ArmAII-Mark

[CapBadge 10]

Which OS are you running on? It sounds like vista since you couldnt take a screenshot. Vista blows with games and seems xp performance is way better. Try in xp if you can.

Yes, Vista 64.

game runs great but the benchmark seems low still for a £3,000 system.

[UKWF-Mental 10]

Hey Guys, Im getting a real poor score for my spec of my system and i dont know why,Im using Windows 7 64Bit,my CPU is an AMD Triple Core 720BE, Video Card is an ATi 4890 1GB, i have 6GB of OCZ 6400 Ram,Asus M3N-H Motherboard and 250GB Sata HD.

Setting at:

1280x1024

using -maxmem=2047

Texture - Normal

Aniscopic filtering - Normal

Terrain - Normal

Objects - Normal

Shadows - Normal

Post processing - Low

And my Final score is : 2563.41

I find it bizzare as I have seen people with poorer VC or CPU and get much better scores. Any Ideas?

Edited June 21, 2009 by UKWF-Mental

[slimSpencer 10]

Hi guys,

i get around 3500 with my rig. All settings as in post 1.

Q9550 @ 3.4 GHz

8GB DDR2 (4-4-4-15) (capped to 4 in msconfig because of arma2)

HD 4870 1GB stock clocks

a few "impressions":

score above was in 1680x1050. But even if i change resolution to 1920x1200, my score stays at 3500. Increasing it further (3D-Res.) to 2560x1600, it also stays between 3300 and 3500.

At 1920x1200 my GPU-Usage ist around 60-70%. That means, that even such a fast quadcore is the bottleneck here...

(guess you already knew;) )

regards

[MPBR 10]

1920 x 1200

Texture - Normal

Aniscopic filtering - Normal

Terrain - Normal

Objects - Normal

Shadows - Normal

Post processing - Low

Test 1 - 34.3 - Max Temp 59

Test 2 - 36.2 - Max Temp 58

Test 3 - 30.7 - Max Temp 59

Test 4 - 41.1 - Max Temp 59

Test 5 - 24.7 - Max Temp 59

Total : 3345

Q6600 @ 3.375 (9 x 375) (Can run 3.4 but temps start going over 65 (gets hot downunder)

9800 GTX

4GB OCZ RAM

Vista 64

Benches :

3D Mark 06 :14375 @ above OC

3D Vantage: 7357

GPU: 5833

CPU: 34046

Very playable @ 1920x1200 @ medium settings with 100% fill.

However, new GTX295 and TrackIR 5 should be here in a day or 2.

Will update score with new GFX when all is in and running.

MPBR

[11aTony 0]

Core 2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66

GF 9800GTX (512Mb)

4GB 800Mhz RAM

nForce 780i

22" Screen

Windows 7 x64 RC

Video drivers: 185.85

ArmA2 Patch 1.02

Settings:

1680x1050x32 | Fillrate: 100%

Texture detail: Normal/1

Video Memory: Normal/1

AF: Low/1

Terrain detail: Very Low/40

Shadow detail: Normal/2

Shading detail: 7

Postprocessing effect: Low/1

Object detail: Low/200.000

ArmA2.cfg:

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=-4194304;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1680;

Resolution_H=1050;

refresh=60;

Render_W=1680;

Render_H=1050;

FSAA=0;

postFX=1;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=522125312;

nonlocalVRAM=1878288384;

ArmA II Mark score:

T1: 43.6430

T2: 50.5062

T3: 38.6833

T4: 57.0071

T5: 32.1700

Total: 4440.19

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I changed AF: 2 and PE: 2 I got:

T1: 40.7838

T2: 50.0264

T3: 38.0264

T4: 54.0541

T5: 31.2250

Total: 4293.85

If I set everything on very high I get:

T1: 27.3429

T2: 34.7018

T3: 29.4118

T4: 48.1928

T5: 26.9284

Total: 3331.55

Anyway, I dunno how accurate A2 Mark actually is though, becouse everytime I run it I get different mark on same settings.

Otherwise, I have the same performance in MP and in SP, like in A1.

