galzohar 31]

Dell XPS 1730

CPU - Intel Core Duo T9300@2.50GHz

RAM - 4GB DDR2 800mhz

GPU - 2 x nVidia 8800 GTX - SLI - 1GB

OS - Windows Vista Home SP2

Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Disabled

Terrain Detail - Low

Objects Detail - Very Low

Shadow Detail - Disabled

PostProcess Effects- Disabled

Resolution - 1920x1200

Test 1 - 18.9488

Test 2 - 21.2039

Test 3 - 18.3895

Test 4 - 20.9607

Test 5 - 10.1198

Score - 1792.46

Anyone have any ideas on how I could improve performance?

Your bottleneck is clearly and by far your CPU. More RAM will make no difference, and faster RAM will make little difference if any. Your GPUs are more than fine, at least when compared to how subpar your CPU is - Your CPU pretty much the minimum I'd recommend for anyone who wants to play this game, while your RAM/GPU are far above the minimum.

[jumpinghubert 49]

-Arma2 1.04 beta_59210

-driver nvidia 191.07

-only maxmem parameter

-no pagefile

-arma2 partition on second harddrive

-second run of benchmark

-16 x AF in nvidia control panel

Score: 4927

Edited October 16, 2009 by JumpingHubert