alef 0 Posted August 9, 2009 Mr. Burns Converted this over to ArmA and now I converted to ArmA2 with a few small changes. Two little changes needed: modify the player's init line to stop=false;this exec "camera.sqs" in test4.sqs file, remove setviewdistance vd Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kenjineering 10 Posted August 9, 2009 This thread just makes me jealous/depressed of those with 512MB cards or single GPU cards that get 60FPS. However, it is usually their OC cpus + Win7/XP that pulls them up. I will invest in a Prolimatech Megahalems CPU Cooler and faster RAM to get my CPU in the order of 4ghz I reckon. I have an SSD harddrive, but I've read that it only reduces flickering and not texture load times or FPS. Is this true? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bushlurker 45 Posted August 9, 2009 Has anyone with Win7 tested to Mark scores with and without a USB stick (ReadyBoost)?Im going to. Just to see if it does anything at all. It feels smoother to me, but it might just be psychological. Im not at home so i cant test. But will do and report scores later. Alex I'd be interested in these results! I've got a "matched pair" of comps - both AMD X2 6000+ - one with an Asus deluxe mobo (the gaming one), and another with the asus premium (currently being mini dedi server) - but the premium mobo has 512mb readyboost built in! - Now I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile to swap the mobos over..... Please keep us updated if you have time Alex B Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tankkiller01 0 Posted August 9, 2009 Here mine SETTINGS: Texture Detail -High Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - High PostProcess Effects- High Anti aliasing - Low Terrain Detail- Normal Res and fillrate- 1680X1050 , 100% Vis- 1500 Score... 2817.71 ____________________ Intel core 2 Quad Q9550 @ 3.1Ghz BFG Tech GTX 285 OC to core 674MHz. shader 1535MHz. mem 1247MHz Asus P5N-D 750i 4 GB Corsair DDR2 XMS 800 EZ COOL 700W psu Maxtor HDD Windows Vista 64bit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GunSlingerAUS 10 Posted August 9, 2009 Cpu - Intel Core 2 quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33 GHZ 2.34 GHZ = 4.67 GHZ??? Errr no. You have a 2.34GHz CPU. The frequency refers to the speed at which each core runs - you don't add them up to get the speed. In better news, you should be able to hit 3GHz if you overclock, but before you ask us how to do it, use google to find out as this forum isn't the place for such questions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=wfl= sgt bilko 10 Posted August 9, 2009 (edited) Visibilty - 2400 Texture Detail - Normal Video Mem - Very High Anisotropic Filtering - Normal Anti Aliasing - Normal Terrain Detail - Low Objects Detail - Normal Shadow Detail - High PostProcess Effects- Disabled res: 1280x1024 (100%) OS - WinXP 32 RAM - 4GB processor - Intel Q6600 2.4ghz @ 2.4ghz video card - 2x nVidia Geforce 9600 GT 1GB Game on separate drive Results from second run: v1.02 - non-SLI - with SLI test 1- 44.5752 - 50.6518 test 2- 41.6912 - 41.1740 test 3- 29.9418 - 29.7151 test 4- 43.1810 - 43.3996 test 5- 26.3263 - 25.9385 OFP mk- 3714.31 - 3817.58 v1.03 - non-SLI - with SLI test 1- 48.3801 - 43.9417 test 2- 40.6566 - 39.9417 test 3- 38.3828 - 36.7744 test 4- 47.2627 - 45.5581 test 5- 26.4755 - 25.5367 OFP mk- 4023.15 - 3832.22 In v1.03 - the game runs much smoother than in 1.02 and also less flickering in non-SLI than in SLI. E.g. in test 3 there used to be a significant freeze when you fly through the tree midway, now there's no freeze at all. Edited August 9, 2009 by =WFL= Sgt Bilko Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NexusPhase 10 Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) To have anything worth comparing we need to all run it the same... my vote goes with all normal settings 3k view low post proc (because there is no normal) 1280x1024 rez and with vsync because IMO the game has Vsync as default for a reason ROFL---- I should read the first post shouldn't I :P Edited August 10, 2009 by NexusPhase should have read the first post Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ICE-Raver 10 Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) Edit, running new tests. Edited August 13, 2009 by ICE-Raver Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
