galzohar 31 Posted June 9, 2009 I dont have another OS unfortunately, I need to purchase a 64bit OS though to get the full use out of my ram. So far I hadn't seen anyone reporting arma2 going anywhere near the 32bit RAM limitation. Nor did any other game. If there are games that actually use so much RAM I would love to see evidence, but for now I'm sticking with my very functional XP. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fop 10 Posted June 9, 2009 @ Ospi you can get the windows 7 release candidate for free. also the 64 bit version. the version is usable up to 2010. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
laggy 0 Posted June 9, 2009 Intel Core 2 Duo E6850, 3.0 GHz 3.00 GB RAM NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX (182.50 drivers) Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit German version. Patch 1.01 No mods or tricks (no blurr, maxmem etc.) Graphics settings only set in option menu. 1680*1050 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Score: 2536 Pretty much like I expected... playable :) Laggy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
laggy 0 Posted June 10, 2009 All on HIGH except PP on LOW Score: 2309 Seems like the graphics settings don't really matter that much. Is this game only about CPU? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mant3z 1 Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) @laggy Yes sir! That's correct, you need more CPU power I've updated BIOS in my MOBO few days ago, so now I was able to use AM2+ cpu's. Yesterday I've bought Phenom II 940 3.0Ghz and now it's my new score: Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Resolution - 1920 x 1200 Normal Score - 3824! <<I think it should goes over 4000 __________________________________ Cpu - Phenom II 940 (3GHz) pod AM2+ Mobo - Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe Ram - OCZ 4Giga PC2 6400 Dual CH. Platinum Rev.2 (4-4-4-15) @800 GPU - PALIT HD4870SE (9.5) OS - Windows7 RC2 Earlier with AMD X2 6400+ 3.2GHz I've got 2411. But still during campaign I've got 21~25FPS!!! WTH!! Almost nothing changed. This is really disappointing! Somebody know why this happens? When I'm playing warfare or other missions I've 30~60FPS! Screens with FPS counter (bottom right corner) http://www.mant3z.boo.pl/arma2/new/ In my other games I've noticed big difference after change of CPU, my wife was in shock when she saw 140~160fps in Sims3 (1920 x 1200 all V.high), earlier she has got 50~80fps. Also GTA IV got a nice boost. So WTH is wrong with this game?!? When I changing details LOW or high, lower res or higher, nothing change. I changed CPU from dual to quad core and difference is poor. Look here: http://www.mant3z.boo.pl/4jajca.jpg During play in campaign cores are used only in 50%, why? Edited June 10, 2009 by mant3z Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TurokGMT 0 Posted June 10, 2009 1065.03 Intel Core 2 Quad 6600 @ 2.4 Ghz 4 Gig RAM Vista Home 32 bit Res 1024 x 768 Res - 1280 x 1024 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Disabled Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Low Shadow Detail - High PostProcess Effects- Low Please...dear gods the humanity...haaaalp me.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
binkster 0 Posted June 10, 2009 Updated Score Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Resolution - 1680 x 1050 Normal Score - 5698 __________________________________ Cpu - Intel Q9650 OC (4.05ghz) Mobo - Evga 780i Ram - 4gig OCZ Blade Low Voltage 1150 <----- Replaced 2gig Cosair domminator GPU - Evga GTX285 OS - XP Was able to boost OC with 4gig of ram vs 2gig with the new low voltage. Increased score by 500pts. Unfortunately it did not change a thing in Vista. Still get around 3500 in vista lol. Big difference from xp to vista. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
laggy 0 Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) 1065.03Intel Core 2 Quad 6600 @ 2.4 Ghz 4 Gig RAM Vista Home 32 bit Please...dear gods the humanity...haaaalp me.... What GPU ? Quite important in this matter... Edited June 10, 2009 by laggy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bonko the sane 2 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) Win7 RC 7100 X64 Q6600 @ 2.88Ghz ( ill try it later on with some more OC, this is my everyday minor OC) 4GB Kingston HyperX DDR2 @ 840 BFG 260GTX 216 Anisotropic and AntiAliasing app controlled V-Sinc On Triple Buffer On Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal 100% Fillrate Video Memory - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Resolution - 1680 x 1050 3 x Test Average Score - 3298 Overall ArmA2 plays fluid and with much better visuals, better than ArmA1 in fact, especially lod transitions, but still... i need a new pc :j: Same settings as above except: Aniso X 8 in nvidia cp Anisotropic High ingame Video Memory Default Textures High 125% Fillrate 3 x Test Average Score - c. 4100 .....much better now score and much better eyecandy, i think its related to Video Memory on default Edited June 12, 2009 by Bonko the Sane new settings Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mc sonar 0 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) a new day a new run and arma2 runs fine now i changed from XP64 to winXP32 also i can run the game with higher resolution with no problems anymore! I used the old nvidia driver 178.13 and its much better now All settings normal Fillrate: 100% Resolution: 1680x1050 Score: 3881.46 