Ive seen some people online that were lagging like hell with ping of 60. They said they can run arma2 normaly in SP.

Edited June 22, 2009 by 11aTony
Added arma2.cfg

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

Generally it would be interesting and helpful if you could post your ArmA2.cfg together with your Mark results and the used ingame settings.

I'm especially interested to see the "3D_Performance=" line of others compared to their results.

language="German";
adapter=-1;
[b]3D_Performance=46875;[/b]
Resolution_Bpp=32;
Resolution_W=1680;
Resolution_H=1050;
refresh="100";
Render_W=1680;
Render_H=1050;
FSAA=0;
postFX=2;
HDRPrecision=0;
lastDeviceId="";
localVRAM=1054670752;
nonlocalVRAM=123076576;

Thank you!

[maladiec47 10]

Setup:

Phenom x4 II 940 @ 3.7GHz
M3A32-MVP Deluxe
4GB DDR2 RAM @1102MHz
Sapphire HD4870x2 (800/910MHz, Catalyst 9.5, No CrossFire).
Windows 7 x64

Settings:

Texture detail: High
Video Memory: Very High
AF: Very High
Terrain detail: Low
Shadow detail: Normal
Postprocessing effect: Low
Object detail: High
1680x1050

My Arma2.conf:

language="German";
adapter=-1;
3D_Performance=-4194304;
Resolution_Bpp=32;
Resolution_W=1680;
Resolution_H=1050;
refresh=60;
Render_W=1680;
Render_H=1050;
FSAA=0;
postFX=1;
HDRPrecision=16;
lastDeviceId="";
localVRAM=1067134976;
nonlocalVRAM=1878523904;

-3638.18-

[Desrat 0]

I though I'd test my laptop out to see how bad it runs on that.

I Did 4 runs and ommitted the first run then averaged the other 3

Average Score 1757

Settings Tested

Texture Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - Normal

PostProcess Effects- Low

Res 1280x720 (fillrate 100%)

Spec Acer Aspire 6920G

C2D T5750 2.0ghz 667mhz FSB

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3650 (Modded desktop driver not usual mobility)

3GB DDR2

Vista Home Premium 32bit

language="English";

adapter=-1;

3D_Performance=48387;

Resolution_Bpp=32;

Resolution_W=1280;

Resolution_H=720;

refresh=60;

Render_W=1280;

Render_H=720;

FSAA=0;

postFX=1;

HDRPrecision=8;

lastDeviceId="";

localVRAM=533061632;

nonlocalVRAM=1341353984;

Edited June 23, 2009 by Desrat

[jason187781 10]

Please could someone tell me why I am getting such low scores? I thought my rig wasn't too bad by today's standards!!

XP Home SP3

AMD Phenom 9950 Quad Core 2.60 GHZ

4GB Ram

GTX 280 1GB Version

Latest Nvidia Card Drivers

Latest Motherboard Drivers

I ran the test with all options on lowest possible settings apart from the resolution which i set both options to 1680 x 1050.

My score was 2541

on all the high settings I managed a poor 1674. I see people getting around the 4000 mark. As It stands the game is to ugly to play on low settings and unplayable on medium to high. These scores are with the new patch installed thats just come out. Any advise would be apreciated

Jason.

[Pteradon 0]

Did some tests with -winxp and without.

I did use -winxp just for the gain in fps (~20fps more in main screen)

With those tests of ArmaII-Mark found out,

that i got a better results if i run Arma without -winxp.

Setup

Gigabyte X48-DS4
Core2Duo E8600 @ 4GHz
Kingston HyperX 4GB DDR2-800 @ 960
Western Digital Raptor X 150GB
Asus H4870X2 
Tagan TG900-BZ PipeRock 900W
TrackIR 4 Pro
Saitek X45
Windows Vistaâ„¢ Ultimate x64 SP1

Settings (Default)

Visibility - 2400
Quality preference - Very High
Resolution - 1920x1440x32
Render - 2400x1800  (125%)
Texture Detail - Normal
Video memory - High
AF - Normal
AA - Disabled
Terrain Detail - Normal
Objects Detail - Normal
Shadow Detail - High
PostProcess Effects- High