=wfl= sgt bilko 10 Posted August 10, 2009 To have anything worth comparing we need to all run it the same... my vote goes with all normal settings 3k view low post proc (because there is no normal) 1280x1024 rez and with vsync because IMO the game has Vsync as default for a reasonROFL---- I should read the first post shouldn't I :P Yes I know.When I started running the test my goal was just to get a comparison for my own record with my personal settings. But once I was done I thought it would be good to post up the difference between v1.02 and v1.03 (both non-SLI and SLI). I run some further test w v1.03 (same settings) with CPU OC 125% (Q6600 @ 3.0GHz). The test gave 11% boost in non-SLI and 22% in SLI - HOWEVER the extra gain in SLI is mainly due to extrem gain in test1 (visibilty 2500), except for that one the other tests are actually lower than non-SLI. Btw all tests run with VSync at default (use 3D application) in drivers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ICE-Raver 10 Posted August 10, 2009 (edited) Just broke 7000+ All settings on Normal, PP Low, AA Disabled. 1680x1050 :D All settings in Nvidia Control Panel on high quality & Application Controlled. Forced off Vsync and set Max pre rendered frames to 8. Back to back tests Edited August 10, 2009 by ICE-Raver Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
binkster 0 Posted August 10, 2009 Awesome Ice-Raver... I had a very bad experience with Vista as well. I wonder if Nvidia just gave up on Vista with drivers. I bet with every patch from BIS this will get better too. Maybe you can help some people in the troubleshooting thread on how to setup there system. I see alot of sli and Highend system issues there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kozzy420 21 Posted August 10, 2009 Just broke 7000+ All settings on Normal, PP Low, AA Disabled. 1680x1050 :DAll settings in Nvidia Control Panel on high quality & Application Controlled. Forced off Vsync and set Max pre rendered frames to 8. Back to back tests Damn! Thats a sick test score bud! Im jealous! :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazhoe 10 Posted August 11, 2009 Errr no. You have a 2.34GHz CPU. The frequency refers to the speed at which each core runs - you don't add them up to get the speed.In better news, you should be able to hit 3GHz if you overclock, but before you ask us how to do it, use google to find out as this forum isn't the place for such questions. I see. I checked google and found I could get it to 3.3 GHZ which would be some boost. However when I went to my BIOS there was no option to increase the different parameters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hamis 0 Posted August 11, 2009 However when I went to my BIOS there was no option to increase the different parameters. You should google with exact model of your motherboard and bios version.;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazhoe 10 Posted August 11, 2009 You should google with exact model of your motherboard and bios version.;) Just read, Dells can't be overclocked :( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedRage 0 Posted August 13, 2009 OK, wtf! I see people with much lower system specs getting scores of 5000-6000, while I struggle to get 3200 with "Normal" settings. Q9300@3.0GHz 2xGTX260 SC in SLI with 186.18 driver P5N72-T Premium Mobo (Nvidia nForce 780i SLI chipset) 4 gig RAM Raptor 2 HD XP 32 bit (clean install, switched from Vista Ultimate just for this game - at this time I pretty much only have ARMA2 on this system). No matter how I tweak, I get between 2700 and 3200 on Arma2 mark. Game is unplayable if i set distance to anything above 2600m! :butbut: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cjsoques 0 Posted August 13, 2009 OK, wtf! I see people with much lower system specs getting scores of 5000-6000, while I struggle to get 3200 with "Normal" settings. Q9300@3.0GHz 2xGTX260 SC in SLI with 186.18 driver P5N72-T Premium Mobo (Nvidia nForce 780i SLI chipset) 4 gig RAM Raptor 2 HD XP 32 bit (clean install, switched from Vista Ultimate just for this game - at this time I pretty much only have ARMA2 on this system). No matter how I tweak, I get between 2700 and 3200 on Arma2 mark. Game is unplayable if i set distance to anything above 2600m! :butbut: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=83624 check this out, it basically experiments and discovers that two video cards are useless other threads also discuss that windows 7 is also keep to FPS increase you get the same mark i get because I have only one GTS260 you ahve two which makes no difference and I have a Q6600 2.4GHz which explains why your mark is slightly higher. We have almost the same everything else. I'd recommend going to Windows 7 to see what you achieve..I learned my lesson with SLI in ARMA1 :) you get no performance increase whatsoever, which is basically what that link explains in heavy detail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedRage 0 Posted August 13, 2009 http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=83624 check this out, it basically experiments and discovers that two video cards are useless other threads also discuss that windows 7 is also keep to FPS increase you get the same mark i get because I have only one GTS260 you ahve two which makes no difference and I have a Q6600 2.4GHz which explains why your mark is slightly higher. We have almost the same everything else. I'd recommend going to Windows 7 to see what you achieve..I learned my lesson with SLI in ARMA1 :) you get no performance increase whatsoever, which is basically what that link explains in heavy detail. Still does not explain why people with GT series of videocards and older CPUs are getting scores of up to 7000, while GTX people are struggling to get 3k. Even one GTX series GPU should be sufficient to run this game smoothly on "high" settings and at least 3k view. As for Win 7, I'm sort of on the last straw with this game - don't have the time or energy for another reinstall. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cjsoques 0 Posted August 13, 2009 Still does not explain why people with GT series of videocards and older CPUs are getting scores of up to 7000, while GTX people are struggling to get 3k. Even one GTX series GPU should be sufficient to run this game smoothly on "high" settings and at least 3k view.As for Win 7, I'm sort of on the last straw with this game - don't have the time or energy for another reinstall. I agree and yeah it doesn't explain everything, just some of the factors. I'm willing to bet the Win7 would make a huge difference for you if you give it a try, yet I completely understand the frustrations. When my game is running and not crashing I actually get decent performance. But I was in the same boat as you with ARMA1, I had a great SLI system that ran like crap on it and was very frustrating until I just changed my hardware setup. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ICE-Raver 10 Posted August 13, 2009 (edited) VISTA 64 VS. Windows 7 64. POST 1 of 2 Results WINDOWS 7 64 is the winner of my tests by a landslide I just finished running a series of Windows 7 64 Vs Vista 64 tests using Arma Mark. I made absolutely sure that everything was exactly the same other than the operating system. All tests were run on the following PC with the same Nvidia control panel settings as follows. PC: EVGA X58 LE mobo i7 920 CPU OC'd to 3.9 (for first series of tests) GTX 280 x 2 sli GPU's 190.38 drivers with EVGA SLI Enhancement Patch 6 gig DDR 3 1600 Corsair Dominator Triple Channel ram 1200 Watt BFG PSU. Nvidia Control Panel Settings: Phys X = Enabled SLI= Enabled Ambient Occlusion = ON AF = Application Controlled Antialiasing Gama Correction = ON Antialiasing Mode = Application Controlled Antialiasing Setting = Application Controlled Antialiasing Transparency = SuperSampling Texture Clamp = USE Hardware Max Pre-Rendered Frames = 8 Multi Display/Mixed GPU acceleration = Multiple Display Performance Mode Power Management = Max Performance SLI Performance Mode = Force Alternate Frame Rendering 2 Texture Filtering = ON Texture Filtering Negative LOD = Allow Texture Filtering Quality = High Performance Texture Filtering Tilinear Optimization = ON Threaded Optimization = Auto Triple Buffering = OFF V-Sync = Force OFF These results will be 2 different replies as I can only post 5 images per post. Test 1 All Settings normal, PP LOW, AA OFF, 1680 x 1050, fillrate 100% Vista 64 Results: Test 1 All Settings normal, PP LOW, AA OFF, 1680 x 1050, fillrate 100% Windows 7 64 Results: WINNER: WINDOWS 7 64 BIT BY +3037.58 Points Test 2 All settings Normal, Plus AA on Normal, 1680 x 1050, fillrate 100% Vista 64 Results Test 2 All settings Normal, Plus AA on Normal, 1680 x 1050, fillrate 100% Windows 7 Results: WINNER: WINDOWS 7 64 BIT BY +2313.16 POINTS Edited August 13, 2009 by ICE-Raver Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ICE-Raver 10 Posted August 13, 2009 (edited) PART 2 of 2 All tests were run on the following PC with the same Nvidia control panel settings as follows. PC: EVGA X58 LE mobo i7 920 CPU OC'd to 3.9 (for first series of tests) GTX 280 x 2 sli GPU's 190.38 drivers with EVGA SLI Enhancement Patch 6 gig DDR 3 1600 Corsair Dominator Triple Channel ram 1200 Watt BFG PSU. Nvidia Control Panel Settings: Phys X = Enabled SLI= Enabled Ambient Occlusion = ON AF = Application Controlled Antialiasing Gama Correction = ON Antialiasing Mode = Application Controlled Antialiasing Setting = Application Controlled Antialiasing Transparency = SuperSampling Texture Clamp = USE Hardware Max Pre-Rendered Frames = 8 Multi Display/Mixed GPU acceleration = Multiple Display Performance Mode Power Management = Max Performance SLI Performance Mode = Force Alternate Frame Rendering 2 Texture Filtering = ON Texture Filtering Negative LOD = Allow Texture Filtering Quality = High Performance Texture Filtering Tilinear Optimization = ON Threaded Optimization = Auto Triple Buffering = OFF V-Sync = Force OFF Test 3 All settings Very High, AA off, 1680 x 1050, fillrate 100% Vista 64 Results: Test 3 All settings Very High, AA off, 1680 x 1050, fillrate 100% Windows 7 results: WINNER: WINDOWS 7 64 BIT BY +1071.32 Points Test 4 All settings Very High, Plus AA