IntelQ6700@3200mhz Gainward GF8800 GTS320 stock Gigabyte ep35ds3 winXP32 4GB noname ram @960mhz Edited June 11, 2009 by mc sonar Fillrate Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FraG_AU 10 Posted June 11, 2009 Updated ScoreTexture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Resolution - 1680 x 1050 Normal Score - 5698 __________________________________ Cpu - Intel Q9650 OC (4.05ghz) Mobo - Evga 780i Ram - 4gig OCZ Blade Low Voltage 1150 <----- Replaced 2gig Cosair domminator GPU - Evga GTX285 OS - XP Was able to boost OC with 4gig of ram vs 2gig with the new low voltage. Increased score by 500pts. Unfortunately it did not change a thing in Vista. Still get around 3500 in vista lol. Big difference from xp to vista. Wow nice score.. Perhaps my system is being stuffed up by Vista.. Now is this score in Win XP 64 Bit or 32Bit? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
householddog 10 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) Hi guys, have done 2 tests one with my old CPU e6750 and one with my new CPU q9400. My specs . Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - E6750 OC (3.2ghz) and Q9400 OC(3.2ghz) Ram - Kingston 900 GPU - Gigabyte HD4890 OS - XP Resolution - 1280x1024 Normal Score E6750 OC (3.2ghz) : 3375 Normal Score Q9400 OC(3.2ghz) : 3696 So much for it being CPU bound and/or supporting quad core well. I will test the quads now by setting the ArmaII affinity to only 2 cores, see if it drops the performance much. I have a theory that the memory is really the thing holding it back. It would explain why I7s get such high scores, yet the lower quads don't scale up. I have some 1024 memory lying around- might give it a go - its faulty though and only 2GB. Tried disabling 2 cores - 3232. ---------- Post added at 02:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 PM ---------- OK I put in 2 GB of memory clocked to 940. Normal score : 3800 Might be onto something here. A fair increase for Going to push it to 1066 and drop the clock (Mobo doesn't have sufficient dividers) Might be able to push it to 4000? Edited June 11, 2009 by householddog Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
galzohar 31 Posted June 11, 2009 Householddog, I don't understand, did you actually increase your RAM or just changed it's speed? I really wonder whether i7s fare better due to better memory management or due to DDR3 being simply faster. It "smells" like it's the former rather than the latter, though, in addition to the i7 being overall a better processor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FraG_AU 10 Posted June 11, 2009 Householddog, I don't understand, did you actually increase your RAM or just changed it's speed?I really wonder whether i7s fare better due to better memory management or due to DDR3 being simply faster. It "smells" like it's the former rather than the latter, though, in addition to the i7 being overall a better processor. I don't think you will see significant increase going to i7, rather OC your CPU more and your GPU more. What does your CPU usage get to? That should tell you a lot about the bottleneck. Also perhaps run a cpl tests like so Run GPU at stock, GPU at overclocked settings and GPU at Lower then stock settings. Then try the CPU at stock, Lower, Higher and see which one has the biggest benefit. I would say an i7 at 3.2 would score same as quad at 3.4-> 3.5. My i7 @ 4.2Ghz is only 25% utilised, so I can't see that being the problem, my game must be GPU bound, and its frustrating the crap out of me LOL. I have emailed Nvidia to see if they have any plans for releasing some SLi support for this game... I am sure the first hardware vendor to get the goods for this title will see a heap of people buying their hardware =) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
binkster 0 Posted June 11, 2009 Wow nice score.. Perhaps my system is being stuffed up by Vista..Now is this score in Win XP 64 Bit or 32Bit? 32Bit..... You say your cpu is at 4.2ghz. What is your ram set at. With alot of testing ive seen alot of improvement with higher ram speeds but I cant hold my over 1200 stable. I just cant seem to get the voltage right. I7's though are much different. There is no FSB... So I have no idea on overclocking. What determins ram speed? is it still synced with HT? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nephris1 10 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) I7 920 @2.67ghz 6Gig Ram ddr3 1333 Radeon 4890oc Resolution - 1280x1024 OS - Win7 64bit All on high ,PostProcess Effects = Low ArmA 1.01 Score 2968.25 Means enough space to higher the score. Edited June 11, 2009 by Nephris1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TurokGMT 0 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) What GPU ? Quite important in this matter... @Laggy sorry - forgot to attatch that critical detail!! 