ArmA2.cfg

language="English";
adapter=-1;
3D_Performance=93750;
Resolution_Bpp=32;
Resolution_W=1920;
Resolution_H=1440;
refresh=75;
Render_W=2400;
Render_H=1800;
FSAA=0;
postFX=1;
HDRPrecision=8;
lastDeviceId="";
localVRAM=1067134976;
nonlocalVRAM=1878257664;

Last test best score (without -winxp)

From 9 tests without -winxp,

i got an avarage of 2461.91 points

With -winxp i got an avarage of 2227.04 points

In the Test One it scored way less with around 16.000 points,

compared with the tests without -winxp , Test One about 21.000 points

[maladiec47 10]

Pteradon, same here. When i use -winxp i get about 300-400 points less then in normal mode. By the way, "-winxp" mode is the only way to get CrossFire enabled and that's really sad. "BI" should do something as i can see here a lot of HD4870x2 / CrossFire setups who's getting really bad performance.

[Porter_ 10]

tested a 4870 512MB and GTX285 1GB on my system. all settings as said in the OP. used ARMAII version 1.01

Specs:

Q6600 (3.0GHZ)

4870 512MB (775/1050)

GTX285 1GB (694/1584/1296)

4GB DDR2 800

Vista 64bit

Catalyst 9.5

186.18 WHQL

took best of 3 runs.

4870 512MB score: 3049

GTX285 1GB score: 3002

i guess i'm limited by my CPU.

UPDATE: same settings, but switched from Vista 64 to Windows 7 64

GTX285 1GB score: 3761 (avg fps 37.61)

Windows 7 is great :D

[LJF 0]

Wouldn't a simple FPS average be the best test? Make up some kind of test mission cinematic or something and log the FPS. Use standard settings, res apparently doesn't make any difference at all so wouldn't be a problem between computers.

Edit: This makes me worried, I have an ATI 4890 and an OC AMD AM3 810 @ 3.0, with a GA-790 and 4gb of DDR3 1600. The other test with a similar system seemed to say that I'm doomed to MID-HIGH. Which sucks because I bought this purely to play ArmA2. The ideal system a month or two ago was a 4850 and a 3.0 x2 AMD? I figured I'd be ridin' safe with my PC but ... yeah ...

Edited June 24, 2009 by LJF

[=Spetsnaz= 0]

Wouldn't a simple FPS average be the best test? Make up some kind of test mission cinematic or something and log the FPS. Use standard settings, res apparently doesn't make any difference at all so wouldn't be a problem between computers.

Edit: This makes me worried, I have an ATI 4890 and an OC AMD AM3 810 @ 3.0, with a GA-790 and 4gb of DDR3 1600. The other test with a similar system seemed to say that I'm doomed to MID-HIGH. Which sucks because I bought this purely to play ArmA2. The ideal system a month or two ago was a 4850 and a 3.0 x2 AMD? I figured I'd be ridin' safe with my PC but ... yeah ...

you should be fine at high/very high dude..

its not your fault, its cause the game has been badly optimized...

[LJF 0]

I know, ArmA1 runs worse than Crysis (Very High) on it (<25 fps) :(

I'd hoped to run maxed but ... it's ArmA so I probably should have guessed this would happen lol.

[mant3z 1]

Before:

======= ======= 1.01full RIP ======= =======

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!

__________________________________

Cpu - Phenom II 940 (3GHz) pod AM2+

Ram - OCZ 4Giga PC2 6400 Dual CH. Platinum Rev.2 (4-4-4-15) @800

GPU - PALIT HD4870SE (9.5)

OS - Windows7 RC2

======= ======= 1.02full Original! ======= =======

And now with the same settings but at last original game with patch 1.02 and new ATI drivers 9.6:

3586!

:butbut:but why? I don't understand...

[galzohar 31]

The one thing we need the most that this benchmark doesn't show, is what is causing the drop in FPS. If FPS is average 30 it can be good and it can be horrible: Constant 60 FPS with temporary drops to 2 FPS can average out pretty high, but I'd rather have a constant 30 over those stutters that often come at a bad time. Shouldn't the benchmark at least make a secondary score based on MIN FPS?