Very High, 1680 x 1050, fillrate 100% Vista Results: Test 4 All settings Very High, Plus AA Very High, 1680 x 1050, fillrate 100% Windows 7 Results: WINNER: Windows 7 64 BIT BY +64.98 POINTS, But really too close to call And finally Windows 7 FTW! All settings normal AA off with CPU overclocked to 4.2 : Edited August 13, 2009 by ICE-Raver Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tonygrunt 10 Posted August 13, 2009 (edited) System specs: Intel i7 920 @ 4.0GHz (HT off)(4.2GHZ with turbo on) MSI Eclipse SLI Motherboard 12GB Corsair Dominator @ 1600 2 x MSI 285 GTX 1GB Superpipe OC SLI (Factory OC 680,1476,1250) Creative X-Fi Titanium 30 GB OCZ Vertex SSD - Windows 7 x64 RAID0: 2 x 120GB OCZ Vertex SSD - Games Install RAID0: 2 x 150GB Western Digital 'RaptorX' @ 10k RPM - Users,My Documents,Temporary Nvidia Control Panel Settings: Phys X = Disabled SLI= Enabled Ambient Occlusion = ON AF = Application Controlled Antialiasing Gama Correction = ON Antialiasing Mode = Application Controlled Antialiasing Setting = Application Controlled Antialiasing Transparency = OFF Texture Clamp = USE Hardware Max Pre-Rendered Frames = 8 Multi Display/Mixed GPU acceleration = Single Display Performance Mode Power Management = Max Performance SLI Performance Mode = NVIDIA recommended Texture Filtering = OFF Texture Filtering Negative LOD = Clamp Texture Filtering Quality = Quality Texture Filtering Tilinear Optimization = ON Threaded Optimization = ON Triple Buffering = ON V-Sync = Force OFF ArmA2 Settings:1680*1050, 100% fillrate,AA off,PP low,Ram default,rest normal I have been running my memory @ 1333 from the start due to stability reasons but wanting to get some more performance from ArmA2 I decided to overclock it @1600. I have closed almost 12 hours testing and trying to stabilize my pc and I get some very strange results. The only thing I have been changing are voltages and ram timings, the cpu overclock is and always was the same. First try: I don't remember what i had before the ram overclock but i think it was around 7K. Before in test5 my FPS were around 45. After some time the pc started freezing. Back to bios playing with voltages and timings and its stable again. Second try: Wtf!! CPU overclock the same, ram overclock the same, only voltages and timings changed. Some time later pc became unstable again and back to bios. Third try: And here are the end results:bounce3: This was the highest but I have 3 same results screengrabbed (8282.32 , 8281.55 , 8227.2) I'm no expert in overclocking and most of the changes I made are by trial and error. If anyone has an idea what's happening please share. Edited August 13, 2009 by TonyGrunt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
binkster 0 Posted August 14, 2009 Basically you have a badass system.... Means your averaging around 80fps with everything on normal. Looks like timings and ram speeds really makes a difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ICE-Raver 10 Posted August 14, 2009 System specs:Intel i7 920 @ 4.0GHz (HT off)(4.2GHZ with turbo on) MSI Eclipse SLI Motherboard 12GB Corsair Dominator @ 1600 2 x MSI 285 GTX 1GB Superpipe OC SLI (Factory OC 680,1476,1250) Creative X-Fi Titanium 30 GB OCZ Vertex SSD - Windows 7 x64 RAID0: 2 x 120GB OCZ Vertex SSD - Games Install RAID0: 2 x 150GB Western Digital 'RaptorX' @ 10k RPM - Users,My Documents,Temporary Nvidia Control Panel Settings: Phys X = Disabled SLI= Enabled Ambient Occlusion = ON AF = Application Controlled Antialiasing Gama Correction = ON Antialiasing Mode = Application Controlled Antialiasing Setting = Application Controlled Antialiasing Transparency = OFF Texture Clamp = USE Hardware Max Pre-Rendered Frames = 8 Multi Display/Mixed GPU acceleration = Single Display Performance Mode Power Management = Max Performance SLI Performance Mode = NVIDIA recommended Texture Filtering = OFF Texture Filtering Negative LOD = Clamp Texture Filtering Quality = Quality Texture Filtering Tilinear Optimization = ON Threaded Optimization = ON Triple Buffering = ON V-Sync = Force OFF ArmA2 Settings:1680*1050, 100% fillrate,AA off,PP low,Ram default,rest normal Tony I decided to give my system a few tests using the exact Nvidia CP settings you used as well as your arma 2 settings since our systems are so similar. This is what I got right off the bat. I did a second test for comparison using Force Frame Rendering 2 and I picked up a little over 1000 points, 7890ish for what it's worth. Then I did a third test with everything the same as you EXCEPT, I turned Trilinear Filtering Quality to HIGH PERFORMANCE. Results: Still couldn't break 8000 though.:rolleyes: But I'll work on it. ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zaira 10 Posted August 14, 2009 Hey guys with i7 ocd to 4+GHz, can u do some test with filrate maxed out (200%). On 1680x1050 Ty Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