1065.03 Intel Core 2 Quad 6600 @ 2.4 Ghz Nvidia Geforce 8500GT - not sure how much onboard RAM it has, but driver version is 185.85 4 Gig RAM Vista Home 32 bit Res 1024 x 768 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Disabled Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Low Shadow Detail - High PostProcess Effects- Low Please...dear gods the humanity...haaaalp me.... Edited June 11, 2009 by TurokGMT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bernardino75 10 Posted June 11, 2009 Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - E8500 OC (4.0ghz) Ram - 2 x 2GB DDR2 800 (@841) Kingston Value GPU - ATI HD4870 512 Mb OS - XP SP3 Resolution - 1680 x 1050 Normal Score - 4129,82 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PRiME 1 Posted June 11, 2009 Heres mine, first run gave me 2649.9 but second run was better and more like it, this is using latest Nvidia 186.02? Beta Drivers, also I think I had the NOBLURB mod on so, unsure how much effect that have but I can't be stuffed running it again :) (unless someone wants to know) Texture Detail - Normal Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - Normal PostProcess Effects- Low Cpu - Duo Core 2 1.83 OC (3.02ghz) Ram - G.Skill 4x1GB DDR2 860 (OC) GPU - Nvidia 9800 GT (Default) OS - Windows 7 64bit build 7137 Resolution - 1680 x 1050 Normal Score - 3109.54 PS. To get this game running better do you need to just have more cpuMHZ? seems that way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BarBarosso 10 Posted June 11, 2009 Texture Detail - Normal Video Memory -High Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Terrain Detail - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - High PostProcess Effects- High Fillrate -%125 Vsync : On Cpu - E8500 OC (4.250Mhz) Ram - 2 x 2GB DDR2 1066 () OCZ HPC GPU - ATI HD4890 1GB (@1000Mhz GPU -@1125*4 Ram) Resolution - 1280 x 1024 OS - Win7 RC x64 Score - 4750,52 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Supe® HaÑs 10 Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) Just bumped my E8600 from stock 3.3 to 3.8. Scores moved from 2900 @ 3.3 to 3400 @ 3.8. All settings as OP. Edit - 3600 @ 4.0. Seem to get an extra 100pts for every 100mhz. No idea why the guy above me is getting such a better score on the same OS as me with a slightly more OC'd CPU though. E8600 2 x GTX 280 sli XFX 790i Mobo 2 x 2GB DDR3 Vista 64 Edited June 11, 2009 by Supe® HaÑs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scottw 0 Posted June 11, 2009 People with I7's can you guys check something out for me, try and keep your CPU speed the same while adjusting your memory speed, it seems to have quite an effect? for example 3.8Ghz with the memory at 1600Mhz was a fair amount faster than 4Ghz and 1400Mhz im wondering if maybe memory bandwith is more of a limit when the CPU is that fast, my memory doesnt clock well so I cant go much higher to test, be interested to see what scores people are getting with the 2000Mhz memory, prices seem to be alright now but dont want to swap it out if theres not going to much difference! ---------- Post added at 11:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 PM ---------- Ive done a lot of testing and tweaking now and ive settled on XP, 7 gave me almost the same marks but while actually playing it just didnt seem as fluid and I experienced a lot of stuttering, Ill list below my setup, tweaks, settings and scores. System I7@3.8Ghz 6GB of memory @ 1600Mhz SLI GTX280 OCZ SSD (only running one drive at the moment, so not sure how it is when I put my raid0 back together) Tweaks ArmA2.exe rename to crysis.exe -cpucount=4 -maxmem=2047 switches used 2.5Gb Ramdisk installed using the unmanged ram that WinXP cant see and set to be used as paging file. Settings Res: 1920x1280 Fillrate: 100% Visibility: 3500 Texture Detail: High Video Memory: High Anisotropic Filtering: Very High Terrain Detail: Normal Objects Detail: High Shadow Detail: High Postprocess effects: Very High With these settings im finding im getting something that is running very well pretty much on par with Arma1 for me, but looking a hell of a lot better. Score I disabled V-sync as I was sitting at 60fps for most of the test and I felt it wasnt showing a true reflection of the the score, the score came in at 6016, running with the OP settings im was still getting pretty much the same score so there is a bottleneck somewhere. @Super Hans, pretty similar system to mine, try the tweaks I mentioned above, also look at either trying XP/7 as a lot of people seem to be having issues with Vista, its a bit of a hog with memory as well, so you may benefit from an increase in that. Also are you positive that SLI is working? Renaming the .exe to crysis has worked for many including me, also try setting the SLI mode to AFR2 in the Nvidia CP as this has also got it working for some. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
householddog 10 Posted June 12, 2009 Householddog, I don't understand, did you actually increase your RAM or just changed it's speed? Just changed it to faster ram. The old ram was 800 the new one 940. In fact the faster was smaller than the old. The faster ram was 2GB the slower ram 4GB. PS Bags credit for finding out about ram. ---------- Post added at 02:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 AM ---------- I really wonder how accurate this benchmark is. The HDD activity is immense. possibly it could be slowing it down? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
galzohar 31 Posted June 12, 2009 If your HDD is doing a lot of work, you may want to ignore the results and re-run the benchmark. Many report that they get a higher score on their second run since the HDD doesn't work as hard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
householddog 10 Posted June 12, 2009 If your HDD is doing a lot of work, you may want to ignore the results and re-run the benchmark. Many report that they get a higher score on their second run since the HDD doesn't work as hard. Yeah I have been doing that, but there is still a lot of HDD activity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