[-=seany=- 5]

Before:

======= ======= 1.01full RIP ======= =======

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!

__________________________________

Cpu - Phenom II 940 (3GHz) pod AM2+

Ram - OCZ 4Giga PC2 6400 Dual CH. Platinum Rev.2 (4-4-4-15) @800

GPU - PALIT HD4870SE (9.5)

OS - Windows7 RC2

======= ======= 1.02full Original! ======= =======

And now with the same settings but at last original game with patch 1.02 and new ATI drivers 9.6:

3586!

:butbut:but why? I don't understand...

run it twice more, until it comes up with a high number you like :). The scores in this test vary WILDLY. even on the same machine with same settings. I wouldnt loose any sleep over it :)

Heres mine, ran it twice to get a more accurate reading on the second pass. ( you can see how much higher my score is just by running it twice in a row, E.g. it has less to load the second time)

Texture Detail :Normal

Video mem :Normal

AF :Normal

AA : Disabled

Terrain Detail :Normal

Onject Detail :Normal

Shadow Detail :Normal

Post Process :Low

1680x1050 1:1 fill rate

XFX780i mobo/C2Q9300/4gbram/2x 9800GTX/XFI Extreme Music/VistaUX64/

First Run

==============

test 1 :25.0941

test 2 :27.3578

test 3 :21.0153

test 4 :28.342

test 5 :10.4785

Arma2Mark :2245.75

Second Run

==============

test 1 :27.3064

test 2 :28.9949

test 3 :23.3626

test 4 :30.6044

test 5 :18.8265

Arma2Mark :2581.9

If I ran it twice more I'm sure I'd get two more different scores. It doesn't benchmark as accurately as something like 3Dmark. Its interesting to see the results but don't freak out when it gives you a different result with exact same settings and hardware and drivers. :D

Edited June 24, 2009 by -=seany=-

[Peonza 10]

I think problem with this test, is that ir flyby very long distances, causing hdd drop your frames (i think arma2 cashes objects and stuff from hard disk on fly).. its better would be make many static objects around some kind of town and make camera look around them, without changing much of the distance

[zoog 18]

you should be fine at high/very high dude..

its not your fault, its cause the game has been badly optimized...

Don't count on it. I run the HD4890 with Phenom II x4 3.2Ghz and 4GB DDR3 1333mhz ram and I'm always around 20 ~24 fps on medium/maybe high (1440x900 res,100% fillrate, v1.02 etc.). Freshly installed/updated Windows 7 clean pc. Latest drivers.

[Gamer 10]

Texture Detail - Normal

Anisotropic Filtering - Normal

Terrain Detail - Normal

Objects Detail - Normal

Shadow Detail - Normal

PostProcess Effects- Low

Resolution - 1680 x 1050

Normal Score - 5185

I then ran the test with 1920 x 1200 res and 125% fill and got

5322

[-DirTyDeeDs--Ziggy- 0]

lol ! :rolleyes:

for only £3000 you too can play arma2 at this level ! :D

watta bargain ! ;)

Edited June 24, 2009 by [DirTyDeeDs]-Ziggy-

[Liutenant_CZE 10]

UPDATE: same settings, but switched from Vista 64 to Windows 7 64

GTX285 1GB score: 3761 (avg fps 37.61)

Windows 7 is great :D

Please test, if you can, even Radeon 4870 in Win7. Thanks. :)

[Porter_ 10]

Please test, if you can, even Radeon 4870 in Win7. Thanks. :)

i will as soon as i get a chance.

[galzohar 31]

My i7-920 with HD4890 runs with all at very high (except post processing at low and disabled blur with the mod) and 4500 view distance (5000+ forces lower settings and I can't actually see anything beyond 4500 even with 10000 because it's simply too far away). When it doesn't stutter, FPS is high enough that I can't tell how much FPS I have, which is more great. I have no clue why it stutters, though, but it seems to be VERY situational (hence why running the benchmark would be pointless). Trying to OC to see if it has anything to do with CPU speed or not, but having issues ATM.